Search

Background: Open Abdomen (OA) cases represent a significant surgical and resource challenge. AbClo is a novel non-invasive abdominal fascial closure device that engages lateral components of the abdominal wall muscles to support gradual approximation of the fascia and reduce the fascial gap. The study objective was to assess the economic implications of AbClo compared to negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) alone on OA management., Methods: We conducted a cost-minimization analysis using a decision tree comparing the use of the AbClo device to NPWT alone among patients with midline laparotomy for trauma or acute abdominal surgery who were ineligible for primary fascial closure. The time horizon was limited to the length of the inpatient hospital stay, and costs were considered from the perspective of the US Medicare payer. Clinical effectiveness data for AbClo was obtained from a randomized clinical trial. Cost data was obtained from the published literature. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. The primary outcome was incremental cost., Results: The mean cumulative costs per patient were $76 582 for those treated with NPWT alone and $70,582 for those in the group treated with the AbClo device. Compared to NPWT alone, AbClo was associated with lower incremental costs of -$6012 (95% CI -$19 449 to +$1996). The probability that AbClo was cost-savings compared to NPWT alone was 94%., Conclusions: The use of AbClo is an economically attractive strategy for management of OA in in patients with midline laparotomy for trauma or acute abdominal surgery who were ineligible for primary fascial closure., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: TD is an employee of InventoRR MD Inc. DC reports consulting fees through the Integrated Management Platform to Accelerate Clinical Trials (IMPACT) at the University of Calgary.

Background: Inability to achieve primary fascial closure after damage control laparotomy is a frequently encountered problem by acute care and trauma surgeons. This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of Wittmann patch-assisted closure to the planned ventral hernia closure., Methods: A literature review was performed to determine the probabilities and outcomes for Wittmann patch-assisted primary closure and planned ventral hernia closure techniques. Average utility scores were obtained by a patient-administered survey for the following: rate of successful surgeries (uncomplicated abdominal wall closure), surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, abdominal hernia and enterocutaneous fistula. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was utilized to assess the survey responses and then converted to quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Total cost for each strategy was calculated using Medicare billing codes. A decision tree was generated with rollback and incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty., Results: Wittmann patch-assisted closure was associated with higher clinical effectiveness of 19.43 QALYs compared to planned ventral hernia repair (19.38), with a relative cost reduction of US$7777. Rollback analysis supported Wittmann patch-assisted closure as the more cost-effective strategy. The resulting negative ICUR of -156,679.77 favored Wittmann patch-assisted closure. Monte Carlo analysis demonstrated a confidence of 96.8% that Wittmann patch-assisted closure was cost-effective., Conclusions: This study demonstrates using the Wittmann patch-assisted closure strategy as a more cost-efficient management of the open abdomen compared to the planned ventral hernia approach., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Open abdominal surgery is associated with high rates of wound complications . Surgical site infection (SSI) is associated with prolonged length of stay, delayed treatment and high rates of readmission (1, 3, 4) . Negative pressure wound therapy over closed incisions (ciNPWT) is a novel approach to prevention of SSI. We reviewed the outcomes of studies comparing ciNPWT and standard therapy in open abdominal wounds to assess the efficacy of the current evidence base., Aim: To assess the effect of negative pressure wound therapy used over closed incisions in open abdominal surgery., Methods: Search of relevant terms was conducted on PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane to identify studies published between Jan 2006-Feb 2019. Studies were chosen based on specific inclusion criteria. Articles were screened to assess demographics, study design and outcomes., Results: Seven retrospective and six prospective randomised controlled trials were identified for inclusion, totalling 3048 participants. 967 received ciNPWT and 2081 received standard treatment. Studies assessed a mix of surgeries (colorectal n = 6, pancreaticoduodenectomy n = 1, gynaecologic n = 1, acute care surgery n = 1, mixed open n = 2). ciNPWT was statistically significant in reducing SSI in 9 of 13 studies., Conclusion: ciNPWT in open abdominal surgery has demonstrated promising results for reducing SSI rate in some trials however, patient selection remains unclear. Recent randomized controlled trials have failed to demonstrate benefit overall with use of ciNPWT in open abdominal surgery. Further multicentre prospective trials are needed for cost-benefit analysis and appropriate patient-selection., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2019 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Plastic surgeons are often consulted by other surgical teams for management of wound dehiscence following abdominopelvic surgery., Objective: The purpose of this study is to determine whether operative debridement and primary closure of abdominopelvic wounds are safe and expeditious for patients., Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on a database of patients who underwent operative debridement and closure at a single institution between January 2011 and December 2015 for dehisced abdominal or pelvic wounds acquired from prior obstetric, gynecologic, transplant, plastic, or general surgery procedures., Results: Of the 163 patient records identified, 43 patients met inclusion criteria. The median time from final debridement and primary surgical closure to complete wound healing was 27 days. Time to healing differed significantly by index procedure type (P = .004), with obstetric procedures requiring the shortest median time (12.0 days) and general surgery procedures requiring the longest (39.5 days). Wound healing took 3.6 times longer for patients with diabetes (P = .046) and 11.4 times longer for patients who experienced delayed superficial wound healing or redehiscence (P = .003). Nevertheless, with the exception of 4 patients who died of other causes, all wounds (39/39; 100%) achieved complete wound closure., Conclusions: Operative debridement and closure of abdominopelvic wound dehiscence through a multidisciplinary team approach with plastic surgery results in expeditious wound healing with minimal complications, and it may be safer and more cost effective than healing by secondary intention.

Goal: Retrospective analysis of bioprosthetic abdominal wall reconstruction in our center with regard to expenses and reimbursement., Patients and Methods: This study included all patients undergoing bioprosthetic abdominal wall reconstruction between 2009 and 2015. All costs were considered in determining the hospital expenditures. Next we compared the incoming revenue for each hospital stay based on disease-related groups (DRG) and additional daily hospital fees., Results: Seventy-six patients underwent abdominal wall reconstruction, 67 of whom had economical data that were exploitable. On the average, our center lost €15,233 for every hospital stay associated with bioprosthetic abdominal wall reconstruction. The existing DRG system is not well adapted to provide adequate reimbursement for costs related to complex abdominal wall repairs, especially when post-operative morbidity leads to prolonged hospital stay and increased expenses., Conclusion: Abdominal wall repairs with bioprostheses are expensive and are poorly reimbursed in the French Health care system, mainly because they are often associated with complications that increase the costs considerably. In our opinion, it seems necessary that either reimbursement of this type of prosthesis should be higher than the current DRG allows, or that the DRG classification be redefined, or even, that a specific DRG be created for complex abdominal wall reconstruction., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To introduce a novel, modified primary closure technique of laparoscopic extralevator abdominal perineal excision (LELAPE) for low rectal cancer., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 76 patients with rectal cancer who underwent LELAPE from March 2013 to May 2016. Patients were classified into the modified primary closure group (32 patients) and the biological mesh closure group (44 patients). The total operating time, reconstruction time, postoperative stay duration, total cost, postoperative complications and tumor recurrence were compared., Results: All surgery was successfully performed. The pelvic reconstruction time was 14.6 ± 3.7 min for the modified primary closure group, which was significantly longer than that of the biological mesh closure group (7.2 ± 1.9 min, P < 0.001). The total operating time was not different between the two groups (236 ± 20 min vs 248 ± 43 min, P = 0.143). The postoperative hospital stay duration was 8.1 ± 1.9 d, and the total cost was 9297 ± 1260 USD for the modified primary closure group. Notably, both of these categories were significantly lower in this group than those of the biological mesh closure group ( P = 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). There were no differences observed between groups when comparing other perioperative data, long-term complications or oncological outcomes., Conclusion: The modified primary closure method for reconstruction of the pelvic floor in LELAPE for low rectal cancer is technically feasible, safe and cost-effective., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to this study.

Purpose: Negative pressure wound therapy with instillation (NPWTi) has been proved to be a safe and effective treatment option for abdominal wall wound dehiscence with mesh exposure. Our aim in this study is to examine whether it is also cost-effective., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study with 45 patients treated for postoperative abdominal wall wound dehiscence and exposed mesh: 34 were treated with conventional wound therapy (CWT) and 11 with NPWTi. We carried out a cost analysis for each treatment group using the Diagnosis-related group (DRG) system and a second evaluation using the calculated costs "per hospital stay". The differences between NPWTi and CWT were calculated with both evaluation systems. Comparative analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test., Results: Mean costs using the DRG estimation were 29,613.71€ for the CWT group and 15,093.37€ for the NPWTi group, and according to the calculated expenses "per hospital stay", 17,322.88€ for the CWT group and 15,284.22€ for the NPWTi group. NPWTi showed a reduction in the total expense of treatment, related to a reduction in episodes of hospitalization and number of surgeries required to achieve wound closure. However, differences were not statistically significant in our sample., Conclusions: NPWTi proves to be an efficient treatment option for abdominal wall wound dehiscence with mesh exposure, compared to CWT. More trials aimed to optimize treatment protocols will lead to an additional increase in NPWTi efficiency. In addition, to generalize our results, further studies with larger samples would be necessary.

Introducción: En las últimas décadas es creciente el abordaje por mínima invasión de patologías abdominales debido a sus beneficios evidentes. El cuadro apendicular es la principal emergencia quirúrgica, con diferentes métodos del cierre de la base apendicular. En este artículo comparamos dicho cierre con engrapadora lineal o ligadura con lazo hemostático, para analizar la frecuencia de complicaciones como absceso, dehiscencia y seroma., Método: Se realizó un estudio prospectivo, observacional y descriptivo, con un total de 703 procedimientos, empleando en 567 pacientes ligadura con lazo hemostático y en 136 engrapadora lineal, operados por los mismos cirujano y equipo quirúrgico, con curva de aprendizaje concluida., Resultados: Las complicaciones referidas en el presente estudio son absceso (n = 5), dehiscencia (n = 3) y seroma (n = 3). De acuerdo con las fases de la patología apendicular: fase 1 o apéndice congestivo, no presentaron complicaciones; fase 2 o supurativo, se reportó un caso de dehiscencia de herida quirúrgica con el uso de ligadura con lazo hemostático; fase 3 o necrótico, se reportó un caso de seroma en un paciente tratado con ligadura con lazo hemostático; y fase 4 o perforado, se encuentra diferencia significativa en el caso de abscesos, reportando cinco con el uso de ligadura con lazo hemostático y ninguno con engrapadora lineal., Conclusiones: En nuestro estudio no existe diferencia estadísticamente significativa entre el uso de engrapadora lineal o ligadura con lazo hemostático en las fases apendiculares 1-3; en la fase 4 es de utilidad significativa el uso de engrapadora lineal ante la incidencia de abscesos., Introduction: In the last decades, the approach by minimally invasive surgery of abdominal pathologies is growing due to its evident benefits; the appendicular cases being the main surgical emergency, with different methods of closing the appendicular base. In this article, we compared the appendicular base closure with linear stapler and endoloop, to analyze the frequency of complications such as abscess, dehiscence and seroma., Method: A prospective, observational and descriptive study was conducted, with a total of 703 procedures, using 567 endoloop patients and 136 linear stapler, operated by the same surgeon and surgical team, with a completed learning curve., Results: The complications referred in the present study were patients with abscess (n = 5), dehiscence (n = 3) and seroma (n = 3). According to the phases of the appendiceal pathology: phase 1 or congestive appendix did not present complications; phase 2 or suppurative was reported one case of surgical wound dehiscence in the use of endoloop; in phase 3 or necrotic, one case of seroma was reported in a patient treated with endoloop; while in phase 4 or perforated there is a significant difference in the case of abscesses, reporting five in the use of endoloop and none in the case of a linear stapler., Conclusions: In our study there is no statistically significant difference between the use of linear stapler or endoloop in the early appendicular phases; being of significant utility in Phase 4 the use of linear stapler for the incidence of abscesses., (Copyright: © 2018 Permanyer.)

Aim: Perineal wound complications following abdominoperineal resection continue to be a major challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and cost of primary closure (PC) and rectus abdominis myocutaneous (RAM) flap reconstruction., Method: This was a retrospective case review of consecutive patients by one surgeon over 11 years. Patient demographics, risk factors, operative details and complications were identified. Inpatient and outpatient costs were calculated., Results: A total of 31 patients underwent a RAM reconstruction and 37 a PC. There were no significant differences in the incidence of wound complications or in the overall costs for either method of perineal closure. When there were no complications the mean costs were significantly higher in the RAM group ($20 948 vs $17 189, P = 0.005), mainly because of the longer operating time. However, the costs of perineal wound complications were greater in the PC group (8394 vs 25 911, P = 0.012). These wounds took longer to heal (median 2 months vs 5.5 months, P = 0.005) and more often required a further reconstructive surgical procedure (RAM 0 vs PC 8, P = 0.006)., Conclusion: This is the first study reporting on the cost implications of PC and RAM flap reconstruction. The overall costs were similar. This implies appropriate clinical selection when choosing between procedures. While the RAM flap is more expensive to perform, the finding that it decreases the clinical severity and cost of perineal wound complications supports its use when there is a high risk of perineal wound complications., (Colorectal Disease © 2017 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: Incisional hernias are common complications of midline closure following abdominal surgery and cause significant morbidity, impaired quality of life and increased health care costs. The 'Hughes Repair' combines a standard mass closure with a series of horizontal and two vertical mattress sutures within a single suture. This theoretically distributes the load along the incision length as well as across it. There is evidence to suggest that this technique is as effective as mesh repair for the operative management of incisional hernias; however, no trials have compared the Hughes Repair with standard mass closure for the prevention of incisional hernia formation following a midline incision., Methods/design: This is a 1:1 randomised controlled trial comparing two suture techniques for the closure of the midline abdominal wound following surgery for colorectal cancer. Full ethical approval has been gained (Wales REC 3, MREC 12/WA/0374). Eight hundred patients will be randomised from approximately 20 general surgical units within the United Kingdom. Patients undergoing open or laparoscopic (more than a 5-cm midline incision) surgery for colorectal cancer, elective or emergency, are eligible. Patients under the age of 18 years, those having mesh inserted or undergoing musculofascial flap closure of the perineal defect in abdominoperineal wound closure, and those unable to give informed consent will be excluded. Patients will be randomised intraoperatively to either the Hughes Repair or standard mass closure. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of incisional hernias at 1 year as assessed by standardised clinical examination. The secondary outcomes include quality of life patient-reported outcome measures, cost-utility analysis, incidence of complete abdominal wound dehiscence and C-POSSUM scores. The incidence of incisional hernia at 1 year, assessed by computerised tomography, will form a tertiary outcome., Discussion: A feasibility phase has been completed. The results of the study will be used to inform current and future practice and potentially reduce the risk of incisional hernia formation following midline incisions., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN 25616490 . Registered on 1 January 2012.

Background: Complex abdominal wall reconstruction is beset by postoperative complications. A recent meta-analysis comparing the use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy to standard dressings found a statistically significant reduction in surgical-site infection. The use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is gaining acceptance in this population; however, the economic impact of this innovative dressing remains unknown. In this study, a cost-utility analysis was performed assessing closed-incision negative-pressure therapy and standard dressings following closure of abdominal incisions in high-risk patients., Methods: Cost-utility methodology involved reviewing literature related to closed-incision negative-pressure therapy in abdominal wall surgery, obtaining utility estimates to calculate quality-adjusted life-year scores for successful surgery and surgery complicated by surgical-site infection, summing costs using Medicare Current Procedural Terminology codes, and creating a decision tree illuminating the most cost-effective dressing strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the robustness of the results., Results: The aforementioned meta-analysis comparing closed-incision negative-pressure therapy to standard dressings included a subset of five studies assessing abdominal wall surgery in 829 patients (260 closed-incision negative-pressure therapy and 569 standard dressings). Decision tree analysis revealed an estimated savings of $1546.52 and a gain of 0.0024 quality-adjusted life-year with closed-incision negative-pressure therapy compared with standard dressings; therefore, closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is a dominant treatment strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is a cost-effective option when the surgical-site infection rate is greater than 16.39 percent., Conclusion: The use of closed-incision negative-pressure therapy is cost-saving following closure of abdominal incisions in high-risk patients.

Background: There is no standard routine closure technique in the management of appendiceal stump. Therefore, the ideal method should be determined based on the condition of the radix of the appendix., Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate appendiceal stump closure methods in patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy due to acute appendicitis., Materials and Methods: The retrospective study included 196 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy due to the diagnosis of acute appendicitis at Gazipasa State Hospital, Golhisar State Hospital, and Isparta State Hospital between 2009 and 2013. The methods performed for the closure of the appendiceal stump included stapler closure technique (Group I), ENDOLOOP® (Johnson & Johnson Inc., New Brunswick, New Jersey) technique (Group II), Hem-o-lok® (Teleflex®, Limerick, Pennsylvania) clip (Group III), and handmade endo-loop technique (Group IV). The groups were compared in terms of duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, complication rates, and cost of treatment., Results: No significant difference was observed among the groups in terms of patient characteristics. In eight patients, laparoscopic appendectomy was converted to open surgery due to various reasons. Mean length of hospital stay was two days in all of the groups that underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. No significant difference was found among the groups in terms of duration of surgery, complications, and postoperative analgesic requirement, but a significant difference was observed in terms of the cost of treatment., Conclusions: We suggest that the handmade endo-loop technique is a safe, applicable, and cost-effective method to be used in the closure of appendiceal stump.

Background: Although hernia repair with mesh can be successful, prophylactic mesh augmentation (PMA) represents a potentially useful preventative technique to mitigate incisional hernia risk in select high-risk patients. The efficacy, cost-benefit, and societal value of such an intervention are not known. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-utility of using prophylactic mesh to augment fascial incisions., Methods: A decision tree model was employed to evaluate the cost-utility of using PMA relative to primary suture closure (PSC) after elective laparotomy. The authors adopted the societal perspective for cost and utility estimates. A systematic review of the literature on PMA was performed. The costs in this study included direct hospital costs and indirect costs to society, and utilities were obtained through a survey of 300 English-speaking members of the general public evaluating 14 health state scenarios relating to ventral hernia., Results: PSC without mesh demonstrated an expected average cost of $17,182 (average quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] of 21.17) compared with $15,450 (expected QALY was 21.21) for PMA. PSC was associated with an incremental cost-efficacy ratio (ICER) of -$42,444/QALY compared with PMA such that PMA was more effective and less costly. Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis was performed demonstrating more simulations resulting in ICERs for PSC above the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, supporting the finding that PMA is superior., Conclusion: Cost-utility analysis of PSC compared to PMA for abdominal laparotomy closure demonstrates PMA to be more effective, less costly, and overall more cost-effective than PSC., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: At the core of surgical development in any economic environment lies innovation. Innovation in high-income countries (HICs) often derives from research, whereas innovation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) may be spontaneous owing to a desperate drive to meet a local need. The local needs are substantial because of the unequal access to healthcare in LMICs., Methods: The experience of the author in working in LMICs through Operation Hernia, a medical charity, provides a backdrop for this review. Other published innovative devices and models are discussed., Results: Innovation in income-poor countries has provided cost-effective but efficient solutions to local health needs. Some innovations have been enhanced and adopted worldwide., Conclusion: HICs can learn more from innovative strategies adopted in LMICs., (© 2015 BJS Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The current literature is void of evidence-based guidelines regarding optimal choice of mesh. We aim to perform a comparative outcome analysis of synthetic mesh and acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in Ventral Hernia Working Grade (VHWG) grade II hernias with primary fascial closure., Methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing ventral hernia repair (VHR) by the senior author (S.J.K.) from 2007 to 2012 was performed. Patients undergoing VHR with primary fascial closure were risk stratified using the VHWG defined grading system., Results: Seventy-two patients met the abovementioned inclusion criteria with 45 receiving synthetic mesh and 27 receiving ADM. The mean length of follow-up was 12.1 ± 9.1 months. Patients were, on average, 53.2 ± 11.6 years of age with a BMI of 33.9 ± 10.6 kg/m(2). The overall incidence of surgical site occurrence (SSO) in the cohort was 41.7 % and the incidence of hernia recurrence was 5.6 %. 30-day mortality was 1.2 %. Bivariate analysis demonstrated that obesity (P = 0.038) and number of comorbidities (P = 0.043) were associated with SSO. Bivariate analysis demonstrated that prior failed hernia, use of ADM, and operative time were associated with higher rates of hernia recurrence; however, adjusted multivariate regression found only prior failed hernia (OR = 4.1, P = 0.03) and biologic mesh (OR = 3.4, P = 0.046) to be independently associated with recurrent hernia. Comparison of mesh types revealed few differences in preoperative or operative characteristics between synthetic mesh and acellular dermal matrices (ADM). The rate of hernia recurrence was significantly higher with ADM (14.8 % vs. 0.0 %, P = 0.017). Patients receiving ADM repairs incurred significantly greater cost ($56,142.1 ± 54,775.5 vs. $30,599.8 ± 39,000.8, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: These data suggest synthetic mesh is indicated in higher risk VHWG grade II repairs. In comparison to ADM, synthetic mesh was associated with significantly fewer hernia recurrences and lower cost utilization at 1-year., Level of Evidence: Prognostic/risk category, level III.

Purpose: Suturing with small stitches instead of with large reduces the risk for surgical site infection and incisional hernia in continuously closed midline abdominal incisions. The purpose was to analyse if using small stitches generated cost savings., Methods: Between 2001 and 2006 closure of midline incisions using small stitches was, in a randomised trial, compared with the use of large stitches. In 2011 all patients included in the randomised trial, who until then, had had an incisional hernia repair, were recorded. The cost for an open incisional hernia repair with mesh reinforcement during 2010 was calculated. The analysis included both direct and indirect costs., Results: Of 321 patients closed with small stitches incisional hernia occurred in 11 and 3 needed repair. Of 370 patients closed with large stitches herniation occurred in 45 and 14 needed repair. The direct cost per hernia repair was 59,909 Swedish krona (SEK) and the indirect cost was 26,348 SEK. Suturing time with small stitches was 4.6 min longer, increasing the cost for the index operation by 1,076 SEK. From the societal perspective (direct and indirect costs), using small stitches generated a cost reduction of 1,339 SEK for each patient. From the perspective of the public payer (direct costs) the cost reduction was 601 SEK. Using small stitches generated cost savings from a societal perspective if the suturing time was not prolonged over 10.3 min., Conclusions: Using small stitches when closing midline abdominal incisions with a continuous single-layer technique generates cost savings.

Background: In the last few years laparostomy has become an even more useful option for the surgeon due to the development of the experience in the critical abdominal trauma and in the severe surgical urgencies as PANE and peritonitis with the introduction of Damage Control as surgical strategy to prevent the abdominal compartimental syndrom (ACS). After a laparostomy the surgeon needs to provide a delayed fascial closure to achieve the best outcome for the patient. The aim of this paper is to illustrate the experience and the results after the introduction of a modified laparostomy technique in our surgical activity., Methods: Protection of intestinal content, aspiration under sub-athmospheric pressure, control in quality and quantity of the drainage and skin temporary closure, rappresent the four principles of the PACS tecnique. In order to evaluate the rate of delayed fascial closure and the rate of ACS onset, we have retrospectively studied 31 patients over a period of 2 years treated with open abdomen with an amount of 36 PACS performed. Routinely IAP measurament was also performed., Results: ACS was developed in no patients. IAP was measured on average at 19. DFC was achieved in 33 PACS of 36 (91.7%) after 5 days on average (20 hours as minimum; 20 days as maximum). Aspected mortality (SAPSII) in ICU for these patient was 76.5% on average. On 31 patients, 20 (64.5%) died and 11 (35.5%) survived., Conclusion: PACS seems to be an effective, easy and low cost technique for the management of open abdomen.

Background: A commercial negative pressure product is compared with the Barker technique (sterile x-ray cassette cover, lap pads, adhesive drape with negative pressure) for temporary abdominal closure in open abdomen management., Study Design: We performed a retrospective review of 37 open abdomen patients who had temporary abdominal closure with a commercial negative pressure device (ABThera, KCI) from 2010 to 2011. These patients were compared with the most recent 37 patients having open abdomen management using the Barker technique from 2009 to 2010. Patient demographics, body mass index (BMI), preoperative albumin, indication for open abdomen management, number of operations, use of sequential closure, and success with closure were analyzed. Patients were compared using chi square, t-test, and logistic regression analysis with significance of p < 0.05., Results: Mean age and BMI were significantly higher in the ABThera patients. No statistically significant differences were seen in male:female ratio, indication for open abdomen management, preoperative albumin, number of operations, and use of sequential closure. In 33 patients (89%) ultimate midline fascial closure was achieved with the ABThera vs in 22 patients (59%) using the Barker technique (p < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis was performed on the 3 significant variables identified on bivariate analysis. Only the type of temporary abdominal closure proved significant, with an odds ratio of 7.97 favoring ABThera (95% CI 1.98 to 32.00)., Conclusions: A commercially available negative pressure device for temporary abdominal closure had significantly greater success with ultimate closure after open abdomen management compared with the Barker technique. The added cost of the device is offset by improved patient results and savings from successful closure., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multiple options are available for closure of hysterectomy incisions. This study compared postoperative clinical and economic outcomes using topical skin adhesive (2-octyl cyanoacrylate; OCA) vs. conventional skin closure in women undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy., Methods: A multi-hospital administrative database was used to identify women discharged in 2005 who had undergone total abdominal hysterectomy. Patients, classified by skin closure as suture (n = 21,201), staples (n = 23,441), OCA (n = 880), or staples + OCA (n = 489), were compared on length of inpatient stay (LOS), total inpatient cost, and non-prophylactic antibiotic treatment after day four., Results: The unadjusted mean LOS was 3.9, 4.5, 3.7, and 5.2 days for suture, staples, OCA, and staples + OCA, respectively; and the percentages of patients having antibiotic treatment were 12.93, 17.51, 11.14, and 23.72. There were overall differences in adjusted mean LOS, mean total cost, and antibiotic treatment (p < 0.0001). Pairwise comparisons indicated no difference between sutures and OCA, whereas the outcomes for each of the non-staple groups were more favorable than those for the staple group (p < 0.01). Results were similar in adjusted comparisons, with pairwise comparisons between OCA and staples at or near the threshold for significance., Conclusions: 2-octyl cyanoacrylate appears to be a safe and cost-effective alternative to topical sutures for patients having total abdominal hysterectomy. There were less favorable outcomes in groups receiving staples.