Pediatric Surgery International

, Volume 23, Issue 11, pp 1065–1069 | Cite as

Benefit of preformed silos in the management of gastroschisis

  • J. Allotey
  • M. Davenport
  • I. Njere
  • P. Charlesworth
  • A. Greenough
  • N. Ade-Ajayi
  • S. Patel
Original Article


Gastroschisis is traditionally managed by primary closure (PC) or delayed closure after surgical silo placement. Bedside insertion of preformed silos (PFS) and delayed closure has become more widespread, although its benefits remain unclear. To identify differences in outcome of infants managed with PFS compared with traditional closure (TC) techniques. Single-centre retrospective review of 53 consecutive neonates admitted between February 2000 and January 2006. Data expressed as median (range). Non-parametric statistical analysis used with P < 0.05 regarded as significant. Forty infants underwent TC and 13 had PFS and delayed closure. Median ventilation time in both groups was 4 days (P = 0.19) however this was achieved with higher mean airway pressures (MAPs) (day 0, 10 (5–16) versus 8 (5–10) cmH2O; P = 0.02) and inspired oxygen (40 (21–100) versus 30 (21–60)%; P = 0.03) in TC group. Urine output on day-1 of life was significantly higher in PFS group (1.1 (0.16–3.07) versus 0.45 (0–2.8) ml/kg/h; P = 0.02). Inotrope support was required in 17/40 (43%) of TC versus 0/13 (0%) in PFS (P < 0.01). After exclusion of infants with short bowel syndrome and/or intestinal atresia (n = 9), there was a shorter time to full enteral feeds in the TC group (22 (12–36) versus 27 (17–45); P = 0.07), although there was no difference in the period of parenteral nutrition (PN) (P = 0.1) or overall hospital stay (P = 0.34). No deaths or episodes of necrotizing enterocolitis occurred. The use of PFS for gastroschisis closure is associated with a reduction in pulmonary barotrauma, better tissue perfusion and improved early renal function, consistent with a reduction in abdominal compartment syndrome.


Gastroschisis Surgery Preformed silo 



We acknowledge the considerable amount of work involved in the care of these infants, but particular thanks to Drs S. Hannam, A. Lall, S. Lee, S. Devane and S. Haugen.


  1. 1.
    Yaster M, Buck JR, Dudgeon DL, et al (1988) Hemodynamic effects of primary closure of omphalocele/gastroschisis in human newborns. Anesthesiology 69:84–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lacey SR, Carris LA, Beyer AJ III, et al (1993) Bladder pressure monitoring significantly enhances care of infants with abdominal wall defects: a prospective clinical study. J Pediatr Surg 28:1370–1374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kidd JN Jr, Jackson RJ, Smith SD, et al (2003) Evolution of staged versus primary closure of gastroschisis. Ann Surg 237:759–764PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schlatter M, Norris K, Uitvlugt N, et al (2003) Improved outcomes in the treatment of gastroschisis using a preformed silo and delayed repair approach. J Pediatr Surg 38:459–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davenport M, Haugen S, Greenough A, et al (2001) Closed gastroschisis: antenatal and postnatal features. J Pediatr Surg 36:1834–1837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fischer JD, Chun K, Moores DC, et al (1995) Gastroschisis: a simple technique for staged silo closure. J Pediatr Surg 30:1169–1171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Minkes RK, Langer JC, Mazziotti MV, et al (2000) Routine insertion of a silastic spring-loaded silo for infants with gastroschisis. J Pediatr Surg 35:843–846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wu Y, Vogel AM, Sailhamer EA, et al (2003) Primary insertion of a silastic spring-loaded silo for gastroschisis. Am Surg 69:1083–1086PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Owen A, Marven S, Jackson L, et al (2006) Experience of bedside preformed silo staged reduction and closure for gastroschisis. J Pediatr Surg 41:1830–1835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laubscher B, Greenough A, Dimitriou G, et al (1998) Serial lung volume measurements during the perinatal period in infants with abdominal wall defects. J Pediatr Surg 33:497–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Puffinbarger NK, Taylor DV, Tuggle DW, et al (1996) End-tidal carbon dioxide for monitoring primary closure of gastroschisis. J Pediatr Surg 31:280–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Banieghbal B, Gouws M, Davies MR (2006) Respiratory pressure monitoring as an indirect method of intra-abdominal pressure measurement in gastroschisis closure. Eur J Pediatr Surg 16:79–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kidd JN, Levy MS, Wagner CW (2001) Staged reduction of gastroschisis: a simple method. Pediatr Surg Int 17:242–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chiu B, Lopoo J, Hoover JD, et al (2006) Closing arguments for gastroschisis: management with silo reduction. J Perinat Med 34:243–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bryant MS, Tepas JJ III, Mollitt DL, et al (1989) The effect of initial operative repair on the recovery of intestinal function in gastroschisis. Am Surg 55:209–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Driver CP, Bowen J, Doig CM, et al (2001) The influence of delay in closure of the abdominal wall on outcome in gastroschisis. Pediatr Surg Int 17:32–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cusick E, Spicer RD, Beck JM (1997) Small-bowel continuity: a crucial factor in determining survival in gastroschisis. Pediatr Surg Int 12:34–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Driver CP, Bruce J, Bianchi A, et al (2000) The contemporary outcome of gastroschisis. J Pediatr Surg 35:1719–1723PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Allotey
    • 1
  • M. Davenport
    • 1
  • I. Njere
    • 1
  • P. Charlesworth
    • 1
  • A. Greenough
    • 1
  • N. Ade-Ajayi
    • 1
  • S. Patel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Paediatric SurgeryKing’s College HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations