Skip to main content

Temporary Closure of the Open Abdomen: A Systematic Review on Delayed Primary Fascial Closure in Patients with an Open Abdomen

An Erratum to this article was published on 09 December 2011

Abstract

Background

This study was designed to systematically review the literature to assess which temporary abdominal closure (TAC) technique is associated with the highest delayed primary fascial closure (FC) rate. In some cases of abdominal trauma or infection, edema or packing precludes fascial closure after laparotomy. This “open abdomen” must then be temporarily closed. However, the FC rate varies between techniques.

Methods

The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases were searched until December 2007. References were checked for additional studies. Search criteria included (synonyms of) “open abdomen,” “fascial closure,” “vacuum,” “reapproximation,” and “ventral hernia.” Open abdomen was defined as “the inability to close the abdominal fascia after laparotomy.” Two reviewers independently extracted data from original articles by using a predefined checklist.

Results

The search identified 154 abstracts of which 96 were considered relevant. No comparative studies were identified. After reading them, 51 articles, including 57 case series were included. The techniques described were vacuum-assisted closure (VAC; 8 series), vacuum pack (15 series), artificial burr (4 series), Mesh/sheet (16 series), zipper (7 series), silo (3 series), skin closure (2 series), dynamic retention sutures (DRS), and loose packing (1 series each). The highest FC rates were seen in the artificial burr (90%), DRS (85%), and VAC (60%). The lowest mortality rates were seen in the artificial burr (17%), VAC (18%), and DRS (23%).

Conclusions

These results suggest that the artificial burr and the VAC are associated with the highest FC rates and the lowest mortality rates.

Introduction

At the end of most laparotomies, the abdominal fascia can be closed primarily. However, sometimes full fascial closure is not possible and the operating surgeon is forced to leave the abdomen open. The open abdomen is associated with mortality rates of >30% [14].

In general, three scenarios commonly result in the commencement of an open abdomen. In patients with peritonitis, the infection causes bowel edema. During laparotomy, the expansion of the bowel may force the surgeon to leave the abdomen open. The increased intra-abdominal pressure in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) often requires a “decompressive laparotomy.” In severe cases, the intra-abdominal pressure persists after the laparotomy and the surgeon must leave the abdomen open. Many trauma patients with intra-abdominal bleeding require damage control surgery. This consists of rapid assessment of the injuries and control of bleeding by direct suture/ligation or gauze packing. As part of the damage control surgery, the abdomen may be left open or the bowel edema and/or the gauze packing may simply preclude full fascial closure in these patients.

The open abdomen requires temporary closure. Several techniques are available for this temporary abdominal closure (TAC) (Table 1) [512]. After temporary abdominal closure, the abdominal fascia must be closed primarily. The first goal is delayed primary fascial closure; however, many surgeons do not attempt primary fascial closure at all. Often, they use mesh and/or granulation tissue with split-thickness skin grafting to close the abdominal wound. In case of persistent visceral edema, loss of domain, or lateral retraction, the only option is to close the wound with mesh or granulation tissue with split-thickness skin grafting. In doing so, they create a “planned ventral hernia,” which can be corrected at a later stage.

Table 1 Overview and characteristics of the temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques

All patients who do not receive delayed primary fascial closure are at risk of developing a ventral hernia. These ventral hernias (whether planned or unplanned) may cause a considerable burden. Although surgical correction of a ventral hernia is possible, recovery frequently takes several months. Furthermore, reconstructive surgery, like all abdominal surgery, has a risk of mortality. The surgeon must take these burdens and risks into account when he chooses the strategy for TAC or permanent abdominal closure. However, there have been no (randomized) comparative trials on the effect of the TAC strategy on the delayed primary fascial closure rate. Furthermore, it is unknown what factors influence the delayed primary fascial closure rate.

This study was designed to systematically review the literature on temporary closure of the open abdomen to assess which TAC technique is associated with the highest delayed primary fascial closure rates.

Materials and methods

The authors searched the Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and MEDLINE databases using keywords related to open abdominal treatment (Table 2). In addition, they hand-searched electronic links to related articles and references of selected articles. The search period started in 1966 and extended until December 2007. They did not search journals and conference proceedings by hand. The search was not restricted to any language; however, in the systematic review only studies published in English, German, or Dutch were reviewed.

Table 2 Search terms, as used in the systematic review

Study selection and data extraction

The authors included all original articles on open abdominal treatment that mentioned a delayed primary fascial closure rate. The definition of open abdominal treatment included “the inability to close the abdominal fascia after laparotomy.” Exclusion criteria were: reviews, series of less than five patients, nonconsecutive inclusion period, series with subcostal incisions, and multiple TAC techniques in the same study population. Two investigators (PBvH, JW) independently extracted data from the original studies using a preformatted sheet. These data included the inclusion period, number of patients, underlying condition, age, sex, Injury Severity Score (ISS) [13], and APACHE (Acute Physical and Chronic Health Evaluation) II [14]. Other collected data included TAC technique, mortality, complications (i.e., abscesses, fistulae), and number of surgical interventions until final closure, duration of TAC, intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay, percentage of delayed primary fascial closure, permanent abdominal closure, planned ventral hernias, and length of follow-up.

The two investigators critically appraised each selected study by using a modified form as proposed by the Dutch Cochrane Collaboration [15]. In case of retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively, a study was defined as prospective. Final inclusion was done after consensus was reached. The investigators resolved the discrepancies in judgment by discussion. In case an article described separate series with specific patient groups (underlying conditions or TAC techniques), each series was assessed separately. The authors contacted the corresponding authors of articles in case some of the reported data were unclear. They did not contact all corresponding authors to retrieve all missing data.

Analysis and presentation of data

The authors analyzed the data per technique. They calculated the delayed primary fascial closure rate by dividing the number of patients with delayed fascial closure by the total number of included patients. They pooled the percentages of delayed primary fascial closure, male patients, fistulae and abscesses, and the median age per TAC technique. The concerning percentages were weighted for study size (1/variance). For calculating the mortality rate, only the in-hospital mortality was considered.

Results

Included studies

The searches identified 1,493 articles. Based on the title, 154 articles remained. After reading the abstracts, the authors excluded 58 articles because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Five of these abstracts were excluded because the articles were written in Chinese, Norwegian, French (all once), or Russian (2 articles). The authors considered 96 abstracts relevant and obtained the complete articles. Of these, another 45 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria. The remaining 51 articles were included in this review [19, 11, 12, 1655]. These articles were published between 1981 and 2007. There were no randomized, controlled trials or other comparative studies. The 51 included articles described 57 case series with 3,169 patients. The inclusion periods ranged from 6 to 168 (median, 48) months.

Patients

Nineteen series described trauma patients only [5, 8, 9, 17, 18, 2123, 29, 32, 3640, 47, 51, 55], and an additional 16 series described trauma, vascular surgery, and general surgical patients [2, 11, 2428, 33, 34, 43, 44, 4850]. Eight series described peritonitis patients only [6, 7, 12, 19, 20, 35, 45, 54], and three described vascular patients only [16, 18, 42]. The remaining 11 series described general surgical, peritonitis, pancreatitis, and vascular patients [1, 3, 4, 18, 21, 30, 31, 41, 46, 52, 53].

Forty series (70%) described the sex distribution. The percentage of male patients ranged from 62–94%. Forty-four series (77%) reported the age. The median age for these series was 40.1 (range, 29.5–75) years. The ISS was reported in 23 series (39%). Nineteen series reported the mean ISS (instead of the median ISS) despite the small numbers of patients and the fact that the ISS is not a continuous variable. The reported mean ISS ranged from 20.3 to 30.5. Only two series reported the median ISS (41 and 30.5). The APACHE-II score was reported in 13 series only (22%). Eight of these series reported the mean APACHE II despite the small numbers of patients and the fact that the APACHE II is not a continuous variable. The reported mean APACHE II ranged from 17.8 to 24.7. Five series reported the median APACHE II. The reported median APACHE II in these series ranged from 19 to 29.5.

Temporary closure techniques described

The VAC technique was applied in eight series (Table 3) [3, 24, 25, 34, 37, 41, 47, 48]. The vacuum pack has been described in 15 series (Table 3) [5, 18, 2022, 28, 38, 40, 44, 46, 51, 53]. Four series described the artificial burr (Table 3) [1, 12, 17, 29]. Sixteen series described meshes or sheets (Table 4) [8, 9, 11, 16, 23, 27, 32, 35, 36, 39, 42, 43, 49, 50, 54, 55]. Zippers were used in seven series (Table 4) [4, 6, 19, 30, 31, 45, 52]. The silo was used in three series [2, 7, 11], and skin only in two series [9, 11]. Loose packing and dynamic retention sutures were each used in one series (Table 4) [26, 33].

Table 3 VAC, vacuum pack, and artificial burr series
Table 4 Mesh/sheet, zipper, silo, skin only, loose packing, and dynamic retention sutures series

Fascial closure

The artificial burr (90%), the dynamic retention sutures (85%), and the VAC (60%) showed the highest weighted pooled fascial closure rates (Table 3). The weighted closure rates in the other techniques ranged from 11% in the one series with skin-only closure to 52% in the vacuum-pack series. When calculated per etiology, the closure rate was 65% in the 19 trauma-only series, 50% in the 7 peritonitis-only series, 1% in the ACS-only series, and 43% in the vascular-only series.

Fistulae and abscesses

Forty-four series (77%) reported the occurrence of fistulae as a complication of TAC. Twenty-nine series (51%) reported the number of abscesses. Table 5 lists the weighted rates of fistulae and abscesses for the different techniques.

Table 5 Weighted percentages of male patients, abscesses, fistulae, mortality, and primary delayed fascial closure as well as median age per temporary abdominal closure technique

Mortality

The weighted mortality rate for all techniques was 26% (95% confidence interval (CI), 24–27). The silo (41%), skin only (39%), and loose packing (39%) showed the highest weighted mortality rates. The artificial burr series (17%) and the VAC (18%) showed the lowest overall mortality rates (Table 4).

Discussion

Scientific question

In this systematic review on the treatment of the open abdomen, the highest weighted delayed primary fascial closure rates were seen in the series with the artificial burr or VAC. Dynamic retention sutures, although described in only one series, also showed a high rate of delayed primary fascial closure.

Included series

The included studies were generally retrospective chart reviews and not comparative trials. Furthermore, most articles revealed little information about their methodology. Many studies suffered from considerable bias in both patient and treatment selection. Instead of using predefined criteria, patient and treatment selection were usually left to the discretion of the operating surgeon. Furthermore, the authors did not explain the rationale behind it. The articles infrequently reported on scoring systems that reflect the severity of the underlying condition (e.g., APACHE II and ISS). Therefore, the authors of this review were unable to assess the influence of the severity of the underlying condition.

Some techniques were used in only one series (dynamic retention sutures and loose packing) with less than 20 patients per series. Because this was not one of the predefined exclusion criteria, the authors choose not to exclude them. Furthermore, the authors considered it important to describe all TAC techniques. However, the results of these single and small series should be put into perspective.

Patient characteristics

Overall, the majority of patients were men. This could partly be explained by the high percentage of male patients in the series with trauma patients [5, 18, 38]. However, even the series without trauma patients showed high percentages of male patients [4, 18, 52]. The authors did not find a reason for this difference in the current literature on peritonitis or pancreatitis.

Temporary abdominal closure

Although the authors categorized the techniques in this review, the techniques were not standardized. Therefore, an unknown amount of practice variation for each technique remains. Subdivision of the series per patient group and technique resulted in small numbers of patients and heterogeneous results and was omitted.

The availability and preference for techniques seems to have evolved during the past 30 years. At present, vacuum-based techniques seem to be popular because 85% of the studies published since 1998 describe a vacuum technique.

Fascial closure

For the purpose of this study, the authors pooled the results per technique. The artificial burr, VAC, and dynamic retention sutures seemed to produce the highest rates of delayed primary fascial closure. These techniques might simply have been superior to the other techniques. However, little information was available on the severity of the underlying condition. Therefore, the higher closure rates might have been due to less severe disease (inclusion bias). An indication for this could be the low mortality rates in these series; however, this remains speculation.

As mentioned in Materials and methods, the authors calculated the delayed primary fascial closure rate for all included patients. This was done because the moment of death (before or after closure) often was not recorded. However, it is likely that many patients died before closure [32]. Therefore, the delayed fascial closure rate of the survivors might have been higher than the rates reported above. This applies to all TAC techniques.

Some techniques were used in hundreds of patients, whereas others were used in less than 20 patients. Although the authors considered this by weighing the rates of delayed fascial closure rate and mortality, the reliability of the weighted estimate of fascial closure per series differs.

Fistulae and abscesses

Fistulae and abscesses were the most consistently reported complications. However, the reported rates may be underestimated because, in retrospective chart reviews, complications may be difficult to identify.

Like the fascial closure, the fistulae and abscesses could have been the result of initial peritoneal contamination rather than a function of the TAC technique. Furthermore, a higher likelihood of fistulae or abscesses might have influenced the choice of technique (inclusion bias). Again, this remains speculation.

Mortality

All series reported a mortality rate. Despite the high overall mortality, two series reported no mortality. This is most likely the result of inclusion bias and the small number of patients in these series (8 and 11 patients). The four techniques with the highest delayed fascial closure rates also showed the lowest mortality rates.

Limitations

This systematic review suffers from an unknown but presumably large amount of inclusion bias and lack of standardization of techniques. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether the fascial closure rate and mortality shown in this review are the result of the TAC technique, the severity of the underlying condition, or other factors not included in the retrospective studies. These issues stress that, although this is the strongest evidence in this field of surgery, the conclusions that can be drawn from this systematic review are limited.

Conclusions

The results of this review may suggest that the artificial burr and the VAC are associated with the highest closure rates as well as the lowest mortality rates (level IV evidence) [56].

The lack of high-quality comparative data underlines the need for randomized, clinical trials in this field. The authors realize that a randomized, clinical trial in this rare condition may be difficult to conduct.

References

  1. Keramati M, Srivastava A, Sakabu S et al (2008) The Wittmann Patch is a temporary abdominal closure device after decompressive celiotomy for abdominal compartment syndrome following burn. Burns 34:493–497 Epub 2007 Oct 18

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kushimoto S, Yamamoto Y, Aiboshi J et al (2007) Usefulness of the bilateral anterior rectus abdominis sheath turnover flap method for early fascial closure in patients requiring open abdominal management. World J Surg 31:2–8

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Perez D, Wildi S, Demartines N, Bramkamp M, Koehler C, Clavien PA (2007) Prospective evaluation of vacuum-assisted closure in abdominal compartment syndrome and severe abdominal sepsis. J Am Coll Surg 205:586–592

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zingales F, Moschino P, Carniato S, Fabris G, Vittadello F, Corsini A (2001) Laparostomy in the treatment of severe peritonitis: a review of 60 cases. Chir Ital 53:821–826

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Barker DE, Kaufman HJ, Smith LA, Ciraulo DL, Richart CL, Burns RP (2000) Vacuum pack technique of temporary abdominal closure: a 7-year experience with 112 patients. J Trauma 48:201–206

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cuesta MA, Doblas M, Castaneda L, Bengoechea E (1991) Sequential abdominal reexploration with the zipper technique. World J Surg 15:74–80

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Doyon A, Devroede G, Viens D et al (2001) A simple, inexpensive, life-saving way to perform iterative laparotomy in patients with severe intra-abdominal sepsis. Colorectal Dis 3:115–121

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Howdieshell TR, Proctor CD, Sternberg E, Cue JI, Mondy JS, Hawkins ML (2004) Temporary abdominal closure followed by definitive abdominal wall reconstruction of the open abdomen. Am J Surg 188:301–306

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith PC, Tweddell JS, Bessey PQ (1992) Alternative approaches to abdominal wound closure in severely injured patients with massive visceral edema. J Trauma 32:16–20

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Suliburk JW, Ware DN, Balogh Z et al (2003) Vacuum-assisted wound closure achieves early fascial closure of open abdomens after severe trauma. J Trauma 55:1155–1160

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tremblay LN, Feliciano DV, Schmidt J et al (2001) Skin only or silo closure in the critically ill patient with an open abdomen. Am J Surg 182:670–675

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Wittmann DH (2000) Staged abdominal repair: development and current practice of an advanced operative technique for diffuse suppurative peritonitis. Acta Chir Austriaca 32:171–178

    Google Scholar 

  13. Baker SP, O’Neill B, Haddon W Jr, Long WB (1974) The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma 14:187–196

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Ohmann C, Wittmann DH, Wacha H (1993) Prospective evaluation of prognostic scoring systems in peritonitis. Peritonitis Study Group. Eur J Surg 159:267–274

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Therapy checklist (Dutch extended version) of the Dutch Cochrane centre. www.cochrane.nl. 2005

  16. Akers DL Jr, Fowl RJ, Kempczinski RF, Davis K, Hurst JM, Uhl S (1991) Temporary closure of the abdominal wall by use of silicone rubber sheets after operative repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 14:48–52

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Aprahamian C, Wittmann DH, Bergstein JM, Quebbeman EJ (1990) Temporary abdominal closure (TAC) for planned relaparotomy (etappenlavage) in trauma. J Trauma 30:719–723

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Barker DE, Green JM, Maxwell RA et al (2007) Experience with vacuum-pack temporary abdominal wound closure in 258 trauma and general and vascular surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg 204:784–792

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bose SM, Kalra M, Sandhu NP (1991) Open management of septic abdomen by Marlex mesh zipper. Aust N Z J Surg 61:385–388

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Bosscha K, Hulstaert PF, Visser MR, van Vroonhoven TJ, van der WC (2000) Open management of the abdomen and planned reoperations in severe bacterial peritonitis. Eur J Surg 166:44–49

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Brock WB, Barker DE, Burns RP (1995) Temporary closure of open abdominal wounds: the vacuum pack. Am Surg 61:30–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Chavarria-Aguilar M, Cockerham WT, Barker DE, Ciraulo DL, Richart CM, Maxwell RA (2004) Management of destructive bowel injury in the open abdomen. J Trauma 56:560–564

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cohn SM, Burns GA, Sawyer MD, Tolomeo C, Milner KA, Spector S (1995) Esmarch closure of laparotomy incisions in unstable trauma patients. J Trauma 39:978–979

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Cothren CC, Moore EE, Johnson JL, Moore JB, Burch JM (2006) One hundred percent fascial approximation with sequential abdominal closure of the open abdomen. Am J Surg 192:238–242

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. DeFranzo AJ, Argenta L (2006) Vacuum-assisted closure for the treatment of abdominal wounds. Clin Plast Surg 33:213–224 vi

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Duff JH, Moffat J (1981) Abdominal sepsis managed by leaving abdomen open. Surgery 90:774–778

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Fansler RF, Taheri P, Cullinane C, Sabates B, Flint LM (1995) Polypropylene mesh closure of the complicated abdominal wound. Am J Surg 170:15–18

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Foy HM, Nathens AB, Maser B, Mathur S, Jurkovich GJ (2003) Reinforced silicone elastomer sheeting, an improved method of temporary abdominal closure in damage control laparotomy. Am J Surg 185:498–501

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hadeed JG, Staman GW, Sariol HS, Kumar S, Ross SE (2007) Delayed primary closure in damage control laparotomy: the value of the Wittmann patch. Am Surg 73:10–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hannon RJ, Hood JM, Curry RC (1992) Temporary abdominal closure: a new product. Br J Surg 79:820–821

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hubens G, Lafaire C, De PM et al (1994) Staged peritoneal lavages with the aid of a zipper system in the treatment of diffuse peritonitis. Acta Chir Belg 94:176–179

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Jernigan TW, Fabian TC, Croce MA et al (2003) Staged management of giant abdominal wall defects: acute and long-term results. Ann Surg 238:349–355

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Koniaris LG, Hendrickson RJ, Drugas G, Abt P, Schoeniger LO (2001) Dynamic retention: a technique for closure of the complex abdomen in critically ill patients. Arch Surg 136:1359–1362

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Labler L, Keel M, Trentz O (2004) [New application of VAC (vacuum-assisted closure) in the abdominal cavity in case of open abdomen therapy]. Zentralbl Chir 129:S14–S19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Losanoff J, Kjossev K (1997) Palisade dorsoventral lavage for neglected peritonitis. Am J Surg 173:134–135

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Mayberry JC, Burgess EA, Goldman RK, Pearson TE, Brand D, Mullins RJ (2004) Enterocutaneous fistula and ventral hernia after absorbable mesh prosthesis closure for trauma: the plain truth. J Trauma 57:157–162

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Miller PR, Meredith JW, Johnson JC, Chang MC (2004) Prospective evaluation of vacuum-assisted fascial closure after open abdomen: planned ventral hernia rate is substantially reduced. Ann Surg 239:608–614

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Miller RS, Morris JA Jr, Diaz JJ Jr, Herring MB, May AK (2005) Complications after 344 damage-control open celiotomies. J Trauma 59:1365–1371

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nagy KK, Fildes JJ, Mahr C et al (1996) Experience with three prosthetic materials in temporary abdominal wall closure. Am Surg 62:331–335

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Navsaria PH, Bunting M, Omoshoro-Jones J, Nicol AJ, Kahn D (2003) Temporary closure of open abdominal wounds by the modified sandwich-vacuum pack technique. Br J Surg 90:718–722

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Oetting P, Rau B, Schlag PM (2006) Abdominal vacuum device with open abdomen. Chirurg 77:586–593

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Rasmussen TE, Hallett JW Jr, Noel AA et al (2002) Early abdominal closure with mesh reduces multiple organ failure after ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: guidelines from a 10-year case-control study. J Vasc Surg 35:246–253

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schachtrupp A, Hoer J, Tons C, Klinge U, Reckord U, Schumpelick V (2002) Intra-abdominal pressure: a reliable criterion for laparostomy closure? Hernia 6:102–107

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Sherck J, Seiver A, Shatney C, Oakes D, Cobb L (1998) Covering the “open abdomen”: a better technique. Am Surg 64:854–857

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Singh K, Chhina RS (1993) Role of zipper in the management of abdominal sepsis. Indian J Gastroenterol 12:1–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Smith LA, Barker DE, Chase CW, Somberg LB, Brock WB, Burns RP (1997) Vacuum pack technique of temporary abdominal closure: a four-year experience. Am Surg 63:1102–1107

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Stone PA, Hass SM, Flaherty SK, DeLuca JA, Lucente FC, Kusminsky RE (2004) Vacuum-assisted fascial closure for patients with abdominal trauma. J Trauma 57:1082–1086

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Stonerock CE, Bynoe RP, Yost MJ, Nottingham JM (2003) Use of a vacuum-assisted device to facilitate abdominal closure. Am Surg 69:1030–1034

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sugrue M, Jones F, Janjua KJ, Deane SA, Bristow P, Hillman K (1998) Temporary abdominal closure: a prospective evaluation of its effects on renal and respiratory physiology. J Trauma 45:914–921

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Tons C, Schachtrupp A, Rau M, Mumme T, Schumpelick V (2000) [Abdominal compartment syndrome: prevention and treatment]. Chirurg 71:918–926

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. van As AB, Navsaria P, Numanoglu A, McCulloch M (2007) Modified sandwich vacuum pack technique for temporary closure of abdominal wounds: an African perspective. Acta Clin Belg Suppl 215–219

  52. van GH, Hulsebos RG, Bleichrodt RP (1997) Complications of planned relaparotomy in patients with severe general peritonitis. Eur J Surg 163:61–66

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wilde JM, Loudon MA (2007) Modified Opsite sandwich for temporary abdominal closure: a non-traumatic experience. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 89:57–61

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Wouters DB, Krom RA, Slooff MJ, Kootstra G, Kuijjer PJ (1983) The use of Marlex mesh in patients with generalized peritonitis and multiple organ system failure. Surg Gynecol Obstet 156:609–614

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Yeh KA, Saltz R, Howdieshell TR (1996) Abdominal wall reconstruction after temporary abdominal wall closure in trauma patients. South Med J 89:497–502

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, Badenoch D, Straus S, Haynes B, Dawes M (2008) Levels of evidence. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford, UK

Download references

Acknowledgments

P. Boele van Hensbroek was supported by an unrestricted grant from Siemens Netherlands N.V., and J. Wind was supported by a grant (945-06-901) from ZonMw.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pieter Boele van Hensbroek.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1375-1.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boele van Hensbroek, P., Wind, J., Dijkgraaf, M.G.W. et al. Temporary Closure of the Open Abdomen: A Systematic Review on Delayed Primary Fascial Closure in Patients with an Open Abdomen. World J Surg 33, 199–207 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9867-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9867-3

Keywords

  • Injury Severity Score
  • Ventral Hernia
  • Open Abdomen
  • Fascial Closure
  • Loose Packing