Skip to main content
Log in

The 1–2–3 Approach to Abdominal Packing

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Abdominal packing (AP) in damage-control laparotomy (DCL) is a lifesaving technique that controls coagulopathic hemorrhage in severely injured trauma patients. However, the impact of the duration of AP on the incidence of re-bleeding and on intra-abdominal infections in penetrating abdominal trauma is not clear. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the complications related to the duration of AP and to determine the optimal time for AP removal.

Methods

Prospectively collected/retrospectively analyzed data at an urban level I trauma center from January 2003 to December 2010 were used as the basis for this study. Inclusion criteria were adults (≥18 years old) with penetrating abdominal trauma, who had survived both the initial DCL procedure and their first re-laparotomy. All initial DCL patients included in the study underwent abdominal packing for coagulopathic hemorrhage control. The outcome measures of this study were re-bleeding after packing removal, intra-abdominal infection, and 30-day cumulative mortality. We considered time after packing as an independent variable. This was defined as the total amount of time (in days) that the packs were left in the patient’s abdomen. Patients were grouped according to the duration in days of their AP in <1, 1–2, 2–3, and >3 days.

Results

Of 503 patients with penetrating abdominal trauma, 121 underwent DCL and AP. The mean age was 30.1 ± 11.5 years, and the male to female ratio was 9:1. The mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score was 17.6 ± 7.2. The mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) score was 24.9 ± 9.1. The right upper quadrant was packed in 39 (32.2 %) patients, retroperitoneum in 70 (57.8 %), pelvis in 13 (10.7 %), and left upper quadrant in 9 (7.4 %). Fifty-one patients (42.1 %) had associated colon injuries and 58 (47.9 %) had small bowel injuries. Twenty-six patients (21.5 %) had AP <1 day, 42 patients (34.7 %) had AP between 1 and 2 days, 35 patients (28.9 %) had AP between 2 and 3 days, and 18 patients (14.8 %) had AP >3 days. The re-bleeding rate in patients packed for 1–2 days compared to those packed for <1 day was a third lower, 14.3 %, (95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: 8.06, 20.5) versus 38.5 % (95 % CI: 25.4, 51.5). Conversely, an increasing trend toward intra-abdominal infection occurred as time after packing increased. The infection rate tripled from 16.7 % (95 % CI: 6.6, 26.7) to 44.4 % (95 % CI: 31.03, 57.7) when comparing 1–2 days versus >3 days. Overall mortality was 16.5 %. Of these deaths, 8.26 % were attributable to re-bleeding, and 13.2 % to intra-abdominal infection. Deaths secondary to re-bleeding seemed to decrease with time of AP, whereas intra-abdominal infection deaths increased with time of AP (Chi square for trend p value = 0.04).

Conclusions

The present study suggests that AP used in the setting of DCL for coagulopathic hemorrhage control should not be removed prior to the first postoperative day because of the increased risk of re-bleeding. The ideal length of AP is 2–3 days, and AP left in longer than 3 days is associated with a significantly increased risk of infectious complications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sugrue M, D’Amours SK, Joshipura M (2004) Damage control surgery and the abdomen. Injury 35:642–648

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Rotondo MF, Schwab CW, McGonigal MD et al (1993) Damage control: an approach for improved survival in exsanguinating penetrating abdominal injury. J Trauma 35:375–382; discussion 382–383

    Google Scholar 

  3. Asensio JA, Petrone P, Roldan G et al (2004) Has evolution in awareness of guidelines for institution of damage control improved outcome in the management of the posttraumatic open abdomen? Arch Surg 139:209–214; discussion 215

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burch JM, Ortiz VB, Richardson RJ et al (1992) Abbreviated laparotomy and planned reoperation for critically injured patients. Ann Surg 215:476–483; discussion 483–484

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fabian TC (2007) Damage control in trauma: laparotomy wound management acute to chronic. Surg Clin North Am 87:73–93, vi

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lee JC, Peitzman AB (2006) Damage-control laparotomy. Curr Opin Crit Care 12:346–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Johnson JW, Gracias VH, Schwab CW et al (2001) Evolution in damage control for exsanguinating penetrating abdominal injury. J Trauma 51:261–269; discussion 269–271

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rumley TO (1983) Improved packing technique in the control of diffuse hemorrhage of the abdomen. Surg Gynecol Obstet 156:82

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Saifi J, Fortune JB, Graca L (1990) Benefits of intra-abdominal pack placement for the management of nonmechanical hemorrhage. Arch Surg 125:119

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Garrison JR, Richardson JD, Hilakos AS (1996) Predicting the need to pack early for severe intra-abdominal hemorrhage. J Trauma 40:923

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sharp KW, Locicero RJ (1992) Abdominal packing for surgically uncontrollable hemorrhage. Ann Surg 215:467

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Aydin U, Yazici P, Zeytunlu M et al (2008) Is it more dangerous to perform inadequate packing? W J Emerg Surg 3:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Talbert S, Trooskin SZ, Scalea T (1992) Packing and re-exploration for patients with non-hepatic injuries. J Trauma 33:121

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Caruso D, Battistella F, Owings JT (1999) Perihepatic packing of major liver injuries. Arch Surg 134:958–963

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nicol AJ, Hommes M, Primrose R et al (2007) Packing for control of hemorrhage in major liver trauma. World J Surg 31:569–574

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bender JS, Geller ER, Wilson RF (1989) Intra-abdominal sepsis following liver trauma. J Trauma 29:1140–1144; discussion 1144–1145

    Google Scholar 

  17. Feliciano DV, Mattox KL, Burch JM et al (1986) Packing for control of hepatic hemorrhage. J Trauma 26:738–743

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pachter HL, Spencer FC, Hofstetter SR et al (1992) Significant trends in the treatment of hepatic trauma. Ann Surg 215:492–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Abikhaled JA, Granchi TS, Wall MJ et al (1997) Prolonged abdominal packing for trauma is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Am Surg 63:1109–1112; discussion 1112–1113

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fabian TC, Croce MA, Stanford GG (1991) Factors affecting morbidity following hepatic trauma. A prospective analysis of 482 injuries. Ann Surg 213:540–547; discussion 548

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded in part by the Fogarty International Collaborative Trauma and Injury Research Training Program (ICTIRT) and NIH grant 1 D43 TW007560-01.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos Ordoñez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ordoñez, C., Pino, L., Badiel, M. et al. The 1–2–3 Approach to Abdominal Packing. World J Surg 36, 2761–2766 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1745-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1745-3

Keywords

Navigation