Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of different temporary abdominal closure techniques on fascial wound healing and postoperative adhesions in experimental secondary peritonitis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Secondary peritonitis causes considerable mortality and morbidity. New strategies have been introduced like relaparotomy and temporary abdominal closure in the management of such persistent intra-abdominal infections.

Materials and methods

Rats were divided into five groups each having ten animals. After induction of peritonitis, relaparotomies were done, and the abdomen was closed by different temporary abdominal closure techniques. After performing two relaparotomies during a 48-h period, all fascias closed primarily and incisional tensile strengths, hydroxyproline contents, and adhesions were measured on the following seventh day.

Results

The median values of tensile strength and hydroxyproline concentrations were lowest in skin-only closure rats. Intraperitoneal adhesion scores were highest in Bogota bag closure group.

Conclusion

Primary, Bogota bag, and polyprolene mesh closures seem to be safe in terms of early fascial wound healing. Although it is easy to perform, skin-only closure technique has deleterious effects on fascial wound healing probably due to fascial retraction. Interestingly, Bogota bag has caused increased intraperitoneal adhesion formation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wittmann DH, Schein M, Condon RE (1996) Management of secondary peritonitis. Ann Surg 224(1):10–18

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Koperna T (2000) Surgical management of severe secondary peritonitis. Br J Surg 87(3):378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Schachtrupp A, Fackeldey V, Klinge U, Hoer J, Tittel A, Toens C, Schumpelick V (2002) Temporary closure of the abdominal wall (laparostomy). Hernia 6(4):155–162

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lamme B, Boermeester MA, Belt EJ, van Till JW, Gouma DJ, Obertop H (2004) Mortality and morbidity of planned relaparotomy versus relaparotomy on demand for secondary peritonitis. Br J Surg 91(8):1046–1054

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Koperna T, Schulz F (2000) Relaparotomy in peritonitis: prognosis and treatment of patients with persisting intraabdominal infection. World J Surg 24(1):32–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hutchins RR, Gunning MP, Lucas DN, Allen-Mersh TG, Soni NC (2004) Relaparotomy for suspected intraperitoneal sepsis after abdominal surgery. World J Surg 28(2):137–141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Feliciano DV, Burch JM (1991) Towel clips, silos, and heroic forms of wound closure. Adv Trauma Crit Care 6:231–250

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brock WB, Barker DE, Burns RP (1995) Temporary closure of open abdominal wounds: the vacuum pack. Am Surg 61(1):30–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ghimenton F, Thomson SR, Muckart DJ, Burrows R (2000) Abdominal content containment: practicalities and outcome. Br J Surg 87(1):106–109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sherck J, Seiver A, Shatney C, Oakes D, Cobb L (1998) Covering the “open abdomen”: a better technique. Am Surg 64(9):854–857

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tremblay LN, Feliciano DV, Schmidt J, Cava RA, Tchorz KM, Ingram WL, Salomone JP, Nicholas JM, Rozycki GS (2001) Skin only or silo closure in the critically ill patient with an open abdomen. Am J Surg 182(6):670–675

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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  Google Scholar 

  13. 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(3):301–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ellis H, Moran BJ, Thompson JN, Parker MC, Wilson MS, Menzies D, McGuire A, Lower AM, Hawthorn RJ, O’Brien F, Buchan S, Crowe AM (1999) Adhesion-related hospital readmissions after abdominal and pelvic surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 353(9163):1476–1480

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rutherford EJ, Skeete DA, Brasel KJ (2004) Management of the patient with an open abdomen: techniques in temporary and definitive closure. Curr Probl Surg 41(10):815–876

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Myers JA, Latenser BA (2002) Nonoperative progressive “Bogota bag” closure after abdominal decompression. Am Surg 68:1029–1030

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jones JW, Jurkovich GJ (1989) Polypropylene mesh closure of infected abdominal wounds. Am Surg 55:73–76

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wichterman KA, Baue AE, Chaudry IH (1980) Sepsis and septic shock—a review of laboratory models and a proposal. J Surg Res 29(2):189–201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Aytekin FO, Tekin K, Kabay B, Erdem E, Erbis H, Ozden A (2004) Role of a hyaluronic-acid derivative in preventing surgical adhesions and abscesses related to dropped bile and gallstones in an experimental model. Am J Surg 188(3):288–293

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Reddy GK, Enwemeka CS (1996) A simplified method for the analysis of hydroxyproline in biological tissues. Clin Biochem 29:225–229

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zuhlke HV, Lorenz EM, Straub EM, Savvas V (1990) Pathophysiology and classification of adhesions. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl II Verh Dtsch Ges Chir:1009–1016

  23. Losanoff JE, Richman BW, Jones JW (2002) Temporary abdominal coverage and reclosure of the open abdomen: frequently asked questions. J Am Coll Surg 195(1):105–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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(6):718–722

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bellon JM, Garcia-Honduvilla N, Carnicer E, Serrano N, Rodriguez M, Bujan J (2004) Temporary closure of the abdomen using a new composite prosthesis (PL-PU99). Am J Surg 314–320

  26. Nagy KK, Perez F, Fildes JJ, Barrett J (1999) Optimal prosthetic for acute replacement of the abdominal wall. J Trauma 47(3):529–532

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Barbul A (2005) Wound healing. In: Brunicardi FC (ed) Schwartz’s principles of surgery, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 223–249

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hoer JJ, Junge K, Schachtrupp A, Klinge U, Schumpelick V (2002) Influence of laparotomy closure technique on collagen synthesis in the incisional region. Hernia 6(3):93–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Poole GV Jr, Meredith JW, Kon ND, Martin MB, Kawamoto EH, Myers RT (1984) Suture technique and wound-bursting strength. Am Surg 50(10):569–572

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Seid MH, McDaniel-Owens LM, Poole GV Jr, Meeks GR (1995) A randomized trial of abdominal incision suture technique and wound strength in rats. Arch Surg 130(4):394–397

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Sitges-Serra A, Hernandez R, Maestro S, Fernandez N, Girvent M, Sancho JJ (2001) Influence of parenteral nutrition on postoperative recovery in an experimental model of peritonitis. Clin Nutr 20(5):439–443

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Franz MG, Smith PD, Wachtel TL, Wright TE, Kuhn MA, Ko F, Robson MC (2001) Fascial incisions heal faster than skin: a new model of abdominal wall repair. Surgery 129(2):203–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Haciyanli M, Fuzun M, Unek T, Tokgoz Z (2001) Does the administration route of leucovorin have any influence on the impairment of colonic healing caused by intraperitoneal 5-fluorouracil treatment? Eur Surg Res 33(2):80–85

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Irvin TT (1978) Effects of malnutrition and hyperalimentation on wound healing. Surg Gynecol Obstet 146(1):33–37

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hoer J, Klinge U, Schachtrupp A, Tons C, Schumpelick V (2001) Influence of suture technique on laparotomy wound healing: an experimental study in the rat. Langenbecks Arch Surg 386(3):218–223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hogstrom H, Haglund U, Zederfeldt B (1990) Tension leads to increased neutrophil accumulation and decreased laparotomy wound strength. Surgery 107(2):215–219

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. diZerega GS, Campeau JD (2001) Peritoneal repair and post-surgical adhesion formation. Hum Reprod Update 7(6):547–555

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ellis H (1982) The causes and prevention of intestinal adhesions. Br J Surg 69(5):241–243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Luijendijk RW, de Lange DC, Wauters CC, Hop WC, Duron JJ, Pailler JL, Camprodon BR, Holmdahl L, van Geldorp HJ, Jeekel J (1996) Foreign material in postoperative adhesions. Ann Surg 223(3):242–248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Zografos GC, Simeonidis KM, Messaris EG, Parasi AS, Sotiriou HG, Dontas IA (2005) Adhesion formation and intraperitoneal catheters: histologic findings in a rat model. Fertil Steril 83(2):516–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pamukkale Universitesi, Tip Fakultesi, Genel Cerrahi A.D, 20070, Kinikli, Denizli, Turkey

    Cagatay Aydin, Faruk O. Aytekin, Cigdem Yenisey, Burhan Kabay, Ergun Erdem, Goksel Kocbil & Koray Tekin

Authors
  1. Cagatay Aydin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Faruk O. Aytekin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cigdem Yenisey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Burhan Kabay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ergun Erdem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Goksel Kocbil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Koray Tekin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cagatay Aydin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aydin, C., Aytekin, F.O., Yenisey, C. et al. The effect of different temporary abdominal closure techniques on fascial wound healing and postoperative adhesions in experimental secondary peritonitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 393, 67–73 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-007-0189-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-007-0189-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation