Ann Surg Treat Res.  2014 Nov;87(5):260-264. 10.4174/astr.2014.87.5.260.

Vacuum-assisted close versus conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence

• Ko YS
• Jung SW

• KMID: 2266885
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2014.87.5.260

Abstract

PURPOSE
The conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence usually involves surgical revision. Recently, vacuum-assisted closure has been successfully used in postlaparotomy wound dehiscence. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcome of 207 patients undergoing vacuum-assisted closure therapy or conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence.
METHODS
Two hundred and seven consecutive patients underwent treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence: vacuum-assisted closure therapy (January 2007 through August 2012, n = 25) or conventional treatment (January 2001 through August 2012, n = 182).
RESULTS
The failure rate to first-line treatment with vacuum-assisted closure and conventional treatment were 0% and 14.3%, respectively (P = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference in the enterocutaneous fistulas and hospital stay after vacuum-assisted closure therapy or conventional treatment respectively.
CONCLUSION
Our findings support that vacuum-assisted closure therapy is a safe and reliable option in postlaparotomy wound dehiscence with very low failure rate in surgical revision compared with conventional treatment.

Keyword

Vacuum-assisted closure; Dehiscence; Wound

MeSH Terms

Humans
Intestinal Fistula
Length of Stay
Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy
Reoperation
Wounds and Injuries*

Reference

1. Gislason H, Gronbech JE, Soreide O. Burst abdomen and incisional hernia after major gastrointestinal operations: comparison of three closure techniques. Eur J Surg. 1995; 161:349–354.

2. Haddad V, Macon WL 4th. Abdominal wound dehiscence and evisceration: contributing factors and improved mortality. Am Surg. 1980; 46:508–513.

3. Poole GV Jr. Mechanical factors in abdominal wound closure: the prevention of fascial dehiscence. Surgery. 1985; 97:631–640.

4. Penninckx FM, Poelmans SV, Kerremans RP, Beckers JP. Abdominal wound dehiscence in gastroenterological surgery. Ann Surg. 1979; 189:345–352.

5. Riou JP, Cohen JR, Johnson H Jr. Factors influencing wound dehiscence. Am J Surg. 1992; 163:324–330.

6. Hesselink VJ, Luijendijk RW, de Wilt JH, Heide R, Jeekel J. An evaluation of risk factors in incisional hernia recurrence. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993; 176:228–234.

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

8. Greenburg AG, Saik RP, Peskin GW. Wound dehiscence. Pathophysiology and prevention. Arch Surg. 1979; 114:143–146.

9. Fernandez L, Norwood S, Roettger R, Wilkins HE 3rd. Temporary intravenous bag silo closure in severe abdominal trauma. J Trauma. 1996; 40:258–260.

10. Mizrahi S, Deutsch M, Hayes D, Meshkind S, Sorant B, Hussey J, et al. Improved zipper closure of the abdominal wall in patients requiring multiple intra-abdominal operations. Am J Surg. 1993; 166:62–63.

11. Morykwas MJ, Argenta LC, Shelton-Brown EI, McGuirt W. Vacuum-assisted closure: a new method for wound control and treatment: animal studies and basic foundation. Ann Plast Surg. 1997; 38:553–562.

12. Suliburk JW, Ware DN, Balogh Z, Mc-Kinley BA, Cocanour CS, Kozar RA, et al. Vacuum-assisted wound closure achieves early fascial closure of open abdomens after severe trauma. J Trauma. 2003; 55:1155–1160.

13. Banwell PE, Teot L. Topical negative pressure (TNP): the evolution of a novel wound therapy. J Wound Care. 2003; 12:22–28.