Patient ages ranged from 5 years to 80 years (mean, 38.9 ± 16.85 years). There were 27 (24.1%) female and 85 (75.9%) male patients. Mechanisms of injury were blunt in 77 patients (68.8%) and penetrating in 35 patients (31.2%) and are shown in Table 4. Mean Injury Severity Score was 27.5 (range, 5 to 75 ± 14.09). Twenty-nine patients died for an overall hospital mortality of 25.9%.
Fifty-six patients (50.0%) had a single vacuum pack application, which remained in place from 1 to 6 days (mean, 1.9 days ± 1.10). Excluding patients who died after a single vacuum pack placement, mean time to closure was 2.2 ± 1.12 days (range, 1 to 6 days). Fifty-six patients (50.0%) had multiple applications over 1 to 34 days (mean, 7.1 ± 6.19 days). Individual vacuum packs in this group remained in place from 1 to 11 days (mean, 2.5 ± 1.53 days). For patients with multiple vacuum packs, the mean number of vacuum packs was 2.9 ± 1.58 (range, 2–10).
Eleven patients (9.8%) developed abdominal complications after vacuum pack placement during hospitalization. Five patients developed enterocutaneous fistulas. There were three small bowel fistulas, one pancreatic fistula, and one gastric fistula. Fistula formation was not directly related to the vacuum pack. Intra-abdominal abscesses were diagnosed in five patients. One patient developed ACS.
Open abdominal management is reserved for those patients in whom abdominal closure would result in excessive intra-abdominal pressure or who require early return to the operating room for reexploration. Several techniques for temporary abdominal wound closure have been proposed, including skin closure alone or use of various biosynthetic materials sutured to the skin or fascia. Placement of polypropylene mesh in temporary closure of the abdomen has been well documented. 3–9 It has been used with and without a zipper mechanism to allow for sequential abdominal reexplorations. 10–16 Underlying viscera may adhere to the mesh and become injured during subsequent reexploration. 16 The mesh, if left long enough, may erode into the bowel. 17 Repetitive suturing of biosynthetic material to fascial edges damages the fascia and may be a causative factor in development of fascial necrosis. 9
Several techniques have been described for temporary closure of the abdominal wall. These include the use of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene, Silastic sheets, and zipper fasteners. 16–20 Although these materials are less adherent to underlying viscera, their use requires suturing of the prosthetic material to the abdominal wall tissues. Management of peritoneal fluid is still a problem unless a drainage system is incorporated. Closure of the skin only can result in leaks of peritoneal fluid, which saturates dressings and potentially allows contamination of the peritoneal cavity.
The vacuum pack is a sutureless closure that avoids mechanical trauma to the tissues of the abdominal wall. Placement of the polyethylene drape beneath the peritoneum helps contain the viscera and prevents adherence to peritoneum adjacent to the abdominal wound and to the other vacuum pack layers. This method lessens the chance of bowel injury at the time of reexploration. Slits cut in the drape before placement allow removal of excess peritoneal fluid. Peritoneal fluid losses can be quantified and replaced as needed. The surgical towel(s) placed over the polyethylene drape provides support to the vacuum pack once suction is applied. It prevents direct application of suction to the underlying bowel and absorbs fluid, which can then be removed through the suction drains. Suction applied through the drains collapses the layers of the vacuum pack making it semirigid. Application of the adhesive-backed drape stabilizes the dressing in place and seals the wound edges, preventing passage of fluid in or out of the wound. The surrounding skin is protected and skin soilage is minimized. If the vacuum seal is broken, the suction drains create a characteristic sound, which should prompt a search for the leak.
The vacuum pack can be modified for use in both pediatric and adult trauma patients. Materials are cut to fit the size of the wound. The youngest patient in our series was 5 years of age and the oldest was 80 years old.
Indications for open abdominal management included increased volume of intra-abdominal contents, need for a second look to determine bowel viability or after damage control procedures, and presence of gross contamination. Closure of the abdominal wound under tension can result in abdominal wall tissue necrosis with subsequent infection. In the face of dehiscence, wound-related mortality may reach 90%. 6,21,22 Wound infection and tissue necrosis was not observed in patients with vacuum packs in place.
Increased intra-abdominal pressure causes ACS, resulting in cardiac, respiratory, and renal deterioration. 23–30 Intraoperatively, there are no immediate increases in peak airway pressures or decreases in blood pressure after application of the vacuum pack. 1 In the postoperative period, clinically apparent ACS was rare, occurring only in one patient. When additional space is needed within the peritoneal cavity, the outer polyester drape can be incised vertically in the midline, allowing expansion of the abdominal cavity. The incised area is then covered with adhesive-backed plastic polyester. This technique was used in the one patient with clinically apparent ACS. The low incidence of ACS in this series of patients may be attributed in part to the surgeons’ willingness to accept open abdominal management.
Damage control celiotomy is widely accepted for trauma patients who require temporizing surgery until physiologic stability is achieved. 31,32 In these patients, the vacuum pack provides a quick means of closure. Reexploration of the abdomen is facilitated by the ease of vacuum pack removal and reapplication.
Technical problems with the vacuum pack were rare. Peritoneal fluid leaks were repaired at the bedside by application of additional adhesive drape over the leak site. Skin excoriation from peritoneal fluid was minimized. The adhesive-backed plastic polyester drape proved durable, and no structural failures were noted.
Fifteen patients had enterostomas in place on the anterior abdominal wall at the time of vacuum pack closure. The wounds remained protected from intestinal effluent.
Permanent closure of the abdominal wound was the goal for all patients. After fascial closure, there were six major wound complications. Wound dehiscence occurred in four of these patients. One patient had skin necrosis, and one patient had fat necrosis. There were no serious wound complications in patients closed with split-thickness skin grafts.
Absorbable polyglactin mesh was used to contain the abdominal viscera when access to the peritoneal cavity was no longer needed. Granulating wounds were dressed with petroleum gauze and moist gauze dressings until adequate granulation tissue was present to support a split-thickness skin graft. Care was taken during dressing changes to prevent damage to the underlying viscera. Skin grafts were taken from the dorsolateral thigh in all patients except one, for whom they were taken from the lateral abdominal wall. A modified vacuum pack dressing was used to keep the skin graft in place. Its application provides pressure to all areas of the skin graft and is particularly useful when the granulation bed is uneven. The dressing is removed on postgraft day 5. Skin graft take was judged adequate in all cases.
The major long-term morbidity in patients requiring skin grafting is the resultant abdominal wall hernia (Fig. 7). Hernias are repaired once the patient has recovered from their injuries and the skin graft can be easily separated from the underlying tissue. Repair is usually performed 3 to 6 months after injury.
The vacuum pack seems to be a reliable method of temporary closure of the open abdomen in trauma patients. There were no major acute complications directly associated with its use. The major long-term complication is the large ventral hernia, which is created in those patients who cannot undergo primary fascial closure.
Thanks to Patricia L. Lewis, RN, and Michael D. Biderman, PhD, for their assistance with this manuscript.
1. Brock WB, Barker DE, Burns RP. Temporary closure of open abdominal wounds: the vacuum pack. Am Surg. 1995; 61:30–35.
2. Smith LA, Barker DE, Chase CW, Somberg LB, Brock WB, Burns RP. Vacuum pack technique of temporary abdominal closure: a four year experience. Am Surg. 1997; 63:1102–1108.
3. Boyd WC. Use of Marlex mesh in acute loss of the abdominal wall due to infection. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1977; 144:251–252.
4. Stone HH, Fabian TC, Turkleson ML, Jurkiewicz MJ. Management of acute full-thickness losses to the abdominal wall. Ann Surg. 1981; 193:612–618.
5. Fry DE, Osler T. Abdominal wall considerations and complications in reoperative surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 1991; 71:1–11.
6. Mathes SJ, Stone HH. Acute traumatic losses of abdominal wall substance. J Trauma. 1975; 15:386–388.
7. Usher FC, Wallace SA. Tissue reaction to plastics: a comparison of nylon, Orlon, dacron, Teflon, and Marlex. Arch Surg. 1958; 76:997–999.
8. Markgrat WH. Abdominal wound dehiscence: a technique for repair with Marlex mesh. Ann Surg. 1972; 105:728–732.
9. Wouters DB, Krom RAF, Slooff MJH, Kootstra G, Kuijjer PJ. The use of Marlex mesh in patients with generalized peritonitis and multiple organ system failure. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1983; 156:609–614.
10. Hedderich GS, Wexler MJ, McLean APH, Meakins JL. The septic abdomen: open management with Marlex mesh with a zipper. Surgery. 1986; 99:399–407.
11. Garcia-Sabrido JL, Tallado JM, Christou NV, Polo JR, Valdecantos E. Treatment of severe intra-abdominal sepsis and/or necrotic foci by an “open-abdomen” approach: zipper and zipper-mesh techniques. Arch Surg. 1988; 123:152–156.
12. Cuesta MA, Doblas M, Castañeda L, Benfoechea E. Sequential abdominal reexploration with the zipper technique. World J Surg. 1991; 15:74–80.
13. Hakkiluoto A, Hannukainen J. Open management with mesh and zipper of patients with intra-abdominal abscesses or diffuse peritonitis. Eur J Surg. 1992; 158:403–405.
14. Singh K, Chhina RS. Role of zipper in the management of abdominal sepsis. Indian J Gastroenterol. 1993; 12:1–4.
15. Ercan F, Korkmaz A, Aras N. The zipper-mesh method for treating delayed generalized peritonitis. Jpn J Surg. 1993; 23:205–214.
16. Sherck J, Seiver A, Shatney C, Oakes D, Cobb L. Covering, the “open abdomen: ” a better technique. Am Surg. 1998; 64:854–857.
17. Mizrahi S, Deutsch M, Hayes D, et al. Improved zipper closure of the abdominal wall in patients requiring multiple intra-abdominal operations. Am J Surg. 1993; 166:62–63.
18. Akers DL, Fowl RJ, Kempczinski RF, et al. Temporary closure of the abdominal wall by use of silicone rubber sheets after operative repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 1991; 14:48–52.
19. Hannon RJ, Hood JM, Curry RC. Temporary abdominal closure: a new product. Br J Surg. 1992; 79:820–821.
20. Wittmann DH, Aprahamian C, Bergstein JM, et al. A burr-like device to facilitate temporary abdominal closure in planned multiple laparotomies. Eur J Surg. 1993; 159:75–79.
21. Duff JH, Moffat J. Abdominal sepsis managed by leaving abdomen open. Surgery. 1981; 90:774–778.
22. Schein M, Saadia R, Decker GAG. The open management of the septic abdomen. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1986; 163:587–592.
23. Cheatham ML. Intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. New Horiz. 1999; 7:96–115.
24. Richards WO, Scorill W, Shin B, Reed W. Acute renal failure associated with increased intra-abdominal pressure. Ann Surg. 1983; 197:183–187.
25. Richardson JD, Trinkle JK. Hemodynamic and respiratory alterations with increased intra-abdominal pressure. J Surg Res. 1976; 20:401–409.
26. Cullen DJ, Coyle JP, Teplick R, Long MC. Cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal effects of massively increased intra-abdominal pressure in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 1989; 17:118–121.
27. Richards WO, Scovill W, Shin B, et al. Acute renal failure associated with increased intra-abdominal pressure. Ann Surg. 1983; 197:183–187.
28. Smith JH, Merrell RC, Raffin TA. Reversal of postoperative anuria by decompressive celiotomy. Arch Intern Med. 1985; 145:553–554.
29. Harman KP, Kron IL, McLachlan HD, et al. Elevated intra-abdominal pressure as a criterion for abdominal re-exploration. Ann Surg. 1982; 196:594–597.
30. Kron IC, Harman KP, Nolan PN. The measurement of intra-abdominal pressure as a criterion for abdominal re-exploration. Ann Surg. 1984; 199:28–30.
31. Morris JA Jr, Eddy VA, Blinman TA, Rutherford EJ, Sharp KW. The staged celiotomy for trauma: issues in unpacking and reconstruction. Ann Surg. 1993; 217:576–586.
32. Burch JM, Ortiz VB, Richardson RJ. Abbreviated laparotomy and planned reoperation for critically injured patients. Ann Surg. 1992; 215:476–489.
33. Maetani S, Tobe T. Open peritoneal drainage as effective treatment of advanced peritonitis. Surgery. 1981; 90:804–809.
34. Schein M. Intestinal fistulas and the open management of the septic abdomen. Arch Surg. 1990; 125:1516–1517.
Dr. Ronald M. Stewart (San Antonio, Texas): Dr. Barker and colleagues have presented a simple, interesting, and relatively novel technique for early management of the open abdomen. In the manuscript, they nicely summarize their results along with their complication rates in detail.
The technique and management plan that they use, I do believe, was associated with the low complication rate and is reasonably economical. The potential advantages are decreased blood and bodily fluid exposure and an improved ability to measure excess fluid losses. We currently do not use this technique and, compared to how we manage these patients, I do believe those two factors are real.
The authors, in their conclusions in the abstract, allude to a high rate of primary closure as an advance to the technique. And on this point I am considerably more skeptical. The authors were able to achieve a relatively high closure rate of 55.4% in their patients.
If you look at the indication for the technique, need for reexploration accounted for 55% of all the vacuum packs. Damage control was 20%. Inability to achieve a tension-free closure was 5%. And an increase in intra-abdominal pressure was 3%. I would hypothesize that the need for reexploration group had a significantly higher closure rate than the other, what I would consider more traditional, indications.
So, I really have a couple of straight-forward questions for the authors. What are your primary closure rates stratified by indication? And, it is a nice technique. But, do you feel that perhaps you might be overusing the technique with respect to particularly that need for reexploration group? And the third question would be, have you compared this technique to any other of the more commonly used techniques in the early management of the open abdomen? I would like to thank the Association for the privilege. Thank you.
Dr. Harvey J. Sugerman (Richmond, Virginia): I guess what I do not see is the advantage of this over just doing what we do, which is take a nonsticky hydrate polyvinyl sheet and staple it with a skin stapler to the skin. I am confused as to the advantage of this vacuum pack. And perhaps it needs to be a comparative study of some sort.
Dr. John Sherck (San Jose, California): I would like to commend the authors and Dr. Barker for popularizing and refining this very excellent technique.
We have used a very similar approach for over 10 years at our institution and also found it to be reliable, fast, cheap, and helpful.
Sometimes we have had leak of fluid from around the sticky-seal, even though we have a drain in place. Have you had that problem? And how do you deal with it?
Dr. Ronald J. Simon (Bronx, New York): Just two quick questions. Eleven days with a gauze in the abdomen. We all know that after 3 or 4 days they get very, very funky. Is it possible that your longer packs have the higher incidence of infectious complications?
We just go right to a Vicryl mesh, and you seem to go to a Vicryl mesh in a delayed fashion. What is your indication for switching from this vacuum pack to a Vicryl mesh? Thank you.
Dr. Scott B. Frame (Cincinnati, Ohio): We use this in our practice. You lose a lot of fluid that gets sucked out during this. Do you have any feel for how much protein loss there is and what adverse effects that may have on the patient insofar as wound healing and overall catabolic response?
Dr. Kimberly K. Nagy (Chicago, Illinois): Frequently, we use this in patients who are too sick for various reasons and you cannot close their abdomen. I am wondering, what do you do in cases when you cannot get the patient back to the operating room in a timely fashion because of pulmonary or hemodynamic instability? How long are you willing to leave this in place?
Dr. Donald E. Barker (closing): I appreciate Dr. Stewart’s questions and comments as well as those from the floor.
Dr. Stewart, to answer your first question about stratifying primary closure rates by indication, I think the more important thing affecting closure rates is not necessarily indication for open abdomen management, but is the length of time that the abdominal wound is managed in an open fashion. If a patient goes over 6 days, the probability of being able to do a primary fascial closure is markedly reduced. In fact, I think we’ve only had one patient at 7 days and one patient at 9 days that we were able to primarily close.
We frequently question the issue of overuse, because the technique is so simple to use. And as you saw, not all the patients that this technique is used in are trauma patients. It is used in a lot of general surgery patients. It is the sort of thing that caught on because it was very simple. We actually do attempt to close the fascia in a lot of our patients, but we do not close under extreme tension or if we plan reexploration. We hope we do not overuse this, but I think it is so easy to use that there is a tendency for that to happen and we need to guard against that.
We have not compared this to other techniques because it has been so simple for folks to use that they have all adopted it very readily and use it regularly. But, I think that would be an interesting thing to do.
Dr. Sugerman, the advantage over just a simple stapled piece of plastic on the skin, I think, would be that we are able to control any sort of fluid leaks we have. We feel like this maintains itself as a sterile barrier for the complete time that it is in place.
Dr. Sherck, pertaining to fluid leaks and how we repair those, generally, if you develop a fluid leak or a leak in the seal, either the grenade that they are connected to will expand and it is no longer collapsed or you will develop this very annoying sound and I guarantee you the nurses will let you know because they cannot stand to hear it. We generally just take another piece of adhesive-backed plastic and place that along the edge of the dressing and that generally takes care of the problem for us.
Dr. Simon, regarding whether our infection rate is increased if we leave the dressings on for a long period of time, we watch these dressings very, very closely for any signs of infection. We monitor the fluid and make sure that we are not really getting anything purulent out of there. We do not like to leave the dressings on for long periods of time, but in patients that are hemodynamically unstable, patients that are still fighting to keep alive, and are still requiring resuscitation for long periods of time, we’re forced to leave those dressings on.
Dr. Frame, regarding protein loss from the wound, it would be difficult to determine what contribution the vacuum pack suction and the draining of the peritoneal fluid impacts on protein loss because a lot of these patients, again, are requiring a lot of fluid; they are severely injured. And I think the serum protein levels and albumin levels are depressed anyhow.
Dr. Nagy, if we have to change the vacuum pack, we can actually change this at the bedside in the patient that is ventilated. We can use a short-acting neuromuscular blocker and add pain medication to provide them with some anesthetic.
I appreciate the questions. I thank the Association, again, for the privilege of the floor.