Overview on Temporary Abdominal Closure Techniques: A Review

Open abdomen (OA) is becoming more common, primarily to prevent intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) following emergency abdominal surgery. The purpose of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) techniques is no longer just abdomen coverage; fluid regulation and early fascial closure are now important considerations. TAC techniques for leaving the abdomen open are numerous. The ideal one should be simple to apply and remove, allow for quick access to a surgical second opinion, drain secretions, ease primary closure with acceptable morbidity and mortality, allow for easy nursing, and, finally, be readily available and inexpensive. Over the years, several TAC methods have been proposed. In this review, we overview different techniques for temporary abdominal closure and its advantages and disadvantages.

Remote diagnosis of surgical-site infection using a mobile digital intervention: a randomised controlled trial in emergency surgery patients

Surgical site infections (SSI) cause substantial morbidity and pose a burden to acute healthcare services after surgery. We aimed to investigate whether a smartphone-delivered wound assessment tool can expedite diagnosis and treatment of SSI after emergency abdominal surgery. This single-blinded randomised control trial (NCT02704897) enroled adult emergency abdominal surgery patients in two tertiary care hospitals. Patients were randomised (1:1) to routine postoperative care or additional access to a smartphone-delivered wound assessment tool for 30-days postoperatively. Patient-reported SSI symptoms and wound photographs were requested on postoperative days 3, 7, and 15. The primary outcome was time-to-diagnosis of SSI (Centers for Disease Control definition). 492 patients were randomised (smartphone intervention: 223; routine care: 269). There was no significant difference in the 30-day SSI rate between trial arms: 21 (9.4%) in smartphone vs 20 (7.4%, p = 0.513) in routine care. Among the smartphone group, 32.3% (n = 72) did not utilise the tool. There was no significant difference in time-to-diagnosis of SSI for patients receiving the intervention (−2.5 days, 95% CI: −6.6−1.6, p = 0.225). However, patients in the smartphone group had 3.7-times higher odds of diagnosis within 7 postoperative days (95% CI: 1.02−13.51, p = 0.043). The smartphone group had significantly reduced community care attendance (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.34−0.94, p = 0.030), similar hospital attendance (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.28−1.96, p = 0.577), and significantly better experiences in accessing care (OR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.17−3.53, p = 0.013). Smartphone-delivered wound follow-up is feasible following emergency abdominal surgery. This can facilitate triage to the appropriate level of assessment required, allowing earlier postoperative diagnosis of SSI.

SP9.1.7 Emergency Laparotomy for Trauma in the United Kingdom and Ireland: a Prospective Multicentre Study

Aims Trauma patients requiring abdominal surgery have significant morbidity and mortality, but are not included in existing national audits of emergency laparotomy. The aim of this study was to examine processes of care and outcomes among trauma patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery in the UK and Ireland. Methods A prospective trainee-led multicentre audit was conducted over six months from January 2019 across the national trauma system. Patients undergoing laparotomy or laparoscopy within 24 hours of injury were included. Subgroup analysis was conducted in those requiring major haemorrhage protocol (MHP) activation. Results The study included 363 patients from 34 hospitals (22 major trauma centres). The majority were young males with no co-morbidities who required surgery for control of bleeding (51%) or exploration of penetrating injuries (46%). Over 85% received consultant-led care in the emergency department (318/363) and operating theatre (321/363). The MHP subgroup made up 45% of the cohort but accounted for 97% of deaths and 79% of ICU days, with a mortality rate of 19% and a massive transfusion rate of 32%. Compared to non-MHP patients they had shorter times to theatre (122 vs 218 minutes, p < 0.001), higher rates of advanced prehospital care (60% vs 33%, p < 0.001) and higher rates of consultant-led care (95% vs 85%, p < 0.001). Conclusion The majority of trauma patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery receive consultant-delivered perioperative care which is appropriately tailored to patient risk profile. Despite this, mortality and resource utilization among high-risk patients remains substantial, justifying ongoing performance improvement initiatives and research into novel therapeutics.