263 research outputs found

    Prospective Study Examining Clinical Outcomes Associated with a Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System and Barker’s Vacuum Packing Technique

    Get PDF
    Background The open abdomen has become a common procedure in the management of complex abdominal problems and has improved patient survival. The method of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) may play a role in patient outcome. Methods A prospective, observational, open-label study was performed to evaluate two TAC techniques in surgical and trauma patients requiring open abdomen management: Barker’s vacuum-packing technique (BVPT) and the ABTheraTM open abdomen negative pressure therapy system (NPWT). Study endpoints were days to and rate of 30-day primary fascial closure (PFC) and 30-day all-cause mortality. Results Altogether, 280 patients were enrolled from 20 study sites. Among them, 168 patients underwent at least 48 hours of consistent TAC therapy (111 NPWT, 57 BVPT). The two study groups were well matched demographically. Median days to PFC were 9 days for NPWT versus 12 days for BVPT (p = 0.12). The 30-day PFC rate was 69 % for NPWT and 51 % for BVPT (p = 0.03). The 30-day all-cause mortality was 14 % for NPWT and 30 % for BVPT (p = 0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified that patients treated with NPWT were significantly more likely to survive than the BVPT patients [odds ratio 3.17 (95 % confidence interval 1.22–8.26); p = 0.02] after controlling for age, severity of illness, and cumulative fluid administration. Conclusions Active NPWT is associated with significantly higher 30-day PFC rates and lower 30-day all-cause mortality among patients who require an open abdomen for at least 48 h during treatment for critical illness

    Direct intra-abdominal pressure monitoring via piezoresistive pressure measurement: a technical note

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Piezoresistive pressure measurement technique (PRM) has previously been applied for direct IAP measurement in a porcine model using two different devices. Aim of this clinical study was to assess both devices regarding complications, reliability and agreement with IVP in patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A prospective cohort study was performed in 20 patients randomly scheduled to receive PRM either by a Coach<sup>®</sup>-probe or an Accurate++<sup>®</sup>-probe (both MIPM, Mammendorf, Germany). Probes were placed on the greater omentum and passed through the abdominal wall paralleling routine drainages. PRM was compared with IVP measurement by t-testing and by calculating mean difference as well as limits of agreement (LA).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were no probe related complications. Due to technical limitations, data could be collected in 3/10 patients with Coach<sup>® </sup>and in 7/10 patients with Accurate++<sup>®</sup>. Analysis was carried out only for Accurate++<sup>®</sup>. Mean values did not differ to mean IVP values. Mean difference to IVP was 0.1 ± 2.8 mmHg (LA: -5.5 to 5.6 mmHg).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Direct IAP measurement was clinically uneventful. Although results of Accurate++<sup>® </sup>were comparable to IVP, the device might be too fragile for IAP measurements in the clinical setting. Local ethical committee trial registration: EK2024</p
    corecore