Management of the open abdomen: a national study of clinical outcome and safety of negative pressure wound therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To determine clinical outcome of open abdomen therapy and assess the influence of negative pressure wound therapy on outcome. BACKGROUND: Leaving the abdomen open (laparostomy) is an option following laparotomy for severe abdominal sepsis or trauma. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has become a popular means of managing laparostomy wounds. It may facilitate nursing care and delayed primary wound closure but the evidence to support its use is poor and concern has arisen about the risk of intestinal fistulation from exposed bowel, leading to an increased risk of death. METHODS: Prospective observational study of 578 patients treated with an open abdomen in 105 hospitals in the United Kingdom between January 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011. Propensity analysis was used to compare adverse outcomes (fistulation, death, intestinal failure, bleeding requiring intervention) and delayed primary closure rates in patients who did and did not receive NPWT. FINDINGS: The most common indication for an open abdomen (n = 398, 68.9%) was abdominal sepsis. Overall hospital mortality was 28.2%. The majority of patients (n = 355, 61.4%) were treated with NPWT. Intestinal fistulation [relative risk (RR) = 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-1.58], death (RR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.64-1.20), bleeding (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.45-1.23), and intestinal failure (RR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.64-1.57) were no more common in patients receiving NPWT, but the rate of delayed primary closure was significantly lower (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.60-0.90, P = 0.002) when NPWT was used. CONCLUSIONS: The indications for an open abdomen in the United Kingdom appear to be significantly different to those described in N. America, where its use in the management of trauma predominates. NPWT in patients with an open abdomen is not associated with an increase in mortality or intestinal fistulation. It is, however, associated with a reduced rate of delayed primary closure. Although this may be related to patient selection, NPWT may leave patients with abdominal wall defects that require further treatment.

Does the outcome of colonic flexure cancers differ from the other colonic sites?

BACKGROUND: Anecdotally, colonic flexure cancers (FC) appear to have a poorer prognosis compared to other colonic cancers (OCC). The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of colonic flexure cancers compared to the cancers of the rest of the colon. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of colonic cancer over a 5-year period (2002-2006) were retrieved from a prospective database. Analysis was performed on flexure (hepatic/splenic) cancers versus remaining colon cancers. Overall, 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were calculated. All patients were followed up until death or end of study period (December 2008), with median follow-up of 32 months. Statistical analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier with log rank statistic and Pearson chi-square test. RESULTS: Of 613 patients (54% males) with colonic cancers with median age 71 years, range (30-100), 67 (10.9%) were FC (35 hepatic/32 splenic) and 546 (89.1%) were arising from OCC. The curative resection rates were FC 73.2% (41 of 56) and OCC 83.4% (359 of 435) (p = 0.05). Post-operative mortality for FC and OCC was 10.7% (6 of 56) and 4.2% (18 of 434), respectively (p = 0.04). FC presented at a more advanced Dukes stage (p = 0.003). Recurrence rates were 9.8% (4 of 41) for FC and 20.9% (75 of 359) for OCC sites (p = 0.088). The overall mean survival was 48.8 and 58.2 m for FC and OCC, respectively (p = 0.158). Of 1-, 3- and 5-year survival, only 1-year survival was significantly different between the two groups (OCC (85%) vs FC (75%), p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one in ten colonic cancers is located at a flexure. Despite FC presenting at an advanced stage, leading to a lower curative resection rate, no significant survival difference was noted compared to other colonic sites, beyond the first year.