Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Indications
Anatomic considerations
Technical considerations
From Cameron JL, Cameron AM: Current Surgical Therapy, 10th edition (Mosby 2011)
Once the decision has been made to leave the abdomen open, the most optimal TAC technique should be used. This technique should be based on the experience of the surgeon and the practice environment. An ideal TAC should have the following attributes:
Easily encompasses the bowel and abdominal viscera
Allows enlargement of the abdominal cavity in situations of massive bowel, tissue, or retroperitoneal edema without inducing IAH and while preventing ACS
Is expansible but also sturdy enough to permit the tamponade effect of packing the liver or other bleeding surfaces
Does not damage the fascia and prevents fascial retraction
Contains and quantifies fluid loss
Prevents adhesion formation between viscera and abdominal fascia
Promotes removal of infectious materials
Is quick to apply and remove
Has a good primary fascial closure rate
Table 73-1-1 compares the most common methods of TAC. Although the earliest forms of TAC, the towel clip closure and Bogotá bag closure, are mentioned in the table, these have been largely replaced by more improved options. Similarly, polypropylene (Prolene; Ethicon, Somerville, NJ); polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (Gore-Tex; W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz.); biologic mesh, such as human acellular dermal matrix, or HADM (Alloderm; Lifecell, Branchburg, NJ); and bovine acellular collagen matrix (Surgimend; TEI Biosciences, Boston, Mass.) are rarely used anymore for TAC. These materials were abandoned for a number of reasons. Polypropylene is notorious for developing fistulas and is difficult to remove from the bowel; PTFE, although relatively inert, limits tissue granulation, is not well incorporated in the fascia, and carries a high risk of mesh infection. The biologic mesh matrix products are too expensive for temporary use and may not provide enough tensile strength, especially in heavily infected fields, where they have been known to “melt away.”
Closure Technique | Description | Advantages | Disadvantages |
---|---|---|---|
Skin only (towel clip closure, running suture of skin) | Serial application of towel clips or suture | Rapid | Does not prevent IAH; may interfere with radiography or angiography |
Bogotá bag | 3 L IV bag, Steri-drape (3M; St Paul, Minn.), Silastic bag, plastic bag rapidly sutured to skin | Inexpensive, inert, nonadherent | Risk of evisceration, loss of abdominal domain, risk for IAH; fluid losses difficult to quantify |
Absorbable mesh | Suturing of absorbable mesh to skin or fascial edges | Can be applied directly over bowel; allows for drainage of peritoneal fluid | Rapid loss of tensile strength (in the setting of infection), potentially large-volume late ventral hernia; risk for bowel fistula; damage to fascial edges from repeated suturing |
Wittmann patch (Star Surgical, Burlington, Wis.) | Suturing of artificial burr (i.e., Velcro) to fascia, staged abdominal closure by application of controlled tension | Good tensile strength, allows for easy re-exploration and eventual primary fascial closure | Poor control of third-space fluid, adherence of bowel to abdominal wall, potential for fistulas |
Vacuum-pack closure | Bowel covered with plastic sheet and towel or laparotomy pads; flat drains attached to wall suction and outer adhesive layer | Inexpensive, uses available materials; moderate control of fluid; suction provides constant medial traction, preventing loss of domain; high success in fascial closure | Difficult to quantify suction; unknown whether full benefits of negative-pressure therapy are realized |
Modified “sandwich” vacuum pack | 3 L irrigation bag placed on bowel; three fascial sutures placed to retain “domain”; NG tubes used for suction, ostomy bag used to bring NG tube through outer adhesive dressing | Same as vacuum-pack closure but is thought to retain fascial domain and further improve primary fascial closure; inert innermost layers help prevent fistulas | Does not use innermost, perforated layer, which may make fluid removal somewhat difficult; unknown whether benefits of negative-pressure therapy are realized |
Negative-pressure therapy; VAC (vacuum-assisted closure) abdominal dressing system (Kinetic Concepts, Inc., San Antonio, Tex.) | Reticulated polyurethane foam dressing over the plastic covering of the bowel; negative pressure is controlled with a computer-controlled vacuum pump that applies a constant, regulated pressure to the wound surface and a sensing device to prevent uncontrolled fluid (e.g., blood) drainage | Increase in blood flow, a reduction on abdominal wall tension, reduction in size of the abdominal wall defect, decreased bowel edema, and potential removal of inflammatory substances that accumulate in the abdomen during inflammatory states; edema and third-space losses can be controlled | Expensive; not available at all institutions, in austere environments, or in most less developed countries; mechanism of action not fully understood, but does lead to hyperossification; full relationship to fistula not studied well enough |
Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles
If you are a member. Log in here