Negative pressure wound therapy management of the “open abdomen” following trauma: a prospective study and systematic review
© Navsaria et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 17 October 2012
Accepted: 20 December 2012
Published: 10 January 2013
The use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) for temporary abdominal closure of open abdomen (OA) wounds is widely accepted. Published outcomes vary according to the specific nature and the aetiology that resulted in an OA. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a new NPWT system specifically used OA resulting from abdominal trauma.
A prospective study on trauma patients requiring temporary abdominal closure (TAC) with grade 1or 2 OA was carried out. All patients were treated with NPWT (RENASYS AB Smith & Nephew) to achieve TAC. The primary outcome measure was time taken to achieve fascial closure and secondary outcomes were complications and mortality.
A total of 20 patients were included. Thirteen patients (65%) achieved fascial closure following a median treatment period of 3 days. Four patients (20%) died of causes unrelated to NPWT. Complications included fistula formation in one patient (5%) with spontaneous resolution during NPWT), bowel necrosis in a single patient (5%) and three cases of infection (15%). No fistulae were present at the end of NPWT.
This new NPWT kit is safe and effective and results in a high rate of fascial closure and low complication rates in the severely injured trauma patient.
KeywordsNegative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) Grade 1 and 2 open abdomen Abdominal trauma Fascial closure
Management of the open abdomen is an area of medicine which has expanded rapidly over the last 20 years  and has resulted in decreased mortality rates . The benefits of managing patients with open abdomens include prevention of intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS), early identification of intra-abdominal complications (e.g. bowel ischemia) and ease of re-entry. Despite these benefits, maintenance of an open abdomen creates numerous management challenges such as development of fistula and infection. Prolonged maintenance of an open abdomen may also lead to a reduced chance of re-approximation of the fascia, as abdominal contents become ‘fixed’. With increasing adoption of open abdomen techniques has come an increased demand for Temporary Abdominal Closure (TAC) methods to protect the Open Abdomen during the phase of open treatment. Principal techniques for TAC are: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT), Vacuum-Pac method (“Vac” Pac), artificial burr (Whitmann™ patch), absorbable mesh/sheet, zipper, “plastic silo”, skin closure and dynamic retention sutures. These techniques vary in their efficacy with regard to fascial closure rates, associated morbidity and mortality rates. A number of systematic reviews have concluded that the artificial burr and NPWT have the highest fascial closure and lowest mortality rates [3, 4]. Because of its relative ease of application, and preservation of fascial tissue, NPWT is becoming a dominant choice for TAC in the open abdomen patient .
Open abdomen classification
Clean OA without adherence between bowel and abdominal wall or fixity of the abdominal wall (lateralization of the abdominal wall).
Contaminated OA without adherence/fixity
Clean OA developing adherence/fixity
Contaminated OA developing adherence/fixity
OA complicated by fistula formation
Frozen OA with adherent bowel, unable to close surgically, with or without fistula
Temporary abdominal closure
A prospective, open labelled, non-comparative study was carried out in two centres in South Africa between August 2010 and December 2011. Consecutive patients presenting with traumatic injury and 1) requiring damage control laparotomy with staged abdominal repair; or 2) developing abdominal compartment syndrome requiring laparotomy and temporary abdominal closure; or 3) with full thickness traumatic abdominal wall defects with exposed viscera requiring temporary abdominal closure were assessed for inclusion into the study. Patients with grade 1a,1b or 2a, 2b open abdomen, as classified by Bjorck et al.  (Table 1) were suitable for inclusion. The following exclusion criteria were also applied: <18 years, pregnant, malignancy in wound bed, unexplored fistulas, high risk for imminent death (as determined by the treating surgeon), pre-existing large ventral hernia, significant loss of abdominal wall fascia as a result of trauma or infection, patients with grade 4 open abdomen (Bjorck et al. classification, see Table 1), patients with a known history of poor compliance with medical treatment and any patients who had previously been withdrawn from the study. The trial was approved by local ethics boards at both institutions and was carried out in strict accordance with the Helsinki declaration. Informed consent was obtained where possible from the patient, but if the patient was incapable, the patient’s legal representative was asked to provide consent on the patient’s behalf. If this was not possible then independent physician consent was considered acceptable as approved by the local ethics committee. All patient information was anonymised at source.
Patients suitable for inclusion underwent initial damage control laparotomy, where initial control of haemorrhage and contamination was performed. This was followed by intra-peritoneal packing when required and TAC. Further resuscitation to near normal physiology in the intensive care unit (ICU) was continued. Re-laparotomy was performed at 48 hours or earlier if indicated. Negative pressure wound therapy (RENASYS-AB Abdominal Dressing and RENASYS EZ pump Smith & Nephew; St Petersburg, FL, USA) was applied to the wound in the following way. A fenestrated non adherent film was placed directly over the exposed viscera but under the rectus sheath. Polyurethane foam was then reduced along pre-cut perforations to the appropriate size and placed on top of the film within the open abdomen. A transparent film then covered the foam and the surrounding peri-wound skin before a suction port was connected to the NPWT pump. Negative pressure was delivered at a continuous -80 mmHg. The trial comprised a maximum of 20 days of treatment with the NPWT system with an additional 8 day post-treatment initiation follow up. Dressing changes usually took place at 48 hours during re-laparotomy for removal of packs and re-establishment of bowel continuity. Full medical and wound assessments were made. Wound closure was carried out when possible and at the discretion of the attending trauma surgeon.
The primary objective was to determine the number of days taken to achieve delayed primary fascial closure. Secondary objectives were mortality, change in OA classification, intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), length of stay (days) in ICU and hospital, incidence of complications (abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS), fistula formation, sepsis, multiple organ failure (MOF), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)). SOFA, APACHE, ISS, NISS scores were also recorded.
Kaplan-Meier estimate of the median time to achieve primary fascial closure by treatment discontinuation was presented. McNemar’s test was used to test for a reduction in the presence of infection from baseline to final assessment. All other outcomes were summarised using descriptive statistics.
The PRISMA guidelines were used as a guide in designing the systematic review process . The following PubMed search [("open abdomen" OR "abdominal compartment syndrome" OR laparotomy) AND ("negative pressure wound therapy" OR NPWT OR "Vacuum assisted" OR VAC OR "vac pack" OR "vacuum pack") NOT review] was carried out in April 2010 and updated in April 2011 and May 2012. These studies were reviewed manually and the following types were excluded: paediatric studies, studies where greater than 33% of patients had open abdomen wounds with advanced sepsis at baseline; Grade 4 wounds at baseline; Case reviews (fewer than 6 cases). Although the majority of studies did not classify the wounds according to Bjorck et al. , an attempt was made to classify them retrospectively based on the patient data provided. All studies carried out on non-septic Grade 1 or 2 open abdomen wounds were included regardless of aetiology. Raw data was extracted from all the papers. Outcomes (fascial closure, mortality and fistula) were expressed as a percentage of the total numbers of patients treated in order to minimise bias based on different sample sizes. This approach also corrected inherent reporting bias in several of the studies relating to whether data took numbers of deceased patients into account (i.e. expressed outcomes as a percentage of the entire cohort and not just percentage of survivors).
Patient and wound characterisation at baseline
Age; median (range)
31.4 years (22 – 44)
Male (% patients)
BMI; median (range)
26.3 kg/m2 (17.7 – 50.8)
Injury Type (% patients)
· Blunt trauma
· Penetrating Trauma
Injury scores (median (range)
· APACHE II
IAP (# patients)
· <12 mmHg
· >12 mmHg (IAH)
Primary objective - fascial closure rate
Progression of open abdominal wounds from initial presentation to end of therapy
End of therapy
SOFA and APACHE11 scores decreased from medians of 11 and 14.5 at baseline to 9 and 12 respectively at the end of therapy. There was no apparent relationship between IAP at baseline and achievement of fascial closure. Median time in ICU was 8 days (range 1–28 days, n=20). In the remaining patients, reasons for discontinuation of NPWT were death, (3/20; 15%), poor compliance (1/20; 5%), withdrawal for other reasons (1/20; 5% - persistent bowel hematic as a consequence of an extremely large viscera). Fluid contained in the waste canister was approximately measured and this formed part of the daily fluid management of the patient. A mean volume of 871 ml (median 700 ml) was present in the canister at dressing change. Blood loss into the canister was also an early sign of internal bleeding and allowed rapid intervention (data not shown).
Number of patients developing abdominal wound related complications
End of therapy*
At any point during therapy
Infection / sepsis
Bowel necrosis was found in two patients (10%). One instance was present at baseline and was resolved prior to application of NPWT following surgical removal of 90 cm length of bowel. This patient went on to achieve fascial closure within 3 days of injury. The second instance of bowel necrosis developed at the second dressing change during the study in a patient who had a septic abdomen at baseline with a moderate degree of oedema. This patient died as a result of multi-organ failure due to sepsis and as a result of late presentation. The development of bowel necrosis was not believed to be related to the use of the NPWT device.
At baseline assessment, 5 patients had severe contamination of the abdominal cavity due to intestinal spillage. In 3 patients the contamination was controlled and there were no sign of contamination or infection by treatment discontinuation. The remaining 2 patients developed a clinically infected wound along with a further 3 patients during the course of the study. One patient, despite fistula resolution (as described above), became persistently infected preventing wound closure. The wound degraded into a grade 4 (fixed) open abdomen and was closed with a graft. A second patient with a grade 1a abdomen was progressing well but became confused and removed the dressing resulting in wound infection and withdrawal of the patient for non-compliance. The third patient who developed infection also developed bowel oedema throughout the study and evisceration. This was in part due to unusually large viscera. Therefore, at treatment discontinuation 5 patients’ abdominal wounds were clinically infected.
Comparison with published literature
Systematic review chart
Total number of papers identified
Reason for exclusion
In vivo studies
Significant modification to application technique
Irrelevant clinical area
Case series <6
Number of papers reviewed
Reason for exclusion
No relevant endpoints
Vac-pack removed *
Cohorts with >33% septic
Number of remaining papers
Comparison with published literature
Miller et al. 2004 
Garner et al. 2003 
Suliberk et al. 2003 
Stone et al. 2004 
Weinberg et al. 2008 
Arigon et al. 2008†
Batacchi et al. 2010 
Labler et al. 2005 
Total patients reporting relevant end-point
Weighted mean (%)
In this study, the rate of fascial closure was 65% on an intent-to-treat basis which compares well with comparable published studies (63.7%) of patients (Table 6). All comparisons were carried out with studies using the predominant commercially available abdominal NPWT kit, Abdominal VAC™ (KCI San Antonio, Tx USA). One significant drawback of this study design was the non-comparative design. A large comparative study would be required to confirm equivalence of these two devices. The present study provides evidence that application of the alternative dressing (RENASYS™ AB Smith & Nephew St Petersburg, FL USA) is likely to achieve similar outcomes. Concurrent application of fascial tension: for example through the use of ‘dynamic suturing’, along with NPWT may further improve the frequency of fascial closure [19, 20] although, to date, no comparative studies have been carried out to support this. Achievement of fascial closure not only has significant implications for the recovery of the patients but also leads to shorter ICU and hospital length of stay, reduced need for surgical reconstruction of the abdominal wall, and shorter recovery time. These factors all have a considerable cost element so early but safe abdominal closure is the best outcome.
The most commonly cited objection to the use of NPWT TAC is a perceived increase in fistula formation. The rate of fistula formation in the current study of 5% was similar to that derived from the published studies of 3%. It is possible that these relatively low levels of fistula formation are observed in this specific population of open abdomen patients [2, 21] and that higher incidence of de novo fistula formation may occur in ‘high risk’ subsets of patients i.e. those with more advanced grade of open abdomen (grade 3 or 4), sepsis, or in wounds where a bowel anastomosis following bowel surgery is present or where there is a delay or failure to achieve fascial closure. In fact where concern has been expressed by several commentators [22–24] the patients described tend to be ‘high risk’. The potential link between NPWT and fistula formation has been disputed by others  including in a systematic review . More evidence is needed to determine whether use of NPWT on grade 3 or 4 open abdomen is effective and whether an increased risk of fistulisation is indeed observed as a result of therapy in this sub-population. With regard to the current study, one drawback is the relatively low sample size, which may not accurately reflect the true incidence of fistula formation in these wounds. One variable not assessed in the systematic review was the level of negative pressure used in each study. This is reported in only one study where the relatively high level of -175 mmHg was used . Use of high levels of negative pressure is thought to a potential risk factor for increased fistula formation but the present analysis is not able to clarify this assertion.
Wider adoption of the published classification system is needed when reporting outcomes on open abdomen patients in order to help clarify these and other issues.
Application of an alternative NPWT TAC system, when applied to trauma patients with grade 1 and 2 open abdomens (Bjorck et al. classification)  is safe and effective resulting in a high rate of fascial closure rate (65% intent-to-treat) and relatively low rate of complications. These values are similar to those presented in the published literature. Wider adoption of the published classification system is needed when reporting outcomes on open abdomen patients.
Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
Abdominal Compartment Syndrome
Sequential Organ Failure Score
- APACHE 11:
Acute Physical and Chronic Health Evaluation Score
Injury Severity Score
New Injury Severity Score.
Hussein Dharma and Alison Wraith (employees of Smith & Nephew) carried out data management and statistical analysis. S&N (the funding body) contributed to study design and provided statistical evaluation and medical writing expertise. The reporting of the study is believed to be impartial and scientific in its approach.
- MacLean AA, O’Keeffe T, Augenstein J: Management strategies for the open abdomen: survey of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma membership. Acta Chir Belg. 2008, 108: 212-218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cheatham ML, Safcsak K: Is the evolving management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome improving survival?. Crit Care Med. 2010, 38: 402-407. 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181b9e9b1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Quyn AJ, Johnston C, Hall D, Chambers A, Arapova N, Ogston S, Amin A:The open Abdomen and Temporary Abdominal Closure Systems - Historical Evolution and Systematic Review, Colorectal disease: the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. 2012.Google Scholar
- Boele van Hensbroek P, Wind J, Dijkgraaf MGW, Busch ORC, Goslings JC, Carel Goslings J: Temporary closure of the open abdomen: a systematic review on delayed primary fascial closure in patients with an open abdomen. World J Surg. 2009, 33: 199-207. 10.1007/s00268-008-9867-3.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schmelzle M, Alldinger I, Matthaei H, Aydin F, Wallert I, Eisenberger CF, Schulte Am Esch J, Dizdar L, Topp SA, Yang Q, Knoefel WT: Long-term vacuum-assisted closure in open abdomen due to secondary peritonitis: a retrospective evaluation of a selected group of patients. Dig Surg 2010, 27: 272-278. 10.1159/000314609.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Garner GB DM, Ware DN, Cocanour CS, Duke JH, Mckinley BA, Ph D, Kozar RA, Moore FA: Vacuum-assisted wound closure provides early fascial reapproximation in trauma patients with open abdomens. Am J Surg. 2002, 182: 630-638.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Björck M, Bruhin A, Cheatham M, Hinck D, Kaplan M, Manca G, Wild T, Windsor A: Classification–important step to improve management of patients with an open abdomen. World J surg. 2009, 33: 1154-1157. 10.1007/s00268-009-9996-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009, 339: b2700-b2700.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cheatham ML, Malbrain MLNG, Kirkpatrick A, Sugrue M, Parr M, De Waele J, Balogh Z, Leppäniemi A, Olvera C, Ivatury R, D’Amours S, Wendon J, Hillman K, Wilmer A: Results from the International Conference of Experts on Intra-abdominal Hypertension and Abdominal Compartment Syndrome. II. Recommendations. Intensive Care Med. 2007, 33: 951-962. 10.1007/s00134-007-0592-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mentula P: Non-traumatic causes and the management of the open abdomen. Minerva Chir. 2011, 66: 153-163.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kaplan M, Banwell P, Orgill D, Ivatury R, Demetriades D, Moore F, Miller P, Nicholas J, Henry S: Guidelines for the management of the open abdomen. Wounds. 2005, 10: S1-24.Google Scholar
- Miller PR, Meredith JW, Johnson JC, Chang MC: Prospective Evaluation of Vacuum-Assisted Fascial Closure After Open Abdomen. Ann Surg. 2004, 239: 608-616. 10.1097/01.sla.0000124291.09032.bf.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Suliburk JW, Ware DN, Balogh Z, McKinley BA, Cocanour CS, Kozar RA, Moore FA, Ivatury RR: Vacuum-assisted wound closure achieves early fascial closure of open abdomens after severe trauma. J Trauma. 2003, 55: 1155-1160. discussion 1160–1. 10.1097/01.TA.0000100218.03754.6A.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stone PA, Hass SM, Flaherty SK, DeLuca JA, Lucente FC, Kusminsky RE: Vacuum-Assisted Fascial Closure for Patients With Abdominal Trauma. J Trauma: Inj Infect Crit Care. 2004, 57: 1082-1086. 10.1097/01.TA.0000149248.02598.9E.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Weinberg JA, George RL, Griffin RL, Stewart AH, Reiff DA, Kerby JD, Melton SM, Rue LW: Closing the open abdomen: improved success with Wittmann Patch staged abdominal closure. J Trauma. 2008, 65: 345-348. 10.1097/TA.0b013e31817fa489.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Arigon J-P, Chapuis O, Sarrazin E, Pons F, Bouix A, Jancovici R: [Managing the open abdomen with vacuum-assisted closure therapy: retrospective evaluation of 22 patients]. J Chirurgie. 2008, 145: 252-261. 10.1016/S0021-7697(08)73755-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Batacchi S, Matano S, Nella A, Zagli G, Bonizzoli M, Pasquini A, Anichini V, Tucci V, Manca G, Ban K, Valeri A, Peris A: Vacuum-assisted closure device enhances recovery of critically ill patients following emergency surgical procedures. Critical Care (London, England). 2009, 13: R194-10.1186/cc8193.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Labler L, Zwingmann J, Mayer D, Stocker R, Trentz O, Keel M: V.A.C.® Abdominal Dressing System. Eur J Trauma. 2005, 31: 488-494. 10.1007/s00068-005-2031-y.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pliakos I, Papavramidis TS, Mihalopoulos N, Koulouris H, Kesisoglou I, Sapalidis K, Deligiannidis N, Papavramidis S: Vacuum-assisted closure in severe abdominal sepsis with or without retention sutured sequential fascial closure: a clinical trial. Surgery. 2010, 148: 947-953. 10.1016/j.surg.2010.01.021.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Matthias RK-r, Nina Z: Open Abdomen Treatment with Dynamic Sutures and Topical Negative Pressure Resulting in a High Primary Fascia Closure Rate. 2012Google Scholar
- Mentula P, Hienonen P, Kemppainen E, Puolakkainen P, Leppäniemi A: Surgical decompression for abdominal compartment syndrome in severe acute pancreatitis. Arch Surg (Chicago, Ill. 1960). 2010, 145: 764-769. 10.1001/archsurg.2010.132.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Trevelyan SL, Carlson GL: Is TNP in the open abdomen safe and effective?. J Wound Care. 2009, 18: 24-25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rao M, Burke D, Finan PJ, Sagar PM: The use of vacuum-assisted closure of abdominal wounds: a word of caution. Colorectal dis: Offic J Assoc Coloproctology Great Britain Ireland. 2007, 9: 266-268. 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.01154.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fischer JE: A cautionary note: the use of vacuum-assisted closure systems in the treatment of gastrointestinal cutaneous fistula may be associated with higher mortality from subsequent fistula development. Am J Surg. 2008, 196: 1-2. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.01.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shaikh IA, Ballard-Wilson A, Yalamarthi S, Amin AI: Use of topical negative pressure in assisted abdominal closure does not lead to high incidence of enteric fistulae. Colorectal dis: Offic J Assoc Coloproctology Great Britain Ireland. 2010, 12: 931-934. 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01929.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Stevens P: Vacuum-assisted closure of laparostomy wounds: a critical review of the literature. Int Wound J. 2009, 6: 259-266. 10.1111/j.1742-481X.2009.00614.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.