RESUMEN
PURPOSE: NPWT has been tried in many surgical fields, including colorectal, thoracic, vascular, and non-healing wounds, for the prevention of SSI. However, its efficacy in the prevention of SSI-grade IV closed abdominal wounds is yet to be explored. METHODS: All patients with grade IV abdominal wounds were included in the study. They were randomized into the conventional arm and the VAC arm after confirming the diagnosis intra-operatively. The sheath was closed, and the skin was laid open in the postoperative period. In the VAC arm, the NPWT dressing was applied on postoperative day (POD)-1 and removed on POD-5. In the conventional arm, only regular dressing was done postoperatively. The skin was closed with a delayed primary intention on POD-5 in both arms. The sutures were removed after 7 to 10 days of skin closure. RESULTS: The rate of SSI (10% in the VAC arm vs. 37.5% in the conventional arm, p-value = 0.004) was significantly lower in the VAC arm, as were the rates of seroma formation (2.4% in the VAC arm vs. 20% in the conventional arm, p = 0.014) and wound dehiscence (7.3% vs. 30%, p = 0.011). The conventional arm had a significant delay in skin closure beyond POD5 due to an increased rate of SSI, which also led to a prolonged hospital stay (5 days in the VAC arm vs. 6.5 days in the conventional arm, p-value = 0.005). CONCLUSION: The VAC dressing can be used routinely in grade IV closed abdominal wounds to reduce the risk of SSI and wound dehiscence.
Asunto(s)
Traumatismos Abdominales , Terapia de Presión Negativa para Heridas , Humanos , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/prevención & control , Abdomen , Tiempo de InternaciónRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of on-demand bupivacaine infusion via transversus abdominis plane (TAP) catheter in emergency laparotomy patients. METHODS: A non-randomised interventional study was conducted on patients undergoing emergency midline laparotomy. The intervention group received an on-demand infusion of 10 ml 0.5% bupivacaine through TAP catheters, whilst the control group received standard analgesic care. The primary outcome was the amount of rescue analgesic consumption. Secondary outcomes included the post-operative, measured by visual analogue scores (VAS), side effects, time to first flatus, post-operative nausea and vomiting, and pulmonary complications. RESULTS: One-hundred-twenty patients (58 in the TAP-SOS group, 62 in the control group) were included in the final analysis. The TAP-SOS group showed significantly reduced rescue analgesic requirement by 91% (p < 0.001) and lower VAS scores at 3, 6, 12, and 24 h (adjusted p < 0.00). Time to out-of-bed mobilisation was significantly shorter in the TAP-SOS group by 12.47 h (p < 0.001), and post-operative pulmonary complications were lower by 75% (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in bowel recovery, catheter-related complications, or post-operative morbidity. No incidences of catheter-site infection were reported on follow-up; however, the catheter tip-culture was positive in 3 (5.17%) patients. CONCLUSION: On-demand bupivacaine infusion through a TAP catheter effectively reduced post-operative pain and opioid requirements in emergency laparotomy patients without complications. If an epidural is not an option, the TAP-SOS approach can be a helpful adjunct in implementing the ERAS protocol in an emergency since it allows for early ambulation and better pain management.