Division of Trauma, Critical Care, and Burn, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH.
Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC.
Surgery. 2014 Aug;156(2):419-30. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.03.007. Epub 2014 Mar 15.
The open abdominal (OA) approach is a management strategy used in the most severely injured trauma patients. In addition to the morbidity and mortality, a major challenge is the gradual development of dense adhesions that make reoperations progressively more difficult. This randomized, prospective, proof-of-concept study was conducted to determine the effect of carboxymethylcellulose sodium hyaluronate adhesion barrier (CMHAB; Seprafilm, Genzyme Biosurgery, Bridgewater, NJ) on abdominal adhesions and wound characteristics in trauma open abdomens.
A prospective, randomized, controlled study of wound and adhesion characteristics with or without CMHAB was conducted at 5 level I trauma centers. Consenting patients were randomized to either CMHAB or no adhesion barrier (NAB) groups. We evaluated patient demographics, injury characteristics/severity, reason for OA management, wound sizes (transverse/longitudinal), Zuhlke adhesion score, abdominal contamination score, hospital/intensive care durations of stay, morbidity, and mortality.
Thirty patients were enrolled (17 randomized to CMHAB; 13 randomized to NAB) with mean age of 40.3, Injury Severity Score of 30, Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS)-abdomen of 3.68, APACHE II score of 14.4, and 67% blunt trauma mechanism. The groups were well-matched with regard to age, sex, Injury Severity Score/abdominal AIS, penetrating/blunt injury rates, initial lactate/base deficit, mortality, OA indications, and contamination scores. There were no differences in nonabdominal or abdominal complications (ie, fistula, abscess, wound related) between the groups. Patients with CMHAB had shorter intensive care unit durations of stay (15 vs 22 days; P < .05). Intraoperative adhesion scores were not different during the first four operations but diverged significantly at the 5th operative intervention or after about 1 week of OA therapy. After the 5th operation, adhesion scores in the NAB group were 67% greater (approximately 1 Zuhlke point) than the CMHAB group. We did not note differences between wound sizes over time, closure types, or wound closure characteristics between CMHAB and NAB.
Although CMHAB did not eliminate adhesions in this proof-of-concept study, it limited their severity, particularly in abdomens left open >9 days or requiring ≥5 operations. There was no difference in wound sizes, overall or abdominal complications, or mortality between the groups. Further research is warranted to better delineate potential benefits of CMHAB, especially in the setting of reoperations in post-OA patients.
开放式腹部(OA)方法是用于治疗最严重创伤患者的一种管理策略。除了发病率和死亡率外,一个主要挑战是逐渐形成致密的粘连,这使得再次手术变得越来越困难。这项随机、前瞻性、概念验证研究旨在确定羧甲基纤维素钠透明质酸钠粘连屏障(CMHAB;Seprafilm,Genzyme Biosurgery,Bridgewater,NJ)对创伤性 OA 腹部粘连和伤口特征的影响。
在 5 个一级创伤中心进行了一项前瞻性、随机、对照研究,评估有无 CMHAB 的伤口和粘连特征。同意参与的患者被随机分配到 CMHAB 或无粘连屏障(NAB)组。我们评估了患者的人口统计学特征、损伤特征/严重程度、OA 管理的原因、伤口大小(横/纵)、Zuhlke 粘连评分、腹部污染评分、住院/重症监护停留时间、发病率和死亡率。
共纳入 30 名患者(17 名随机分配至 CMHAB 组;13 名随机分配至 NAB 组),平均年龄为 40.3 岁,损伤严重程度评分 30 分,腹部损伤严重程度评分(AIS)为 3.68,急性生理与慢性健康评分 II(APACHE II)为 14.4,钝性创伤机制占 67%。两组在年龄、性别、损伤严重程度评分/腹部 AIS、穿透性/钝性损伤率、初始乳酸盐/基础缺陷、死亡率、OA 指征和污染评分方面匹配良好。两组之间非腹部或腹部并发症(即瘘管、脓肿、伤口相关)无差异。使用 CMHAB 的患者 ICU 停留时间更短(15 天 vs 22 天;P<.05)。在前四次手术中,术中粘连评分没有差异,但在第五次手术操作或 OA 治疗约 1 周后明显不同。在第五次手术后,NAB 组的粘连评分比 CMHAB 组高 67%(约 1 个 Zuhlke 点)。我们没有注意到 CMHAB 和 NAB 之间在伤口大小、闭合类型或伤口闭合特征方面的随时间变化差异。
尽管在这项概念验证研究中,CMHAB 并没有消除粘连,但它限制了粘连的严重程度,特别是在 OA 持续时间>9 天或需要≥5 次手术的情况下。两组之间的伤口大小、总体或腹部并发症或死亡率均无差异。需要进一步的研究来更好地阐明 CMHAB 的潜在益处,特别是在 OA 后患者再次手术的情况下。