Delgado Angel, Sammons Alexander
Acelity, San Antonio, TX, USA.
SoloShot, San Antonio, TX, USA.
SAGE Open Med. 2016 Jan 18;4:2050312115624988. doi: 10.1177/2050312115624988. eCollection 2016.
Temporary abdominal closure methods allow for management of open abdomens where immediate primary closure is not possible and/or where repeat abdominal entries are necessary. We assessed pressure mapping and fluid extraction efficiency of three open abdomen dressing systems: ABThera(™) Active Abdominal Therapy System, V.A.C.(®) Abdominal Dressing System, and Barker's vacuum packing technique.
An in vitro test model was designed to simulate physical conditions present in an open abdomen. The model consisted of a rigid rest platform with elevated central region and a flexible outer layer with centrally located incision. Constant -125 mmHg negative pressure was applied according to the type of system, under simulated dynamic conditions, using albumin-based solution with a viscosity of 14 cP. Data were collected by pressure sensors located circumferentially into three concentric zones: Zone 1 (closest to negative pressure source), Zone 2 (immediately outside of manifolding material edge), and Zone 3 (area most distal from negative pressure source). Each value was the result of approximately 100 pressure readings/zone/experiment with a total of three experiments for each system.
Pressure distribution of ABThera Therapy was significantly (p < 0.05) superior to Barker's vacuum packing technique in all three evaluated zones. Similarly, V.A.C. Abdominal Dressing System pressure distribution was significantly (p < 0.05) improved compared to Barker's vacuum packing technique in all zones. There were no pressure distribution differences in Zone 1 between ABThera Therapy and V.A.C. Abdominal Dressing System; however, in Zones 2 and 3, ABThera Therapy was significantly (p < 0.05) superior to V.A.C. Abdominal Dressing System.
These data suggest that all approaches to negative pressure therapy for open abdomen treatment are not equal. Additional research should be conducted to elucidate clinical implications of data demonstrated here.
临时腹部闭合方法适用于无法立即进行一期缝合和/或需要多次开腹的开放性腹部处理。我们评估了三种开放性腹部敷料系统的压力分布和液体引流效率:ABThera(™)主动腹部治疗系统、V.A.C.(®)腹部敷料系统和巴克氏真空包装技术。
设计了一个体外测试模型来模拟开放性腹部的物理状况。该模型由一个中央区域抬高的刚性支撑平台和一个位于中央的切口的柔性外层组成。在模拟动态条件下,根据系统类型,使用粘度为14 cP的基于白蛋白的溶液施加-125 mmHg的恒定负压。通过沿圆周方向放置在三个同心区域的压力传感器收集数据:区域1(最靠近负压源)、区域2(紧邻引流材料边缘外侧)和区域3(距负压源最远的区域)。每个值是每个区域/实验约100次压力读数的结果,每个系统共进行三次实验。
在所有三个评估区域中,ABThera治疗的压力分布均显著优于(p < 0.05)巴克氏真空包装技术。同样,与巴克氏真空包装技术相比,V.A.C.腹部敷料系统在所有区域的压力分布均显著改善(p < 0.05)。ABThera治疗和V.A.C.腹部敷料系统在区域1的压力分布没有差异;然而,在区域2和区域3中,ABThera治疗显著优于(p < 0.05)V.A.C.腹部敷料系统。
这些数据表明,用于开放性腹部治疗的所有负压治疗方法并不相同。应进行更多研究以阐明此处所示数据的临床意义。