Ann Surg Treat Res.  2014 Nov;87(5):260-264. 10.4174/astr.2014.87.5.260.

Vacuum-assisted close versus conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence

• Ko YS
• Jung SW

• KMID: 2266885
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2014.87.5.260

Abstract

PURPOSE
The conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence usually involves surgical revision. Recently, vacuum-assisted closure has been successfully used in postlaparotomy wound dehiscence. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical outcome of 207 patients undergoing vacuum-assisted closure therapy or conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence.
METHODS
Two hundred and seven consecutive patients underwent treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence: vacuum-assisted closure therapy (January 2007 through August 2012, n = 25) or conventional treatment (January 2001 through August 2012, n = 182).
RESULTS
The failure rate to first-line treatment with vacuum-assisted closure and conventional treatment were 0% and 14.3%, respectively (P = 0.002). There was no statistically significant difference in the enterocutaneous fistulas and hospital stay after vacuum-assisted closure therapy or conventional treatment respectively.
CONCLUSION
Our findings support that vacuum-assisted closure therapy is a safe and reliable option in postlaparotomy wound dehiscence with very low failure rate in surgical revision compared with conventional treatment.

Keyword

Vacuum-assisted closure; Dehiscence; Wound

MeSH Terms

Humans
Intestinal Fistula
Length of Stay
Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy
Reoperation
Wounds and Injuries*