Management of Destructive Bowel Injury in the Open Abdomen

Marco Chavarria-Aguilar, William T. Cockerham, Donald E. Barker, David L. Ciraulo, Charles M. Richart, Robert Maxwell

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Little attention has been focused on destructive injuries of the bowel in patients requiring open abdominal management. We therefore reviewed our institutional experience for destructive bowel injury requiring open abdominal management with the vacuum pack technique (vac). Methods: The trauma registry at a Level I trauma center was used to identify patients sustaining destructive bowel injury for an 11-year period beginning in May 1990. Patients were assessed for pertinent clinical and demographic information, and individuals requiring open abdominal management were compared with those who did not. Results: One hundred four patients required bowel resection and constitute the study population. Twenty-nine patients had vacs placed, with 22 (75.9%) of the total eventually obtaining delayed fascial closure. Nineteen (18.3%) patients had resection and primary repair (PR) of large and/or small bowel in conjunction with a vac, 10 (9.6%) patients had stoma formation in conjunction with a vac, 62 (59.6%) patients had resection and PR of small and/ or large bowel in conjunction with primary fascial closure, and 13 (12.5%) patients had stoma formation and primary fascial closure. There were no differences in abdominal abscess or leak rates between groups. There were four deaths, none of which was secondary to failure of an anastomosis. Conclusion: Bowel resection with PR appears to be a safe alternative after destructive bowel injury and results in acceptable morbidity when performed in conjunction with open abdominal management.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)560-564
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care
Volume56
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Abdomen
Wounds and Injuries
Abdominal Abscess
Trauma Centers
Vacuum
Registries
Demography
Morbidity
Population

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Management of Destructive Bowel Injury in the Open Abdomen. / Chavarria-Aguilar, Marco; Cockerham, William T.; Barker, Donald E.; Ciraulo, David L.; Richart, Charles M.; Maxwell, Robert.

In: Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Vol. 56, No. 3, 01.01.2004, p. 560-564.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Chavarria-Aguilar, Marco ; Cockerham, William T. ; Barker, Donald E. ; Ciraulo, David L. ; Richart, Charles M. ; Maxwell, Robert. / Management of Destructive Bowel Injury in the Open Abdomen. In: Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care. 2004 ; Vol. 56, No. 3. pp. 560-564.
@article{b558f9044e88479a82bfcba25fb1618b,
title = "Management of Destructive Bowel Injury in the Open Abdomen",
abstract = "Background: Little attention has been focused on destructive injuries of the bowel in patients requiring open abdominal management. We therefore reviewed our institutional experience for destructive bowel injury requiring open abdominal management with the vacuum pack technique (vac). Methods: The trauma registry at a Level I trauma center was used to identify patients sustaining destructive bowel injury for an 11-year period beginning in May 1990. Patients were assessed for pertinent clinical and demographic information, and individuals requiring open abdominal management were compared with those who did not. Results: One hundred four patients required bowel resection and constitute the study population. Twenty-nine patients had vacs placed, with 22 (75.9{\%}) of the total eventually obtaining delayed fascial closure. Nineteen (18.3{\%}) patients had resection and primary repair (PR) of large and/or small bowel in conjunction with a vac, 10 (9.6{\%}) patients had stoma formation in conjunction with a vac, 62 (59.6{\%}) patients had resection and PR of small and/ or large bowel in conjunction with primary fascial closure, and 13 (12.5{\%}) patients had stoma formation and primary fascial closure. There were no differences in abdominal abscess or leak rates between groups. There were four deaths, none of which was secondary to failure of an anastomosis. Conclusion: Bowel resection with PR appears to be a safe alternative after destructive bowel injury and results in acceptable morbidity when performed in conjunction with open abdominal management.",
author = "Marco Chavarria-Aguilar and Cockerham, {William T.} and Barker, {Donald E.} and Ciraulo, {David L.} and Richart, {Charles M.} and Robert Maxwell",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/01.TA.0000115065.39699.6A",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "56",
pages = "560--564",
journal = "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery",
issn = "2163-0755",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Management of Destructive Bowel Injury in the Open Abdomen

AU - Chavarria-Aguilar, Marco

AU - Cockerham, William T.

AU - Barker, Donald E.

AU - Ciraulo, David L.

AU - Richart, Charles M.

AU - Maxwell, Robert

PY - 2004/1/1

Y1 - 2004/1/1

N2 - Background: Little attention has been focused on destructive injuries of the bowel in patients requiring open abdominal management. We therefore reviewed our institutional experience for destructive bowel injury requiring open abdominal management with the vacuum pack technique (vac). Methods: The trauma registry at a Level I trauma center was used to identify patients sustaining destructive bowel injury for an 11-year period beginning in May 1990. Patients were assessed for pertinent clinical and demographic information, and individuals requiring open abdominal management were compared with those who did not. Results: One hundred four patients required bowel resection and constitute the study population. Twenty-nine patients had vacs placed, with 22 (75.9%) of the total eventually obtaining delayed fascial closure. Nineteen (18.3%) patients had resection and primary repair (PR) of large and/or small bowel in conjunction with a vac, 10 (9.6%) patients had stoma formation in conjunction with a vac, 62 (59.6%) patients had resection and PR of small and/ or large bowel in conjunction with primary fascial closure, and 13 (12.5%) patients had stoma formation and primary fascial closure. There were no differences in abdominal abscess or leak rates between groups. There were four deaths, none of which was secondary to failure of an anastomosis. Conclusion: Bowel resection with PR appears to be a safe alternative after destructive bowel injury and results in acceptable morbidity when performed in conjunction with open abdominal management.

AB - Background: Little attention has been focused on destructive injuries of the bowel in patients requiring open abdominal management. We therefore reviewed our institutional experience for destructive bowel injury requiring open abdominal management with the vacuum pack technique (vac). Methods: The trauma registry at a Level I trauma center was used to identify patients sustaining destructive bowel injury for an 11-year period beginning in May 1990. Patients were assessed for pertinent clinical and demographic information, and individuals requiring open abdominal management were compared with those who did not. Results: One hundred four patients required bowel resection and constitute the study population. Twenty-nine patients had vacs placed, with 22 (75.9%) of the total eventually obtaining delayed fascial closure. Nineteen (18.3%) patients had resection and primary repair (PR) of large and/or small bowel in conjunction with a vac, 10 (9.6%) patients had stoma formation in conjunction with a vac, 62 (59.6%) patients had resection and PR of small and/ or large bowel in conjunction with primary fascial closure, and 13 (12.5%) patients had stoma formation and primary fascial closure. There were no differences in abdominal abscess or leak rates between groups. There were four deaths, none of which was secondary to failure of an anastomosis. Conclusion: Bowel resection with PR appears to be a safe alternative after destructive bowel injury and results in acceptable morbidity when performed in conjunction with open abdominal management.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1942476738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1942476738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.TA.0000115065.39699.6A

DO - 10.1097/01.TA.0000115065.39699.6A

M3 - Review article

VL - 56

SP - 560

EP - 564

JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

SN - 2163-0755

IS - 3

ER -