Format

Send to

Choose Destination

See 1 citation found by title matching your search:

Ann Surg Treat Res. 2014 Nov;87(5):260-4. doi: 10.4174/astr.2014.87.5.260. Epub 2014 Oct 24.

Vacuum-assisted close versus conventional treatment for postlaparotomy wound dehiscence.

Author information

1
Department of Surgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

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.

KEYWORDS:

Dehiscence; Vacuum-assisted closure; Wound

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for The Korean Surgical Society Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center