Vacuum-assisted closure or primary closure with relaparotomy on-demand in patients with secondary peritonitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

真空辅助闭合术或一期缝合术联合按需再次剖腹探查治疗继发性腹膜炎:系统评价和荟萃分析

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Secondary peritonitis is a serious condition with significant morbidity and mortality. Its management requires emergency laparotomy for source control. Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) and primary abdominal closure (PAC) are the main strategies for managing the laparostomy after source control. Despite the increasing use of VAC, concerns persist regarding its complications and long-term outcomes compared with PAC. METHODS: This systematic review followed PRISMA 2020 and MOOSE. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 2) tool, MINORS and GRADE framework assessed study quality and evidence certainty. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022304724). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from January 2004 to August 2024 identified studies reporting postoperative outcomes following VAC or PAC after laparotomy for secondary peritonitis. The included studies had to report at least two key outcomes: mortality, postoperative complications, incisional hernia, secondary fascial closure, and hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies including 4,520 patients were analyzed. Mortality was 31.1% in VAC and 22.2% in PAC (p = 0.327). Postoperative complications were higher with VAC (71.0% vs. 39.3%, p = 0.001). Incisional hernia rates were similar (21.3% vs. 20.8%, p = 0.958). Secondary fascial closure rate was significantly lower with VAC (58.1% vs. 85.9%, p < 0.001). VAC patients had longer ICU stays (21.1 vs. 9.7 days, p = 0.04), while hospital stay did not differ. Most studies had a high risk of bias, and GRADE assessment showed low to very low evidence certainty. CONCLUSION: VAC therapy was associated with more postoperative complications, a lower fascial closure rate, and a longer ICU length of stay compared with PAC. Thirty-day mortality rates did not differ between the approaches. However, most of studies included were subject to serious risk of bias and a low level of certainty in evidence.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。