Are commercial negative pressure systems worth the cost in open abdomen management?

Richard C. Frazee, Stephen W. Abernathy, Daniel Jupiter, John C. Hendricks, Matthew Davis, Justin L. Regner, Travis Isbell, Randall W. Smith, W. Roy Smythe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: A commercial negative pressure product is compared with the Barker technique (sterile x-ray cassette cover, lap pads, adhesive drape with negative pressure) for temporary abdominal closure in open abdomen management. Study Design: We performed a retrospective review of 37 open abdomen patients who had temporary abdominal closure with a commercial negative pressure device (ABThera, KCI) from 2010 to 2011. These patients were compared with the most recent 37 patients having open abdomen management using the Barker technique from 2009 to 2010. Patient demographics, body mass index (BMI), preoperative albumin, indication for open abdomen management, number of operations, use of sequential closure, and success with closure were analyzed. Patients were compared using chi square, t-test, and logistic regression analysis with significance of p < 0.05. Results: Mean age and BMI were significantly higher in the ABThera patients. No statistically significant differences were seen in male:female ratio, indication for open abdomen management, preoperative albumin, number of operations, and use of sequential closure. In 33 patients (89%) ultimate midline fascial closure was achieved with the ABThera vs in 22 patients (59%) using the Barker technique (p < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis was performed on the 3 significant variables identified on bivariate analysis. Only the type of temporary abdominal closure proved significant, with an odds ratio of 7.97 favoring ABThera (95% CI 1.98 to 32.00). Conclusions: A commercially available negative pressure device for temporary abdominal closure had significantly greater success with ultimate closure after open abdomen management compared with the Barker technique. The added cost of the device is offset by improved patient results and savings from successful closure.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)730-735
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of the American College of Surgeons
Volume216
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Abdomen
Pressure
Costs and Cost Analysis
Equipment and Supplies
Albumins
Body Mass Index
Logistic Models
Regression Analysis
Chi-Square Distribution
Adhesives
Odds Ratio
X-Rays
Demography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Are commercial negative pressure systems worth the cost in open abdomen management? / Frazee, Richard C.; Abernathy, Stephen W.; Jupiter, Daniel; Hendricks, John C.; Davis, Matthew; Regner, Justin L.; Isbell, Travis; Smith, Randall W.; Smythe, W. Roy.

In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Vol. 216, No. 4, 04.2013, p. 730-735.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Frazee, RC, Abernathy, SW, Jupiter, D, Hendricks, JC, Davis, M, Regner, JL, Isbell, T, Smith, RW & Smythe, WR 2013, 'Are commercial negative pressure systems worth the cost in open abdomen management?', Journal of the American College of Surgeons, vol. 216, no. 4, pp. 730-735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.035
Frazee, Richard C. ; Abernathy, Stephen W. ; Jupiter, Daniel ; Hendricks, John C. ; Davis, Matthew ; Regner, Justin L. ; Isbell, Travis ; Smith, Randall W. ; Smythe, W. Roy. / Are commercial negative pressure systems worth the cost in open abdomen management?. In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2013 ; Vol. 216, No. 4. pp. 730-735.
@article{788c81b9f74f41ac8fa8ac9ae7e93388,
title = "Are commercial negative pressure systems worth the cost in open abdomen management?",
abstract = "Background: A commercial negative pressure product is compared with the Barker technique (sterile x-ray cassette cover, lap pads, adhesive drape with negative pressure) for temporary abdominal closure in open abdomen management. Study Design: We performed a retrospective review of 37 open abdomen patients who had temporary abdominal closure with a commercial negative pressure device (ABThera, KCI) from 2010 to 2011. These patients were compared with the most recent 37 patients having open abdomen management using the Barker technique from 2009 to 2010. Patient demographics, body mass index (BMI), preoperative albumin, indication for open abdomen management, number of operations, use of sequential closure, and success with closure were analyzed. Patients were compared using chi square, t-test, and logistic regression analysis with significance of p < 0.05. Results: Mean age and BMI were significantly higher in the ABThera patients. No statistically significant differences were seen in male:female ratio, indication for open abdomen management, preoperative albumin, number of operations, and use of sequential closure. In 33 patients (89{\%}) ultimate midline fascial closure was achieved with the ABThera vs in 22 patients (59{\%}) using the Barker technique (p < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis was performed on the 3 significant variables identified on bivariate analysis. Only the type of temporary abdominal closure proved significant, with an odds ratio of 7.97 favoring ABThera (95{\%} CI 1.98 to 32.00). Conclusions: A commercially available negative pressure device for temporary abdominal closure had significantly greater success with ultimate closure after open abdomen management compared with the Barker technique. The added cost of the device is offset by improved patient results and savings from successful closure.",
author = "Frazee, {Richard C.} and Abernathy, {Stephen W.} and Daniel Jupiter and Hendricks, {John C.} and Matthew Davis and Regner, {Justin L.} and Travis Isbell and Smith, {Randall W.} and Smythe, {W. Roy}",
year = "2013",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.035",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "216",
pages = "730--735",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Surgeons",
issn = "1072-7515",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are commercial negative pressure systems worth the cost in open abdomen management?

AU - Frazee, Richard C.

AU - Abernathy, Stephen W.

AU - Jupiter, Daniel

AU - Hendricks, John C.

AU - Davis, Matthew

AU - Regner, Justin L.

AU - Isbell, Travis

AU - Smith, Randall W.

AU - Smythe, W. Roy

PY - 2013/4

Y1 - 2013/4

N2 - Background: A commercial negative pressure product is compared with the Barker technique (sterile x-ray cassette cover, lap pads, adhesive drape with negative pressure) for temporary abdominal closure in open abdomen management. Study Design: We performed a retrospective review of 37 open abdomen patients who had temporary abdominal closure with a commercial negative pressure device (ABThera, KCI) from 2010 to 2011. These patients were compared with the most recent 37 patients having open abdomen management using the Barker technique from 2009 to 2010. Patient demographics, body mass index (BMI), preoperative albumin, indication for open abdomen management, number of operations, use of sequential closure, and success with closure were analyzed. Patients were compared using chi square, t-test, and logistic regression analysis with significance of p < 0.05. Results: Mean age and BMI were significantly higher in the ABThera patients. No statistically significant differences were seen in male:female ratio, indication for open abdomen management, preoperative albumin, number of operations, and use of sequential closure. In 33 patients (89%) ultimate midline fascial closure was achieved with the ABThera vs in 22 patients (59%) using the Barker technique (p < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis was performed on the 3 significant variables identified on bivariate analysis. Only the type of temporary abdominal closure proved significant, with an odds ratio of 7.97 favoring ABThera (95% CI 1.98 to 32.00). Conclusions: A commercially available negative pressure device for temporary abdominal closure had significantly greater success with ultimate closure after open abdomen management compared with the Barker technique. The added cost of the device is offset by improved patient results and savings from successful closure.

AB - Background: A commercial negative pressure product is compared with the Barker technique (sterile x-ray cassette cover, lap pads, adhesive drape with negative pressure) for temporary abdominal closure in open abdomen management. Study Design: We performed a retrospective review of 37 open abdomen patients who had temporary abdominal closure with a commercial negative pressure device (ABThera, KCI) from 2010 to 2011. These patients were compared with the most recent 37 patients having open abdomen management using the Barker technique from 2009 to 2010. Patient demographics, body mass index (BMI), preoperative albumin, indication for open abdomen management, number of operations, use of sequential closure, and success with closure were analyzed. Patients were compared using chi square, t-test, and logistic regression analysis with significance of p < 0.05. Results: Mean age and BMI were significantly higher in the ABThera patients. No statistically significant differences were seen in male:female ratio, indication for open abdomen management, preoperative albumin, number of operations, and use of sequential closure. In 33 patients (89%) ultimate midline fascial closure was achieved with the ABThera vs in 22 patients (59%) using the Barker technique (p < 0.05). Logistic regression analysis was performed on the 3 significant variables identified on bivariate analysis. Only the type of temporary abdominal closure proved significant, with an odds ratio of 7.97 favoring ABThera (95% CI 1.98 to 32.00). Conclusions: A commercially available negative pressure device for temporary abdominal closure had significantly greater success with ultimate closure after open abdomen management compared with the Barker technique. The added cost of the device is offset by improved patient results and savings from successful closure.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84875369334&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84875369334&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.035

DO - 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.035

M3 - Article

C2 - 23415556

AN - SCOPUS:84875369334

VL - 216

SP - 730

EP - 735

JO - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

JF - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

SN - 1072-7515

IS - 4

ER -