Abstract
The primary goals of the third phase of damage control surgery (DC III) are to achieve definitive repair of organ injuries and to close the fascia over surgical wounds where possible. Although the optimal timing is variable and dependent on numerous patient factors, DC III is typically undertaken 24–36 h after the initial surgery. This time is needed for appropriate resuscitation, allowing the patient to reestablish proper homeostasis. The patient will thereby tolerate the longer operative time and more extensive intervention(s) that may be necessary to definitively repair the injuries sustained. Specifically, the decision to proceed with DC III should not be undertaken until the patient’s coagulopathy has been corrected and he/she is normothermic and has a normal acid-base balance. Additional considerations such as vasopressor requirements also impact on the timing and probability of success of DC III. Ideally, patients should be weaned off of vasopressors entirely or, at a minimum, their pressor requirements should be decreasing. Ongoing physiologic instability or hypothermia despite appropriate medical therapy should raise concern for a missed injury. Definitive repair should be delayed but early operative re-exploration to evaluate for missed injury may be warranted. On-demand repeat laparotomy in these cases can decrease patient mortality [1].
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
1 Goals and Timing of Damage Control Phase III
The primary goals of the third phase of damage control surgery (DC III) are to achieve definitive repair of organ injuries and to close the fascia over surgical wounds where possible. Although the optimal timing is variable and dependent on numerous patient factors, DC III is typically undertaken 24–36 h after the initial surgery. This time is needed for appropriate resuscitation, allowing the patient to reestablish proper homeostasis. The patient will thereby tolerate the longer operative time and more extensive intervention(s) that may be necessary to definitively repair the injuries sustained. Specifically, the decision to proceed with DC III should not be undertaken until the patient’s coagulopathy has been corrected and he/she is normothermic and has a normal acid-base balance. Additional considerations such as vasopressor requirements also impact on the timing and probability of success of DC III. Ideally, patients should be weaned off of vasopressors entirely or, at a minimum, their pressor requirements should be decreasing. Ongoing physiologic instability or hypothermia despite appropriate medical therapy should raise concern for a missed injury. Definitive repair should be delayed but early operative re-exploration to evaluate for missed injury may be warranted. On-demand repeat laparotomy in these cases can decrease patient mortality [1].
Some notable scenarios exist wherein earlier timing of definitive repair is potentially favorable. For example, in peripheral vascular injury, thrombosis of a temporary shunt and subsequent potential for tissue loss may motivate earlier initiation of DC III. There are no studies assessing the maximal time that bowel segments can be left in discontinuity, but most trauma surgeons recommend creation of anastomoses or stoma to decompress isolated segments of the intestine no later than 96 h following DC I. It is logical to assume that earlier anastomosis or creation of a stoma is preferred, as long as the patient has been appropriately resuscitated and normal physiologic milieu reestablished.
2 Repair of Injuries: General Considerations
Once in the operating room, the patient should be positioned, prepped, and draped to ensure adequate exposure of all injuries to be addressed. This may include extremity exposure sufficient to allow proximal and distal control of vascular injuries and to allow for autologous vein harvest. In cases where a single position to undertake all necessary repairs is not possible, phases of the operation should be planned preoperatively. The surgeon can also elect to stage the procedures based on the patient’s physiologic reserve and status. Communication and coordination with the anesthesia team both before and during the operation are vital in making these decisions, and the surgeon must be prepared to adjust the operative plan if the patient shows signs of instability.
3 Repair of Vascular Injury
Vascular repair in DC III involves removal of shunts placed in DC I and placement of interposition grafts. Although vascular surgery can be consulted to assist with definitive repair, excellent outcomes have been reported following vascular repair by experienced trauma surgeons [2]. As with elective vascular operations, proximal and distal control is obtained using atraumatic clamps. Next, the vessel wall should be inspected for damage to the intima or muscular layers and should be debrided as necessary. The portion of the vessel that was used to tie and fix the shunt in place should be resected. If the ends of the vessel are not long enough to support a tension-free end-to-end anastomosis, an interposition graft should be fashioned. Prior to completion of the anastomosis, care should be taken to remove any intraluminal thrombus. The proximal vessel is allowed to bleed for several pulses, while the distal vessel may be allowed to backbleed in order to remove thrombus. A Fogarty balloon catheter should be used to remove clot. The full technique for performing a vascular anastomosis is standardized, and full details are beyond the scope of this chapter. Use of extraanatomic bypass may be necessary when autologous sources are unavailable and contamination is severe.
The choice of conduit is an important consideration in planning repair of vascular injuries. The choice between autologous conduit (commonly a reversed saphenous vein graft) and synthetic alternatives such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) remains controversial. Data regarding where synthetic grafts can be safely used following damage control surgery are conflicting, and there are no definitive, well-designed trials upon which to base strategy. In a review of surgical experiences surrounding the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, synthetic grafts were found to have a 77% complication rate and a higher incidence of amputation than vein grafts (31% vs 18%) [3]. The small numbers of prosthetic grafts placed and high energy wounding patterns limited this review. A study of 206 patients with vascular trauma demonstrated that PTFE had lower rates of long-term patency than autologous grafts, but that infectious complications only occurred in the setting of exposed graft and concomitant osteomyelitis [4]. Similarly, a small study using a canine model and a small number of trauma patients found that the use of vein conduits in contaminated wounds was associated with a greater incidence of vascular disruption than PTFE; however, the small numbers involved in the study limit its generalizability [5]. In a subsequent retrospective review, Mitchell and Thal concluded that fears of anastomotic dehiscence following infection of vein autograft were overstated and found vein to be a safe conduit in vascular trauma [6].
In the absence of definitive data comparing synthetic with autologous grafts in trauma patients, the choice of conduit should be informed by careful consideration of patient factors, which include the caliber of the damaged vessel, location (extremities versus trunk), and amount of contamination present within the wound. Large vessels can be treated with either prosthetic graft or cadaveric homografts [7, 8]. While use of synthetic grafts allows for speedier operation and obviates the need to create more wounds, use of autologous material or homograft may be associated with lower infection and therefore anastomotic dehiscence rates. Regardless of the choice of conduit, every attempt should be made to cover the anastomosis in order to prevent complications such as pseudoaneurysm formation or actual free disruption and life-threatening hemorrhage.
4 Repair of Injuries: Solid Organ Abdominal Injuries
Following removal of the temporary abdominal closure device, the abdominal contents should be carefully inspected with particular attention paid to any repairs made during the index operation and for identification of possible missed injuries. Special consideration is required in patients following ballistic injuries as the zone of injury can extend beyond the direct path of the projectile, resulting in a delayed manifestation of the true extent of injured tissue. This may necessitate further bowel resection to allow for safe anastomosis.
Similarly, the severity of pancreatic injury may be better assessed during this phase because small volume leak from the pancreatic substance will manifest as saponification. This finding will frequently lead the trauma surgeon to drain the pancreatic bed or consider pancreatic resection, depending on the nature of the injury and timing since injury [9].
Severe hepatic injury is often initially managed with packing and embolization or ligation of bleeding vessels. At the time of DC III, depending on the location and severity of the injury, resection of devitalized segments of the liver may be necessary. Whereas most surgeons avoid hepatic resection as much as possible, one study found that an aggressive debridement strategy resulted in a significant decrease in the overall number of procedures as well as complications. However, this approach was also associated with a significant risk of intraoperative hemorrhage [10]. At the least, the presence of devitalized hepatic tissue or deep laceration should raise concern for a postoperative bile leak or abscess, and the region should be drained preemptively.
The right hemidiaphragm should be inspected in any injury pattern that includes significant hepatic injury. Diaphragmatic defects should be repaired as best as possible in order to decrease the risk of biliopleural fistula [11]. Although rare, formation of a biliopleural fistula is associated with the need for prolonged tube thoracostomy and possible respiratory failure due to inflammation of the lung [12].
5 Repair of Gastrointestinal Injury
The repair of gastrointestinal injuries during DC III is a complex issue. Although creation of a small bowel anastomosis is generally considered to be safe and appropriate in DC III, creation of an anastomosis involving the large intestine requires careful consideration. Overall, the literature favors primary repair and the creation of delayed anastomosis after damage control laparotomy but with due consideration of known risk factors for anastomotic leak. In one meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, primary repair had lower morbidity and procedure-related cost than diversion with no difference in mortality [13]. A similar multicenter prospective randomized study of 297 patients found no difference in abdominal complications between the ostomy and primary anastomosis groups, irrespective of associated risk factors [14]. A single-institution review of patients with colonic injury following penetrating trauma found that 81% were successfully treated with delayed anastomosis of their injuries following damage control laparotomy but found that persistent metabolic acidosis or intraabdominal contamination were risk factors for leak [15]. Other smaller studies also support this finding, demonstrating that delayed anastomosis and immediate anastomosis have similar complication rates [16]. Recent military data also have shown no difference in complications between delayed anastomosis and diversion [17]; however, one study found lower complication rates in patients treated with an immediate ostomy than those who underwent damage control [18]. Conversely, other studies have found that delayed colonic anastomosis has higher complication rates than seen with anastomoses created in a single laparotomy, suggesting that the open abdomen is particularly deleterious to the viability of colonic anastomoses [19,20,21]. Although there is no clear consensus, overall these studies suggest that delayed anastomosis is a viable and safe management strategy for colonic injury within the damage control sequence.
Following creation of an anastomosis, studies suggest a significant risk of enteral leak if the abdominal wall is not closed. While a perceived inability to definitively close the abdomen should not rule out anastomosis during DC III operations, the risk of leak and fistula formation with a persistent open abdomen must be taken into consideration. If the abdomen is left open following definitive repair of bowel injury, conventional teaching involves attempting to minimize these risks by covering anastomoses with omentum or bowel. Studies supporting this intervention involve esophageal anastomoses [22]; there are no studies upon which to base this strategy following damage control operation.
Potential for abdominal closure is not the only important determinant of optimal surgical management of bowel injuries. The decision between creation of an anastomosis during DC III and formation of an ostomy should be undertaken after consideration of the patient-specific risk factors. Factors such as the presence of significant medical comorbidities, tobacco use, and malnutrition present well-known risks for anastomotic leaks [23,24,25]. Other risk factors that are especially relevant to trauma patients and to patients undergoing damage control laparotomy include ongoing malperfusion due to sepsis, cardiopulmonary failure, or any other cause as well as perioperative blood transfusions [26]. Unfortunately, there are few studies evaluating risk factors specifically due to delayed anastomosis following injury. Demetriades et al. found that anastomotic leak was increased in penetrating trauma patients with severe fecal contamination, transfusion of four or more units of blood within the first 24 h, and in those who received single-agent antibiotic prophylaxis perioperatively [27]. Another study of patients undergoing colon resection for cancer found that the probability of leak was independently associated with the American Society of Anesthesiologists grade and need for emergency operation [28]. Similarly, perioperative vasopressor requirements are associated with a more than fourfold increase in anastomotic leak rates [29]. These findings underscore the importance of appropriate timing of DC III operations. If patient risks cannot be adequately managed in a timely fashion, bowel anastomosis should not be undertaken at the time of DC III operations, and instead an ostomy should be formed with closure of the abdomen. Alternatively, the timing of DC III should be delayed.
Patients with traumatic brain injury rely on maintenance of normal cerebral perfusion pressure, and in these patients any septic insult and subsequent depression of blood pressure can be especially deleterious. Because of their inability to tolerate the possible septic complications of an anastomotic leak, patients with TBI and risk factors for leak should be managed with an ostomy rather than attempt at anastomosis during DC III operations. Similarly, elderly or chronically ill patients with little physiologic reserve are less likely to survive the septic complications of an anastomotic leak, and preference should be given to formation of an ostomy in these cohorts.
The anatomic location of the injured bowel is important in determining whether to attempt anastomosis. Proximal small bowel injuries should be managed during DC III with anastomosis whenever possible in order to maximize the amount of bowel available for absorption and to reduce complications related to malnutrition and electrolyte shifts during recovery. Although not specific to trauma, the colorectal surgical literature demonstrates higher leak rates for low colonic and rectal anastomoses, suggesting that these injuries should be treated with creation of an ostomy or at least protected initially by a proximal diverting stoma [26]. Similarly, left-sided anastomoses present a risk factor for anastomotic leak [19].
Creation of a stapled versus hand-sewn anastomosis during DC III remains controversial. One multicenter retrospective study showed a slight increase in leak rates for stapled anastomoses in trauma patients [30], and another study showed a more than twofold increase in risk for anastomotic leak in stapled anastomoses in emergency general surgery patients [31]. The possible reason to account for this involves bowel edema which may preclude adequate sealing of the two loops of the intestine using a stapler. However, a prospective multicenter study of trauma patients showed no difference in outcomes between the two techniques [27]. Furthermore, while not specific to trauma patients, one randomized prospective study of 652 patients found no significant difference in leak rates between stapled and hand-sewn anastomoses [32], and a larger prospective study of 1,417 patients with anastomoses above the peritoneal reflection also found no difference in leak rates [28]. Ultimately, the surgeon’s technical proficiency with each technique should determine the operative approach to anastomosis with the understanding that the operative strategy must be tailored to the patient and the condition of the tissues.
If creation of an anastomosis during DC III is ruled out based on any of the above factors, stoma formation should be undertaken. When creating an ostomy, the site should be chosen in order to minimize potential for fecal contamination of the midline laparotomy wound and subsequent necrosis of the abdominal fascia. Choice of an ostomy site 3–4 cm lateral to the lateral edge of the rectus abdominis muscle in order to reduce proximity to the midline laparotomy wound may help to minimize risks associated with spillage of intestinal contents into the surgical wound and will facilitate application of stoma appliances without interfering with midline wound dressings. Furthermore, such lateral placement of stomas will facilitate component separation closure of the abdominal wall should the patient develop a hernia.
Lastly, consideration for placement of feeding tubes or tubes to decompress the alimentary tract is appropriate during this phase of damage control operation. The overall care plan must now also include how to allow the patient to convalesce. Durable enteral feeding access should be considered prior to abdominal closure as gastrostomy or jejunostomy tube placement may be risk prohibitive after DC III. When placed, the tubes should exit the abdominal wall well away from the lateral border of the rectus abdominis muscles so as to minimize risk that a leak will contaminate the midline wound. In addition, as discussed above, leaving the medial border of the external oblique muscle unviolated facilitates a later component separation operation.
6 Abdominal Wall Closure
Once all necessary operative goals are met, definitive abdominal closure should be attempted as quickly as possible to minimize the deleterious effects of an open abdomen. The length of time the abdomen is left open correlates directly with the incidence of complications and is inversely related to the probability of primary fascial closure [33]. If repeated attempts at fascial closure are unsuccessful, the abdominal wall should be closed using an inlay mesh or via intentional creation of a ventral hernia with skin-only closure. Planned future ventral herniorrhaphy may be necessary with either technique.
Primary fascial closure is the optimal method for closing the abdomen. This technique involves the direct approximation of the fascial edges and has the lowest incidence of hernia and enterocutaneous fistula formation following damage control laparotomy. Although complications are less likely with primary fascial closure, care must be taken to avoid excessive tension on the abdominal wall, as this can precipitate failure of the closure or may predispose patients to development of abdominal compartment syndrome [34]. Although it is the preferred method for abdominal wall closure, a ventral hernia will develop in up to 30% of these patients [35]. Although not studied well, primary fascial closure can be augmented with mesh reinforcement in an attempt to lower this risk [36, 37]. Permanent, synthetic meshes are relatively contraindicated in patients with risk factors for mesh infection such as wound soilage, and many authors recommend use of biologic mesh in these instances. More advanced techniques of fascial closure such as a separation of abdominal wall components laterally to allow for direct apposition of the fascia at the midline may be used, but a detailed discussion of these methods is beyond the scope of this chapter [38, 39].
If primary fascial closure is not possible, an alternative is functional closure by placing a mesh inlay as a bridge between the edges of the fascia. Most commonly, a biologic mesh is used due to concern about infection. The mesh acts as a scaffolding for ingrowth of native fascial tissue [40]. Once the mesh is placed, the skin is closed and drains can be placed to prevent seroma accumulation as needed. Unfortunately, the natural evolution of an inlay placement of biologic mesh is development of a “neo-hernia” due to stretching of the mesh over time. This can lead to patient dissatisfaction and need for repeat operative repair. While the late incidence of ventral hernia formation after functional closure is not well established, one study using acellular dermal matrix found an 80% incidence over a mean follow-up of 21.4 months despite skin closure over the mesh [41].
If skin closure is not possible, inlay placement of biologic mesh should be avoided as exposed mesh will undergo degradation and dissolution until it is replaced by granulation tissue over the viscera. Rather, a less expensive dissolving mesh, such as Vicryl™, can be used. This process usually occurs over 3–6 weeks. The resultant granulation tissue will require skin grafting and will ultimately lead to a ventral hernia which can be repaired in 8–12 months when the inflammatory process in the abdomen has resolved and the viscera are again mobile [42]. This delayed ventral herniorrhaphy is frequently referred to as DC IV. The granulation phase, prior to skin grafting, is associated with up to 20% risk of developing an entero-atmospheric fistula formation. As noted above, this risk is highest in patients with an exposed anastomosis [43].
Conclusion
In conclusion, DC III refers to the phase of damage control related to definitive repair of injuries and closure of surgical incisions and wounds. The timing and method of repair need to be customized to each patient by taking into account patient- and injury-specific factors that impact on the probability of success.
References
Diaz Jr JJ, Cullinane DC, Dutton WD, Jerome R, Bagdonas R, Bilaniuk JW, Collier BR, Como JJ, Cumming J, Griffen M, et al. The management of the open abdomen in trauma and emergency general surgery: part 1-damage control. J Trauma. 2010;68:1425–38.
Porter J, Ivatury R. Should trauma surgeons render definitive vascular repair in peripheral vascular injuries? Am Surg. 2001;67:427–9.
Rich NM, Hughes CW. The fate of prosthetic material used to repair vascular injuries in contaminated wounds. J Trauma. 1972;12:459–67.
Feliciano DV, Mattox KL, Graham JM, Bitondo CG. Five-year experience with PTFE grafts in vascular wounds. J Trauma. 1985;25:71–82.
Shah PM, Ito K, Clauss RH, Babu SC, Reynolds BM, Stahl WM. Expanded microporous polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) grafts in contaminated wounds: experimental and clinical study. J Trauma. 1983;23:1030–3.
Mitchell 3rd FL, Thal ER. Results of venous interposition grafts in arterial injuries. J Trauma. 1990;30:336–9.
Chiesa R, Astore D, Piccolo G, Melissano G, Jannello A, Frigerio D, Agrifoglio G, Bonalumi F, Corsi G, Costantini Brancadoro S, et al. Fresh and cryopreserved arterial homografts in the treatment of prosthetic graft infections: experience of the Italian Collaborative Vascular Homograft Group. Ann Vasc Surg. 1998;12:457–62.
Lavigne JP, Postal A, Kolh P, Limet R. Prosthetic vascular infection complicated or not by aortoenteric fistula: comparison of treatment with and without cryopreserved allograft (homograft). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2003;25:416–23.
Heuer M, Hussmann B, Lefering R, Taeger G, Kaiser GM, Paul A, Lendemans S. Pancreatic injury in 284 patients with severe abdominal trauma: outcome, course, and treatment algorithm. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2011;396:1067–76.
Dabbs DN, Stein DM, Philosophe B, Scalea TM. Treatment of major hepatic necrosis: lobectomy versus serial debridement. J Trauma. 2010;69:562–7.
Welsford M. Diaphragmatic injuries. Medscape, 2013. http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic136.htm. Accessed 20 Sept 2015.
Strange C, Allen ML, Freedland PN, Cunningham J, Sahn SA. Biliopleural fistula as a complication of percutaneous biliary drainage: experimental evidence for pleural inflammation. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1988;137:959–61.
Nelson R, Singer M. Primary repair for penetrating colon injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003:CD002247. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002247/full. The article was accessed on 4/5/2016.
Demetriades D, Murray JA, Chan L, Ordonez C, Bowley D, Nagy KK, Cornwell 3rd EE, Velmahos GC, Munoz N, Hatzitheofilou C, et al. Penetrating colon injuries requiring resection: diversion or primary anastomosis? An AAST prospective multicenter study. J Trauma. 2001;50:765–75.
Ordonez CA, Pino LF, Badiel M, Sanchez AI, Loaiza J, Ballestas L, Puyana JC. Safety of performing a delayed anastomosis during damage control laparotomy in patients with destructive colon injuries. J Trauma. 2011;71:1512–7. discussion 7–8
Miller PR, Chang MC, Hoth JJ, Holmes JH, Meredith JW. Colonic resection in the setting of damage control laparotomy: is delayed anastomosis safe? Am Surg. 2007;73:606–9. discussion 9–10
Vertrees A, Wakefield M, Pickett C, Greer L, Wilson A, Gillern S, Nelson J, Aydelotte J, Stojadinovic A, Shriver C. Outcomes of primary repair and primary anastomosis in war-related colon injuries. J Trauma. 2009;66:1286–91. discussion 91–3
Cho SD, Kiraly LN, Flaherty SF, Herzig DO, Lu KC, Schreiber MA. Management of colonic injuries in the combat theater. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:728–34.
Ott MM, Norris PR, Diaz JJ, Collier BR, Jenkins JM, Gunter OL, Morris Jr JA. Colon anastomosis after damage control laparotomy: recommendations from 174 trauma colectomies. J Trauma. 2011;70:595–602.
Kashuk JL, Cothren CC, Moore EE, Johnson JL, Biffl WL, Barnett CC. Primary repair of civilian colon injuries is safe in the damage control scenario. Surgery. 2009;146:663–8. discussion 8–70
Weinberg JA, Griffin RL, Vandromme MJ, Melton SM, George RL, Reiff DA, Kerby JD, Rue 3rd LW. Management of colon wounds in the setting of damage control laparotomy: a cautionary tale. J Trauma. 2009;67:929–35.
Bhat MA, Dar MA, Lone GN, Dar AM. Use of pedicled omentum in esophagogastric anastomosis for prevention of anastomotic leak. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006;82:1857–62.
Baucom RB, Poulose BK, Herline AJ, Muldoon RL, Cone MM, Geiger TM. Smoking as dominant risk factor for anastomotic leak after left colon resection. Am J Surg. 2015;210:1–5.
Kalogera E, Dowdy SC, Mariani A, Weaver AL, Aletti G, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Cliby WA. Multiple large bowel resections: potential risk factor for anastomotic leak. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:213–8.
Kang CY, Halabi WJ, Chaudhry OO, Nguyen V, Pigazzi A, Carmichael JC, Mills S, Stamos MJ. Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:65–71.
Kingham TP, Pachter HL. Colonic anastomotic leak: risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:269–78.
Demetriades D, Murray JA, Chan LS, Ordonez C, Bowley D, Nagy KK, Cornwell 3rd EE, Velmahos GC, Munoz N, Hatzitheofilou C, et al. Handsewn versus stapled anastomosis in penetrating colon injuries requiring resection: a multicenter study. J Trauma. 2002;52:117–21.
Choi HK, Law WL, Ho JW. Leakage after resection and intraperitoneal anastomosis for colorectal malignancy: analysis of risk factors. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:1719–25.
Fischer PE, Nunn AM, Wormer BA, Christmas AB, Gibeault LA, Green JM, Sing RF. Vasopressor use after initial damage control laparotomy increases risk for anastomotic disruption in the management of destructive colon injuries. Am J Surg. 2013;206:900–3.
Brundage SI, Jurkovich GJ, Hoyt DB, Patel NY, Ross SE, Marburger R, Stoner M, Ivatury RR, Ku J, Rutherford EJ, et al. Stapled versus sutured gastrointestinal anastomoses in the trauma patient: a multicenter trial. J Trauma. 2001;51:1054–61.
Farrah JP, Lauer CW, Bray MS, McCartt JM, Chang MC, Meredith JW, Miller PR, Mowery NT. Stapled versus hand-sewn anastomoses in emergency general surgery: a retrospective review of outcomes in a unique patient population. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74:1187–92. discussion 92–4
Docherty JG, McGregor JR, Akyol AM, Murray GD, Galloway DJ. Comparison of manually constructed and stapled anastomoses in colorectal surgery. West of Scotland and Highland Anastomosis Study Group. Ann Surg. 1995;221:176–84.
Miller RS, Morris Jr JA, Diaz Jr JJ, Herring MB, May AK. Complications after 344 damage-control open celiotomies. J Trauma. 2005;59:1365–71. discussion 71–4
Holodinsky JK, Roberts DJ, Ball CG, Blaser AR, Starkopf J, Zygun DA, Stelfox HT, Malbrain ML, Jaeschke RC, Kirkpatrick AW. Risk factors for intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome among adult intensive care unit patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2013;17:R249.
Patel NY, Cogbill TH, Kallies KJ, Mathiason MA. Temporary abdominal closure: long-term outcomes. J Trauma. 2011;70:769–74.
Tobias AM, Low DW. The use of a subfascial vicryl mesh buttress to aid in the closure of massive ventral hernias following damage-control laparotomy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112:766–76.
Wang TY, Elliott R, Low DW. Damage control abdomen: single-stage reconstruction using a vicryl mesh buttress. Ann Plast Surg. 2013;70:324–30.
Ramirez O, Ruas E, Dellon A. “Components separation” method for closure of abdominal wall defects: an anatomic and clinical study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1990;86:519–26.
Sailes FC, Walls J, Guelig D, Mirzabeigi M, Long WD, Crawford A, Moore Jr JH, Copit SE, Tuma GA, Fox J. Synthetic and biological mesh in component separation: a 10-year single institution review. Ann Plast Surg. 2010;64:696–8.
Diaz Jr JJ, Guy J, Berkes MB, Guillamondegui O, Miller RS. Acellular dermal allograft for ventral hernia repair in the compromised surgical field. Am Surg. 2006;72:1181–7. discussion 7–8
Jin J, Rosen MJ, Blatnik J, McGee MF, Williams CP, Marks J, Ponsky J. Use of acellular dermal matrix for complicated ventral hernia repair: does technique affect outcomes? J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205:654–60.
Jernigan TW, Fabian TC, Croce MA, Moore N, Pritchard FE, Minard G, Bee TK. Staged management of giant abdominal wall defects: acute and long-term results. Ann Surg. 2003;238:349–55. discussion 55–7
Rao M, Burke D, Finan PJ, Sagar PM. The use of vacuum-assisted closure of abdominal wounds: a word of caution. Color Dis. 2007;9:266–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sarani, B., Maluso, P. (2017). Damage Control Phase III: Repair of All Injuries, General Surgery. In: Pape, HC., Peitzman, A., Rotondo, M., Giannoudis, P. (eds) Damage Control Management in the Polytrauma Patient. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52429-0_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52429-0_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52427-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52429-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)