Abstract
Purpose
Damage control laparotomy (DCL) is used for both traumatic and non-traumatic indications. Failure to achieve primary fascial closure (PFC) in a timely fashion has been associated with complications including sepsis, fistula, and mortality. We sought to identify factors associated with time to PFC in a multicenter retrospective cohort.
Methods
We reviewed retrospective data from 15 centers in the EAST SLEEP-TIME registry, including age, comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]), small and large bowel resection, bowel discontinuity, vascular procedures, retained packs, number of re-laparotomies, net fluid balance after 24 h, trauma, and time to first takeback in 12-h increments to identify key factors associated with time to PFC.
Results
In total, 368 patients (71.2% trauma, of which 50.6% were penetrating, median ISS 25 [16, 34], with median Apache II score 15 [11, 22] in non-trauma) were in the cohort. Of these, 92.9% of patients achieved PFC at 60.8 ± 72.0 h after 1.6 ± 1.2 re-laparotomies. Each additional re-laparotomy reduced the odds of PFC by 91.5% (95%CI 88.2–93.9%, p < 0.001). Time to first re-laparotomy was highly significant (p < 0.001) in terms of odds of achieving PFC, with no difference between 12 and 24 h to first re-laparotomy (ref), and decreases in odds of PFC of 78.4% (65.8–86.4%, p < 0.001) for first re-laparotomy after 24.1–36 h, 90.8% (84.7–94.4%, p < 0.001) for 36.1–48 h, and 98.1% (96.4–99.0%, p < 0.001) for > 48 h. Trauma patients had increased likelihood of PFC in two separate analyses (p = 0.022 and 0.002).
Conclusion
Time to re-laparotomy ≤ 24 h and minimizing number of re-laparotomies are highly predictive of rapid achievement of PFC in patients after trauma- and non-trauma DCL.
Level of evidence
2B.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Background
Damage control laparotomy (DCL) was initially developed to treat critically ill trauma patients. The technique involves performing an abbreviated laparotomy with temporary abdominal closure to control acute hemorrhage and limit peritoneal contamination [1,2,3]. The patient is then transferred to an intensive care unit (ICU) for resuscitation and continued correction of acidosis, coagulopathy and hypothermia prior to definitive repair and closure in the operating room [4,5,6].
Gradually, surgeons have begun to apply DCL principles to critically ill emergency general surgery patients; acute mesenteric ischemia, postoperative peritonitis, and bowel perforation are just a few of the diagnoses resulting in the use of DCL in recent literature. Utilization of DCL in critically ill trauma patients has been associated with improved outcomes and decreased mortality [5]. DCL has gradually become an accepted strategy for non-trauma abdominal emergencies such as acute mesenteric ischemia and bowel perforation [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. DCL has been associated with increased hospital length of stay (LOS)and resource utilization, although these findings may actually represent survival or selection bias as there are no randomized controlled trials in this area [19, 20]. In the trauma population, DCL-associated complications include wound infections, enterocutaneous or entero-atmospheric fistula (ECF/EAF), intra-abdominal sepsis (IAS), and mortality [18, 19, 21]. ECF are associated with increased morbidity and mortality, as they can lead to many complications, including fluid loss, electrolyte abnormalities, complex wound care issues, malnutrition, and increased ICU and hospital LOS [22]. Large bowel resection, large-volume fluid resuscitation, and increased number of re-laparotomies were statistically significant predictors of ECF, EAF, or IAS in trauma patients who underwent DCL [18]. Some data suggest that early fascial closure is associated with reduced complications in patients who undergo DCL [23].
Bradley previously reported that time to the first re-laparotomy was a key predictor of time to PFC, particularly with time intervals less than 24 h; however, this work did not further subdivide the first 24 h, nor did it include non-trauma patients [18]. We therefore sought to elucidate factors associated with time to PFC in both trauma and non-trauma patients.
Although there is an increasing number of studies related to the use of DCL in non-trauma patients, there is a paucity of data on identifying factors associated with time to PFC in this patient population [7,8,9, 11,12,13,14,15]. The authors of this study reviewed retrospective data from 15 centers over a 2-year period as part of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial entitled “Sedation Level after Emergency Exlap with Packing—TIME to Primary Fascial Closure (SLEEP-TIME)” to identify factors associated with time to PFC in both trauma and non-trauma populations.
Methods
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
We reviewed retrospective data from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018 from 15 centers in the EAST SLEEP-TIME trial. This study was evaluated by the Institutional Review Board at the Loma Linda University Medical Center and judged to be exempt from IRB review. The EAST SLEEP-TIME trial included all adult patients undergoing DCL, regardless of diagnosis, with at least daily recordings of Richmond Agitation Sedation Score (RASS) and/or Confusion Assessment Method-ICU (CAM-ICU) admitted during the previously mentioned dates. In this pre-planned study of existing data from the SLEEP-TIME trial, we included all adults undergoing DCL regardless of diagnosis. Patients younger than 18 years, pregnant women, prisoners, and patients who died before the first takeback were excluded. Of note, the criteria for which DCL were selected as an operative technique could not be standardized in this retrospective analysis.
Data collection and analysis
Each center coordinated with the primary site in obtaining appropriate local IRB approvals and in signing standard data use agreements. Then, each center uploaded de-identified patient data to a previously created database in RedCap (developed at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN). This data included age, gender, injury severity score (ISS) for trauma patients, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score for non-trauma patients, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), diagnosis, operative interventions performed including small and large bowel resection, use of bowel discontinuity, vascular procedures, use of retained packs, number of re-laparotomies, net fluid balance after 24 h, trauma or non-trauma status, and time to first re-laparotomy in 12-h increments. Standard parametric statistics were used for statistical analysis. Data were imported from RedCap into SPSS version 25.0 (IBM Inc, Armonk NY).
The primary endpoint was the likelihood of achieving PFC at a given time interval as determined through two separate multivariate Cox regression analyses focusing on surgical and ICU factors. Variables included in the regression model on surgical factors included small bowel resection, large bowel resection, the presence of bowel discontinuity, the performance of an abdominal vascular procedure, the use of retained packs, the number of takebacks, age, CCI, fluid balance for the first 24 h, trauma status, and time to first re-laparotomy in 12-h increments. Variables included in the regression model on ICU factors included age, CCI, fluid balance for the first 24 h, trauma status, and exposure to opioid, benzodiazepine, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and paralytic infusions in days.
Results
Three hundred and sixty-eight patients underwent DCL in the 2-year period (Table 1). Of these, 71.2% underwent DCL for trauma, of which 50.6% were for penetrating trauma, with median ISS 25 [16, 34]. The remaining 28.8% of the patients underwent DCL for non-trauma with median Apache II score 15 [11, 22]. The proportion of female patients was 30.4% and mean patient age was 43.9 ± 18.4 years. Mean CCI was 2.0 ± 2.9. At initial DCL, 37.5% of patients had a small bowel resection and 30.7% had a large bowel resection, with 17.9% of patients having a vascular procedure and 38.3% were left in bowel discontinuity. (Table 2) Bowel continuity was achieved at 42.4 ± 29.2 h. 92.9% of patients achieved PFC at 60.8 ± 72.0 h after 1.6 ± 1.2 re-laparotomies.
Overall fluid balance was noted to be more positive in the trauma cohort after DCL (Day 1: 9.50 ± 10.3 L vs. 6.02 ± 6.38 L, p < 0.001; Day 2: 9.01 ± 7.93 L vs. 7.29 ± 6.19 L, p = 0.008). Total amount of blood products transfused was also increased in the trauma cohort after DCL (Day 1: 6.01 ± 8.38 L vs. 2.25 ± 5.19 L, p < 0.001). This is illustrated diagrammatically in Fig. 1.
In our Cox regression analysis of surgical factors associated with likelihood of achieving PFC (Table 3), time to first re-laparotomy was highly significant (p < 0.001) in terms of odds of achieving PFC with no difference between 12 and 24 h to first re-laparotomy and decreases in odds of PFC of 78.4% (65.8–86.4%, p < 0.001) for first re-laparotomy after 24.1–36 h, 90.8% (84.7–94.4%, p < 0.001) for 36.1–48 h, and 98.1% (96.4–99.0%, p < 0.001) for > 48 h (Fig. 2). Each additional re-laparotomy reduced the odds of PFC by 91.5% (95%CI 88.2–93.9%, p < 0.001, Fig. 3). Trauma patients had increased likelihood of achieving PFC, despite the positive fluid balance data illustrated above (OR 1.66 [1.22, 2.28, p = 0.002]).
In our Cox regression analysis of ICU factors associated with likelihood of achieving PFC (Table 4), trauma patients were again associated with increased likelihood of achieving PFC (OR 1.49 [1.06, 2.10, p = 0.022]). This data are also indicated diagrammatically in Fig. 4. Finally, we noted that the use of opioid infusions was associated with decreased likelihood of achieving PFC (OR 0.938 [0.911, 0.967, p < 0.001]). This data are also indicated diagrammatically in Fig. 5. Of note, the use of propofol, dexmedetomidine, benzodiazepine, or paralytic infusions was not associated with achieving PFC.
Discussion
DCL was originally introduced for critically ill trauma patients with associated improved outcomes. This strategy has been gradually implemented for a broad range of intra-abdominal emergencies, but the evidence supporting its use continues to evolve. Our previous study indicated that our cohort was 25.8% non-trauma patients, with the most common diagnoses in the non-trauma cohort being bowel ischemia (28.1%), end-stage liver disease (13.7%), bowel perforation (12.2%), small bowel obstruction (8.6%), and abdominal compartment syndrome (6.5%). We also found that trauma patients had a higher incidence of delirium, likely attributable to the high incidence of traumatic brain injury in our cohort [24]. This manuscript was intended as a pre-planned follow-up analysis to address the factors associated with PFC. The most important finding of this retrospective, multicenter study is that achievement of PFC after trauma and non-trauma DCL is associated with time to first re-laparotomy and the number of re-laparotomies, even after adjusting for age, comorbidities, trauma status, fluid administration in the first 24 h, and the types of surgical interventions performed.
There is increasing data on DCL-associated complications such as ECF and IAS, along with studies focusing on risk factors for complications, to assist with prevention and management. ECF can lead to many complications including fluid loss, electrolyte abnormalities, complex wound care, malnutrition, and increased ICU and hospital LOS, and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In the prospective observational multicenter American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Open Abdomen Study, Bradley previously reported that predictors of ECF and IAS after DCL were increasing number of re-laparotomies along with large bowel resection and large volume fluid resuscitation; those who developed ECF and IAS underwent double the number of abdominal re-laparotomies than those who did not. Dubose, a co-investigator in the AAST Open Abdomen group, reported risk factors for failure to achieve PFC, including the number of re-laparotomies, development of intra-abdominal abscess/sepsis, and enteric fistulas. Our study supports these results from the AAST Open Abdomen Study Group, which analyzed only trauma patients. However, our study also included non-trauma patients. Therefore, the conclusions made in the AAST Open Abdomen Study may also be valid for non-trauma patients. Additional predictors of ECF and IAS will be studied as part of the follow-up work in this study.
Bradley previously reported that time to the first re-laparotomy was a key predictor of time to PFC, particularly with time intervals less than 24 h; however, this work did not further subdivide the first 24 h, nor did it include non-trauma patients. Pommerening reported decreased odds of achieving PFC after 24 h, with increased risk of intra-abdominal complications after 48 h. Our study subdivided the time to first re-laparotomy further into 12-h increments. We found no difference in PFC with first re-laparotomy within 12 h compared to 24 h but found a dramatic decrease in the rate of achieving PFC with delay beyond 24 h that continued to worsen with more prolonged delay. Boolaky et al. [25] identified other risk factors for delay in PFC, including hypoalbuminemia, anastomotic leak, ventilator-associated pneumonia, age, intra-abdominal abscess or deep surgical site infection, abdominal compartment syndrome, or multi-organ failure. Although we did not have all the data required to verify Dr. Boolaky’s results in our study, there is ample room for further investigation in these areas.
The other key finding that bears discussion is that trauma patients had a more rapid rate of achieving PFC than non-trauma patients. Moreover, this difference is independent of age, comorbidities, surgical interventions performed, bowel discontinuity, and fluid balance in the first 24 h. This speaks to the different disease processes at work between traumatic injury and abdominal sepsis, and is an interesting difference that could be the subject of future work in this area. In addition, our data call into question some of the previous thinking in this area regarding the importance of fluid balance [26]. In neither of our regression analyses was fluid balance in the first 24 h after DCL significantly associated with likelihood of achieving PFC. Furthermore, trauma patients were more likely to achieve PFC even though their fluid balance and amount of transfusion were far in excess of that for non-trauma patients. This correlates with some other work in the field, which has found that artificially removing fluid via furosemide infusions also does not decrease time to achieving PFC [27].
The findings concerning sedative agents and opioid infusions were, quite frankly, unexpected. Much has been made of the use of neuromuscular blockade to facilitate more rapid achievement of PFC, although the most recent data do not support this assertion [28]. We previously published single-center data indicating that shorter duration of sedation infusions was associated with reduced time to PFC in trauma patients [29]. In this larger multicenter study of both trauma and non-trauma patients, we did not find that the duration of benzodiazepine, propofol, dexmedetomidine, or paralytic infusions was associated with the likelihood of achieving PFC. However, we did find that the duration of opioid infusion was associated with decreased likelihood of PFC. This is the first finding of its type in the literature, although the association of opioids with delayed return of bowel function is not new. Utilization of other pain management strategies such as locoregional anesthesia and narcotic-sparing pain management regimens has averted some of these effects [30]. Ketamine infusion may also be an alternative in selected patients [31, 32]. Certainly, more study is needed to study these observations.
This study has limitations. This was a retrospective study, and data points were missing in some patients and intentional choices were made about variables to examine (i.e., the use of ISS as an injury severity stratification); furthermore the investigators were dependent on the patients included by the referring center without independent verification. As a multi-center study, variability in practice patterns or protocols among the difference centers may contribute to confounding factors. One center, for example, conducted a higher than average number of liver transplants employing DCL technique. Another potential limitation is that this study combined analysis with trauma and non-trauma patients, who have different primary diagnoses at baseline. We did not collect universal data on all intra-abdominal injury patterns; for example while we did collect data on intra-abdominal vascular injuries, these were not specified by vessel. Retroperitoneal injuries were also not included and we did not have data on the physiology of the patients at the end of the index laparotomy. We did collect data on fluid balance daily, but not specific items such as drainage from the temporary abdominal closure device or the use of vasopressors or other adjuncts such as hypertonic saline. As the study was retrospective, it was not possible to specifically abstract data on the reasons why damage control laparotomy was performed in each case.
There was a higher percentage of trauma patients undergoing DCL compared to non-trauma patients in our study. A key difference between the two groups is the type of shock they experience; in the trauma population, shock is often hemorrhagic compared to the non-trauma population in which it is often due to sepsis. However, there is evidence of equivalent rates of septic complications and PFC rates regardless of cause for DCL [33]. This is consistent with our own analysis; there is no significant different in the time to achieve PFC or the percent of patients achieving PFC between the trauma and non-trauma patients.
In conclusion, achieving primary fascial closure is essential in open abdomen management after DCL to minimize risk of complications. Our study demonstrates that rapid achievement of PFC in patients after trauma and non-trauma DCL is highly predicted by time to first re-laparotomy and number of re-laparotomies. To minimize complications, greater emphasis should be placed on returning to the operating room as early as possible, ideally within 24 h, and minimizing the number of re-laparotomies. It is also possible that the ICU management can play a significant role in accelerating the achievement of PFC through the avoidance or minimization of opioid infusions.
Availability of data and material
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
References
Rotondo MF, Schwab CW, McGonigal MD, Phillips GR, Fruchterman TM, Kauder DR, et al. “Damage control”: an approach for improved survival in exsanguinating penetrating abdominal injury. J Trauma Injury Infect Crit Care. 1993;35:375–82-discussion 382–3. http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=8371295&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks.
Stone HH, Strom PR, Mullins RJ. Management of the major coagulopathy with onset during laparotomy. Ann Surg. 1983;197:532–5. http://journals.lww.com/00000658-198305000-00005.
Calne RY, McMaster P, Pentlow BD. The treatment of major liver trauma by primary packing with transfer of the patient for definitive treatment. Br J Surg. 1979;66:338–9. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/bjs.1800660512.
Cué JI, Cryer HG, Miller FB, Richardson JD, Polk HC. Packing and planned reexploration for hepatic and retroperitoneal hemorrhage: critical refinements of a useful technique. J Trauma Injury Infect Crit Care. 1990;30:1007–11-discussion 1011–3. https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Fulltext/1990/08000/Packing_and_Planned_Reexploration_for_Hepatic_and.10.aspx.
Moore EE. Thomas G. Orr Memorial Lecture. Staged laparotomy for the hypothermia, acidosis, and coagulopathy syndrome. 1996. http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=8942535&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks.
Burch JM, Denton JR, Noble RD. Physiologic rationale for abbreviated laparotomy. Surg Clin NA. 1997;77:779–82. http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=9291980&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks.
Khan A, Hsee L, Mathur S, Civil I. Damage-control laparotomy in nontrauma patients: review of indications and outcomes. J Trauma Acute Care Surgery. 2013;75:365–8. http://journals.lww.com/01586154-201309000-00002.
Tartaglia D, Costa G, Camillò A, Castriconi M, Andreano M, Lanza M, et al. Damage control surgery for perforated diverticulitis with diffuse peritonitis: saves lives and reduces ostomy. World J Emerg Surg. 2019;14:19–6. https://wjes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13017-019-0238-1.
Person B, Dorfman T, Bahouth H, Osman A, Assalia A, Kluger Y. Abbreviated emergency laparotomy in the non-trauma setting. World J Emerg Surg. 2009;4:41–4. http://wjes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1749-7922-4-41.
Kritayakirana K, Maggio PM, Brundage S, Purtill M-A, Staudenmayer K, Spain DA. Outcomes and complications of open abdomen technique for managing non-trauma patients. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2010;3:118–22. http://www.onlinejets.org/text.asp?2010/3/2/118/62106.
Ball CG, Correa-Gallego C, Howard TJ, Zyromski NJ, Lillemoe KD. Damage control principles for pancreatic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg [Internet]. 2010;14:1632–3-author reply 1634. http://springerlink.bibliotecabuap.elogim.com/10.1007/s11605-010-1286-8.
Stawicki SP, Brooks A, Bilski T, Scaff D, Gupta R, Schwab CW, et al. The concept of damage control: extending the paradigm to emergency general surgery. Injury. 2008;39:93–101. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0020138307002471.
Freeman AJ, Graham JC. Damage control surgery and angiography in cases of acute mesenteric ischaemia. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75:308–14. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03373.x.
Morgan K, Mansker D, Adams DB. Not just for trauma patients: damage control laparotomy in pancreatic surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:768–72. http://springerlink.bibliotecabuap.elogim.com/10.1007/s11605-010-1186-y.
Perathoner A, Klaus A, Mühlmann G, Oberwalder M, Margreiter R, Kafka-Ritsch R. Damage control with abdominal vacuum therapy (VAC) to manage perforated diverticulitis with advanced generalized peritonitis—a proof of concept. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010;25:767–74. http://springerlink.bibliotecabuap.elogim.com/10.1007/s00384-010-0887-8.
Miller Jr RS, JAM Jr JJD, Herring MB, May AK. Complications after 344 damage-control open celiotomies. J Trauma Injury Infect Crit Care. 2005;59:1365–74. https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=00005373-200512000-00013.
Pommerening MJ, DuBose JJ, Zielinski MD, Phelan HA, Scalea TM, Inaba K, et al. Time to first take-back operation predicts successful primary fascial closure in patients undergoing damage control laparotomy. Surgery. 2014;156:431–8. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0039606014001895.
Bradley MJ, DuBose JJ, Scalea TM, Holcomb JB, Shrestha B, Okoye O, et al. Independent predictors of enteric fistula and abdominal sepsis after damage control laparotomy: results from the prospective AAST Open Abdomen registry. JAMA Surg. 2013;148:947–54. http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=23965658&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks.
Harvin JA, Sharpe JP, Croce MA, Goodman MD, Pritts TA, Dauer ED, et al. Better understanding the utilization of damage control laparotomy: a multi-institutional quality improvement project. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019;87:27–34. http://journals.lww.com/01586154-201907000-00004.
DuBose JJ, Scalea TM, Holcomb JB, Shrestha B, Okoye O, Inaba K, et al. Open abdominal management after damage-control laparotomy for trauma: a prospective observational American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;74:113–20-discussion 1120–2. http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=01586154-201301000-00016.
Harvin JA, Kao LS, Liang MK, Adams SD, McNutt MK, Love JD, et al. Decreasing the use of damage control laparotomy in trauma: a quality improvement project. J Am College Surg. 2017;225:200–9. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1072751517303769.
Teixeira PG, Karamanos E, Karamanos E, Talving P, Inaba K, Lam L, et al. Early operation is associated with a survival benefit for patients with adhesive bowel obstruction. Ann Surg. 2013;258:459–65. http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=00000658-201309000-00010.
Hatch QM, Osterhout LM, Podbielski J, Kozar RA, Wade CE, Holcomb JB, et al. Impact of closure at the first take back: complication burden and potential overutilization of damage control laparotomy. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2011;71:1503–9. https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Fulltext/2011/12000/Impact_of_Closure_at_the_First_Take_Back_.5.aspx.
McArthur K, Krause C, Kwon E, Luo-Owen X, Cochran-Yu M, Swentek L, et al. Trauma and nontrauma damage-control laparotomy: the difference is delirium (data from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma SLEEP-TIME multicenter trial). J Trauma Acute Surg. 2021;91:100–7. https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Fulltext/2021/07000/Trauma_and_nontrauma_damage_control_laparotomy_16.aspx.
Boolaky KN, Tariq AH, Hardcastle TC. Open abdomen in the trauma ICU patient: who? when? why? and what are the outcome results? Eur J Trauma Emerg S. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-020-01543-6.
Kobayashi L, Coimbra R. Planned re-laparotomy and the need for optimization of physiology and immunology. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2014;40:135–42. http://springerlink.bibliotecabuap.elogim.com/10.1007/s00068-014-0396-5.
Webb LH, Patel MB, Dortch MJ, Miller RS, Gunter OL, Collier BR. Use of a furosemide drip does not improve earlier primary fascial closure in the open abdomen. J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2012;5:126–30. http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=22787341&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks.
Smith SE, Hamblin SE, Guillamondegui OD, Gunter OL, Dennis BM. Effectiveness and safety of continuous neuromuscular blockade in trauma patients with an open abdomen: A follow-up study. AJS. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.04.003.
Kim T, Celis C, Pop A, McArthur K, Bushell TR, Luo-Owen X, et al. More medications, more problems: results from the Sedation Level after Emergent Exlap with Packing for TRAUMA (SLEEP-TRAUMA) study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020;35:375–10. http://springerlink.bibliotecabuap.elogim.com/10.1007/s00068-020-01524-9.
Huepenbecker SP, Cusworth SE, Kuroki LM, Lu P, Samen CDK, Woolfolk C, et al. Continuous epidural infusion in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing exploratory laparotomy: the new standard for decreased postoperative pain and opioid use. Gynecol Oncol. 2019;153:356–61. http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=30798950&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks.
Wahdan AS, Mohamed MM, Helmy NY, Shehata GH, Salama AK. Effects of low-dose ketamine infusion on alleviating the opioid burden for patients undergoing myomectomy surgery. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2021;49:52–7. http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=33718906&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks.
Webb AR, Skinner BS, Leong S, Kolawole H, Crofts T, Taverner M, et al. The addition of a small-dose ketamine infusion to tramadol for postoperative analgesia: a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized trial after abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg. 2007;104:912–7. https://journals.lww.com/anesthesia-analgesia/Fulltext/2007/04000/The_Addition_of_a_Small_Dose_Ketamine_Infusion_to.33.aspx.
Goussous N, Jenkins DH, Zielinski MD. Primary fascial closure after damage control laparotomy: sepsis vs haemorrhage. Injury. 2014;45:151–5. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0020138313000715.
Funding
JMB Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number 5U54GM104942-04. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
EK: data collection, analysis of data, generation of figures, writing of manuscript, presenting author. CK, KMcA, XLO: data collection, analysis of data, critical review of manuscript. MCY, LS, SB, DT,CK, AG, JN, AB, AG, AL, MK, MNF, NG, ST, EL, SRL, ODG, JMB, CD, SMW, KL, NTD, JN, SM, JP, LN, HK, HRK, MJL, AD, GC, ZN: critical editing of manuscript and approval of final manuscript. KM: principal investigator, statistical analysis, editing and detailed revision of manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
This study was evaluated by the Institutional Review Board at the Loma Linda University Medical Center and judged to be exempt from IRB review.
Consent to participate
Consent to participate was not applicable as this was a retrospective study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kwon, E., Krause, C., Luo-Owen, X. et al. Time is domain: factors affecting primary fascial closure after trauma and non-trauma damage control laparotomy (data from the EAST SLEEP-TIME multicenter registry). Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 48, 2107–2116 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-021-01814-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-021-01814-w