TY - JOUR
T1 - Negative pressure therapy versus passive open abdominal drainage for the treatment of septic peritonitis in dogs: A randomized, prospective study
AU - Spillebeen, Anneleen L
AU - Robben, Joris H
AU - Ecvecc, Diplomate
AU - Thomas, Rachel
AU - Kirpensteijn, Jolle
AU - Acvs, Diplomate
AU - van Nimwegen, Sebastiaan A
AU - Ecvs, Diplomate
AU - Anneleen Spillebeen, Correspondence L
PY - 2017/11
Y1 - 2017/11
N2 - Objective: To compare passive open abdominal drainage (POAD) and negative-pressure abdominal drainage (NPAD) using the ABThera TM system in the treatment of septic peritonitis. Study design: Randomized prospective clinical trial. Animals: Dogs (n 5 16) with septic peritonitis. Methods: Dogs with septic peritonitis were randomly assigned to one of two treat-ment protocols: NPAD versus POAD. Anesthesia time, operating time, duration of drainage, costs, survival, and complications were compared between techniques. Hematological and biochemical parameters in blood and abdominal fluid, and histo-pathological findings of omentum and abdominal wall tissue samples were compared between NPAD and POAD at time of initial surgery and at time of closure. Results: Overall survival was 81%. Treatment costs, anesthesia and operating time, drainage time, survival, and postoperative complications were similar between techni-ques. Loss of total plasma protein and decreased inflammation-related factors in abdominal fluid at time of closure were noted in all patients. Neutrophilic inflamma-tion was greater in abdominal wall samples after NPAD. POAD patients showed discomfort during bandage changes and had frequent leakage of abdominal fluid out-side of the bandage.
AB - Objective: To compare passive open abdominal drainage (POAD) and negative-pressure abdominal drainage (NPAD) using the ABThera TM system in the treatment of septic peritonitis. Study design: Randomized prospective clinical trial. Animals: Dogs (n 5 16) with septic peritonitis. Methods: Dogs with septic peritonitis were randomly assigned to one of two treat-ment protocols: NPAD versus POAD. Anesthesia time, operating time, duration of drainage, costs, survival, and complications were compared between techniques. Hematological and biochemical parameters in blood and abdominal fluid, and histo-pathological findings of omentum and abdominal wall tissue samples were compared between NPAD and POAD at time of initial surgery and at time of closure. Results: Overall survival was 81%. Treatment costs, anesthesia and operating time, drainage time, survival, and postoperative complications were similar between techni-ques. Loss of total plasma protein and decreased inflammation-related factors in abdominal fluid at time of closure were noted in all patients. Neutrophilic inflamma-tion was greater in abdominal wall samples after NPAD. POAD patients showed discomfort during bandage changes and had frequent leakage of abdominal fluid out-side of the bandage.
U2 - 10.1111/vsu.12703
DO - 10.1111/vsu.12703
M3 - Article
SN - 0161-3499
VL - 46
SP - 1086
EP - 1097
JO - Veterinary Surgery
JF - Veterinary Surgery
IS - 8
ER -