Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31286901›Full record

ArticleBMC surgery2019

A new device to prevent fascial retraction in the open abdomen - proof of concept in vivo.

Roman Eickhoff, Maria Guschlbauer, Alexandra C Maul, Christian D Klink, Ulf P Neumann, Michael Engel, Martin Hellmich, Anja Sterner-Kock, Christian F Krieglstein

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. FasciotensHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Complex abdomen: a scoping review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Roman EickhoffDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. reickhoff@ukaachen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6064-7859
Maria GuschlbauerCenter for Experimental Medicine, University of Cologne, Robert-Koch-Str. 10 Building No. 51A, 50931, Cologne, Germany.
Alexandra C MaulCenter for Experimental Medicine, University of Cologne, Robert-Koch-Str. 10 Building No. 51A, 50931, Cologne, Germany.
Christian D KlinkDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Ulf P NeumannDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Michael EngelDepartment of Surgery, Marienhospital Brühl GmbH, Mühlenstraße, 21-25 50321, Brühl, Germany.
Martin HellmichIMSB, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Anja Sterner-KockCenter for Experimental Medicine, University of Cologne, Robert-Koch-Str. 10 Building No. 51A, 50931, Cologne, Germany.
Christian F KrieglsteinDepartment of Surgery, Marienhospital Brühl GmbH, Mühlenstraße, 21-25 50321, Brühl, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn open abdomen is often necessary for survival of patients after peritonitis, compartment syndrome, or in damage control surgery. However, abdominal wall retraction relieves delays and complicates abdominal wall closure. The principle of the newly fascia preserving device (FPD) is the application of anteriorly directed traction on both fascial edges over an external support through a longitudinal beam to relieve increased abdominal pressure and prevent fascial retraction.

methodsTwelve pigs were randomly divided into two groups. Both groups underwent midline laparotomy under general anesthesia. Group one was treated with the new device, group two served as controls. The tension for closing the abdominal fascia was measured immediately after laparotomy as well as at 24 and 48 h. Vital parameters and ventilation pressure were recorded. Post mortem, all fascial tissues were histologically examined.

resultsAll pigs demonstrated increases in abdominal circumference. In both groups, forces for closing the abdomen increased over the observation period. Concerning the central closing force after 24 h we saw a significant lower force in the FPD group (14.4 ± 3 N) vs. control group (21.6 ± 5.7 N, p < 0.001). By testing the main effects using an ANOVA analysis we found a significant group related effect concerning closing force and abdominal circumference of the FDP-group vs. control group (p < 0.001; p < 0.001). The placement of the device on chest and pelvis did not influence vital parameters and ventilation pressure. Histologic exam detected no tissue damage.

conclusionsThis trial shows the feasibility to prevent fascial retraction during the open abdomen by using the new device. Thus, it is expected that an earlier closure of the abdominal wall will be possible, and a higher rate of primary closure will be attained.

Indexed as

FasciaAbdominal WallAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansLaparotomyProof of Concept StudyRandom AllocationSwineTractionWound Closure TechniquesFascial tractionLinea albaOpen abdomenOpen Abdomen; Laparostoma

Identifiers

PMID31286901
PMCPMC6615246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.