Open Access

Decompressive laparotomy for abdominal compartment syndrome – a critical analysis

Critical Care200610:R51

DOI: 10.1186/cc4870

Received: 20 July 2005

Accepted: 27 February 2006

Published: 27 March 2006

Abstract

Introduction

Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is increasingly recognized in critically ill patients, and the deleterious effects of increased intraabdominal pressure (IAP) are well documented. Surgical decompression through a midline laparotomy or decompressive laparotomy remains the sole definite therapy for ACS, but the effect of decompressive laparotomy has not been studied in large patient series.

Methods

We reviewed English literature from 1972 to 2004 for studies reporting the effects of decompressive laparotomy in patients with ACS. The effect of decompressive laparotomy on IAP, patient outcome and physiology were analysed.

Results

Eighteen studies including 250 patients who underwent decompressive laparotomy could be included in the analysis. IAP was significantly lower after decompression (15.5 mmHg versus 34.6 mmHg before, p < 0.001), but intraabdominal hypertension persisted in the majority of the patients. Mortality in the whole group was 49.2% (123/250). The effect of decompressive laparotomy on organ function was not uniform, and in some studies no effect on organ function was found. Increased PaO2/FIO2 ratio (PaO2 = partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood, FiO2 = fraction of inspired oxygen) and urinary output were the most pronounced effects of decompressive laparotomy.

Conclusion

The effects of decompressive laparotomy have been poorly investigated, and only a small number of studies report its effect on parameters of organ function. Although IAP is consistently lower after decompression, mortality remains considerable. Recuperation of organ dysfunction after decompressive laparotomy for ACS is variable.

Introduction

Intraabdominal hypertension (IAH) is a clearly identified cause of organ dysfunction in patients after emergency abdominal surgery and trauma [13]. It is also increasingly recognized in other patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), for example, after elective surgical procedures [4], liver transplantation [5], massive fluid resuscitation for extraabdominal trauma [6] and severe burns [7]. The presence of IAH at admission to the ICU has been associated with severe organ dysfunction during the ICU stay, and the development of IAH during ICU stay was an independent predictor of mortality [4].

The clinical picture resulting from sustained IAH has been described as abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). Although understanding of the pathophysiology of IAH has greatly improved [8, 9], few advances have been made in the treatment of ACS. Few non-surgical options are available for the treatment of ACS. In some patients, IAH is caused by intraperitoneal fluid, and in these patients percutaneous drainage may be an option, as has been described in patients with ACS after burns [10]. The use of gastric and rectal tubes to drain air and gastrointestinal contents has been proposed by experts, but a scientific foundation is lacking [11]. Other proposed therapies include ultrafiltration [12] and the use of muscular blocking agents [13].

Surgical decompression is the only available definite treatment for IAH, and numerous case series have been reported, but the effects of surgical decompression have not been reviewed in large series; patients who require decompression are frequently a selected subpopulation of the total study population. Also, most papers focus on factors associated with IAH and its effects, rather than specifically looking at endpoints, such as hospital mortality and organ function after surgical decompression.

The goal of this review is to describe the effect of surgical decompression through a midline laparotomy (termed 'decompressive laparotomy' (DL) in this review) on intraabdominal pressure (IAP) and the outcome and physiology of patients undergoing this procedure.

Materials and methods

Relevant articles were identified through a computerized search of the English literature using Web of Science version 7.2 (ISI Thomson, Philadelphia, USA) for the years 1972 to 2004. Search terms included 'intraabdominal hypertension' OR 'abdominal compartment syndrome' and 'decompressive laparotomy' OR 'decompression'. Review articles, case reports and case series describing fewer than four patients were excluded from the analysis.

Articles describing adult patients with IAH requiring decompression were included in the analysis if: details on IAP – at least before decompression – were available; and the outcome was available for all patients who underwent abdominal decompression. In this setting, DL was defined as a surgical intervention on the abdominal wall aimed at reducing the IAP, after which a temporary abdominal closure device was used; percutaneous drainage of fluid collections or escharotomies were not considered in this review.

The bibliographies of the articles that were included in the final analysis were reviewed for relevant publications that would have been missed by the computerized search.

For the articles retrieved, we classified the ACS according to the current guidelines of the World Society of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome [14] (Table 1), and recorded the indication for decompression. The effect of abdominal decompression on organ function was recorded; hemodynamic (blood pressure, heart rate, cardiac output, central venous pressure, pulmonary occlusion pressure, systemic vascular resistance and oxygen delivery indices), ventilatory (PaO2/FIO2 ratio (PaO2 = partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood, FiO2 = fraction of inspired oxygen), peak airway pressure, lung compliance expressed by static or dynamic compliance) and renal function parameters (urinary output) were retrieved. Patient characteristics such as age, disease severity as expressed by the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score or Injury Severity score (ISS), and the timing of DL after the precipitating event (hospital admission or prior abdominal surgical intervention) were recorded when available.
Table 1

Consensus definitions of intraabdominal hypertension, and abdominal compartment syndrome (primary, secondary and recurrent) according to WSACS

Term

Definition

IAH

IAH is defined by a sustained increase in IAP of 12 mmHg or more, recorded by a minimum of three standardized measurements conducted 4 to 6 hours apart, with or without an APP <60 mmHg

ACS

ACS is defined as a sustained increase in IAP of 20 mmHg or more with or without APP <60 AND single or multiple organ system failure that was not previously present

Primary ACS

ACS caused by:

 

A condition associated with injury or disease in the abdomino-pelvic region that frequently requires early surgical or angioradiological intervention, OR

 

A condition that develops following abdominal surgery (such as abdominal organ injuries that require surgical repair or damage control surgery, secondary peritonitis, bleeding pelvic fractures or other cause of massive retroperitoneal haematoma, liver transplantation)

Secondary ACS

ACS caused by conditions that do not originate from the abdomen (such as sepsis and capillary leak, major burns, and other conditions requiring massive fluid resuscitation), yet result in the signs and symptoms commonly associated with primary ACS

Recurrent ACS

ACS caused by a condition in which it develops following prophylactic or therapeutic surgical or medical treatment of primary or secondary ACS (e.g., persistence of ACS after DL or development of a new ACS episode following definitive closure of the abdominal wall after the previous utilization of a temporary abdominal wall closure)

ACS, abdominal compartment syndrome; APP, abdominal perfusion pressure; DL, decompressive laparotomy; IAH, intraabdominal hypertension; WSACS, World Society of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome.

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS for Windows 12.0® (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). IAP and physiological variables before and after DL were compared using paired samples t test. Continuous data are expressed as mean (standard deviation). A double sided p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The computerized search yielded 85 papers, 19 of which could be included in the analysis based on the analysis of the type of article and review of the abstract. From the references in these articles, another 8 papers were considered to contain significant data, bringing the total number of studies reporting on patients who underwent surgical decompression to 27. After analysis of the data available in the papers, 9 papers were excluded because of various reasons (no data on IAP available (n = 5), no DL performed as a means of decompression (n = 1), analysis based on patients already described in another paper that was included in the analysis (n = 1), indication for laparotomy planned for reasons other than ACS (n = 1), and insufficient data on the groups of patients that were decompressed (n = 1).

The 18 papers included in the final analysis are in listed in Table 2. In total, 250 patients were treated with DL for ACS, of which 174 had primary ACS and 76 secondary ACS.
Table 2

Overview of 18 papers included in the final analysis

Reference

Journal

Year

No. of patients

Indication for abdominal decompression

Delay to decompression (hours)

   

Total

Primary ACS

Secondary ACS

  

[23]

Ann Surg

1984

4

4

0

IAP >25 + acute renal failure

NA

[25]

Crit Care Med

1989

6

6

0

NA (presumably ACS)

NA

[26]

Aust NZ Surg

1990

10

10

0

IAP >18 + organ dysfunction

NA

[27]

S Afr Med J

1995

4

3

1

ACS

16

[17]

Am J Surg

1997

21

21

0

ACS

27

[28]

J Trauma

1998

11

11

0

IAP >25 mmHg + organ dysfunction

38

[18]

J Trauma

1998

49

49

0

ACS

18

[29]

J Trauma

1999

6

0

6

NA (presumably ACS)

NA

[2]

Crit Care Med

2000

17

13

4

ACS

13

[30]

J Trauma

2000

6

0

6

NA (presumably ACS)

NA

[31]

Am J Surg

2001

28

28

0

IAP >20 + organ dysfunction

17

[32]

Am J Surg

2001

10

0

10

ACS

12

[16]

J Trauma

2002

4

0

4

ACS unresponsive to conservative measures

NA

[10]

J Burn Care Rehab

2002

4

0

4

IAP >30 + renal or ventilatory impairment

28

[33]

Am Surg

2002

18

17

1

ACS

NA

[34]

Arch Surg

2003

9

0

9

NA (presumably ACS)

17

[35]

J Trauma

2003

26

11

15

IAP >25 mmHg + progressive organ dysfunction

13

[15]

J Trauma

2004

17

1

16

Uncontrollable ICP

139

Total

  

250

174

76

  

ACS, abdominal compartment syndrome; IAP, intraabdominal pressure; ICP, intracranial pressure; NA, not available.

In four papers no indication for DL was named, but it could be presumed it was ACS. No clear definition of ACS was mentioned in another five papers, and only six used a more or less clear definition of ACS, including a cut off IAP level (Table 2). The definitions of ACS were different in every paper, and most noticeably the critical level of IAP that was considered an indication for DL varied from 18 to 30 mmHg. In one paper, uncontrollable intracranial pressure was the sole indication for DL [15]. Mean interval from admission to the hospital or from the previous surgical intervention to DL was reported only in a limited number of papers, and varied from 12 to 38 hours, except from the study in which uncontrollable ICP was the indication for DL; in this paper, the mean interval between admission and DL was 139 hours.

Effect of surgical decompression on IAP

From 10 studies, IAP values before and after abdominal decompression were available from a total of 161 patients; the other studies only reported IAP values before decompression. In all but one report [16], IAP fell significantly after surgical decompression (Figure 1). Overall, the mean reported IAP before DL was 34.6 mmHg (8.06) and fell to 15.5 mmHg (4.81) after DL (p < 0.001).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fcc4870/MediaObjects/13054_2005_Article_4400_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

The effect of decompressive laparotomy (DL) on intraabdominal pressure (IAP) in patients with primary and secondary abdominal compartment syndrome. IAP levels are those reported in individual papers in the study; Kron and colleagues [23], Platell and colleagues [26], Meldrum and colleagues [17], Chang and colleagues [28], Sugrue and colleagues [18], Ertel and colleagues [2], Biffl and colleagues [32], Hobson and colleagues [16], Mayberry and colleagues [34], Balogh and colleagues [35].

Outcome after surgical decompression for ACS

Mortality rates for patients who underwent surgical decompression for ACS are summarized in Table 3. Overall, reported mortality for all patients with ACS who underwent surgical decompression was 49.2% (123/250). The mean age in the different studies was 44.5 years. The severity of disease, as assessed by APACHE II score and ISS, is generally high in these patients, but was not available in most of the papers; an APACHE II-based predicted mortality, therefore, could not be calculated for these patients.
Table 3

Patient characteristics and outcome after decompressive laparotomy

Reference

Year

No. of patients included

Age (years)

ISS

APACHE II score

IAP before DL (mmHg)

IAP after DL (mmHg)

Mortality (%)

Primary ACS

        

   [23]

1984

4

55

-

-

37

14

50

   [25]

1989

4

-

-

-

37

-

75

   [26]

1990

10

69

-

-

25

16

60

   [17]

1997

21

39

26

-

27

14

29

   [28]

1998

11

37

27

-

49

19

64

   [18]

1998

49

36

37

-

33

-

42

   [31]

2001

28

36

32

-

26

-

43

Secondary ACS

        

   [29]

1999

6

57

-

27

24

14

67

   [30]

2000

6

45

-

-

31

-

67

   [32]

2001

10

45

-

-

30

11

50

   [16]

2002

4

-

-

25

40

26a

75

   [10]

2002

4

17

-

-

34

-

100

   [34]

2003

9

47

24

-

36a

8a

22

Mixed primary and secondary ACS

        

   [27]

1995

4

-

-

-

39,5a

-

24

   [2]

2000

17

42

37

21

42a

16a

65

   [33]

2002

18

69

-

20

43

-

61

   [35]

2003

26

-

28

-

36

17

28

   [15]

2004

17

29

-

29,5

29,5

-

35

Mean (SD)

  

44 (14.4)

30 (5.3)

25 (4.0)

35.5 (8.06)

15.5 (4.81)

 

aData coming from incomplete datasets. dash, not available; ACS, abdominal compartment syndrome; APACHE II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; DL, decompressive laparotomy; IAP, intraabdominal pressure; ISS, Injury Severity score; SD, standard deviation.

The cause of death of patients who underwent DL could be retrieved from only nine of the studies. This accounted for only 29 out of the total of 123 patients who died. The main cause of death after DL was single or multiple organ dysfunction (n = 23, 79%); other causes included head injury (n = 2, 7%) and haemorrhage (n = 1, 3%). In three patients, therapy was withdrawn.

Effect of abdominal decompression on hemodynamic, respiratory and renal function parameters

Table 4 summarizes the effect of abdominal decompression on hemodynamic physiological variables considered to be impaired because of ACS. Blood pressure remained unchanged after decompression in five out of nine reports, but increased significantly in the remainder. A significant drop in central venous pressure was present in three out of eight papers, and four out of eight reported a significantly lower pulmonary artery occlusion pressure. Heart rate was found to be unchanged in all but two reports. In the majority of the papers that studied cardiac function before and after decompression, the cardiac output or cardiac index improved significantly after decompression.
Table 4

Effect of decompressive laparotomy on hemodynamic variables reported in 13 studies

Reference

n

MAP

CVP

PAOP

CI

HR

SVRi

DO2I

  

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

[25]

6

87

73

26

15

27

17

4.5 a

6.4 a

121

122

-

-

-

-

[27]

4

99.25

133

18.5

12.5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

[17]

21

-

-

16

14

19

14

3.3

3.9

-

-

1,187 b

842 b

542

633

[28]

11

-

-

-

-

30

24

3.7

3.9

124

107

1,634

1,874

-

-

[18]

49

93.5

97,6

-

-

-

-

-

-

116

111

-

-

-

-

[29]

6

126 c

146 c

-

-

11

11

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

[2]

17

94

81

21

15

32

18

4.8

7

128

105

-

-

-

-

[32]

10

102 c

124 c

17.3

17.5

18.8

17.8

3.5

2.9

124

121

-

-

-

-

[16]

4

75

77

24

21

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

[33]

18

-

-

-

-

19.5

16.4

2.8

3.2

-

-

-

-

-

-

[34]

9

100 c

125 c

22

14

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

[35]

26

79

92

20

18

18

17

3.1

3.8

-

-

2,362

1,524

469

517

[15]

17

-

-

20.9

18.9

-

-

4.6

4.7

-

-

-

-

-

-

aCardiac output; bsystemic vascular resistance; csystolic arterial pressure. Numbers in bold are the significant difference between value before and after decompression. CI, cardiac index; CVP, central venous pressure; DO2I, oxygen delivery index; HR, heart rate; MAP, mean arterial pressure; PAOP, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure; SVRi, systemic vascular resistance index.

A small number of studies reported detailed information on hemodynamic parameters: one study found an increased oxygen delivery after decompression, whereas another found no difference. Systemic vascular resistance decreased in two studies, but increased in one. No differences in SvO2 (mixed venous oxygen saturation) were found in both studies reporting details on this topic.

The effect of DL on respiratory function is presented in Table 5. In all studies, respiratory function improved significantly in most patients, as well as in terms of reduced peak inspiratory pressures and improved PaO2/FIO2 ratio. In all reports, PaO2/FIO2 ratios after decompression remained below 300, ranging from 154 to 239.
Table 5

Effect of decompressive laparotomy on respiratory variables as reported in 14 studies

Reference

n

PaO2/FIO2 ratio

Peak airway pressure

Static compliance

Dynamic compliance

  

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

Before

After

[25]

6

120

239

-

-

-

-

-

-

[27]

4

-

-

57.25

42.75

-

-

-

-

[17]

21

177

229

44

32

27

38

-

-

[28]

11

165

236

-

-

-

-

13

24

[18]

49

180

193

35.5

33.5

-

-

24.1

27.6

[29]

6

-

-

61

44

-

-

-

-

[2]

17

150

232

36

25

-

-

-

-

[32]

10

-

-

54

34.2

-

-

-

-

[16]

4

-

-

37

32

-

-

-

-

[10]

4

78

154

46

41

-

-

-

-

[33]

18

-

-

55.6

39.8

-

-

-

-

[34]

9

-

-

39

30

-

-

-

-

[35]

26

136

174

49

38

24

38

-

-

[15]

17

-

-

29.5

27.5

-

-

-

-

Numbers in bold are the significant difference between value before and after decompression. PaO2 = partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood, FiO2 = fraction of inspired oxygen.

In two of the larger patient series [17, 18], there was no change in urinary output (Figure 2). In papers that reported a limited number of patients, absolute values increased, but the number of patients is probably too limited to reach statistical significance. In 5 out of 10 studies, the mean urinary output was above 50 ml/hour before decompression (mean urinary output ranged from 50 ml/hour to 105 ml/hour) and, in most of these, it significantly increased after decompression.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fcc4870/MediaObjects/13054_2005_Article_4400_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Effect of decompressive laparotomy on urinary output in 10 studies reporting urinary output (UO) before and after decompressive laparotomy. Data are from individual papers in this study; Cullen and colleagues [25], Platell and colleagues [26], Meldrum and colleagues [17], Chang and colleagues [28], Sugrue and colleagues [18], Maxwell and colleagues [29], Ertel and colleagues [2], Biffl and colleagues [32], McNelis and colleagues [33], Balogh and colleagues [35].

Discussion

DL resulted in a decrease in IAP in all patients who were studied. However, IAH persisted in a considerable number of patients, as the mean IAP after DL remained well above the 12 mmHg threshold for IAH. In one study, the IAP after decompression was as high as 26 mmHg. The fact that IAP decreased is of course not surprising, but the level of IAP after surgical intervention is more intriguing. Apparently, several patients must have suffered from (early) recurrent or persistent ACS in these studies, although only a few studies specifically mention this problem.

Important limitations here are the facts that almost half of the studies (accounting for about a third of the patients in this review) did not report IAP values after DL and that the time to measurement of IAP after DL was not standardized. The problem of recurrent ACS in patients with open abdomen treatment has been reported by Gracias and colleagues [19]. Mortality in their patients with recurrent ACS was high when compared to patients without recurrent ACS (60% versus 7%); recurrent ACS occurred between 1.5 and 12 hours after surgery. From the data available, it is not clear whether recurrent ACS is an independent risk factor for mortality, but considering the association of organ dysfunction and mortality in recent epidemiological studies [4], it seems plausible that this is a major factor determining outcome in these patients.

Mortality in patients undergoing DL remains high and deserves further investigation. Several factors may explain the fact that half of the patients in the included studies eventually died, in spite of aggressive measures like DL. First of all, patients who require DL are severely ill at the moment of decompression, and often DL is considered a last resort. This may not be reflected by APACHE II scores early after ICU admission or the ISS, although in the few studies that reported these parameters, these were high to very high. Obviously, as no control group is available, it is difficult to guess the outcome of these patients without decompression.

Secondly, the fact that IAP remained moderately to severely elevated in a number of patients (who can be considered incomplete or non-responders) should also be taken into account. This is also reflected by the fact that although a number of physiological values improved, these did not return to normal. The effect of DL on oxygenation is one such example. The mean PaO2/FIO2 ratio after decompression remained far below 300 in all the reports, and below 200 in most of them, notably in the two largest studies [6, 18]. Unfortunately, no data on the effect on organ dysfunction as assessed by serial scoring systems designed to study the evolution of organ dysfunction, such as the SOFA score, are available. Moreover, from the variables included in the SOFA score, only one out of six organ systems (the respiratory system) could be graded by the parameters reported in the studies in this review. The data reported for the cardiovascular, haematological, renal, neurological and gastrointestinal systems are incomplete or lacking in most studies. Although the parameters most notably impaired by the development of ACS, such as peak inspiratory pressure, mean arterial pressure and urinary output, are often significantly improved, these might not be the best parameters for studying organ function. To evaluate the cardiovascular system, information on the amount of vasoactive medications should be mentioned; serum creatinine probably should be included to evaluate renal function.

Thirdly, it should be considered that DL may be harmful for some patients. Morris and colleagues [20] described a lethal reperfusion syndrome early after DL. There may be a risk of re-bleeding when coagulation is not completely restored before considering abdominal decompression, especially in trauma patients who are often severely coagulopathic early after arrival in the ICU. Hemorrhagic shock was the cause of death in a third of the deaths after DL in the paper by Ertel and colleagues [2]; Balogh and colleagues [1] reported that exsanguination was the cause of death in two out of six patients with secondary ACS who were decompressed and later died. Also, in patients with severe acute pancreatitis and ACS, we found that three out of four patients who were decompressed died, two of them from uncontrollable haemorrhage [21].

Although DL has a positive effect on cardiovascular, respiratory and renal function, some issues require further investigation. Filling pressures (central venous pressure and pulmonary artery pressure) decreased in all patients, but this probably only reflects the decrease in IAP in those patients. It has been shown that IAP is transduced to a large extent (25% to 80%) to the thoracic cage [22], resulting in the high central venous and pulmonary occlusion pressures often observed in ACS. The decrease after decompression does not necessarily reflect an improvement in organ function. Cardiac function improved in the majority of the patients, but it is remarkable that in the largest study no improvement in cardiac index was found. The change in peak airway pressure is not surprising. Some of the studies date from the era when normal tidal volumes (8 to 12 ml/kg) were used to ventilate patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, so the decrease in peak airway pressure and improvement in compliance may be more pronounced than when lower tidal volumes are used. The effect on oxygenation was positive overall, but respiratory function remained severely impaired in the majority of the patients. There was no change in urinary output in the two largest series and, remarkably, the urinary output before DL in patients with ACS was about 50 ml/hour or more in the majority of the papers. Nevertheless, significant improvement was found in all but two papers, often despite the small number of patients. Sugrue and colleagues [18] reported an increase in serum creatinine after DL with only little improvement over 14 days. No data on short or long term effects of renal function were reported in the other papers.

Some questions cannot be answered by the analysis of the outcome parameters in this review. The effects of the timing of DL and the speed of diagnosis of ACS on patient outcome remain to be elucidated. The timing of surgical intervention was only rarely reported, and it is not clear from the papers presented which clinical condition exactly triggered surgical decompression in the patients reported. Also, coexisting causes of organ dysfunction, such as sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome, in these severely ill patients and its role in the development of IAH and ACS should be further explored. Patients suffering from severe sepsis often have increased fluid requirements, which in itself may contribute to recurrent ACS [6].

Although there is a consensus on the definition of ACS, there is no clear consensus for which parameter should be the threshold for surgical decompression in patients with ACS; no clear conclusion can be drawn from this review either. Several authors have suggested that an IAP of more than 25 should trigger DL [17, 23]. Others suggest that the IAP recordings are only supportive data, and base the decision to open the abdomen on clinical parameters [24]. The clinical condition of the patient with secondary ACS makes the whole picture often very complicated. Often, these patients have other causes of hypotension, renal dysfunction or respiratory failure, and the development of IAH may be a factor contributing to the clinical picture of ACS. This concern was also raised by Balogh and colleagues [1], who considered ACS to be an indicator of disease severity, not the cause of early death.

Conclusion

Patients with primary and secondary ACS generally are good responders to DL in terms of reduction of IAP and improvement of several physiological variables, but the exact effect on organ dysfunction is not clear. An important next step in the management of patients with primary and secondary ACS is to identify those patients who would benefit most from DL, as this review indicates that recuperation of organ dysfunction is variable and unpredictable, and mortality remains considerable in patients treated with it. In both primary and secondary ACS, the IAP value probably is not the only parameter that should be considered and clinical parameters should be included when evaluating a patient with IAH for surgical decompression.

To study the effect of abdominal decompression in a larger series of patients, we propose to open a registry of patients with ACS undergoing abdominal decompression, coordinated by the World Society of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (WSACS); more information can be found at the society's website [14].

Key messages

  • Detailed effects of DL on organ function are only rarely reported.

  • IAP threshold levels for DL reported in the literature vary considerable.

  • DL decreases IAP to levels below 20 mmHg in most studies.

  • A positive effect on organ function is reported in most studies, but the effect is inconsistent, and the duration of this effect is not clear.

  • Reported mortality after DL for ACS is high.

Abbreviations

ACS: 

= abdominal compartment syndrome

APACHE: 

= Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation

CI: 

= CI=cardiac index

CVP: 

= central venous pressure

DL: 

= decompressive laparotomy

DO2I: 

= Oxygen delivery index

HR: 

= heart rate

IAH: 

= intraabdominal hypertension

IAP: 

= intraabdominal pressure

ICP: 

= intracranial pressure

ICU: 

= intensive care unit

ISS: 

= Injury Severity score

MAP: 

= mean arterial pressure

NA: 

= not available

SOFA: 

= sepsis related organ failure assessment

SVRi: 

= systemic vascular resistance index.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Financial support: JDW is supported by a Clinical Doctoral Grant of the Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders, Belgium (FWO-Vlaanderen).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Intensive Care Unit, Ghent University Hospital
(2)
Intensive Care Unit, Campus Stuivenberg,ZiekenhuisNetwerk Antwerpen

References

  1. Balogh Z, McKinley BA, Cocanour CS, Kozar RA, Holcomb JB, Ware DN, Moore FA: Secondary abdominal compartment syndrome is an elusive early complication of traumatic shock resuscitation. Am J Surg 2002, 184: 538-543. 10.1016/S0002-9610(02)01050-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ertel W, Oberholzer A, Platz A, Stocker R, Trentz O: Incidence and clinical pattern of the abdominal compartment syndrome after "damage-control" laparotomy in 311 patients with severe abdominal and/or pelvic trauma. Crit Care Med 2000, 28: 1747-1753. 10.1097/00003246-200006000-00008View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ivatury RR, Porter JM, Simon RJ, Islam S, John R, Stahl WM: Intra-abdominal hypertension after life-threatening penetrating abdominal trauma: prophylaxis, incidence, and clinical relevance to gastric mucosal pH and abdominal compartment syndrome. J Trauma 1998, 44: 1016-1021.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Malbrain ML, Chiumello D, Pelosi P, Bihari D, Innes R, Ranieri VM, Del Turco M, Wilmer A, Brienza N, Malcangi V, et al.: Incidence and prognosis of intraabdominal hypertension in a mixed population of critically ill patients: A multiple-center epidemiological study. Crit Care Med 2005, 33: 315-322. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000153408.09806.1BView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Biancofiore G, Bindi ML, Romanelli AM, Boldrini A, Consani G, Bisa M, Filipponi F, Vagelli A, Mosca F: Intra-abdominal pressure monitoring in liver transplant recipients: a prospective study. Intensive Care Med 2003, 29: 30-36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Balogh Z, McKinley BA, Cocanour CS, Kozar RA, Valdivia A, Sailors RM, Moore FA: Supranormal trauma resuscitation causes more cases of abdominal compartment syndrome. Arch Surg 2003, 138: 637-642. 10.1001/archsurg.138.6.637View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ivy ME, Atweh NA, Palmer J, Possenti PP, Pineau M, D'Aiuto M: Intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in burn patients. J Trauma 2000, 49: 387-391.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Moore AF, Hargest R, Martin M, Delicata RJ: Intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome. Br J Surg 2004, 91: 1102-1110. 10.1002/bjs.4703View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Loi P, De Backer D, Vincent JL: Abdominal compartment syndrome. Acta Chir Belg 2001, 101: 59-64. 10.1016/S0009-8981(01)00650-7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Latenser BA, Kowal-Vern A, Kimball D, Chakrin A, Dujovny N: A pilot study comparing percutaneous decompression with decompressive laparotomy for acute abdominal compartment syndrome in thermal injury. J Burn Care Rehabil 2002, 23: 190-195. 10.1097/00004630-200205000-00008View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Malbrain ML: Is it wise not to think about intraabdominal hypertension in the ICU? Curr Opin Crit Care 2004, 10: 132-145. 10.1097/00075198-200404000-00010View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kula R, Szturz P, Sklienka P, Neiser J, Jahoda J: A role for negative fluid balance in septic patients with abdominal compartment syndrome? Intensive Care Med 2004, 30: 2138-2139. 10.1007/s00134-004-2423-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. De Waele JJ, Benoit D, Hoste E, Colardyn F: A role for muscle relaxation in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome? Intensive Care Med 2003, 29: 332-332.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. World Society for Abdominal Compartment Syndrome Consensus: Definitions and Recommendations[http://www.wsacs.org]
  15. Joseph DK, Dutton RP, Aarabi B, Scalea TM: Decompressive laparotomy to treat intractable intracranial hypertension after traumatic brain injury. J Trauma 2004, 57: 687-695.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hobson KG, Young KM, Ciraulo A, Palmieri TL, Greenhalgh DG: Release of abdominal compartment syndrome improves survival in patients with burn injury. J Trauma 2002, 53: 1129-1133. 10.1097/00005373-200212000-00016View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Meldrum DR, Moore FA, Moore EE, Franciose RJ, Sauaia A, Burch JM: Prospective characterization and selective management of the abdominal compartment syndrome. Am J Surg 1997, 174: 667-672. 10.1016/S0002-9610(97)00201-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Sugrue M, Jones F, Janjua KJ, Deane SA, Bristow P, Hillman K: Temporary abdominal closure: a prospective evaluation of its effects on renal and respiratory physiology. J Trauma 1998, 45: 914-921.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Gracias VH, Braslow B, Johnson J, Pryor J, Gupta R, Reilly P, Schwab CW: Abdominal compartment syndrome in the open abdomen. Arch Surg 2002, 137: 1298-1300. 10.1001/archsurg.137.11.1298View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Morris JA Jr, Eddy VA, Blinman TA, Rutherford EJ, Sharp KW: The staged celiotomy for trauma. Issues in unpacking and reconstruction. Ann Surg 1993, 217: 576-584.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. De Waele J, Hoste E, Blot S, Decruyenaere J, Colardyn F: Intra-abdominal hypertension in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Crit Care 2005, 9: R452-R457. 10.1186/cc3754PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Malbrain ML, Deeren D, De Potter TJ: Intra-abdominal hypertension in the critically ill: it is time to pay attention. Curr Opin Crit Care 2005, 11: 156-171. 10.1097/01.ccx.0000155355.86241.1bView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kron IL, Harman PK, Nolan SP: The measurement of intra-abdominal pressure as a criterion for abdominal re-exploration. Ann Surg 1984, 199: 28-30.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Eddy V, Nunn C, Morris JA Jr: Abdominal compartment syndrome. The Nashville experience. Surg Clin North Am 1997, 77: 801-812. 10.1016/S0039-6109(05)70585-5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Cullen DJ, Coyle JP, Teplick R, Long MC: Cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal effects of massively increased intra-abdominal pressure in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 1989, 17: 118-121.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Platell CF, Hall J, Clarke G, Lawrence-Brown M: Intra-abdominal pressure and renal function after surgery to the abdominal aorta. Aust N Z J Surg 1990, 60: 213-216.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Burrows R, Edington J, Robbs JV: A wolf in wolf's clothing – the abdominal compartment syndrome. S Afr Med J 1995, 85: 46-48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Chang MC, Miller PR, D'Agostino R Jr, Meredith JW: Effects of abdominal decompression on cardiopulmonary function and visceral perfusion in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension. J Trauma 1998, 44: 440-445.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Maxwell RA, Fabian TC, Croce MA, Davis KA: Secondary abdominal compartment syndrome: an underappreciated manifestation of severe hemorrhagic shock. J Trauma 1999, 47: 995-999.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kopelman T, Harris C, Miller R, Arrillaga A: Abdominal compartment syndrome in patients with isolated extraperitoneal injuries. J Trauma 2000, 49: 744-747.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Raeburn CD, Moore EE, Biffl WL, Johnson JL, Meldrum DR, Offner PJ, Franciose RJ, Burch JM: The abdominal compartment syndrome is a morbid complication of postinjury damage control surgery. Am J Surg 2001, 182: 542-546. 10.1016/S0002-9610(01)00821-2View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Biffl WL, Moore EE, Burch JM, Offner PJ, Franciose RJ, Johnson JL: Secondary abdominal compartment syndrome is a highly lethal event. Am J Surg 2001, 182: 645-648. 10.1016/S0002-9610(01)00814-5View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. McNelis J, Soffer S, Marini CP, Jurkiewicz A, Ritter G, Simms HH, Nathan I: Abdominal compartment syndrome in the surgical intensive care unit. Am Surg 2002, 68: 18-23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Mayberry JC, Welker KJ, Goldman RK, Mullins RJ: Mechanism of acute ascites formation after trauma resuscitation. Arch Surg 2003, 138: 773-776. 10.1001/archsurg.138.7.773View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Balogh Z, McKinley BA, Holcomb JB, Miller CC, Cocanour CS, Kozar RA, Valdivia A, Ware DN, Moore FA: Both primary and secondary abdominal compartment syndrome can be predicted early and are harbingers of multiple organ failure. J Trauma 2003, 54: 848-859.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© De Waele et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2006

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.