Early placement of a non-invasive, pressure-regulated, fascial reapproximation device improves reduction of the fascial gap in open abdomens: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Since current fascial traction methods involve invasive procedures, they are generally employed late in the management of the open abdomen (OA). This study aimed to evaluate early versus late placement of a non-invasive, pressure-regulated device for fascial reapproximation and gap reduction in OA patients. Methods: The study included all patients who had the abdominal fascia intentionally left open after damage control operation for trauma and emergency general surgery and were managed with the device in an academic hospital between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2023. Time of device placement in relation to the end of index laparotomy was defined as early (≤24 hours) versus late (>24 hours). Time-related mid-incisional width reduction of the fascial gap and fascial closure were assessed using descriptive and linear regression analysis. Results: There was a significantly higher percent reduction in the fascial gap at the midpoint of the laparotomies in the early (≤24 hours) AbClo placement group compared with the late (>24 hours) AbClo placement group, respectively, median 76% versus 43%, p<0.001. Linear regression adjusting for body mass index and the number of takebacks indicated that fascial approximation was 22% higher for early placement (β=0.22; CI 0.12, 0.33, p<0.001). Primary myofascial closure rate with early (≤24 hours) application of the device was 98% versus 85% with late application. Conclusion: Early non-invasive application of the device (≤24 hours) after the initial laparotomy resulted in greater reduction of the fascial gap and higher primary fascial closure rate compared with late placement (>24 hours). Early non-invasive intervention could prevent abdominal wall myofascial retraction in OA patients. Level of evidence: IV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".