Search

Background: Temporary abdominal wound closure is sometimes desirable when tension-free approximation of the wound edges is impractical or when reexploration is planned.Methods: The behavior of a composite prosthesis (PL-PU99) designed by our group was evaluated as a method of temporary abdominal closure in white New Zealand rabbits. After a 7 cm long midline laparotomy, a spindle-shaped 4 cm (maximum width) by 7 cm (length) fragment of PL-PU99 was sutured to the edges of the peritoneal, muscular, and fascial abdominal tissues, so that the biomaterial remained in contact with the exterior. The PL-PU99 composite is composed of a polypropylene mesh adhered to a sheet of polyurethane with an acrylic cement. At 7 and 14 days after implant, animals were sacrificed and specimens taken for morphological, ultrastructural, morphometry of the neoperitoneum, and immunohistochemical (macrophage reaction, RAM-11) analysis.Results: No death or signs of infection or rejection of the prostheses were recorded. No adhesions could be macroscopically observed between the composite and the intestinal loops. The biomaterial achieved a good seal, no leakage of fluids being detected. Fourteen days after implant, the neoperitoneum formed on the prosthesis was of an even structure and was made up of organized, vascularized connective tissue covered by an uninterrupted mesothelium.Conclusions: The PL-PU99 prosthesis shows optimal behavior at the prosthesis/visceral peritoneum interface, making it ideal for its use in the temporary closure of the abdomen. The implanted composite may also prove useful for the permanent repair of the abdominal wall. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: To evaluate the feasibility of an efficacy trial comparing a hydrophobic polyurethane peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) with a standard polyurethane PICC.Methods: This pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted between May 2017 and February 2018. Adult participants (n = 111) were assigned to hydrophobic polyurethane PICC with proximal valve (intervention) or a polyurethane PICC with external clamp (standard care). Primary outcome was trial feasibility including PICC failure. Secondary outcomes were central line-associated bloodstream infection, local infection, occlusion, thrombosis, fracture and dislodgement, phlebitis, local or systemic allergic reaction, and PICC dwell time.Results: All feasibility outcomes were achieved, apart from eligibility criteria. In total, 338 patients were screened, 138 were eligible (41%), and of these 111 were randomised (80%). Patients received the allocated PICC in 106 (95%) insertions. No patients withdrew from the study and there was no missing data. PICC failure was 24% (13/55) in the intervention group and 22% (12/55) in the standard care group (p = 0.820). PICC failure per 1000 PICC days was 16.3 in the intervention group and 18.4 in the control group (p = 0.755). The average dwell time was 12 days in the intervention and 8 days in the control group.Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility of an efficacy trial of PICC materials in an adult population, once adjustments were made to include not only in-patients, but also patients being discharged to the Hospital in the Home service.Trial Registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616001578493 . Prospectively registered on 16 November 2016. The trial protocol was published a priori (Kleidon et al., Vasc Access 3:15-21, 2017). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]