An interventional study of Experimental: ABRO™ Binder Arm and Placebo Comparator: Usual Care in Abdominal Trauma, Abdominal Injury and Abdominal Infection, sponsored by Unity Health Toronto. Status unknown at 4 sites in Canada. Open to participants aged 16 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-03-10.
Sponsored by Unity Health Toronto · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
At the end of most abdominal operations, the fascial layer is closed by stitching edges of the wound together. However, because of logistic and/or technical reasons or the patient's critical condition, the surgeon is forced to leave the abdomen open.
The current approach for temporary coverage of abdomen is vacuum assisted techniques (VAT). This technique requires the use of vacuum-assisted drainage to remove blood or watery fluid from a wound or operative site. Although this is the most successful and commonly used procedure, there are some limitations to this method. For example, VAT have little effect on preventing lateral movement of the wound edges. Therefore, VAT it is not the ideal procedure in aiding surgeons to closed the abdomen.
The purpose of this study is to compare usual care (vacuum or non-vacuum methods for temporary coverage of the OA) versus usual care plus a novel new abdominal binder device called ABRO™ that may aid in the closure of patients who undergo open abdomen closure procedures.
At the end of most abdominal operations the fascial layer is closed primarily. However, because of logistic, physiological and or anatomical reasons, the surgeon needs to leave the abdomen open. In those circumstances, attempts to close the abdomen could potentially lead to unnecessary damage to the abdominal wall fascia, intra-abdominal hypertension, abdominal compartment syndrome and abdominal wall dehiscence post-operatively.
The use of the "open abdomen" (OA) in the post-operative period is not uncommon. Currently, three important trends provide grounds for increased use of this surgical strategy:
This lifesaving surgical strategy does not come without a price. The mortality rate of an OA is approximately 30%. There is also a wide range of complications linked to this procedure. The OA exposes large surface area of the body to the environment increasing fluid losses. Maintenance of adequate fluid and nutritional status of the patient are challenging in this setting.
Furthermore, the exposed abdominal cavity also poses greater risk for local contamination from external sources that could ultimately result in sepsis. Impaired abdominal wall function interferes with ventilatory mechanics. Consequently, patients with OA are prone to respiratory complications. However, the most dreaded complication of an OA is the formation of an enteroatmospheric fistula (EF). The incidence of EF is approximately 11-15%, and increases with time. Patients who have an OA for more than 8 days have an incidence of ECF as high as 25%, caused mainly by damage to the exposed bowel. Management this complication is extremely challenging, very costly, and carries a mortality rate of 36-64%.
In consideration of the foregoing considerations, early closure of the OA is undoubtedly the most effective way to prevent complications linked to this lifesaving surgical strategy. One of the most important barriers to early closure of the OA is lateral retraction of the fascial wound edges. Retraction presents as early as three days post-operatively, involves all layers of the abdominal wall and ultimately results in loss of domain. Moreover, generalized edema, atrophy and contraction of the abdominal muscles also contribute to a progressively larger defect in the fascia.Another important problem is "buckling" of the rectus abdominal muscles resulting in a "diamond" shape defect in the fascial that is very difficult to close.
Management of the OA prior to definitive closure call for temporary closure techniques. The three main objectives of temporary closure techniques are to prevent injury to the bowel, manage fluid loss from the abdominal cavity, and ultimately to facilitate primary closure. Early closure is dependent on technical factors and patients' underlying clinical condition. Despite all efforts to facilitate primary fascial closure, this condition is successfully achieved only in approximately 60% of the cases.
Currently, vacuum assisted techniques (VAT) are the most frequent, and arguably the most efficacious method for temporary coverage of the OA. Furthermore, VAT are particularly useful in the management of edema fluid, gastrointestinal and peritoneal secretions. Despite these important benefits, VAT provide minimal support to prevent lateral retraction of the abdominal wall fascial edges. Indeed, vacuum closure devices are not able to brace the abdominal wall and prevent lateralization of the rectus muscles even with maximum negative pressure. Moreover, excessive negative pressure applied to the abdominal cavity could potentially provoke severe injury to the intra-abdominal organs and interfere with physiologic functions.
Devices applied surgically to the abdominal wall are more effective in preventing lateral retraction of the fascial edges. However, these devices are stitched through the skin, subcutaneous tissue, muscle, and fascial layers. These stitches frequently cut through the aforementioned tissues because of the high pressure at the suture sites produced by counteracting forces. The resulting wounds encompass all layers of the abdominal wall including the fascia. Another important drawback of devices that require a surgical procedure for application is the need for frequent trips to operating room for assessment and potential adjustments. Furthermore, technical limitations inherit to surgically applied temporary closure devices result in undesirable delay for the initial placement. A recent report showed that the mean time from the primary operation to placement of the temporary closure device was 9.5 days.16 This is dangerously close to the critical period of EF formation and loss of abdominal domain.
Interim analysis of the data obtained from the initial randomized clinical trial to investigate the original prototype of the non-traumatic binder for abdominal wall closure (ABROTM) described in this protocol showed promising results (n=20 patients). The utilization of the original prototype of the ABROTM device resulted in 80% primary fascial closure rate compared to only 50% when VAT alone was employed. All patients (n=10) subjected to the application of the original prototype of the ABROTM device had their abdomen closed by primary fascial suture, without component separation or mesh. The ABROTM prototype resulted in greater than 65% reduction in the maximum width and the area of the fascial defects at 4 ± 1 days post-operative, whereas VAT alone resulted in a 5% increase. Moreover, interim analysis of the data showed that there were no complications from the use of the prototype of the ABROTM device. Therefore, it is anticipated that the use of the new ABROTM device in the proposed multicentre randomized controlled trial may have several advantages compared to preexisting methods for closure of the OA
60 studies on the registry are indexed under Abdominal Injuries; 19 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 140 is above the median of 125 across 30 interventional studies indexed under Abdominal Injuries.
Browse Abdominal Injuries studies →Unity Health Toronto is the lead sponsor of 447 studies on the registry; 82 are open to participants now.
Of its 5 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 1 (20%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared. Example: 70 kg and 1.75 m gives 70 ÷ (1.75 × 1.75) ≈ 22.9.
What counts as overweight or obesity differs between countries (some use lower cut-offs), so go by the range the study states.
BMI (body mass index)
Weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared. Example: 70 kg and 1.75 m gives 70 ÷ (1.75 × 1.75) ≈ 22.9.
What counts as overweight or obesity differs between countries (some use lower cut-offs), so go by the range the study states.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
The current approach for temporary coverage of abdomen is called "vacuum assisted techniques (VAT)". This technique requires the use of vacuum-assisted drainage to remove blood or watery fluid from a wound or operative site.
Device: Placebo Comparator: Usual Care
Intervention is the usual care (listed above) plus a novel new abdominal binder device called ABRO™
Device: Experimental: ABRO™ Binder Arm
ABRO™ is an abdominal device designed to be positioned superficially on the abdominal skin of patients managed with the Open Abdomen strategy. The device is comprised of two rigid plates to stabilize the abdominal muscles thus preventing buckling of these. Another element of this novel device is the circumferential dynamic retainer (CDR). This one is passed behind the patient's back to provide more stability to the muscles in the abdomen keeping them in position to prevent lateral movement of them.
The current approach for temporary coverage of abdomen is called "vacuum assisted techniques (VAT)". This technique requires the use of vacuum-assisted drainage to remove blood or watery fluid from a wound or operative site.
Total number of patients who experience complete abdominal closure with sutures without the use of mesh and/or component separation.
The primary outcome will measure the total number of patients who experience complete abdominal closure with sutures without the use of mesh and/or component separation.
Time frame: Outcome measures will record when closure of the abdomen takes place up to 11 days after randomization.
This study is status unknown, as verified in Mar 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.