Background: The open abdomen (OA) is an important approach for managing intra-abdominal catastrophes and continues to be the standard of care. Complete fascial closure is an essential treatment objective and can be achieved by the use of different dynamic closure techniques. Both surgical technique and—decision making are essential for optimal patient outcome in terms of fascial closure. The aim of this study was to analyse patients' outcome after the use of mesh-mediated fascial traction (MMFT) associated with negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) and identify important factors that negatively influenced final fascial closure.Methods: A single center ambispective analysis was performed including all patients treated for an open abdomen in a tertiary referral center from 3/2011 till 2/2020. All patients with a minimum survival >24 h after initiation of treatment were analyzed. The data concerning patient management was collected and entered into the Open Abdomen Route of the European Hernia Society (EHS). Patient basic characteristics considering OA indication, primary fascial closure, as well as important features in surgical technique including time after index procedure to start mesh mediated fascial traction, surgical closure techniques and patients' long-term outcomes were analyzed.Results: Data were obtained from 152 patients who underwent open abdomen therapy (OAT) in a single center study. Indications for OAT as per-protocol analysis were sepsis (33.3%), abdominal compartment syndrome (31.6%), followed by peritonitis (24.2%), abdominal trauma (8.3%) and burst abdomen (2.4%). Overall fascial closure rate was 80% as in the per-protocol analysis. When patients that started OA management with MMFT and NPWT from the initial surgery a significantly better fascial closure rate was achieved compared to patients that started 3 or more days later (p < 0.001). An incisional hernia developed in 35.8% of patients alive with a median follow-up of 49 months (range 6–96 months).Conclusion: Our main findings emphasize the importance of a standardized treatment plan, initiated early on during management of the OA. The use of vacuum assisted closure in combination with MMFT showed high rates of fascial closure. Absence of initial intraperitoneal NPWT as well as delayed start of MMFT were risk factors for non-fascial closure. Initiation of OA with VACM should not be unnecessary delayed.

Several classification systems for radial head fractures discuss the number of fragments and their displacement, but not the exact location. This study aimed to evaluate the location of the radial head fracture fragments and the influence of the Mason type on the size of the fracture fragment. Forty-one radial head fractures (31 Mason type I and 10 type II) with an elliptical radial head were included in this retrospective study and 3D reconstructed. First, the fragments were repositioned to their original location. Next, the orientation of the scanned forearm was evaluated using the position of the longest axis relative to the proximal radio-ulnar joint, and all radial heads were rotated to the neutral rotation. The radial head was divided into 4 quadrants (anteromedial, anterolateral, posteromedial, and posterolateral). The location of the fracture line in correlation with these 4 quadrants was evaluated. All fracture fragments were located in the anteromedial quadrant. Thirty-eight (93%) were located in the anterolateral quadrant. The posterolateral quadrant was involved in 32%. At last, the average fracture fragment size was evaluated according to the Mason classification. A significant difference was found in the average fracture fragment size between Mason type I (38% of the radial head surface) and type II (48% of the radial head surface). It was concluded that there is an important involvement of the anterior quadrants of the fracture. The mean size of the fracture is significantly larger in Mason type II compared to type I.

No abstract