Negative pressure vs open drainage for septic peritonitis in dogs

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare passive open abdominal drainage (POAD) and negative-pressure abdominal drainage (NPAD) using the ABThera™ system in the treatment of septic peritonitis. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized prospective clinical trial. ANIMALS: Dogs (n = 16) with septic peritonitis. METHODS: Dogs with septic peritonitis were randomly assigned to one of two treatment protocols: NPAD versus POAD. Anesthesia time, operating time, duration of drainage, costs, survival, and complications were compared between techniques. Hematological and biochemical parameters in blood and abdominal fluid, and histopathological findings of omentum and abdominal wall tissue samples were compared between NPAD and POAD at time of initial surgery and at time of closure. RESULTS: Overall survival was 81%. Treatment costs, anesthesia and operating time, drainage time, survival, and postoperative complications were similar between techniques. Loss of total plasma protein and decreased inflammation-related factors in abdominal fluid at time of closure were noted in all patients. Neutrophilic inflammation was greater in abdominal wall samples after NPAD. POAD patients showed discomfort during bandage changes and had frequent leakage of abdominal fluid outside of the bandage. CONCLUSION: NPAD is an effective alternative to POAD for treatment of septic peritonitis, based on costs and survival. NPAD resulted in less abdominal fluid leakage, and evidence of superior healing on histological evaluation of abdominal tissues.