Management of XXXX with an absorbable mesh closure.

@entity1 @entity4438 @entity281 @entity292 @entity12512 @entity298 @entity130
PURPOSE: To examine the methods and results of treatment in @entity1 with an @entity12512 ( @entity12512 ) at a single institution where an absorbable mesh closure (AMC) is most commonly used. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed in @entity12512 @entity1 from January 2001 to June 2007. Outcomes were analyzed in terms of enteroatmospheric @entity292 (EAF) formation and survival. RESULTS: There were 73 @entity12512 @entity1 receiving definitive closures (40 @entity130 and 33 nontrauma). Twenty-four @entity1 were able to undergo a delayed primary @entity4438 (DPFC) after initial vacuum pack closure (DPFC rate 33%). The DPFC rate was significantly lower in @entity1 with an associated @entity281 or contamination (9% vs 44%, P = 0.002). The EAF and mortality rates of the DPFC group were 0% and 13%, respectively. Absorbable mesh closure was used in 41 of 49 @entity1 who failed DPFC (84%). There were 9 @entity1 who had EAF (overall EAF rate 12%), 6 of whom were in the AMC group (EAF rate 15%). The overall and AMC group mortality rates were 29% and 37%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Absorbable mesh closure carries high EAF and mortality rates. Therefore, DPFC should be considered as the primary closure method. Absorbable mesh closure should be reserved for @entity1 who fail DPFC, especially those with @entity298 or contamination.
