Giant Omphalocele: 23 Patients; Three Different Approaches

Year 2020, Volume: 5 Issue: 4, 622 - 630, 30.12.2020

Mustafa Alper Akay

https://doi.org/10.26453/otjhs.801857

Abstract

Objective: Omphalocele is the ventral body wall maldevelopment. Early surgical interventions in the treatment of giant omphaloceles (GO) can increase morbidity and mortality. In this study, it was aimed to compare the advantages and disadvantages of primary closure, silo and vacuum assisted closure (VAC) methods used in omphalocele treatment.

Materials and Methods: Three different treatment methods applied to 23 patients with giant omphalosis who were treated in our clinic between 2005 and 2020 were compared. Silo method was used in the treatment of 14 patients. Primary repair was performed in 7 patients. Mesh was used in 2 patients who underwent primary repair. The VAC was preferred for 2 patients. Treatments were discussed in terms of hospital stay, epithelization time, infections, and post-discharge problems.

Results: Sepsis, ileus, gastroesophageal reflux and respiratory system problems were encountered after the silo method and primary repair, which are the classical methods of omphalocele treatment. VAC in technique, epithelization and healing were faster and only bilateral inguinal hernia developed as a complication.

Conclusion: Minimizing complications with its effects that increase epithelization and prevent infection, VAC when other methods are considered in the treatment of giant omphalocele, it should be the first method that comes to mind. 

Keywords

Giant omphalocele, primary closure, silo, VAC

Supporting Institution

Yok

Project Number

Yok

Thanks

The author thank to Prof. Dr. Gülşen Ekingen Yıldız for their support of the study.

Dev Omfalosel: 23 Hasta; Üç Farklı Yaklaşım

Abstract

Amaç: Omfalosel karın ön duvar gelişim bozukluğudur. Silo yöntemi, cilt flepleri ve sentetik maddeler ile kapama tedavi seçenekleridir. Erken dönemde uygulanan cerrahi tedavilerin morbidite ve mortalitesindeki yükseklik dev omfalosellere yaklaşımda cerrahi dışı teknikleri ön plana çıkarmaktadır. Bu çalışmada omfalosel tedavisinde kullanılan primer kapatma, silo ve vakum yardımlı kapatma (VAC) yöntemlerinin avantaj ve dezavantajları karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır.

Materyal ve Metot: 2005- 2020 yılları arasında kliniğimizde tedavi edilen dev omfalosel tanılı 23 hastaya uygulanan 3 farklı tedavi yöntemi karşılaştırıldı. 14 hastaya tedavide silo yöntemi kullanıldı. 7 hastaya primer onarım yapıldı. Birincil kapama yapılan 2 hastaya meş kullanıldı. 2 hasta için ise VDK sistemi tercih edildi. Tedaviler hastanede kalış süresi, epitelizasyon süresi, enfeksiyonlar ve taburculuk sonrası sorunlar açısından tartışıldı.

Bulgular: Omfalosel tedavisinde klasik yöntemler olan silo yöntemi ve primer onarım sonrasında sepsis, ileus, gastroözefageal reflü ve solunum sistemi sorunları ile karşılaşıldı. VDK tekniğinde, epitelizasyon ve iyileşme daha hızlı idi ve komplikasyon olarak sadece bilateral inguinal herni gelişti.

Sonuç: Diğer klasik yöntemlere göre epitelizasyonu hızlandırıcı ve enfeksiyonlardan koruyucu etkisi ile kısa dönemde iyileşmeyi sağlayan ve komplikasyonları en aza indiren VDK sistemi, dev omfalosellerin tedavisinde ilk tercih edilebilecek yöntemler arasında akla gelmelidir. 

Keywords

Dev Omfalosel, silo, birincil kapama, VDK

Project Number

Yok

References

• Binet A, Scalabre A, Amar S, et al. Operative versus conservative treatment for giant omphalocele: study of French and Ivorian management. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2019;65:147-153.
• Roux N, Jakubowicz D, Salomon L, et al. Early Surgical Management for Giant Omphalocele: Results and Prognostic Factors. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2018;53(10):1908-1913.
• Pelizzo G, Maso G, Dell’Oste C, et al. Giant omphaloceles with a small abdominal defect:prenatal diagnosis and neonatal management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:786-788.
• Bauman B, Stephens D, Gershone H, et al. Management of giant omphaloceles: a systematic review of methods of staged surgical vs. nonoperative delayed closure. J Pediatr Surg. 2016;51:1725-1730.
• Ein SH, Langer JC. Delayed management of giant omphalocele using silver sulfadiazine cream: an 18-year experience. J Pediatr Surg. 2012;47:494-500.
• Akinkuotu AC, Sheikh F, Olutoye OO, et al. Giant omphaloceles: surgical management and perinatal outcomes. J Surg Res. 2015;198:388-392.
• Skarsgard ED: Immediate versus staged repair of omphaloceles. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2019;28:89-94.
• Duggan E, Puligandla PS. Respiratory disorders in patients with omphalocele. Semin Pediatr Surg. 2019;28:115-117.
• Dingemann C, Sonne M, Ure B, Bohnhorst B, von Kaisenberg C, Pirr S. Impact of maternal education on the outcome of newborns requiring surgery for congenital malformations. Plos One. 2019;14(4): e0214967.
• Chakhunashvili DG, Lomidze N, Karalashvili L, Kikalishvili L, Chakhunashvili K, Kakabadze Z. Challenges and management of congenital abdominal wall defects (Review). Georgian Med News. 2018;24-33.
• Mehmet Eliçevik. Karın Ön Duvarı Anomalileri. Turk Arch Ped. 2010;45 Suppl:29-34.
• Ozkan B, Markal Ertas N, Bali U, et al. Clinical Experiences with Closed Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Treatment on Various Anatomic Locations. Cureus. 2020;12(6): e8849. doi: 10.7759/cureus.8849
• Ahmet Demir at al. Topikal Negatif Basınç (Vakum yardımlı kapama) (VAC) uygulamalarımız. Türk Plast Rekons Est Cer Dergisi. 2006;14(3):171-177.
• Seidel D, Diedrich S, Herrle F, et al. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Conventional Wound Treatment in Subcutaneous Abdominal Wound Healing Impairment: The SAWHI Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg. 2020;155(6)469-478.
• Maksoud-Filho JG, Tannuri U, Da Silva MM, et al. The outcome of newborns with abdominal wall defects according to the method of abdominal closure: the experience of a single center. Pediatr Surg Int. 2006;22:503-507.
• Charlesworth P, Ervine E, McCullagh M. Exomphalos major: the Northern Ireland experience. Pediatr Surg Int. 2009;25:77-81.
• Pereira RM, Tatsuo ES, Simões E Silva AC, et al. New method of surgical delayed closure of giant omphaloceles: Lazaro da Silva’s technique. J Pediatr Surg. 2004;39:1111-1115.
• Van Eijck FC, de Blaauw I, Bleichrodt RP, et al. Closure of giant omphaloceles by the abdominal wall component separation technique in infants. J Pediatr Surg. 2008;43:246-250.
• Bauman B, Stephens D, Gershone H, et al. Management of giant omphaloceles: a systematic review of methods of staged surgical vs. nonoperative delayed closure. J Pediatr Surg. 2016;51:1725-1730.
• Malhotra S, Kumta S, Bhutada A, Jacobson-Dickman E, Motaghedi R. Topical Iodine-Induced Thyrotoxicosis in a Newborn with a Giant Omphalocele. AJP Rep. 2016;6(2):e243-e245. doi:10.1055/s-0036-1584879
• Eltayeb AA, Mostafa MM. Topical treatment of major omphalocoele: Acacia nilotica versus povidone-iodine: a randomised controlled study. Afr J Paediatr Surg. 2015;12:241-246.
• Tran DA, Truong QD, Nguyen MT. Topical application of povidone-iodine solution (Betadine)in the management of giant omphaloceles. Dermatology. 2006;212:88-90.