English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives: Temporary abdominal closure methods allow for management of open abdomens where immediate primary closure is not possible and/or where repeat abdominal entries are necessary. We assessed pressure mapping and fluid extraction efficiency of three open abdomen dressing systems: ABThera™ Active Abdominal Therapy System, V.A.C.® Abdominal Dressing System, and Barker’s vacuum packing technique. Methods: An in vitro test model was designed to simulate physical conditions present in an open abdomen. The model consisted of a rigid rest platform with elevated central region and a flexible outer layer with centrally located incision. Constant −125 mmHg negative pressure was applied according to the type of system, under simulated dynamic conditions, using albumin-based solution with a viscosity of 14 cP. Data were collected by pressure sensors located circumferentially into three concentric zones: Zone 1 (closest to negative pressure source), Zone 2 (immediately outside of manifolding material edge), and Zone 3 (area most distal from negative pressure source). Each value was the result of approximately 100 pressure readings/zone/experiment with a total of three experiments for each system. Results: Pressure distribution of ABThera Therapy was significantly (p < 0.05) superior to Barker’s vacuum packing technique in all three evaluated zones. Similarly, V.A.C. Abdominal Dressing System pressure distribution was significantly (p < 0.05) improved compared to Barker’s vacuum packing technique in all zones. There were no pressure distribution differences in Zone 1 between ABThera Therapy and V.A.C. Abdominal Dressing System; however, in Zones 2 and 3, ABThera Therapy was significantly (p < 0.05) superior to V.A.C. Abdominal Dressing System. Conclusions: These data suggest that all approaches to negative pressure therapy for open abdomen treatment are not equal. Additional research should be conducted to elucidate clinical implications of data demonstrated here

sage open medicine

In vitro pressure manifolding distribution evaluation of ABThera<sup>™</sup> Active Abdominal Therapy System, V.A.C.<sup>®</sup> Abdominal Dressing System, and Barker’s vacuum packing technique conducted under dynamic conditions

In vitro pressure manifolding distribution evaluation of ABThera™ Active Abdominal Therapy System, V.A.C.® Abdominal Dressing System, and Barker’s vacuum packing technique conducted under dynamic conditions

In vitro pressure manifolding distribution evaluation of ABThera^™ Active Abdominal Therapy System, V.A.C.^® Abdominal Dressing System, and Barker’s vacuum packing technique conducted under dynamic conditions