6 Powerful AbClo Statistics & Facts Based on Peer-Reviewed Clinical Evidence - Part 2

Part 2:

Fascial Closure Achieved Faster With AbClo (3.7 Days vs 6.4 Days)

One of AbClo’s most compelling investigations to date was a comparative historical control studying the difference in outcomes when using either the Wittmann Patch or AbClo system for fascial traction.

For context, the Wittmann Patch has been one of two leading fascial traction systems used in open abdomen care over the past 25 years. It is an invasive, reactive approach that attaches two distinct hook or loop sheets to either side of the abdominal incision. These sheets are sutured to the fascial edges, bridge the fascial gap, and adhere together at the midline similar to Velcro. Rolling up the connection of these sheets slowly pulls the fascial edges to the midline while doubling as a temporary abdominal covering.8

While the Wittmann patch was groundbreaking for its time, allowing gradual and adjustable reapproximation for traumatically ill open abdomen patients, it still had its drawbacks.

The damage the Wittmann Patch system causes to the fascial edge could potentially interfere with healing, resulting in fascial dehiscence, evisceration, and future incisional hernias. The invasive nature of the Wittmann Patch also leads to more trips to the operating room to adjust the device.

In 2024, Tufts University researchers Drs. Wael Abosena and Dr. Mohammed Bawazeer et al. set out to determine the difference in primary fascial closure rates and time to closure as they differ between the Wittmann Patch and AbClo systems.

The researchers found that AbClo helped achieve primary fascial closure ~3 days faster; 6.4 days ± 5.1 days compared to 3.7 days ± 2.1 days for AbClo, p = 0.0015. 15

This three-day improvement is a strong indication that using non-invasive fascial traction in a preventative manner can help improve patient care, helping decrease complications of open abdomens. The reduction in time to closure is also a large contributor to cost savings associated with the AbClo device.

Less OR Takebacks With AbClo (1.8 vs 2.4)

In continuing with findings from Drs. Abosena’s and Dr. Bawazeer’s work, the researchers also explored the strain on operating room (OR) scheduling that open abdomen patients put on healthcare systems.

Similar to the faster closure times, when AbClo was chosen as the fascial traction device, patients required approximately one less visit to the OR than Wittmann patch patients; 2.4 ±1.7 visits vs. 1.8 ±1 visits, p= 0.04. 15

A 2020 study out of Germany by Willms et al. speaks on the importance of this reduction in OR visits for patient outcomes. Willms et al. showed that with each additional surgery or ‘takeback’ the likelihood of achieving definitive-primary fascial closure decreases by 26% (odds ratio: 0.740, p = 0.005).9

While Willms’ study did not specifically reference Wittmann Patch or AbClo, they did support the use of dynamic traction for improved closure times and less OR visits. AbClo satisfies both of these metrics while being non-invasive, demonstrating again that its unique approach to open abdomen care is superior for patient outcomes and hospital efficiency.

AbClo Saves Up To $19,449 in 94% of Patients Compared to NPWT Alone

Throughout AbClo’s development, adhering to universally accepted metrics of improvement has been key to demonstrate the increased ability to provide care with the AbClo system. This can be showcased no better than through the Quadruple Aim for Healthcare Improvement, published in 2014 and adapted from the original 2008 Triple Aim system.10,11

In the updated Quadruple Aim Guidelines, researchers emphasize that for new healthcare approaches to be maximally effective they must focus on enhancing patient experience, improving population health, reducing costs, and improving the work-life balance of healthcare providers.11

AbClo Quadruple Aim CAPTION:

The 2024 Quadruple Aim for Healthcare outlines basic metrics for quantifying the improvement a new technology or technique provides to the healthcare spectrum. AbClo was developed with the Quadruple Aim in mind and satisfies all metrics.

We’ve previously discussed AbClo’s ability to; enhance patient outcomes through faster and more effective definitive closure, improve population health through the reduction in failed closures and downstream complications, and bring balance for healthcare providers with shorter ICU stays and less OR strain. The beneficial consequence of these effects is that healthcare providers can and do reduce costs and save money using AbClo.

In a 2024 Health Economic Analysis, AbClo demonstrated the opportunity for $19,449 in savings for up to 94% of cases.12 These savings were based on a model using a lower 85% primary fascial closure rate for AbClo. This figure is sourced from the first prospective pilot study on AbClo which restricted time device placement until after 48 hours following the laparotomy.3

Given that cost savings for open abdomens are largely based on the ability to close patients, as patients who fail to close lead to an average $150,000 in additional spending; increasing the closure rate in the same model to the now available 98% primary fascial closure rate would significantly raise the cost savings potential.3,5

Current users of the AbClo system who have run internal audits on AbClo data suggest real-world savings closer to $40,000 per open abdomen patient. These savings are largely based on reduced material usages, reduced ICU stay days and the reduction in operating room visits and associated costs.12

As novel, innovative medical devices continue to become available across the healthcare spectrum, basing claims of improved efficacy in peer-reviewed data guided by reputable guidelines will continue to be essential. AbClo is dedicated to adhering to these guidelines and basing its improvements for clinical outcomes and cost savings in real-world data.

With the widespread adoption of NPWT and the now available non-invasive, preventative fascial traction system, AbClo, the ability to achieve a high rate of primary closure without negative secondary consequences is becoming more of a reality. With these novel approaches, it can now be said; Do not fear the open abdomen! 14