Active Negative Pressure Peritoneal Therapy After Abbreviated Laparotomy: The Intraperitoneal Vacuum Randomized Controlled Trial

The role of open abdomen in non-trauma patient: WSES Consensus Paper

The open abdomen (OA) is defined as intentional decision to leave the fascial edges of the abdomen un-approximated after laparotomy (laparostomy). The abdominal contents are potentially exposed and therefore must be protected with a temporary coverage, which is referred to as temporal abdominal closure (TAC). OA use remains widely debated with many specific details deserving detailed assessment and clarification. To date, in patients with intra-abdominal emergencies, the OA has not been formally endorsed for routine utilization; although, utilization is seemingly increasing. Therefore, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Abdominal Compartment Society (WSACS) and the Donegal Research Academy united a worldwide group of experts in an international consensus conference to review and thereafter propose the basis for evidence-directed utilization of OA management in non-trauma emergency surgery and critically ill patients. In addition to utilization recommendations, questions with insufficient evidence urgently requiring future study were identified.

2017 update of the WSES guidelines for emergency repair of complicated abdominal wall hernias

Emergency repair of complicated abdominal wall hernias may be associated with worsen outcome and a significant rate of postoperative complications. There is no consensus on management of complicated abdominal hernias. The main matter of debate is about the use of mesh in case of intestinal resection and the type of mesh to be used. Wound infection is the most common complication encountered and represents an immense burden especially in the presence of a mesh. The recurrence rate is an important topic that influences the final outcome. A World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) Consensus Conference was held in Bergamo in July 2013 with the aim to define recommendations for emergency repair of abdominal wall hernias in adults. This document represents the executive summary of the consensus conference approved by a WSES expert panel. In 2016, the guidelines have been revised and updated according to the most recent available literature.

Intraabdominal Hypertension, Abdominal Compartment Syndrome, and the Open Abdomen

Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is the end point of a process whereby massive interstitial swelling in the abdomen or rapid development of a space-filling lesion in the abdomen (such as ascites or a hematoma) leads to pathologically increased pressure. This results in so-called intraabdominal hypertension (IAH), causing decreased perfusion of the kidneys and abdominal viscera and possible difficulties with ventilation and maintenance of cardiac output. These effects contribute to a cascade of ischemia and multiple organ dysfunction with high mortality. A few primary disease processes traditionally requiring large-volume crystalloid resuscitation account for most cases of IAH and ACS. Once IAH is recognized, nonsurgical steps to decrease intraabdominal pressure (IAP) can be undertaken (diuresis/dialysis, evacuation of intraluminal bowel contents, and sedation), although the clinical benefit of such therapies remains largely conjectural. Surgical decompression with midline laparotomy is the standard ultimate treatment once ACS with organ dysfunction is established. There is minimal primary literature on the pathophysiological underpinnings of IAH and ACS and few prospective randomized trials evaluating their treatment or prevention; this concise review therefore provides only brief summaries of these topics. Many modern studies nominally dealing with IAH or ACS are simply epidemiologic surveys on their incidence, so this paper summarizes the incidence of IAH and ACS in a variety of disease states. Especially emphasized is the fact that modern critical care paradigms emphasize rational limitations to fluid resuscitation, which may have contributed to an apparent decrease in ACS among critically ill patients.

Negative Pressure Wound Therapy versus modified Barker Vacuum Pack as temporary abdominal closure technique for Open Abdomen management: a four-year experience

BACKGROUND

We reviewed our experience with patients presenting with trauma and peritonitis who underwent an open abdomen (OA) procedure, and compared outcomes between Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) and a modified Barker Vacuum Pack (mBVP) technique.

METHODS

In this descriptive study, we retrospectively analyzed data regarding all patients who underwent OA for intra-abdominal sepsis or abdominal trauma at our Centre from January 2012 to December 2015. Demographic data, co-morbidities, indications to surgery, intra-operative details and Björck classification grade were considered. Outcomes included were: time to closure in days, fascial closure rates, ICU and hospital stay, in-hospital and overall mortality, and entero-atmospheric fistula rate.

RESULTS

A total of 83 cases were considered. Mean closure time was 6 days versus 6.5 days (p = 0.71) in NPWT and mBVP groups, respectively; the fascial closure rate was 75.4% versus 93.8% (p = 0.10). At multivariate analysis, in-hospital and overall mortality were significantly higher within the mBVP, as compared to NPWT (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.1 to 13.1, p = 0.02 - OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.2 to 14.1, p = 0.01). Entero-atmospheric fistula rate was 2.6% in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

NPWT as a temporary abdominal closure technique, as compared to mBVP, appears to be associated with better outcomes in terms of mortality.

What is the effectiveness of the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) in patients treated with open abdomen technique? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The open abdomen technique may be used in critically ill patients to manage abdominal injury, reduce the septic complications, and prevent the abdominal compartment syndrome. Many different techniques have been proposed and multiple studies have been conducted, but the best method of temporary abdominal closure has not been determined yet. Recently, new randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials have been published on this topic. We aimed to perform an up-to-date systematic review on the management of open abdomen, including the most recent published randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, to compare negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with no NPWT and define if one technique has better outcomes than the other with regard to primary fascial closure, postoperative 30-day mortality and morbidity, enteroatmospheric fistulae, abdominal abscess, bleeding, and length of stay.

METHODS

According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, an online literature research (until July 1, 2015) was performed on MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Library databases. The MeSH terms and free words used "vacuum assisted closure" "vac;", "open abdomen", "damage control surgery", and "temporary abdominal closure". No language restriction was made.

RESULTS

The initial systematic literature search yielded 452 studies. After a careful assessment of the titles and of the full text was obtained, eight articles fulfilled inclusion criteria. We analyzed 1,225 patients, of whom 723 (59%) underwent NPWT and 502 (41%) did not undergo NPWT, and performed four subgroups: VAC versus Bogota bag technique (two studies, 106 participants), VAC versus mesh-foil laparostomy (two studies, 159 participants), VAC versus laparostomy (adhesive impermeable with midline zip) (one study, 106 participants), and NPWT versus no NPWT techniques (three studies, 854 participants) in which it is not possible to perform an analysis of the different types of treatment. Comparing the NPWT group and the group without NPWT, there was no statistically significant difference in fascial closure (63.5% vs 69.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-2.06; p = 0.57), postoperative 30-day overall morbidity (p = 0.19), postoperative enteroatmospheric fistulae rate (2.1% vs 5.8%; OR, 0.63; 95% CIs, 0.12-3.15; p = 0.57), in the postoperative bleeding rate (5.7% vs 14.9%; OR, 0.58; 95% CIs, 0.05-6.84; p = 0.87), and postoperative abdominal abscess rate (2.4% vs 5.6%; OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.13-1.34; p = 0.14). On the other hand, statistical significance was found between the NPWT group and the group without NPWT in the postoperative mortality rate (28.5% vs 41.4%; OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23-0.91; p = 0.03) and in the length of stay in the intensive care unit (mean difference, -4.53; 95% CI, -5.46 to 3.60; p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

The limitations of the present analysis might be related to the lack of randomized controlled trials, so there is a risk of selection bias favoring NPWT. For several outcomes, there were few studies, confidence intervals were wide, and inconsistency was high, suggesting that although there were no statistically significant differences between the groups, there was insufficient evidence to show that the outcomes were similar. We can conclude from the current available data that NPWT seems to be associated with a trend toward better outcomes compared to the use of no NPWT. It does reflect the evidence presented in the current systematic review; however, the data should be interpreted with substantial caution given a number of weaknesses (in particular, the lack of statistical significance and heterogeneity between studies, i.e., small sample size of the included studies, high variability between studies). We highlight the need for randomized controlled trials having homogeneous inclusion criteria to assess the use of NPWT for the management of open abdomen.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systemic review/meta-analysis, level III.

[The treatment of acute secondary peritonitis : A retrospective analysis of the use of continuous negative pressure therapy]

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute secondary peritonitis often need relaparotomies and open abdominal lavages. Continuous negative pressure therapy seems to be beneficial.

OBJECTIVES

Does the efficacy of the therapy depend on the continuous negative pressure system used?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed in the Chirurgische Klinik der Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité Campus Mitte, including all patients who underwent abdominal vacuum therapy between December 2013 and February 2015. Two different systems (ABThera®, KCI Medizinprodukte GmbH and Suprasorb® CNP Drainagefolie, Lohmann & Rauscher GmbH) were available for treatment.

RESULTS

During the 14 month study period, 33 patients with acute secondary peritonitis were treated with abdominal negative pressure therapy. Vacuum therapy treatment was applied for a median of 4 days (range 0-22 days). Eight patients (24%) died during hospitalisation. After completion of intraabdominal vacuum therapy, direct fascial closure was feasible in 26 patients (79%). There were no differences concerning patient characteristics, duration of abdominal vacuum therapy, the possibility of direct fascial closure or morbidity and mortality with the two different systems used.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute secondary peritonitis is associated with high morbidity. We achieved a lower mortality rate compared to prospective clinical trials using intraabdominal continuous negative pressure therapy. The effectiveness and cost efficiency of different therapy systems should be the topic of further research.

Management of the open abdomen: clinical recommendations for the trauma/acute care surgeon and general surgeon

Traditionally, the surgical approach to managing abdominal injuries was to assess the extent of trauma, repair any damage and close the abdomen in one definitive procedure rather than leave the abdomen open. With advances in medicine, damage control surgery using temporary abdominal closure methods is being used to manage the open abdomen (OA) when closure is not possible. Although OA management is often observed in traumatic injuries, the extension of damage control surgery concepts, in conjunction with OA, for the management of the septic patient requires that the general surgeon who is faced with these challenges has a comprehensive knowledge of this complex subject. The purpose of this article is to provide guidance to the acute care and general surgeon on the use of OA negative pressure therapy (OA-NPT; ABTHERA™ Open Abdomen Negative Pressure Therapy System, KCI, an ACELITY Company, San Antonio, TX) for OA management. A literature review of published evidence, clinical recommendations on managing the OA and a case study demonstrating OA management using OA-NPT have been included.

Management of intra-abdominal infections: recommendations by the WSES 2016 consensus conference

This paper reports on the consensus conference on the management of intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) which was held on July 23, 2016, in Dublin, Ireland, as a part of the annual World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) meeting. This document covers all aspects of the management of IAIs. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation recommendation is used, and this document represents the executive summary of the consensus conference findings.

Recent developments in the surgical management of complex intra-abdominal infection

BACKGROUND

Current guidance on the management of sepsis often applies to infection originating from abdominal or pelvic sources, which presents specific challenges and opportunities for efficient and rapid source control. Advances made in the past decade are presented in this article.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review was undertaken by searching standard literature databases for English-language studies presenting original data on the clinical management of abdominal and pelvic complex infection in adults over the past 10 years. High-quality studies relevant to five topical themes that emerged during review were included.

RESULTS

Important developments and promising preliminary work are presented, relating to: imaging and other diagnostic modalities; antimicrobial therapy and the importance of antimicrobial stewardship; the particular challenges posed by fungal sepsis; novel techniques in percutaneous and endoscopic source control; and current issues relating to surgical source control and managing the abdominal wound. Logistical challenges relating to rapid access to cross-sectional imaging, interventional radiology and operating theatres need to be addressed so that international benchmarks can be met.

CONCLUSION

Important advances have been made in the diagnosis, non-operative and surgical control of abdominal or pelvic sources, which may improve outcomes in the future. Important areas for continued research include the diagnosis and therapy of fungal infection and the challenges of managing the open abdomen.

Abbreviated closure for remote damage control laparotomy in extreme environments: A randomized trial of sutures versus wound clamps comparing terrestrial and weightless conditions

INTRODUCTION

Far-Forward Damage Control Laparotomies (DCLs) might provide direct-compression of visceral hemorrhage, however, suturing is a limiting factor, especially for non-physicians. We thus compared abbreviated skin closures comparing skin-suture (SS) versus wound-clamp (WC), on-board a research aircraft in weightlessness (0g) and normal gravity (1g).

METHODS

Surgeons conducted DCLs on a surgical-simulator; onboard the hangered-aircraft (1g), or during parabolic flight (0g), randomized to either WC or SS.

RESULTS

Ten surgeons participated. Two (40%) surgeons randomized to suture in 0g were incapacitated with motion-sickness, and none were able to close in either 1 or 0g. With WC, two completely closed in 1g as did three in 0g, despite having longer incisions (p = 0.016). Overall skin-closure with WC was significantly greater in both 1g (p = 0.016) and 0g (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

WC was more effective in 1g and particularly 0g. Future studies should address the utility of abbreviated WC abdominal closure to facilitate potential Far-Forward DCL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ID ISRCTN/77929274.

IROA: International Register of Open Abdomen, preliminary results

BACKGROUND

No definitive data about open abdomen (OA) epidemiology and outcomes exist. The World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the Panamerican Trauma Society (PTS) promoted the International Register of Open Abdomen (IROA).

METHODS

A prospective observational cohort study including patients with an OA treatment. Data were recorded on a web platform (Clinical Registers®) through a dedicated website: www.clinicalregisters.org.

RESULTS

Four hundred two patients enrolled. Adult patients: 369 patients; Mean age: 57.39±18.37; 56% male; Mean BMI: 36±5.6. OA indication: Peritonitis (48.7%), Trauma (20.5%), Vascular Emergencies/Hemorrhage (9.4%), Ischemia (9.1%), Pancreatitis (4.2%),Post-operative abdominal-compartment-syndrome (3.9%), Others (4.2%). The most adopted Temporary-abdominal-closure systems were the commercial negative pressure ones (44.2%). During OA 38% of patients had complications; among them 10.5% had fistula. Definitive closure: 82.8%; Mortality during treatment: 17.2%. Mean duration of OA: 5.39(±4.83) days; Mean number of dressing changes: 0.88(±0.88). After-closure complications: (49.5%) and Mortality: (9%). No significant associations among TACT, indications, mortality, complications and fistula. A linear correlationexists between days of OA and complications (Pearson linear correlation = 0.326 p<0.0001) and with the fistula development (Pearson = 0.146 p= 0.016). Pediatric patients: 33 patients. Mean age: 5.91±(3.68) years; 60% male. Mortality: 3.4%; Complications: 44.8%; Fistula: 3.4%. Mean duration of OA: 3.22(±3.09) days.

CONCLUSION

Temporary abdominal closure is reliable and safe. The different techniques account for different results according to the different indications. In peritonitis commercial negative pressure temporary closure seems to improve results. In trauma skin-closure and Bogotà-bag seem to improve results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02382770.

High Mobility Group Box-1 Protein and Outcomes in Critically Ill Surgical Patients Requiring Open Abdominal Management

Background. Previous studies assessing various cytokines in the critically ill/injured have been uninformative in terms of translating to clinical care management. Animal abdominal sepsis work suggests that enhanced intraperitoneal (IP) clearance of Damage-Associated Molecular Patterns (DAMPs) improves outcome. Thus measuring the responses of DAMPs offers alternate potential insights and a representative DAMP, High Mobility Group Box-1 protein (HMGB-1), was considered. While IP biomediators are being recognized in critical illness/trauma, HMGB-1 behaviour has not been examined in open abdomen (OA) management. Methods. A modified protocol for HMGB-1 detection was used to examine plasma/IP fluid samples from 44 critically ill/injured OA patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing two negative pressure peritoneal therapies (NPPT): Active NPPT (ANPPT) and Barker's Vacuum Pack NPPT (BVP). Samples were collected and analyzed at the time of laparotomy and at 24 and 48 hours after. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in survivor versus nonsurvivor HMGB-1 plasma or IP concentrations at baseline, 24 hours, or 48 hours. However, plasma HMGB-1 levels tended to increase continuously in the BVP cohort. Conclusions. HMGB-1 appeared to behave differently between NPPT cohorts. Further studies are needed to elucidate the relationship of HMGB-1 and outcomes in septic/injured patients.

Increased pressure within the abdominal compartment: intra-abdominal hypertension and the abdominal compartment syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews recent developments related to intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH)/abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) and clinical practice guidelines published in 2013.

RECENT FINDINGS

IAH/ACS often develops because of the acute intestinal distress syndrome. Although the incidence of postinjury ACS is decreasing, IAH remains common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality among critically ill/injured patients. Many risk factors for IAH include those findings suggested to be indications for use of damage control surgery in trauma patients. Medical management strategies for IAH/ACS include sedation/analgesia, neuromuscular blocking and prokinetic agents, enteral decompression tubes, interventions that decrease fluid balance, and percutaneous catheter drainage. IAH/ACS may be prevented in patients undergoing laparotomy by leaving the abdomen open where appropriate. If ACS cannot be prevented with medical or surgical management strategies or treated with percutaneous catheter drainage, guidelines recommend urgent decompressive laparotomy. Use of negative pressure peritoneal therapy for temporary closure of the open abdomen may improve the systemic inflammatory response and patient-important outcomes.

SUMMARY

In the last 15 years, investigators have better clarified the pathogenesis, epidemiology, diagnosis, and appropriate prevention of IAH/ACS. Subsequent study should be aimed at understanding which treatments effectively lower intra-abdominal pressure and whether these treatments ultimately affect patient-important outcomes.

Antimicrobials: a global alliance for optimizing their rational use in intra-abdominal infections (AGORA)

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are an important cause of morbidity and are frequently associated with poor prognosis, particularly in high-risk patients. The cornerstones in the management of complicated IAIs are timely effective source control with appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Empiric antimicrobial therapy is important in the management of intra-abdominal infections and must be broad enough to cover all likely organisms because inappropriate initial antimicrobial therapy is associated with poor patient outcomes and the development of bacterial resistance. The overuse of antimicrobials is widely accepted as a major driver of some emerging infections (such as C. difficile), the selection of resistant pathogens in individual patients, and for the continued development of antimicrobial resistance globally. The growing emergence of multi-drug resistant organisms and the limited development of new agents available to counteract them have caused an impending crisis with alarming implications, especially with regards to Gram-negative bacteria. An international task force from 79 different countries has joined this project by sharing a document on the rational use of antimicrobials for patients with IAIs. The project has been termed AGORA (Antimicrobials: A Global Alliance for Optimizing their Rational Use in Intra-Abdominal Infections). The authors hope that AGORA, involving many of the world's leading experts, can actively raise awareness in health workers and can improve prescribing behavior in treating IAIs.

Abdominal Sepsis

Abdominal infections are an important challenge for the intensive care physician. In an era of increasing antimicrobial resistance, selecting the appropriate regimen is important and, with new drugs coming to the market, correct use is important more than ever before and abdominal infections are an excellent target for antimicrobial stewardship programs. Biomarkers may be helpful, but their exact role in managing abdominal infections remains incompletely understood. Source control also remains an ongoing conundrum, and evidence is increasing that its importance supersedes the impact of antibiotic therapy. New strategies such as open abdomen management may offer added benefit in severely ill patients, but more data are needed to identify its exact role. The role of fungi and the need for antifungal coverage, on the other hand, have been investigated extensively in recent years, but at this point, it remains unclear who requires empirical as well as directed therapy.

Intra-abdominal Pressure Monitoring in Open Abdomen Management with Dynamic Abdominal Closure

The importance of elevated intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) have been recognized in critical care for its potential damaging effects. But, quantification of IAP values may be useful as a clinical tool for determining efficacy of coughing and straining for functional recovery of OA patients. We would like to evaluate IAP generated in an OA patient and the effect of negative pressure therapy (NPT) and dynamic abdominal closure systems (ABRA) on the IAP values at rest and during coughing and straining and compare those with IAP measurements of closed abdomen after standard open elective colorectal surgery (non-OA). Eight OA and eight non-OA patients were included in this study. OA patient with NPT and ABRA (OA + NA), OA patient without NPT and ABRA completely unbraced (OA-NA) (NA stands for NPT and ABRA), and non-OA patients underwent IAP measurements at rest, during coughing, and during straining via transurethral catheter. There was no difference in the mean of IAP measurement at rest in OA-NA (6.1 mmHg), OA + NA (6.5 mmHg), and non-OA (6.0 mmHg) patients. During coughing, IAP of OA-NA, OA + NA, and non-OA patients were 11.5, 19.1, and 22.0 mmHg and during straining, IAP of OA-NA, OA + NA, and non-OA patients were 11.5, 17.5, and 23.5 mmHg, respectively. Application of NPT in conjunction with ABRA did not increase IAP at rest but provided significant IAP increase in OA + NA patients, when compared to OA-NA patients during coughing and straining. NPT in conjunction with ABRA offers the advantage of increase of IAP during coughing and straining.

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

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.

Inflammatory mediators in intra-abdominal sepsis or injury - a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory and protein mediators (cytokine, chemokine, acute phase proteins) play an important, but still not completely understood, role in the morbidity and mortality of intra-abdominal sepsis/injury. We therefore systematically reviewed preclinical and clinical studies of mediators in intra-abdominal sepsis/injury in order to evaluate their ability to: (1) function as diagnostic/prognostic biomarkers; (2) serve as therapeutic targets; and (3) illuminate the pathogenesis mechanisms of sepsis or injury-related organ dysfunction.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Two investigators independently reviewed all identified abstracts and selected articles for full-text review. We included original studies assessing mediators in intra-abdominal sepsis/injury.

RESULTS

Among 2437 citations, we selected 182 studies in the scoping review, including 79 preclinical and 103 clinical studies. Serum procalcitonin and C-reactive protein appear to be useful to rule out infection or monitor therapy; however, the diagnostic and prognostic value of mediators for complications/outcomes of sepsis or injury remains to be established. Peritoneal mediator levels are substantially higher than systemic levels after intra-abdominal infection/trauma. Common limitations of current studies included small sample sizes and lack of uniformity in study design and outcome measures. To date, targeted therapies against mediators remain experimental.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas preclinical data suggests mediators play a critical role in intra-abdominal sepsis or injury, there is no consensus on the clinical use of mediators in diagnosing or managing intra-abdominal sepsis or injury. Measurement of peritoneal mediators should be further investigated as a more sensitive determinant of intra-abdominal inflammatory response. High-quality clinical trials are needed to better understand the role of inflammatory mediators.