Damage-control laparotomy in nontrauma patients: review of indications and outcomes. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75:365-368. [PMID: 23928745 DOI: 10.1097/ta.0b013e31829cb65e]

Not All Abdomens Are the Same: A Comparison of Damage Control Surgery for Intra-abdominal Sepsis versus Trauma

Damage control surgery (DCS) was developed to manage exsanguinating trauma patients, but is increasingly applied to the management of peritoneal sepsis and abdominal catastrophes. Few manuscripts compare the outcomes of these surgeries on disparate patient populations. A multi-institutional three group propensity score matched case cohort study comparing penetrating trauma (PT-DCS), blunt trauma (BT-DCS), and intraperitoneal sepsis (IPS-DCS) was performed comparing patients treated with DSC between 2008 and 2013. Propensity scoring was performed using demographic and presenting physiologic data. Four hundred and twelve patients were treated with DCS across two institutions. Propensity matching for age, gender, and initial Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 80 identified 80 patients per group for comparison. Rate of primary fascial closure was lowest in the IPS-DCS group, and highest in the penetrating trauma DCS group. Intra-abdominal complication rates were highest in the IPS-DCS group. IPS-DCS had increased time to definitive closure compared with the other two groups (RR 1.8; 1.3–2.2; P < 0.03). Mortality at 90 days was highest in the IPS-DCS group and patients whose definitive closure was delayed >eight days were more than twice the risk of death at 90 days across all groups. (RR 2.15; 1.2–3.5; P < 0.002). Expected outcomes after the use of DCS for trauma and emergency general surgery are quite different. Despite this difference, prompt abdominal closure at the earliest possible opportunity afforded the best outcome in patients managed via DCS.

Damage control: The modern paradigm

It is more than 20 years since the term ‘Damage control’ was introduced to describe an emerging surgical strategy of abbreviated laparotomy for exsanguinating trauma patients. This strategy of temporisation and prioritisation of physiological recovery over completeness of anatomical repair was associated with improved survival in a subset of patients with combined major vascular and multiple visceral injuries. The ensuing years saw the rapid adoption of these principles as standard of care for massively injured and physiologically exhausted patients. Resuscitation of severely injured patients has changed significantly in the last decade with the emergence of a new resuscitation paradigm termed ‘damage control resuscitation’. Originating in combat support hospitals, damage control resuscitation emphasises the primacy of haemorrhage control while directly targeting the ‘lethal triad’ of coagulopathy, acidosis, and hypothermia. Integral to damage control resuscitation is the appropriate application of damage control surgery and together they constitute the modern damage control paradigm. This review aims to discuss the modern application of damage control resuscitation and damage control surgery and to review the evidence supporting its constituent components, as well as considering deficiencies in current knowledge and areas for future research.

Mesenteric Ischemia

Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) is a rare disease that most commonly affects the elderly. The vague symptoms often lead to delayed diagnosis and consequent high mortality. Physical exam and laboratory findings lack the sensitivity and specificity to exclude AMI, but computed tomography angiography can rapidly and accurately confirm the diagnosis. Survival improves with prompt restoration of perfusion and resection of nonviable bowel. Advances in imaging, operative techniques, and critical care have led to a steady decline in overall mortality; however, long-term survival is limited because of the comorbidities in this patient group.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Abdominal Arterial Bleeding After Radical Gastrectomy: a Retrospective Analysis of 1875 Consecutive Resections for Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Massive abdominal arterial bleeding is an uncommon yet life-threatening complication of radical gastrectomy. The exact incidence and standardized management of this lethal morbidity are not known.

METHODS

Between January 2003 and December 2013, data from 1875 patients undergoing radical gastrectomy with D2 or D2 plus lymphadenectomy were recorded in a prospectively designed database from a single institute. The clinical data and management of both early (within 24 h) and late (beyond 24 h) postoperative abdominal arterial hemorrhages were explored. For late bleeding patients, transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) and re-laparotomy were compared to determine the better initial treatment option.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of postoperative abdominal arterial bleeding was 1.92 % (n = 36), and related mortality was 33.3 % (n = 12). Early and late postoperative bleedings were found in 6 and 30 patients, respectively. The onset of massive arterial bleeding occurred on average postoperative day 19. The common hepatic artery and its branches were the most common bleeding source (13/36; 36.1 %). All the early bleeding patients were treated with immediate re-laparotomy. For late bleeding, patients from the TAE group had a significantly lower mortality rate than that of the patients from the surgery group (7.69 vs. 56.25 %, respectively, P = 0.008) as well as a shorter procedure time for bleeding control (2.3 ± 1.1 vs. 4.8 ± 1.7 h, respectively, P < 0.001). Four rescue reoperations were performed for TAE failures; the salvage rate was 50 % (2/4). Ten patients developed massive re-bleeding after initial successful hemostasis by either TAE (5/13) or open surgery (5/16). Three out of the 10 re-bleeding patients died of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), while the other 7 recovered eventually by repeated TAE and/or surgery.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal arterial bleeding following radical gastrectomy tends to occur during the later phase after surgery, with further complications such as abdominal infection and fistula(s). For late bleeding, TAE can be considered as the first-line treatment when possible.

Outcomes of primary fascial closure after open abdomen for nontrauma emergency general surgery patients

BACKGROUND

Emergency general surgery patients are increasingly being managed with an open abdomen (OA). Factors associated with complications after primary fascial closure (PFC) are unknown.

METHODS

Demographic and operative variables for all emergency general surgery patients managed with OA at an academic medical center were prospectively examined from June to December 2013. Primary outcome was complication requiring reoperation.

RESULTS

Of 58 patients, 37 managed with OA achieved PFC. Of these, 14 needed re-exploration for dehiscence, compartment syndrome, infection, or other. Complications after PFC were not associated with age, type of operative intervention, time to closure, re-explorations, comorbidities, or mortality. Complications correlated with higher body mass index (P = .02), skin closure (P = .04), plasma infusion (P = .01), and less intraoperative bleeding (P = .05). Deep surgical site infection correlated with fascial dehiscence (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperation after PFC was more likely in obese and nonhemorrhagic patients. Recognition of these factors and strategies to reduce surgical site infection may improve outcomes.

Mesenteric ischemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Diagnosis of acute mesenteric ischemia in the early stages is now possible with modern computed tomography (CT), using intravenous contrast enhancement and imaging in the arterial and/or portal venous phase. The availability of CT around the clock means that more patients with acute mesenteric ischemia may be treated with urgent intestinal revascularization.

RECENT FINDINGS

The establishment of a hybrid operation room is most important to be able to perform explorative laparotomy for evaluation of the extent of mesenteric ischemia and successful intestinal revascularization. Endovascular recanalization and stenting has become an important alternative, especially in patients with both acute and chronic thrombotic superior mesenteric artery (SMA) occlusion. Aspiration embolectomy, thrombolysis and open surgical embolectomy, followed by on-table angiography, are the treatment options for embolic SMA occlusion. Endovascular therapy may be an option in the few patients with mesenteric venous thrombosis who do not respond to anticoagulation therapy. The concept of damage-control surgery is recommended after intestinal revascularization.

SUMMARY

Intestinal revascularization in patients with arterial occlusive mesenteric ischemia reduces bowel morbidity and mortality. Observational studies report that both endovascular and open vascular therapy options are effective, but endovascular technique may be preferred in these often elderly and fragile patients.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the open abdomen and temporary abdominal closure techniques in non-trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Several challenging clinical situations in patients with peritonitis can result in an open abdomen (OA) and subsequent temporary abdominal closure (TAC). Indications and treatment choices differ among surgeons. The risk of fistula development and the possibility to achieve delayed fascial closure differ between techniques. The aim of this study was to review the literature on the OA and TAC in peritonitis patients, to analyze indications and to assess delayed fascial closure, enteroatmospheric fistula and mortality rate, overall and per TAC technique.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for studies describing the OA in patients of whom 50% or more had peritonitis of a non-traumatic origin.

RESULTS

The search identified 74 studies describing 78 patient series, comprising 4,358 patients of which 3,461 (79%) had peritonitis. The overall quality of the included studies was low and the indications for open abdominal management differed considerably. Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) was the most frequent described TAC technique (38 of 78 series). The highest weighted fascial closure rate was found in series describing NPWT with continuous mesh or suture mediated fascial traction (6 series, 463 patients: 73.1%, 95% confidence interval 63.3-81.0%) and dynamic retention sutures (5 series, 77 patients: 73.6%, 51.1-88.1%). Weighted rates of fistula varied from 5.7% after NPWT with fascial traction (2.2-14.1%), 14.6% (12.1-17.6%) for NPWT only, and 17.2% after mesh inlay (17.2-29.5%).

CONCLUSION

Although the best results in terms of achieving delayed fascial closure and risk of enteroatmospheric fistula were shown for NPWT with continuous fascial traction, the overall quality of the available evidence was poor, and uniform recommendations cannot be made.

Stapled versus handsewn intestinal anastomosis in emergency laparotomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal technique for gastrointestinal anastomosis remains controversial in emergency laparotomy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare outcomes of stapled versus handsewn anastomosis after emergency bowel resection.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed for studies comparing outcomes after emergency laparotomy using stapled versus handsewn anastomosis until July 2014 (PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013006183). The primary endpoint was anastomotic failure, a composite measure of leak, abscess and fistula. Odds ratio (OR; with 95% CI) and weighted mean differences were calculated using meta-analytical techniques. Subgroup analysis was conducted for trauma surgery (TS) and emergency general surgery (EGS) cohorts. Risk of bias for each study was calculated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies, and Cochrane Collaboration's tool for randomized trials.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 7 studies of 1,120 patients, with a total of 1,205 anastomoses. There were 5 TS studies and 2 EGS studies. There were no differences in anastomotic failure between handsewn and stapled techniques on an individual anastomosis level (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.97-2.43; P = .070), or on an individual patient level (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.92-2.25; P = .110). There were no differences in the individual rates of anastomotic leak, abscess, fistulae, or postoperative deaths between techniques. Subgroup analysis of EGS and TS studies demonstrated no superior operative technique.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence is sparse and at high risk of bias, and neither stapling nor handsewing is justifiably favored in emergency laparotomy. Surgeons might therefore select the technique of their own choice with caution owing to unresolved uncertainty.

Intra-abdominal sepsis--epidemiology, aetiology and management

Peritonitis is a progressive disease leading inexorably from local peritoneal irritation to overwhelming sepsis and death unless this trajectory is interrupted by timely and effective therapy. In children peritonitis is usually secondary to intraperitoneal disease, the nature of which varies around the world. In rich countries, appendicitis is the principal cause whilst in poor countries diseases such as typhoid must be considered in the differential diagnosis. Where resources are limited, the clinical diagnosis of peritonitis mandates laparotomy for diagnosis and source control. In regions with unlimited resources, radiological investigation, ultrasound, CT scan or MRI may be used to select patients for non-operative management. For patients with appendicitis, laparoscopic surgery has achieved results comparable to open operation; however, in many centres open operation remains the standard. In complicated peritonitis "damage control surgery" may be appropriate wherein source control is undertaken as an emergency with definitive repair or reconstruction awaiting improvement in the patient's general condition. Awareness of abdominal compartment syndrome is essential. Primary peritonitis in rich countries is seen in high-risk groups, such as steroid-dependent nephrotic syndrome patients, whilst in poor countries the at-risk population is less well defined and the diagnosis is often made at surgery.

Surgical management of peritonitis secondary to acute superior mesenteric artery occlusion

Diagnosis of acute arterial mesenteric ischemia in the early stages is now possible using modern computed tomography with intravenous contrast enhancement and imaging in the arterial and/or portal phase. Most patients have acute superior mesenteric artery (SMA) occlusion, and a large proportion of these patients will develop peritonitis prior to mesenteric revascularization, and explorative laparotomy will therefore be necessary to evaluate the extent and severity of intestinal ischemia, and to perform bowel resections. The establishment of a hybrid operating room in vascular units in hospitals is most important to be able to perform successful intestinal revascularization. This review outlines current frontline surgical strategies to improve survival and minimize bowel morbidity in patients with peritonitis secondary to acute SMA occlusion. Explorative laparotomy needs to be performed first. Curative treatment is based upon intestinal revascularization followed by bowel resection. If no vascular imaging has been carried out, SMA angiography is performed. In case of embolic occlusion of the SMA, open embolectomy is performed followed by angiography. In case of thrombotic occlusion, the occlusive lesion can be recanalized retrograde from an exposed SMA, the guidewire snared from either the femoral or brachial artery, and stented with standard devices from these access sites. Bowel resections and sometimes gall bladder removal due to transmural infarctions are performed at initial laparotomy, leaving definitive bowel reconstructions to a planned second look laparotomy, according to the principles of damage control surgery. Patients with peritonitis secondary to acute SMA occlusion should be managed by both the general and vascular surgeon, and a hybrid revascularization approach is of utmost importance to improve outcomes.

Risk factors for late death of patients with abdominal trauma after damage control laparotomy for hemostasis

Introduction

In this study, we explored the possible causes of death and risk factors in patients who overcame the initial critical circumstance when undergoing a damage control laparotomy for abdominal trauma and succumbed later to their clinical course.

Methods

This was a retrospective study. We selected patients who fulfilled our study criteria from 2002 to 2012. The medical and surgical data of these patients were then reviewed. Fifty patients (survival vs. late death, 39 vs. 11) were enrolled for further analysis.

Results

In a univariable analysis, most of the significant factors were noted in the initial emergency department (ED) stage and early intensive care unit (ICU) stage, while an analysis of perioperative factors revealed a minimal impact on survival. Initial hypoperfusion (pH, BE, and GCS level) and initial poor physiological conditions (body temperature, RTS, and CPCR at ED) may contribute to the patient’s final outcome. An analysis and summary of the causes of death were also performed.

Conclusions

According to our study, the risk factors for late death in patients undergoing DCL may include both the initial trauma-related status and clinical conditions after DCL. In our series, the cause of death for patients with late mortality included the initial brain insult and later infectious complications.

Damage control surgery for abdominal emergencies

BACKGROUND

Damage control surgery is a management sequence initiated to reduce the risk of death in severely injured patients presenting with physiological derangement. Damage control principles have emerged as an approach in non-trauma abdominal emergencies in order to reduce mortality compared with primary definitive surgery.

METHODS

A PubMed/MEDLINE literature review was conducted of data available over the past decade (up to August 2013) to gain information on current understanding of damage control surgery for abdominal surgical emergencies. Future directions for research are discussed.

RESULTS

Damage control surgery facilitates a strategy for life-saving intervention for critically ill patients by abbreviated laparotomy with subsequent reoperation for delayed definitive repair after physiological resuscitation. The six-phase strategy (including damage control resuscitation in phase 0) is similar to that for severely injured patients, although non-trauma indications include shock from uncontrolled haemorrhage or sepsis. Minimal evidence exists to validate the benefit of damage control surgery in general surgical abdominal emergencies. The collective published experience over the past decade is limited to 16 studies including a total of 455 (range 3-99) patients, of which the majority are retrospective case series. However, the concept has widespread acceptance by emergency surgeons, and appears a logical extension from pathophysiological principles in trauma to haemorrhage and sepsis. The benefits of this strategy depend on careful patient selection. Damage control surgery has been performed for a wide range of indications, but most frequently for uncontrolled bleeding during elective surgery, haemorrhage from complicated gastroduodenal ulcer disease, generalized peritonitis, acute mesenteric ischaemia and other sources of intra-abdominal sepsis.

CONCLUSION

Damage control surgery is employed in a wide range of abdominal emergencies and is an increasingly recognized life-saving tactic in emergency surgery performed on physiologically deranged patients.