Time is domain: factors affecting primary fascial closure after trauma and non-trauma damage control laparotomy (data from the EAST SLEEP-TIME multicenter registry)

Timing of Re-Laparotomy in Blunt Trauma Patients With Damage-Control Laparotomy

INTRODUCTION

Damage-control laparotomy (DCL) was initially designed to treat patients with severe hemorrhage. There are various opinions on when to return to the operating room after DCL and there are no definitive data on the exact timing of re-laparotomy.

METHODS

All patients at regional referral trauma center requiring a DCL due to blunt trauma between January 2012 and September 2021 (N = 160) were retrospectively reviewed from patients' electronic medical records. The primary fascial closure rate, lengths of intensive care unit stay and mechanical ventilation, mortality, and complications were compared in patients who underwent re-laparotomy before and after 48 h.

RESULTS

One hundred one patients (70 in the ≤48 h group [early] and 31 in the >48 h group [late]) were included. Baseline patient characteristics of age, body mass index, injury severity score, and initial systolic blood pressure and laboratory finding such as hemoglobin, base excess, and lactate were similar between the two groups. Also, there were no differences in reason for DCL and operation time. The time interval from the DCL to the first re-laparotomy was 39 (29-43) h and 59 (55-66) h in the early and late groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in the rate of the primary fascial closure rate (91.4% versus 93.5%, P = 1.00), lengths of stay in the intensive care unit (10 [7-18] versus 12 [8-16], P = 0.553), ventilator days (6 [4-10] versus 7 [5-10], P = 0.173), mortality (20.0% versus 19.4%, P = 0.94), and complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The timing of re-laparotomy after DCL due to blunt abdominal trauma should be determined in consideration of various factors such as correction of coagulopathy, primary fascial closure, and complications. This study showed there was no significant difference in patient groups who underwent re-laparotomy before and after 48 h after DCL. Considering these results, it is better to determine the timing of re-laparotomy with a focus on physiologic recovery rather than setting a specific time.

Optimized Treatment of Nosocomial Peritonitis

This comprehensive review aims to provide a practical guide for intensivists, focusing on enhancing patient care associated with nosocomial peritonitis (NP). It explores the epidemiology, diagnosis, and management of NP, a significant contributor to the mortality of surgical patients worldwide. NP is, per definition, a hospital-acquired condition and a consequence of gastrointestinal surgery or a complication of other diseases. NP, one of the most prevalent causes of sepsis in surgical Intensive Care Units (ICUs), is often associated with multi-drug resistant (MDR) bacteria and high mortality rates. Early clinical suspicion and the utilization of various diagnostic tools like biomarkers and imaging are of great importance. Microbiology is often complex, with antimicrobial resistance escalating in many parts of the world. Fungal peritonitis and its risk factors, diagnostic hurdles, and effective management approaches are particularly relevant in patients with NP. Contemporary antimicrobial strategies for treating NP are discussed, including drug resistance challenges and empirical antibiotic regimens. The importance of source control in intra-abdominal infection management, including surgical and non-surgical interventions, is also emphasized. A deeper exploration into the role of open abdomen treatment as a potential option for selected patients is proposed, indicating an area for further investigation. This review underscores the need for more research to advance the best treatment strategies for NP.

Damage Control Surgery and Transfer in Emergency General Surgery

Selective non traumatic emergency surgery patients are targets for damage control surgery (DCS) to prevent or treat abdominal compartment syndrome and the lethal triad. However, DCS is still a subject of controversy. As a concept, DCS describes a series of abbreviated surgical procedures to allow rapid source control of hemorrhage and contamination in patients with circulatory shock to allow resuscitation and stabilization in the intensive care unit followed by delayed return to the operating room for definitive surgical management once the patient becomes physiologic stable. If appropriately applied, the DCS morbidity and mortality can be significantly reduced.

Damage control surgery in emergency general surgery: What you need to know

ABSTRACT

Damage-control surgery (DCS) is a strategy adopted to limit initial operative interventions in the unstable surgical patient, delaying definitive repairs and abdominal wall closure until physiologic parameters have improved. Although this concept of "physiology over anatomy" was initially described in the management of severely injured trauma patients, the approaches of DCS have become common in the management of nontraumatic intra-abdominal emergencies.While the utilization of damage-control methods in emergency general surgery (EGS) is controversial, numerous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes, making DCS an essential technique for all acute care surgeons. Following a brief history of DCS and its indications in the EGS patient, the phases of DCS will be discussed including an in-depth review of preoperative resuscitation, techniques for intra-abdominal source control, temporary abdominal closure, intensive care unit (ICU) management of the open abdomen, and strategies to improve abdominal wall closure.

The variable role of damage control laparotomy over 19 years of trauma care in Pennsylvania

BACKGROUND

Damage control laparotomy emphasizes physiologic stabilization of critically injured patients and allows staged surgical management. However, there is little consensus on the optimal criteria for damage control laparotomy. We examined variability between centers and over time in Pennsylvania.

METHODS

We analyzed the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study data between 2000 and 2018, excluding centers performing <10 laparotomies/year. Laparotomy was defined using International Classification of Diseases codes, and damage control laparotomy was defined by a code for "reopening of recent laparotomy" or a return to the operating room >4 hours from index laparotomy that was not unplanned. We examined trends over time and by center. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed to predict both damage control laparotomy and mortality, generate observed:expected ratios, and identify outliers for each. We compared risk-adjusted mortality rates to center-level damage control laparotomy rates.

RESULTS

In total, 18,896 laparotomies from 22 centers were analyzed; 3,549 damage control laparotomies were performed (18.8% of all laparotomies). The use of damage control laparotomy in Pennsylvania varied from 13.9% to 22.8% over time. There was wide variation in center-level use of damage control laparotomy, from 11.1% to 29.4%, despite adjustment. Factors associated with damage control laparotomy included injury severity and admission vital signs. Center identity improved the model as demonstrated by likelihood ratio test (P < .001), suggesting differences in center-level practices. There was minimal correlation between center-level damage control laparotomy use and mortality.

CONCLUSION

There is wide center-level variation in the use of damage control laparotomy among centers, despite adjustment for patient factors. Damage control laparotomy is both resource intensive and highly morbid; regional resources should be allocated to address this substantial practice variation to optimize damage control laparotomy use.

Delayed fascial closure in nontrauma abdominal emergencies: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Initially used in trauma management, delayed abdominal closure endeavors to decrease operative time during the index operation while still being lifesaving. Its use in emergency general surgery is increasing, but the data evaluating its outcome are sparse. We aimed to study the association between delayed abdominal closure, mortality, morbidity, and length of stay in an emergency surgery cohort.

METHODS

The 2013 to 2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was examined for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The patients were classified by the timing of abdominal wall closure: delayed fascial closure versus immediate fascial closure. Propensity score matching was performed based on preoperative covariates, wound classification, and performance of bowel resection. The outcomes were then compared by univariable analysis.

RESULTS

After matching, both the delayed fascial closure and immediate fascial closure groups consisted of 3,354 patients each. Median age was 65 years, and 52.6% were female. The delayed fascial closure group had a higher in-hospital mortality (35.3% vs 25.0%, P < .001), a higher 30-day mortality (38.6% vs 29.0%, P < .001), a higher proportion of acute kidney injury (9.5% vs 6.6%, P < .001), a lower proportion of postoperative sepsis (11.8% vs 15.6%, P < .001), and a lower proportion of surgical site infection (3.4% vs 7.0%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with immediate fascial closure, delayed fascial closure is associated with an increased mortality in the patients matched based on comorbidities and surgical site contamination. In emergency general surgery, delaying abdominal closure may not have the presumed overarching benefits, and its indications must be further defined in this population.