A Case Study in Intra-abdominal Sepsis

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Rate of stoma formation following damage-control surgery for severe intra-abdominal sepsis: a single-centre consecutive case series

BACKGROUND

Severe intra-abdominal sepsis (IAS) is associated with high mortality and stoma rates. A two-stage approach with initial damage-control surgery (DCS) and subsequent reconstruction might decrease stoma and mortality rates but requires standardization.

METHODS

A standardized two-stage damage-control algorithm for IAS was implemented in April 2016 and applied systematically.

RESULTS

Some 203 consecutive patients (median age 70 years, 62 per cent ASA score greater than 3) had DCS for severe IAS. Median operation time was 82 minutes, 60 per cent performed during night-time. Median intraoperative noradrenaline doses were 20 (i.q.r. 26) µg/min and blood gas analysis (ABG) was abnormal (metabolic acidosis) in 90 per cent of patients. The second-stage operation allowed definitive surgery in 76 per cent of patients, 24 per cent had up to four re-DCSs until definitive surgery. The in-hospital mortality rate was 26 per cent. At hospital discharge, 65 per cent of patients were stoma free. Risk factors for in-hospital death were noradrenaline (odds ratio 4.25 (95 per cent c.i. 1.72 to 12.83)), abnormal ABG (pH: odds ratio 2.72 (1.24 to 6.65); lactate: odds ratio 6.77 (3.20 to 15.78)), male gender (odds ratio 2.40 (1.24 to 4.85)), ASA score greater than 3 (odds ratio 5.75 (2.58 to 14.68)), mesenteric ischaemia (odds ratio 3.27 (1.71 to 6.46)) and type of resection (odds ratio 2.95 (1.24 to 8.21)). Risk factors for stoma at discharge were ASA score greater than 3 (odds ratio 2.76 (95 per cent c.i. 1.38 to 5.73)), type of resection (odds ratio 30.91 (6.29 to 559.3)) and longer operation time (odds ratio 2.441 (1.22 to 5.06)).

CONCLUSION

Initial DCS followed by secondary reconstruction of bowel continuity for IAS within 48 hours in a tertiary teaching hospital was feasible and safe, following a clear algorithm.

Damage Control Management of Perforating Pyometra Presenting with Septic Shock after the Return of Spontaneous Circulation

Introduction

Perforation of pyometra is often severe but rare. We report a case of pyometra detected on second-look surgery in an elderly patient with life-threatening septic shock and cardiopulmonary arrest before hospital arrival. Case Presentation. A 70-year-old woman with cardiopulmonary arrest received adrenaline. Computed tomography revealed ascites, and abdominal paracentesis was performed to identify the cause of cardiopulmonary arrest. The ascitic fluid was purulent, and intraperitoneal infection was identified. Emergency exploratory laparotomy revealed pyometra.

Conclusion

If perforated, pyometra may cause peritonitis and lethal septic shock. Not only gynecologists but also emergency physicians should be aware of this possibility. Moreover, patient education is necessary. In patients with cardiopulmonary arrest, diagnostic abdominal paracentesis should be performed when the sole imaging finding is ascites. Improving outcomes in patients with difficult-to-diagnose pyometra with cardiopulmonary arrest by implementing damage control strategies before hysterectomy is possible.

The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients: WSES guidelines

Damage control resuscitation may lead to postoperative intra-abdominal hypertension or abdominal compartment syndrome. These conditions may result in a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle leading to severe physiologic derangements and multiorgan failure unless interrupted by abdominal (surgical or other) decompression. Further, in some clinical situations, the abdomen cannot be closed due to the visceral edema, the inability to control the compelling source of infection or the necessity to re-explore (as a "planned second-look" laparotomy) or complete previously initiated damage control procedures or in cases of abdominal wall disruption. The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients has been proposed to be effective in preventing or treating deranged physiology in patients with severe injuries or critical illness when no other perceived options exist. Its use, however, remains controversial as it is resource consuming and represents a non-anatomic situation with the potential for severe adverse effects. Its use, therefore, should only be considered in patients who would most benefit from it. Abdominal fascia-to-fascia closure should be done as soon as the patient can physiologically tolerate it. All precautions to minimize complications should be implemented.

Open Abdomen Management and Candida Infections: A Very Likely Link

OBJECTIVE

Laparostomy can be applied in trauma, abdominal sepsis, intra-abdominal hypertension, or compartment syndrome. Systemic infections, especially if complicated by Candida, are associated with a high risk of mortality.

METHODS

This is a single-centre retrospective case series of 47 cases admitted to our Department, which required laparostomy procedure; we analyzed the type of surgery, temporary abdominal closure, duration of open abdomen, complications, SOFA score, mortality with Candida infections, and empirical or targeted antifungal therapy.

RESULTS

We found that patients with Candida infection were related with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) with a complication after OA closure, total complications, time elapsed after OA application, time spent on the first surgical OA application, type of temporary abdominal closure that is used, and duration of the open abdomen. The use of empirical and targeted antifungal therapy is related to the duration of open abdomen too.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of the OA is often burdened by sepsis or septic shock, especially when complicated by Candida infection. Candida score is a validated tool to identify patients who can be treated empirically, but every situation must be considered on an individual basis.

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.

The role of the open abdomen procedure in managing severe abdominal sepsis: WSES position paper

The open abdomen (OA) procedure is a significant surgical advance, as part of damage control techniques in severe abdominal trauma. Its application can be adapted to the advantage of patients with severe abdominal sepsis, however its precise role in these patients is still not clear. In severe abdominal sepsis the OA may allow early identification and draining of any residual infection, control any persistent source of infection, and remove more effectively infected or cytokine-loaded peritoneal fluid, preventing abdominal compartment syndrome and deferring definitive intervention and anastomosis until the patient is appropriately resuscitated and hemodynamically stable and thus better able to heal. However, the OA may require multiple returns to the operating room and may be associated with significant complications, including enteroatmospheric fistulas, loss of abdominal wall domain and large hernias. Surgeons should be aware of the pathophysiology of severe intra-abdominal sepsis and always keep in mind the option of using open abdomen to be able to use it in the right patient at the right time.

Current concept of abdominal sepsis: WSES position paper

Although sepsis is a systemic process, the pathophysiological cascade of events may vary from region to region.

Abdominal sepsis represents the host’s systemic inflammatory response to bacterial peritonitis.

It is associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates, and is the second most common cause of sepsis-related mortality in the intensive care unit.

The review focuses on sepsis in the specific setting of severe peritonitis.

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.