Nontrauma open abdomens: A prospective observational study

Short-term outcomes in mesh versus suture-only treatment of burst abdomen: a case-series from a university hospital

PURPOSE

Surgery for a burst abdomen after midline laparotomy is associated with later incisional hernia formation. Accommodating prophylactic measures, notably mesh augmentation, are of interest. However, data regarding safety and outcomes are scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term risk profile of mesh prophylaxis in the context of a burst abdomen.

METHODS

This is a single-center prospective study of patients suffering from burst abdomen from 2021 to 2023. A treatment protocol for the management of burst abdomen was introduced, including the synthetic, partially absorbable onlay mesh. Adult patients (≥ 18 years) with a life expectancy of > 1 year with no plans of future pregnancies were recommended to be treated with a prophylactic mesh. In this analysis, adult patients were included if they suffered from a burst abdomen after elective or emergency laparotomy. The study evaluates short-term outcomes, including 90-day wound complications, length of stay, and mortality.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and underwent treatment for a burst abdomen during the study period. Thirty-eight patients were treated with a suture-only technique, and 29 patients were supplemented with a mesh. 13 of 14 observed wound complications in the mesh group were of mild degree (Clavien Dindo 1-3b), while one patient (3%) needed mesh-explantation. The 90-day mortality rate was 21% and comparable between suture-only and mesh techniques.

CONCLUSION

Mesh augmentation in surgery for a burst abdomen seems safe in well-selected patients at 90 days follow-up. Long-term data on the prophylactic effect on hernia development is needed.

Standardization of the strategy for open abdomen in nontrauma emergency laparotomy: A prospective study of outcomes in primary versus temporary abdominal closure

BACKGROUND

The indications for temporary abdominal closure in nontrauma surgery are heterogeneous and with limited data on clinical outcomes. This study aimed to report the outcomes of primary closure compared with temporary abdominal closure after nontrauma emergency laparotomy within a standardized clinical setting adapted from international guidelines.

METHODS

Included were all nontrauma patients undergoing emergency laparotomy between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, at Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev in Denmark. All patients received treatment on the basis of standardized bundle of care trajectory for major emergency abdominal surgery. Mortality, risks of re-laparotomy, and postoperative complications were assessed using Kaplan-Meier plots and multiple logistic regression modeling.

RESULTS

Of the 576 included patients, temporary abdominal closure was performed in 57 (10%) patients in the initial surgery. Indications for temporary abdominal closure included damage control strategy as the result of considerable hemodynamic instability in 21 (37%) patients, need for reassessment of bowel viability in 21 (37%) patients, and loss of domain in 15 (25%) patients. Fascial closure was achieved after a median period of 2 days. Sixty-seven patients (12%) underwent re-laparotomy, with temporary abdominal closure performed in 10 (15%) of the cases. Patients with temporary abdominal closure had a significantly greater risk of postoperative complications (odds ratio 2.58, 95% confidence interval 1.38-4.89, P = .003). There were no significant differences in the risks of fascial dehiscence, re-laparotomy, or 30- or 90-days mortality.

CONCLUSION

Temporary abdominal closure was performed in 10% of patients undergoing nontrauma emergency laparotomy, with the primary indications being damage control strategy and need for reassessment of bowel viability. Patients undergoing temporary abdominal closure had a significantly greater risk of postoperative complications.

The Open Abdomen After Intra-Abdominal Contamination in Emergency General Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Delayed fascial closure (DFC) is an increasingly utilized technique in emergency general surgery (EGS), despite a lack of data regarding its benefits. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of DFC versus immediate fascial closure (IFC) in EGS patients with intra-abdominal contamination.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted using the 2013-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Adult EGS patients who underwent an exploratory laparotomy with intra-abdominal contamination [wound classification III (contaminated) or IV (dirty)] were included. Patients with agreed upon indications for DFC were excluded. A propensity-matched analysis was performed. The primary outcome was 30-d mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 36,974 eligible patients. 16.8% underwent DFC, of which 51.7% were female, and the median age was 64 y. After matching, there were 6213 pairs. DFC was associated with a higher risk of mortality (15.8% versus 14.2%, P = 0.016), pneumonia (11.7% versus 10.1%, P = 0.007), pulmonary embolism (1.9% versus 1.6%, P = 0.03), and longer hospital stay (11 versus 10 d, P < 0.001). No significant differences in postoperative sepsis and deep surgical site infection rates between the two groups were observed. Subgroup analyses by preoperative diagnosis (diverticulitis, perforation, and undifferentiated sepsis) showed that DFC was associated with longer hospital stay in all subgroups, with a higher mortality rate in patients with diverticulitis (8.1% versus 6.1%, P = 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

In the presence of intra-abdominal contamination, DFC is associated with longer hospital stay and higher rates of mortality and morbidity. DFC was not associated with decreased risk of infectious complications. Further studies are needed to clearly define the indications of DFC.

Open or closed abdomen post laparotomy to control severe abdominal sepsis: a survival analysis

INTRODUCTION

severe abdominal sepsis, accompained by diffuse peritonitis, poses a significant challenge for most surgeons. It often requires repetitive surgical interventions, leading to complications and resulting in high morbidity and mortality rates. The open abdomen technique, facilitated by applying a negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT), reduces the duration of the initial surgical procedure, minimizes the accumulation of secretions and inflammatory mediators in the abdominal cavity and lowers the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome and its associated complications. Another approach is primary closure of the abdominal aponeurosis, which involves suturing the layers of the abdominal wall.

METHODS

the objective of this study is to conduct a survival analysis comparing the treatment of severe abdominal sepsis using open abdomen technique versus primary closure after laparotomy in a public hospital in the South of Brazil. We utilized data extracted from electronic medical records to perform both descriptive and survival analysis, employing the Kaplan-Meier curve and a log-rank test.

RESULTS

the study sample encompassed 75 laparotomies conducted over a span of 5 years, with 40 cases employing NPWT and 35 cases utilizing primary closure. The overall mortality rate observed was 55%. Notably, survival rates did not exhibit statistical significance when comparing the two methods, even after stratifying the data into separate analysis groups for each technique.

CONCLUSION

recent publications on this subject have reported some favorable outcomes associated with the open abdomen technique underscoring the pressing need for a standardized approach to managing patients with severe, complicated abdominal sepsis.

The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial

BACKGROUND

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with negative peritoneal pressure therapy (NPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and attenuate the systemic damage from SCIAS, although there are definite risks of leaving the abdomen open whenever it might possibly be closed. This potential therapeutic paradigm is the rationale being assessed in the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL trial) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ). Initially, the COOL trial received Industry sponsorship; however, this funding mandated the use of a specific trademarked and expensive NPPT device in half of the patients allocated to the intervention (open) arm. In August 2022, the 3 M/Acelity Corporation without consultation but within the terms of the contract canceled the financial support of the trial. Although creating financial difficulty, there is now no restriction on specific NPPT devices and removing a cost-prohibitive intervention creates an opportunity to expand the COOL trial to a truly global basis. This document describes the evolution of the COOL trial, with a focus on future opportunities for global growth of the study.

METHODS

The COOL trial is the largest prospective randomized controlled trial examining the random allocation of SCIAS patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or the use of the OA with an application of an NPPT dressing. Patients are eligible if they have free uncontained intraperitoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR severely adverse predicted clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is intended to definitively inform global practice by conclusively evaluating 90-day survival. Initial recruitment has been lower than hoped but satisfactory, and the COOL steering committee and trial investigators intend with increased global support to continue enrollment until recruitment ensures a definitive answer.

DISCUSSION

OA is mandated in many cases of SCIAS such as the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome associated with closure, or a planned second look as for example part of "damage control"; however, improved source control (locally and systemically) is the most uncertain indication for an OA. The COOL trial seeks to expand potential sites and proceed with the evaluation of NPPT agnostic to device, to properly examine the hypothesis that this treatment attenuates systemic damage and improves survival. This approach will not affect internal validity and should improve the external validity of any observed results of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Institutes of Health ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ).

The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial

BACKGROUND

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with negative peritoneal pressure therapy (NPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and attenuate the systemic damage from SCIAS, although there are definite risks of leaving the abdomen open whenever it might possibly be closed. This potential therapeutic paradigm is the rationale being assessed in the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL trial) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ). Initially, the COOL trial received Industry sponsorship; however, this funding mandated the use of a specific trademarked and expensive NPPT device in half of the patients allocated to the intervention (open) arm. In August 2022, the 3 M/Acelity Corporation without consultation but within the terms of the contract canceled the financial support of the trial. Although creating financial difficulty, there is now no restriction on specific NPPT devices and removing a cost-prohibitive intervention creates an opportunity to expand the COOL trial to a truly global basis. This document describes the evolution of the COOL trial, with a focus on future opportunities for global growth of the study.

METHODS

The COOL trial is the largest prospective randomized controlled trial examining the random allocation of SCIAS patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or the use of the OA with an application of an NPPT dressing. Patients are eligible if they have free uncontained intraperitoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR severely adverse predicted clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is intended to definitively inform global practice by conclusively evaluating 90-day survival. Initial recruitment has been lower than hoped but satisfactory, and the COOL steering committee and trial investigators intend with increased global support to continue enrollment until recruitment ensures a definitive answer.

DISCUSSION

OA is mandated in many cases of SCIAS such as the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome associated with closure, or a planned second look as for example part of "damage control"; however, improved source control (locally and systemically) is the most uncertain indication for an OA. The COOL trial seeks to expand potential sites and proceed with the evaluation of NPPT agnostic to device, to properly examine the hypothesis that this treatment attenuates systemic damage and improves survival. This approach will not affect internal validity and should improve the external validity of any observed results of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Institutes of Health ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ).

Open Abdomen in Elderly Patients With Surgical Sepsis: Predictors of Mortality

INTRODUCTION

Elderly patients are frequently presenting with emergency surgical conditions. The open abdomen technique is widely used in abdominal emergencies needing rapid control of intrabdominal contamination. However, specific predictors of mortality identifying candidates for comfort care are understudied.

METHODS

The 2013-2017 the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for emergent laparotomies performed in geriatric patients with sepsis or septic shock in whom fascial closure was delayed. Patients with acute mesenteric ischemia were excluded. The primary outcome was 30-d mortality. Univariable analysis, followed by multivariable logistic regression, was performed. Mortality was computed for combinations of the five predictors with the highest odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

A total of 1399 patients were identified. The median age was 73 (69-79) y, and 54.7% were female. 30-d mortality was 50.6%. In the multivariable analysis, the most important predictors were as follows: American Society of Anesthesiologists status 5 (OR = 4.80, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85-12.49 P = 0.002), dialysis dependence (OR = 2.65, 95% CI 1.54-4.57, P < 0.001), congestive hearth failure (OR = 2.53, 95% CI 1.52-4.21, P < 0.001), disseminated cancer (OR = 2.61, 95% CI 1.55-4.38, P < 0.001), and preoperative platelet count of <100,000 cells/μL (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.15-3.04, P = 0.011). The presence of two or more of these factors resulted in over 80% mortality. The absence of all these risk factors results in a survival rate of 62.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients, surgical sepsis or septic shock requiring an open abdomen for surgical management is highly lethal. The presence of several combinations of preoperative comorbidities is associated with a poor prognosis and can identify patients who can benefit from timely initiation of palliative care.

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.

Usefulness of damage control approach in patients with limited acute mesenteric ischemia: a prospective study of 85 patients

To evaluate the efficacy of the damage control approach by two-step surgical procedure in not critical patients (without sepsis or septic shock) with peritonitis from limited acute mesenteric ischemia. From April 2013 to April 2020, 85 patients [49 (57.7%) women and 36 (42.3%) men, median age 69.5 (range 38-92)] were enrolled in this study and underwent emergency surgery. After resection of ischemic bowel, basing on the individual decision of the single surgeon, the patients underwent primary end-to-end anastomosis (Group 1) or damage control approach (Group 2) including primary laparotomy with resection of ischemic bowel, temporary abdominal closure and a second-look procedure at 48 h with re-evaluation of bowel vitality. Forty-seven (55.3%) patients underwent one-stage surgical treatment and 38 (44.7%) patients received a two-step procedure. In the latter group, at second exploration, 8 (21%) patients required a further intestinal resection, due to mesenteric ischemia progression. Both anastomosis dehiscence rate and need for ileostomy in Group 1 patients were significantly higher than in Group 2 (23.4% vs 5.3%: p = 0.03 and 19.1% vs 2.6%: p = 0.03; Fisher's exact test). No significative differences in mortality and morbidity rate were found between the two groups. The damage control approach by two-step surgical procedure may represent a valid innovative option in the management of not critical patients with limited acute mesenteric ischemia, achieving a better clinical outcome if compared with surgical treatment by one-step procedure.

A clinical approach to acute mesenteric ischemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize current evidence on acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) in critically ill patients, addressing pathophysiology, definition, diagnosis and management.

RECENT FINDINGS

A few recent studies showed that a multidiscipliary approach in specialized centers can improve the outcome of AMI. Such approach incorporates current knowledge in pathophysiology, early diagnosis with triphasic computed tomography (CT)-angiography, immediate endovascular or surgical restoration of mesenteric perfusion, and damage control surgery if transmural bowel infarction is present. No specific biomarkers are available to detect early mucosal injury in clinical setting. Nonocclusive mesenteric ischemia presents particular challenges, as the diagnosis based on CT-findings as well as vascular management is more difficult; some recent evidence suggests a possible role of potentially treatable stenosis of superior mesenteric artery and beneficial effect of vasodilator therapy (intravenous or local intra-arterial). Medical management of AMI is supportive, including aiming of euvolemia and balanced systemic oxygen demand/delivery. Enteral nutrition should be withheld during ongoing ischemia-reperfusion injury and be started at low rate after revascularization of the (remaining) bowel is convincingly achieved.

SUMMARY

Clinical suspicion leading to tri-phasic CT-angiography is a mainstay for diagnosis. Diagnosis of nonocclusive mesenteric ischemia and early intestinal injury remains challenging. Multidisciplinary team effort may improve the outcome of AMI.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery

AIM

There is a requirement for an expansive and up to date review of the management of emergency colorectal conditions seen in adults. The primary objective is to provide detailed evidence-based guidelines for the target audience of general and colorectal surgeons who are responsible for an adult population and who practise in Great Britain and Ireland.

METHODS

Surgeons who are elected members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Emergency Surgery Subcommittee were invited to contribute various sections to the guidelines. They were directed to produce a pathology-based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence-based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after two votes were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

All aspects of care (excluding abdominal trauma) for emergency colorectal conditions have been included along with 122 recommendations for management.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence-based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of emergency colorectal conditions and should serve as practical text for clinicians managing colorectal conditions in the emergency setting.

Is open abdominal management useful in nontrauma emergency surgery for older adults? A single-center retrospective study

PURPOSE

Open abdominal management (OAM) is being adopted increasingly frequently in nontrauma patients. This study assessed the effectiveness of OAM in nontrauma older adults.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all adults who underwent nontrauma emergency laparotomy requiring postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) management between September 2012 and August 2017 at our hospital. Patients ≥ 80 years old, who underwent OAM, were compared with those < 80 years old. The primary outcome was the 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were the 30-day mortality, unplanned relaparotomy, and the ICU length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

The OAM group comprised 58 patients, including 27 who were ≥ 80 years old. The patients ≥ 80 years old in the OAM group had a significantly higher 90-day mortality rate (33% vs. 10%; p = 0.027) than those < 80 years old. There were no significant differences in the 30-day mortality rate, patients' unplanned relaparotomy rate, or ICU LOS between the patients ≥ 80 years old and those < 80 in the OAM group.

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults who underwent OAM had a significantly higher mortality rate than younger patients. However, the OAM strategy for older nontrauma patients may still be useful and reasonable considering the severe condition of these patients.

Current progress of source control in the management of intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infection (IAI) is a deadly condition in which the outcome is associated with urgent diagnosis, assessment and management, including fluid resuscitation, antibiotic administration while obtaining further laboratory results, attaining precise measurements of hemodynamic status, and pursuing source control. This last item makes abdominal sepsis a unique treatment challenge. Delayed or inadequate source control is an independent predictor of poor outcomes and recognizing source control failure is often difficult or impossible. Further complicating issue in the debate is surrounding the timing, adequacy, and procedures of source control. This review evaluated and summarized the current approach and challenges in IAI management, which are the future research directions.

Preoperative physical functional status affects the long-term outcomes of elderly patients with open abdomen

Aim

The mortality rates among elderly patients with open abdomen (OA) are high, and pre-existing comorbidities could affect the outcomes. However, long-term prognosis remains uncertain. We examined long-term outcomes in elderly patients with OA, focusing on physical functional status.

Methods

We undertook a retrospective cohort study between 2007 and 2017 at a single institution. Patients with OA who were aged ≥65 years were categorized into two groups: "good preoperative functional status" group (GFG) and "poor preoperative functional status" group (PFG). The GFG was defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/World Health Organization performance status (PS) 0-1, whereas PFG was defined as PS 2-4. The primary outcomes were survival and PS 2 years following the initial surgery.

Results

Of the 53 participants, 38 and 15 were assigned to the GFG and PFG, respectively. The PFG (median age, 81 years) was older than the GFG (median age, 75.5 years; P = 0.040). The 2-year survival rate was 39.5% in GFG and 6.7% in PFG, and Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significant difference (P = 0.022). Among all patients, the PS at 2 years was worse than that at discharge (P = 0.007). Preoperative PS was correlated with 2-year survival (P = 0.003), whereas age and pre-existing comorbidities were not.

Conclusion

The long-term outcomes of elderly patients with OA are affected by the preoperative physical functional status. Functional status deteriorates in a time-dependent manner. Therefore, surgery requiring OA must be carefully considered for elderly patients with PS 2 or higher.

Damage Control Surgery may be a Safe Option for Severe Non-Trauma Peritonitis Management: Proposal of a New Decision-Making Algorithm

BACKGROUND

Damage control surgery (DCS) has emerged as a new option in the management of non-traumatic peritonitis patients to increase survival in critically ill patients. The purpose of this study was to compare DCS with conventional strategy (anastomosis/ostomies in the index laparotomy) for severe non-traumatic peritonitis regarding postoperative complications, ostomy rate, and mortality and to propose a useful algorithm in the clinical practice.

METHODS

Patients who underwent an urgent laparotomy for non-trauma peritonitis at a single level I trauma center in Colombia between January 2003 and December 2018, were retrospectively included. We compared patients who had DCS management versus definitive initial surgical management (DISM) group. We evaluated clinical outcomes and morbidities among groups.

RESULTS

290 patients were included; 81 patients were treated with DCS and 209 patients underwent DISM. Patients treated with DCS had a worse critical status before surgery with higher SOFA score [median, DCS group: 5 (IQR: 3-8) vs. DISM group: 3 (IQR: 1-6), p < 0.001]. The length of hospital stay and overall mortality rate of DCS group were not significant statistical differences with DISM group. Complications rate related to primary anastomosis or primary ostomy was similar. There is not difference in ostomy rate among groups. At multivariate analysis, SOFA > 6 points and APACHE-II > 20 points correlated with a higher probability of DCS.

CONCLUSION

DCS in severe non-trauma peritonitis patients is feasible and safe as surgical strategy management without increasing mortality, length hospital of stay, or complications. DCS principles might be applied in the non-trauma scenarios without increase the stoma rate.

La laparotomía de control de daños en pacientes sin trauma reduce el número de ostomías

Introducción. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar si la laparotomía de control de daños con ligadura y reconstrucción intestinal diferida, en pacientes con peritonitis secundaria a compromiso de víscera hueca, reduce el número de ostomías. Métodos. Se incluyeron todos los pacientes menores de 18 años de edad que ingresaron a la clínica con sospecha de peritonitis de origen no traumático y que se sometieron a laparotomía entre enero del 2003 y diciembre del 2018. Se evaluaron las características sociodemográficas, comorbilidades, escalas de gravedad fisiológica, técnicas de reconstrucción intestinal y resultados clínicos. Resultados. Se incluyeron 306 pacientes, distribuidos en tres grupos: 1) 120 (39,2 %) sometidos a resección y anastomosis, 2) 87 (28,4 %) sometidos a ostomía, y 3) 99 (32,3 %) sometidos inicialmente a ligadura intestinal. Los pacientes sometidos a ligadura intestinal presentaron mayor compromiso fisiológico al ingreso a la unidad de cuidado intensivo, con puntuación APACHE II: 14 (rango intercuartílico, RIC=10-18) en el grupo 1, 13 (RIC=11-18) en el grupo 2, y 18 (RIC=14-24) en el grupo 3 (p<0,01). Sin embargo, más de la mitad se reconstruyeron en la siguiente laparotomía: anastomosis mecánica (16/99; 16,1 %), anastomosis manual (49/99; 49,5 %), ostomía (34/99; 34,3 %). Además, estos pacientes sometidos a ligadura intestinal tuvieron un número significativamente mayor de nuevas laparotomías, y de días de asistencia respiratoria mecánica, de estancia en la unidad de cuidado intensivo y de estancia hospitalaria. No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la mortalidad entre los subgrupos: (grupo 1=19 (15,8 %), grupo 2=16 (18,4 %), grupo 3=19 (19,2 %) (p=0,79). Conclusión. En este estudio, se logró evitar la ostomía como técnica de reconstrucción definitiva en más de la mitad de los pacientes con peritonitis que se sometieron a laparotomía de control de daños con ligadura intestinal.

Open abdomen management for massive intestinal infarction due to acute splanchnic venous thrombosis in a patient with protein S deficiency. A case report

INTRODUCTION

Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) refers to the sudden onset of intestinal hypoperfusion that can also result from splanchnic venous occlusion. The portomesenteric venous system (PMVS) is an unusual site of thrombosis in patients with protein S deficiency and its obstruction is a rare cause of AMI. Aim of this report is to illustrate a successful strategy in a case of massive small bowel infarction managed with an open abdomen (OA) approach.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 64 year-old woman presented to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain, rectal bleeding, diarrhea and vomiting. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) showed small bowel ischemia and the complete occlusion of all the PMVS branches. Surgery was performed with an OA approach and anticoagulation was immediately begun. Further workup revealed isolated protein S deficiency and history of atrophic gastritis. Thromboprophylaxis with warfarin was started on discharge and no recurrence of thrombotic events was recorded during the one-year follow-up.

DISCUSSION

PMVS thrombosis related to protein S deficiency is a rare condition that can rapidly lead to an acute abdomen. CECT is the gold standard, because it detects splanchnic thrombosis and its possible complications, like bowel ischemia. In case of surgery, a planned second-look operation is the best strategy to assess bowel viability and possible ischemic progression.

CONCLUSIONS

OA management plays a fundamental role in case of resection for bowel ischemia. Patients with thrombosis at an uncommon site should be further investigated for prothrombotic states.

One-year mortality in geriatric trauma patients: Improving upon the geriatric trauma outcomes score utilizing the social security death index

BACKGROUND

Geriatric Trauma Outcomes Score (GTOS) predicts in-patient mortality in geriatric trauma patients and has been validated in a prospective multicenter trial and expanded to predict adverse discharge (GTOS II). We hypothesized that these formulations actually underestimate the downstream sequelae of injury and sought to predict longer-term mortality in geriatric trauma patients.

METHODS

The Parkland Memorial Hospital Trauma registry was queried for patients 65 years or older from 2001 to 2013. Patients were then matched to the Social Security Death Index. The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. The original GTOS formula (variables of age, Injury Severity Score [ISS], 24-hour transfusion) was tested to predict 1-year mortality using receiver operator curves. Significant variables on univariate analysis were used to build an optimal multivariate model to predict 1-year mortality (GTOS III).

RESULTS

There were 3,262 patients who met inclusion. Inpatient mortality was 10.0% (324) and increased each year: 15.8%, 1 year; 17.8%, 2 years; and 22.6%, 5 years. The original GTOS equation had an area under the curve of 0.742 for 1-year mortality. Univariate analysis showed that patients with 1-year mortality had on average increased age (75.7 years vs. 79.5 years), ISS (11.1 vs. 19.1), lower GCS score (14.3 vs. 10.5), more likely to require transfusion within 24 hours (11.5% vs. 31.3%), and adverse discharge (19.5% vs. 78.2%; p < 0.0001 for all). Multivariate logistic regression was used to create the optimal equation to predict 1-year mortality: (GTOSIII = age + [0.806 × ISS] + 5.55 [if transfusion in first 24 hours] + 21.69 [if low GCS] + 34.36 [if adverse discharge]); area under the curve of 0.878.

CONCLUSION

Traumatic injury in geriatric patients is associated with high mortality rates at 1 year to 5 years. GTOS III has robust test characteristics to predict death at 1 year and can be used to guide patient centered goals discussions with objective data.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic, level III.

Open abdominal management for perforative peritonitis with septic shock: a retrospective analysis on usefulness of a standardized treatment protocol

BACKGROUND

Damage control surgery (DCS) with open abdominal management (OAM) has been increasingly expanded to include critically ill non-trauma patients. However, there is limited data regarding the usefulness of this protocol for the treatment of severe perforative peritonitis (PP), especially with septic shock (SS). Here, we retrospectively evaluated the usefulness of our OAM protocol for PP with SS.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with from June 2015 to September 2018. The proposed protocol was composed of the following steps: (1) rapid control of contamination; (2) temporary abdominal closure; (3) repeated washout of the abdominal cavity; and (4) delayed definitive surgery. For temporary abdominal closure, a negative pressure wound therapy device was used. The end points were the morbidity and 30-day mortality rates. Logistic backward regression was performed to identify factors associated with complications.

RESULTS

The mortality rate was 4% (1/25) and the overall morbidity rate of surviving patients was 58.3% (14/24). The mean duration of the first DCS was 67.36 ± 22.83 min. The median durations of ventilation and intensive care unit stay were 5 and 7 days, respectively. Although not significant, morbidity might be associated with age, diabetes mellitus, initial operative time, and OAM duration.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized protocol for OAM may improve the outcomes of patients with SS due to PP. This damage control approach can be applied for the treatment of severe abdominal sepsis.

Damage Control Surgery for Non-traumatic Abdominal Emergencies

BACKGROUND

Damage control surgery (DCS) was a major paradigm change in the management of critically ill trauma patients and has gradually expanded in the general surgery arena, but data in this setting are still scarce. The study aim was to evaluate outcomes of DCS in patients with general surgery emergencies.

METHODS

Between 2005 and 2015, 164 patients (104 men, age 66) underwent DCS for non-traumatic abdominal emergencies. The decision to perform DCS was triggered by the presence of at least one trauma DCS criterion: hypotension (<70 mmHg), hypothermia (<35 °C), acidosis (pH < 7.25), coagulopathy (INR ≥ 1.7) and massive (>5 RBC) transfusion. Statistical tests were performed to identify risk factors for operative mortality. Observed outcomes were compared to those predicted by commonly employed scores (APACHE II, POSSUM, P-POSSUM, SAPS II).

RESULTS

DCS was performed for acute mesenteric ischemia (n = 68), peritonitis (n = 44), pancreatitis (n = 28), bleeding (n = 14) and other (n = 10). Abdominal compartment syndrome was associated in 52 patients (32%). Seventy-four (45%) patients died and 150 patients (91%) experienced complications. On multivariate analysis, age (p = 0.018) and INR ≥ 1.7 (p = 0.001) were independent predictors of mortality. Mortality was 24% (13/55), 48% (22/46) and 62% (39/63) in patients with one, two and ≥3 DCS criteria, respectively. Comparison of observed and score-predicted mortality suggested DCS use resulted in significant survival benefit of the whole cohort and of patients with pancreatitis and postoperative peritonitis.

CONCLUSIONS

DCS can be lifesaving in critically ill patients with general surgery emergencies. Patients with peritonitis and acute pancreatitis are those who benefit most of the DCS approach.

2017 WSES guidelines on colon and rectal cancer emergencies: obstruction and perforation

ᅟ

Obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer represent challenging matters in terms of diagnosis, life-saving strategies, obstruction resolution and oncologic challenge. The aims of the current paper are to update the previous WSES guidelines for the management of large bowel perforation and obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) and to develop new guidelines on obstructive right colon carcinoma (ORCC).

METHODS

The literature was extensively queried for focused publication until December 2017. Precise analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group formed by a pool of experts: the statements and literature review were presented, discussed and voted at the Consensus Conference of the 4th Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held in Campinas in May 2017.

RESULTS

CT scan is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation. For OLCC, self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), when available, offers interesting advantages as compared to emergency surgery; however, the positioning of SEMS for surgically treatable causes carries some long-term oncologic disadvantages, which are still under analysis. In the context of emergency surgery, resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) is preferable to Hartmann's procedure, whenever the characteristics of the patient and the surgeon are permissive. Right-sided loop colostomy is preferable in rectal cancer, when preoperative therapies are predicted.With regards to the treatment of ORCC, right colectomy represents the procedure of choice; alternatives, such as internal bypass and loop ileostomy, are of limited value.Clinical scenarios in the case of perforation might be dramatic, especially in case of free faecal peritonitis. The importance of an appropriate balance between life-saving surgical procedures and respect of oncologic caveats must be stressed. In selected cases, a damage control approach may be required.Medical treatments including appropriate fluid resuscitation, early antibiotic treatment and management of co-existing medical conditions according to international guidelines must be delivered to all patients at presentation.

CONCLUSIONS

The current guidelines offer an extensive overview of available evidence and a qualitative consensus regarding management of large bowel obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer.

Closed Or Open after Source Control Laparotomy for Severe Complicated Intra-Abdominal Sepsis (the COOL trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. Principles of treatment include early antibiotic administration and operative source control. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with active negative peritoneal pressure therapy (ANPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and ameliorate the systemic damage from SCIAS. Although there is now a biologic rationale for such an intervention as well as non-standardized and erratic clinical utilization, this remains a novel therapy with potential side effects and clinical equipoise.

Methods

The Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL) study will constitute a prospective randomized controlled trial that will randomly allocate eligible surgical patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or use of the OA with application of an ANPTT dressing. Patients will be eligible if they have free uncontained intra-peritoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR a Predisposition-Infection-Response-Organ Dysfunction Score ≥ 3 or a World-Society-of-Emergency-Surgery-Sepsis-Severity-Score ≥ 8. The primary outcome will be 90-day survival. Secondary outcomes will be logistical, physiologic, safety, bio-mediators, microbiological, quality of life, and health-care costs. Secondary outcomes will include days free of ICU, ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and hospital at 30 days from the index laparotomy. Physiologic secondary outcomes will include changes in intensive care unit illness severity scores after laparotomy. Bio-mediator outcomes for participating centers will involve measurement of interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-10, procalcitonin, activated protein C (APC), high-mobility group box protein-1, complement factors, and mitochondrial DNA. Economic outcomes will comprise standard costing for utilization of health-care resources.

Discussion

Although facial closure after SCIAS is considered the current standard of care, many reports are suggesting that OA management may improve outcomes in these patients. This trial will be powered to demonstrate a mortality difference in this highly lethal and morbid condition to ensure critically ill patients are receiving the best care possible and not being harmed by inappropriate therapies based on opinion only.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03163095.

"Second-look" laparotomy: warranted, or contributor to excessive open abdomens?

INTRODUCTION

The overuse of temporary abdominal closure and second look (SL) laparotomy in emergency general surgery (EGS) cases has been questioned in the recent literature. In an effort to hopefully decrease the number of open abdomen (OA) patients, we hypothesize that reviewing our cases, many of these SL patients could be managed with single-stage operative therapy and thus decrease the number of OA patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from Jun 2013-Jun 2014, evaluating EGS patients managed with an OA who required bowel resection in either index or SL laparotomy. Demographics, clinical variables, complications and mortality were collected. Fisher's exact t test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

During this time frame, 96 patients were managed with OA and 59 patients required a bowel resection. 55 (57%) of those required one bowel resection at the index operation with 4 (4.2%) only requiring one bowel resection at the second operation. In the patients requiring bowel resections, 18 (30%) required a resection at SL. At SL laparotomy, resection was required for questionably viable bowel at the index operation 60% (11), whereas 39% (7) had normal appearing bowel. Indications for resection at SL laparotomy included evolution of existing ischemia, new onset ischemia, staple line revision, and "other". 23 patients (39%) were hemodynamically unstable, contributing to the need for temporary abdominal closure. In the multivariate analysis, preoperative shock was the only predictor of need for further resection. Complications and mortality were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Almost one-fifth of the patients undergoing SL laparotomy for open abdomen required bowel resections, with 6.8% of those having normal appearing bowel at index operation, therefore in select EGS patients, SL laparotomy is a reasonable strategy.

Abdominal compartment syndrome and the open abdomen: any unresolved issues?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the key principles of abdominal compartment syndrome and the open abdomen, exploring some of the unresolved issues. It reviews new concepts in care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent use of peritoneal resuscitation, and benefits of mesh-mediated traction are discussed. Abdominal compartment syndrome remains a result of complex interaction between general haemorrhage, sepsis and fluid resuscitation. Improved resuscitation and sepsis control has decreased but not abolished the need for the open abdomen and progression for abdominal compartment syndrome. Fourth-generation abdominal wall dressings need to be combined with a dynamic closure system; currently, negative pressure wound therapy at the index open abdomen coupled with mesh-mediated tractions offers the best outcome.

SUMMARY

The key to optimizing outcome is early abdominal closure within 7 days because failure to do so will increase morbidity, mortality and fistulae formation. Novel techniques complementing existing de-resuscitation techniques are discussed.

Getting the invite list right: a discussion of sepsis severity scoring systems in severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis and randomized trial inclusion criteria

Background

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) is a worldwide challenge with increasing incidence. Open abdomen management with enhanced clearance of fluid and biomediators from the peritoneum is a potential therapy requiring prospective evaluation. Given the complexity of powering multi-center trials, it is essential to recruit an inception cohort sick enough to benefit from the intervention; otherwise, no effect of a potentially beneficial therapy may be apparent. An evaluation of abilities of recognized predictive systems to recognize SCIAS patients was conducted using an existing intra-abdominal sepsis (IAS) database.

Methods

All consecutive adult patients with a diffuse secondary peritonitis between 2012 and 2013 were collected from a quaternary care hospital in Finland, excluding appendicitis/cholecystitis. From this retrospectively collected database, a target population (93) of those with either ICU admission or mortality were selected. The performance metrics of the Third Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock based on both SOFA and quick SOFA, the World Society of Emergency Surgery Sepsis Severity Score (WSESSSS), the APACHE II score, Manheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), and the Calgary Predisposition, Infection, Response, and Organ dysfunction (CPIRO) score were all tested for their discriminant ability to identify this subgroup with SCIAS and to predict mortality.

Results

Predictive systems with an area under-the-receiving-operating characteristic (AUC) curve > 0.8 included SOFA, Sepsis-3 definitions, APACHE II, WSESSSS, and CPIRO scores with the overall best for CPIRO. The highest identification rates were SOFA score ≥ 2 (78.4%), followed by the WSESSSS score ≥ 8 (73.1%), SOFA ≥ 3 (75.2%), and APACHE II ≥ 14 (68.8%) identification. Combining the Sepsis-3 septic-shock definition and WSESSS ≥ 8 increased detection to 80%. Including CPIRO score ≥ 3 increased this to 82.8% (Sensitivity-SN; 83% Specificity-SP; 74%. Comparatively, SOFA ≥ 4 and WSESSSS ≥ 8 with or without septic-shock had 83.9% detection (SN; 84%, SP; 75%, 25% mortality).

Conclusions

No one scoring system behaves perfectly, and all are largely dominated by organ dysfunction. Utilizing combinations of SOFA, CPIRO, and WSESSSS scores in addition to the Sepsis-3 septic shock definition appears to offer the widest "inclusion-criteria" to recognize patients with a high chance of mortality and ICU admission.

Trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095; Registered on May 22, 2017.

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.

2017 WSES guidelines for the management of iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation

Iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation (ICP) is a severe complication that can occur during both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Although 45-60% of ICPs are diagnosed by the endoscopist while performing the colonoscopy, many ICPs are not immediately recognized but are instead suspected on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms that occur after the endoscopic procedure. There are three main therapeutic options for ICPs: endoscopic repair, conservative therapy, and surgery. The therapeutic approach must vary based on the setting of the diagnosis (intra- or post-colonoscopy), the type of ICP, the characteristics and general status of the patient, the operator's level of experience, and surgical device availability. Although ICPs have been the focus of numerous publications, no guidelines have been created to standardize the management of ICPs. The aim of this article is to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for the management of ICP, which are intended to be used as a tool to promote global standards of care in case of ICP. These guidelines are not meant to substitute providers' clinical judgment for individual patients, and they may need to be modified based on the medical team's level of experience and the availability of local resources.

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.

Temporary abdominal closure for trauma and intra-abdominal sepsis: Different patients, different outcomes

BACKGROUND

Temporary abdominal closure (TAC) after damage control surgery (DCS) for injured patients has been generalized to septic patients. However, direct comparisons between these populations are lacking. We hypothesized that patients with intra-abdominal sepsis would have different resuscitation requirements and lower primary fascial closure rates than trauma patients.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a 3-year retrospective cohort analysis of patients managed with TAC for trauma (n = 77) or intra-abdominal sepsis (n = 147). All patients received negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) TAC with intention for planned relaparotomy and sequential abdominal closure attempts at 24- to 48-hour intervals.

RESULTS

At presentation, trauma patients had higher rates of hypothermia (31% vs. 18%), severe acidosis (27% vs. 14%), and coagulopathy (68% vs. 48%), and septic patients had higher vasopressor infusion rates (46% vs. 27%). Forty-eight hours after presentation, septic patients had persistently higher vasopressor infusion rates (37% vs. 17%), and trauma patients had received more red blood cell transfusions (6.0 U vs. 0.0 U), fresh frozen plasma (5.0 U vs. 0.0 U), and crystalloid (8,290 vs. 7,159 ml). Among patients surviving to discharge, trauma patients had higher primary fascial closure (PFC) rates (90% vs. 76%). For trauma patients, independent predictors of failure to achieve PCF were ≥2.5 L NPWT output at 48 hours, ≥10 L crystalloid administration at 48 hours, and ≥10 U PRBC + FFP at 48 hours. For septic patients, relaparotomy within 48 hours predicted successful PFC; requirement for ≥3 diagnostic/therapeutic laparotomies predicted failure to achieve PFC.

CONCLUSIONS

Traumatic injury and intra-abdominal sepsis are associated with distinct pathophysiologic insults, resuscitation requirements, and outcomes. Failure to achieve primary fascial closure in trauma patients was attributable to the triad of hypothermia, acidosis, and coagulopathy; failure to achieve fascial closure in septic patients was dependent upon operative course. Indications and optimal techniques for TAC may differ between these populations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV; prognostic study, level III.

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.