Outcomes of open abdomen versus primary closure following emergent laparotomy for suspected secondary peritonitis: A propensity-matched analysis

Open abdomen versus primary closure in the management of severe abdominal sepsis: What is the right way? Results of the last 5 years of a reference center

PURPOSE

WSES guidelines allow open abdomen (OA) for critically ill patients due to secondary peritonitis in the case of inadequate source control, but this option results quite vague and with a low grade of evidence (Grade 2 C). Moreover, the emerging increasing in literature of complications, makes the use of OA in secondary peritonitis more debated. The aim of our study is to analyze the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing OA versus primary closure (PC) in secondary peritonitis.

METHODS

We collected data from Tertiary Trauma Center from 2019 to 2024. The study included patients who underwent urgent laparotomy for severe secondary peritonitis, divided into two groups based on the strategy chosen in the index laparotomy: PC or OA. We retrospectively analyzed the data, considering as primary outcome post-operative mortality, while as secondary outcomes short terms complications and LOS.

RESULTS

283 patients fit the research for the diagnosis of peritonitis but only 176 were included as with a WSES-SSS > = 7. 128 patients (72,7%) were in the PC group, while 48 (27,3%) were managed with an OA strategy. There were no statistical differences in terms of mortality (p = 0.371), between the two groups. Complications were higher in the OA group (p = 0.001). From the logistic regression only MPI resulted an independent factor of mortality (p = 0.016; OR 1.080).

CONCLUSION

The study shows that OA in severe secondary peritonitis does not improve mortality and is associated with higher short-term complications and incisional hernias. However, RCT are necessary to better investigate the role of OA in the management of abdominal sepsis.

Vacuum-Assisted Closure Significantly Reduces Surgical Postoperative Complications Compared With Primary Abdominal Closure in Patients With Secondary Peritonitis: A Comparative Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Vacuum-assisted abdominal closure (VAC) is being increasingly used as an adjunctive procedure in the surgical treatment of secondary peritonitis. This study compared postoperative mortality and complication rates between VAC and primary abdominal closure (PAC).

METHOD

This retrospective chart review included all patients diagnosed with secondary peritonitis who underwent laparotomy between 2010 and 2019. Data were collected from six hospitals within Southern Denmark, covering a population of approximately 1,225,000 inhabitants.

RESULTS

The study involved 315 patients (139 in the PAC and 176 in the VAC groups). In the VAC group, BMI, ASA, SOFA, MPI, and four quadrant contamination was significantly higher at the index operation. There were no significant differences in nonadjusted and adjusted postoperative mortality at 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year, with cumulative values of 13%, 16%, and 21%, respectively, compared with 16%, 21%, and 31%, in the PAC group (p = 0.519, p = 0.380, and p = 0.051, respectively). Cumulative adjusted surgical postoperative complications at 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year, as assessed by the comprehensive complication index, was significantly higher in the PAC group. Reoperations were significantly more common in the PAC group. The total length of the intensive care unit admission was significantly longer in the VAC group, with a mean of 9.0 ± 12.1 versus 6.7 ± 12.1 days (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

VAC after laparotomy for secondary peritonitis did not significantly reduce mortality but increased ICU stay, whereas primary closure led to higher surgical complication rates and reoperations.

Early placement of a non-invasive, pressure-regulated, fascial reapproximation device improves reduction of the fascial gap in open abdomens: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Since current fascial traction methods involve invasive procedures, they are generally employed late in the management of the open abdomen (OA). This study aimed to evaluate early versus late placement of a non-invasive, pressure-regulated device for fascial reapproximation and gap reduction in OA patients.

Methods

The study included all patients who had the abdominal fascia intentionally left open after damage control operation for trauma and emergency general surgery and were managed with the device in an academic hospital between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2023. Time of device placement in relation to the end of index laparotomy was defined as early (≤24 hours) versus late (>24 hours). Time-related mid-incisional width reduction of the fascial gap and fascial closure were assessed using descriptive and linear regression analysis.

Results

There was a significantly higher percent reduction in the fascial gap at the midpoint of the laparotomies in the early (≤24 hours) AbClo placement group compared with the late (>24 hours) AbClo placement group, respectively, median 76% versus 43%, p<0.001. Linear regression adjusting for body mass index and the number of takebacks indicated that fascial approximation was 22% higher for early placement (β=0.22; CI 0.12, 0.33, p<0.001). Primary myofascial closure rate with early (≤24 hours) application of the device was 98% versus 85% with late application.

Conclusion

Early non-invasive application of the device (≤24 hours) after the initial laparotomy resulted in greater reduction of the fascial gap and higher primary fascial closure rate compared with late placement (>24 hours). Early non-invasive intervention could prevent abdominal wall myofascial retraction in OA patients.

Level of evidence

IV.

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.

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.

Revisiting abdominal closure in mesenteric ischemia: is there an association with outcome?

PURPOSE

Current guidelines advocate liberal use of delayed abdominal closure in patients with acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) undergoing laparotomy. Few studies have systematically examined this practice. The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of delayed abdominal closure on postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients with AMI.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of the ACS-NSQIP 2013-2017 registry. We included patients with a diagnosis of AMI undergoing emergency laparotomy. Patients were divided into two groups based on the type of abdominal closure: (1) delayed fascial closure (DFC) when no layers of the abdominal wall were closed and (2) immediate fascial closure (IFC) if deep layers or all layers of the abdominal wall were closed. Propensity score matching was performed based on comorbidities, pre-operative, and operative characteristics. Univariable analysis was performed on the matched sample.

RESULTS

The propensity-matched cohort consisted of 1520 patients equally divided into the DFC and IFC groups. The median (IQR) age was 68 (59-77), and 836 (55.0%) were female. Compared to IFC, the DFC group showed increased in-hospital mortality (38.9% vs. 31.6%, p = 0.002), 30-day mortality (42.4% vs. 36.3%, p = 0.012), and increased risk of respiratory failure (59.5% vs. 31.2%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The delayed fascial closure technique was associated with increased mortality compared to immediate fascial closure. These findings do not support the blanket incorporation of delayed closure in mesenteric ischemia care or its previously advocated liberal use.

Source control in emergency general surgery: WSES, GAIS, SIS-E, SIS-A guidelines

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are among the most common global healthcare challenges and they are usually precipitated by disruption to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Their successful management typically requires intensive resource utilization, and despite the best therapies, morbidity and mortality remain high. One of the main issues required to appropriately treat IAI that differs from the other etiologies of sepsis is the frequent requirement to provide physical source control. Fortunately, dramatic advances have been made in this aspect of treatment. Historically, source control was left to surgeons only. With new technologies non-surgical less invasive interventional procedures have been introduced. Alternatively, in addition to formal surgery open abdomen techniques have long been proposed as aiding source control in severe intra-abdominal sepsis. It is ironic that while a lack or even delay regarding source control clearly associates with death, it is a concept that remains poorly described. For example, no conclusive definition of source control technique or even adequacy has been universally accepted. Practically, source control involves a complex definition encompassing several factors including the causative event, source of infection bacteria, local bacterial flora, patient condition, and his/her eventual comorbidities. With greater understanding of the systemic pathobiology of sepsis and the profound implications of the human microbiome, adequate source control is no longer only a surgical issue but one that requires a multidisciplinary, multimodality approach. Thus, while any breach in the GI tract must be controlled, source control should also attempt to control the generation and propagation of the systemic biomediators and dysbiotic influences on the microbiome that perpetuate multi-system organ failure and death. Given these increased complexities, the present paper represents the current opinions and recommendations for future research of the World Society of Emergency Surgery, of the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery of Surgical Infection Society Europe and Surgical Infection Society America regarding the concepts and operational adequacy of source control in intra-abdominal infections.

Vacuum assisted closure with mesh mediated fascial traction of open abdominal wounds and acute fascial dehiscence, a single institution experience

BACKGROUNDS

Laparostomy is a common means of managing surgical catastrophes, but often results in large ventral hernias which prove difficult to repair. It is also associated with high rates of enteric fistula formation. Dynamic methods of managing the open abdomen have been shown to result in higher rates of fascial closure and fewer complications. Recent publications have suggested the addition of chemical components relaxation with botulinum toxin has an added advantage over prior methods.

METHODS

We report on a series of emergent cases managed by the combination of Botulinum toxin A (BTA) mediated chemical relaxation with a modified method of mesh-mediated fascial traction (MMFT) and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT).

RESULTS

Thirteen cases (nine laparostomies and four fascial dehiscence) were successfully closed in a median of 12 days, using a median of 4 'tightenings', with no clinical herniation detected at follow up so far (median 183 days, IQR 123-292). There were no procedure-related complications, but one death from the underling pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

We report further cases of vacuum assisted mesh-mediated fascial traction (VA-MMFT) utilizing BTA in successfully managing laparostomy and abdominal wound dehiscence and continues the known high rate of successful fascial closure seen when applied in treating the open abdomen.

Use of Temporary Abdominal Closure in Non-Trauma Surgery: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Damage control surgery in trauma is widely used but the evidence for the use of laparostomy in non-trauma abdominal emergencies is limited. This study aimed to characterise outcomes in emergency abdominal surgery by comparing laparostomy to one-stage laparotomy for patients of similar illness severity.

METHODS

A retrospective study of adult patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery and post-operative intensive care stay was performed between 2016 and 2020 at a major Australian metropolitan hospital. Case selection was from a prospectively maintained database, and case notes were reviewed. Patients having delayed abdominal closure were compared with those having one-stage abdominal closure. The primary outcome was odds of in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), overall hospital LOS, definitive stoma rate and discharge destination. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for potentially confounding variables.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighteen patients met inclusion criteria (80 laparostomy and 138 non-laparostomy). The most common indications for laparostomy were bowel ischaemia (41.3%), sepsis (26.3%) and physiological instability (22.5%). There was no evidence of difference in odds of in-hospital mortality between groups (adjusted OR = 1.67, CI: 0.85-3.28; p = 0.138). Patients requiring laparostomy had a slightly longer median ICU LOS (4 vs. 3 days; p < 0.001), similar median hospital LOS (19 vs. 14 days, p = 0.245) and similar discharge destination. There was no difference in stoma rate (35.0% vs. 35.5%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with standard one-stage laparotomy, laparostomy resulted in similar odds of in-hospital mortality in emergency abdominal surgery patients requiring intensive 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.

National epidemiologic trends (2008-2018) in the United States for the incidence and expenditures associated with incisional hernia in relation to abdominal surgery

PURPOSE

It is unknown whether the trend of rising incisional hernia (IH) repair (IHR) incidence and costs until 2011 currently persists. We aimed to evaluate how the IHR procedure incidence, cost and patient risk-profile have changed over the last decade relative to all abdominal surgeries (AS).

METHODS

Repeated cross-sectional analysis of 38,512,737 patients undergoing inpatient 4AS including IHR within the 2008-2018 National Inpatient Sample. Yearly incidence (procedures/1,000,000 people [PMP]), hospital costs, surgical and patient characteristics were compared between IHR and AS using generalized linear and multinomial regression.

RESULTS

Between 2008-2018, 3.1% of AS were IHR (1,200,568/38,512,737). There was a steeper decrease in the incidence of AS (356.5 PMP/year) compared to IHR procedures (12.0 PMP/year) which resulted in the IHR burden relative to AS (2008-2018: 12,576.3 to 9,113.4 PMP; trend difference P < 0.01). National costs averaged $47.9 and 1.7 billion/year for AS and IHR, respectively. From 2008-2018, procedure costs increased significantly for AS (68.2%) and IHR (74.6%; trends P < 0.01). Open IHR downtrended (42.2%), whereas laparoscopic (511.1%) and robotic (19,301%) uptrended significantly (trends P < 0.01). For both AS and IHR, the proportion of older (65-85y), Black and Hispanic, publicly-insured, and low-income patients, with higher comorbidity burden, undergoing elective procedures at small- and medium-sized hospitals uptrended significantly (all P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

IH persists as a healthcare burden as demonstrated by the increased proportion of IHR relative to all AS, disproportionate presence of high-risk patients that undergo these procedures, and increased costs. Targeted efforts for IH prevention have the potential of decreasing $17 M/year in costs for every 1% reduction.

Damage-control surgery in patients with nontraumatic abdominal emergencies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

After the successful implementation in trauma, damage-control surgery (DCS) is being increasingly used in patients with nontraumatic emergencies. However, the role of DCS in the nontrauma setting is not well defined. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of DCS on mortality in patients with nontraumatic abdominal emergencies.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was done using PubMed. Original articles addressing nontrauma DCS were included. Two meta-analyses were performed, comparing (1) mortality in patients undergoing nontrauma DCS versus conventional surgery (CS) and (2) the observed versus expected mortality rate in the DCS group. Expected mortality was derived from Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score, and Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity scores.

RESULTS

A total of five nonrandomized prospective and 16 retrospective studies were included. Nontrauma DCS was performed in 1,238 and nontrauma CS in 936 patients. Frequent indications for surgery in the DCS group were (weighted proportions) hollow viscus perforation (28.5%), mesenteric ischemia (26.5%), anastomotic leak and postoperative peritonitis (19.6%), nontraumatic hemorrhage (18.4%), abdominal compartment syndrome (17.8%), bowel obstruction (15.5%), and pancreatitis (12.9%). In meta-analysis 1, including eight studies, mortality was not significantly different between the nontrauma DCS and CS group (risk difference, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, -0.06 to 0.24). Meta-analysis 2, including 14 studies, revealed a significantly lower observed than expected mortality rate in patients undergoing nontrauma DCS (risk difference, -0.18; 95% confidence interval, -0.29 to -0.06).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis revealed no significantly different mortality in patients undergoing nontrauma DCS versus CS. However, observed mortality was significantly lower than the expected mortality rate in the DCS group, suggesting a benefit of the DCS approach. Based on these two findings, the effect of DCS on mortality in patients with nontraumatic abdominal emergencies remains unclear. Further prospective investigation into this topic is warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.

The results of rapid source control laparotomy or open abdomen for acute diverticulitis

INTRODUCTION

Rapid source control laparotomy (RSCL) for the management of non-traumatic intra-abdominal emergencies has increased over the past 25 years when it was advocated for trauma patients. Little data, however, support its widespread use. We hypothesize that the patients with RSCL will have poorer outcomes than those treated with primary fascial closure (PFC).

METHODS

Patients operated for acute diverticulitis from 2014 to 2016 using The American College of Surgeons sponsored National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data were reviewed. Two groups were identified: PFC, patients with their closed fascia but skin left open (PFC) and RSCL, patients with their left open fascia after the initial operation. The primary outcome of the study was 30-day mortality, with secondary analyses evaluating complications, discharge location and length of stay. Univariate analysis was initially performed followed by propensity score matching.

RESULTS

A total of 460 patients were surgically treated for Hinchey IV diverticulitis of whom 101 (21.9%) had RSCL. The length of stay of the RSCL patients was significantly longer (15 versus 12 days, p, 0.02) than patients in the PFC group. Similarly, the discharge destination for the PFC group was twice as likely to be discharged home as the RSCL group.

CONCLUSION

RSCL for acute diverticulitis is a widely used but is associated with prolonged hospitalizations resulting in high rates of discharge to skilled nursing or rehabilitation facilities. Its routine use for diverticulitis should be limited.

Management of the patient with the open abdomen

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was to outline the management of the patient with the open abdomen.

RECENT FINDINGS

An open abdomen approach is used after damage control laparotomy, to decrease risk for postsurgery intra-abdominal hypertension, if reoperation is likely and after primary abdominal decompression.Temporary abdominal wall closure without negative pressure is associated with higher rates of intra-abdominal infection and evisceration. Negative pressure systems improve fascial closure rates but increase fistula formation. Definitive abdominal wall closure should be considered once oedema has subsided and the patient has stabilized. Delayed abdominal closure after trauma (>24-48 h) is associated with less achievement of fascial closure and more complications. Protective lung ventilation should be employed early, particularly if respiratory compromise is evident. Conservative fluid management and less sedation may decrease delirium and increase definitive abdominal closure rates. Extubation may be performed before definitive abdominal closure in selected patients. Antibiotic therapy should be brief, targeted and guideline concordant. Survival depends on the underlying disease, the closure method and the course of hospitalization.

SUMMARY

Changes in the treatment of patients with the open abdomen include negative temporary closure, conservative fluid management, early protective lung ventilation, decreased sedation and extubation before abdominal closure in selected patients.

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.