Abbreviated emergency laparotomy in the non-trauma setting

Comparison of Endovascular Therapy and Open Surgical Revascularization in Patients With Acute Superior Mesenteric Artery Occlusion: A Large-Scale Analysis Based on the JROAD-DPC Database

BACKGROUND

Acute mesenteric ischemia is rare, and few large-scale trials have evaluated endovascular therapy (EVT) and open surgical revascularization (OS). This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes after EVT or OS for acute superior mesenteric artery occlusion and identify predictors of mortality and bowel resection.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data from the Japanese Registry of All Cardiac and Vascular Diseases-Diagnosis Procedure Combination (JROAD-DPC) database from April 2012 to March 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Overall, 746 patients with acute superior mesenteric artery occlusion who underwent revascularization were classified into 2 groups: EVT (n=475) or OS (n=271). The primary clinical outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were bowel resection, bleeding complications (transfusion or endoscopic hemostasis), major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization duration, and cost. The in-hospital death or bowel resection rate was ≈30%. In-hospital mortality (22.5% versus 21.4%, P=0.72), bowel resection (8.2% versus 8.5%, P=0.90), and major adverse cardiovascular events (11.6% versus 9.2%, P=0.32) were comparable between the EVT and OS groups. Hospitalization duration in the EVT group was 6 days shorter than that in the OS group, and total hospitalization cost was 0.88 million yen lower. Interaction analyses revealed that EVT and OS had no significant difference in terms of in-hospital death in patients with thromboembolic and atherothrombotic characteristics. Advanced age, decreased activities of daily living, chronic kidney disease, and old myocardial infarction were significant predictive factors for in-hospital mortality. Diabetes was a predictor of bowel resection after revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

EVT was comparable to OS in terms of clinical outcomes in patients with acute superior mesenteric artery occlusion. Some predictive factors for mortality or bowel resection were obtained.

REGISTRATION

URL: www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/; Unique Identifier: UMIN000045240.

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.

European society for trauma and emergency surgery member-identified research priorities in emergency surgery: a roadmap for future clinical research opportunities

BACKGROUND

European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) is the European community of clinicians providing care to the injured and critically ill surgical patient. ESTES has several interlinked missions - (1) the promotion of optimal emergency surgical care through networked advocacy, (2) promulgation of relevant clinical cognitive and technical skills, and (3) the advancement of scientific inquiry that closes knowledge gaps, iteratively improves upon surgical and perioperative practice, and guides decision-making rooted in scientific evidence. Faced with multitudinous opportunities for clinical research, ESTES undertook an exercise to determine member priorities for surgical research in the short-to-medium term; these research priorities were presented to a panel of experts to inform a 'road map' narrative review which anchored these research priorities in the contemporary surgical literature.

METHODS

Individual ESTES members in active emergency surgery practice were polled as a representative sample of end-users and were asked to rank potential areas of future research according to their personal perceptions of priority. Using the modified eDelphi method, an invited panel of ESTES-associated experts in academic emergency surgery then crafted a narrative review highlighting potential research priorities for the Society.

RESULTS

Seventy-two responding ESTES members from 23 countries provided feedback to guide the modified eDelphi expert consensus narrative review. Experts then crafted evidence-based mini-reviews highlighting knowledge gaps and areas of interest for future clinical research in emergency surgery: timing of surgery, inter-hospital transfer, diagnostic imaging in emergency surgery, the role of minimally-invasive surgical techniques and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, patient-reported outcome measures, risk-stratification methods, disparities in access to care, geriatric outcomes, data registry and snapshot audit evaluations, emerging technologies interrogation, and the delivery and benchmarking of emergency surgical training.

CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript presents the priorities for future clinical research in academic emergency surgery as determined by a sample of the membership of ESTES. While the precise basis for prioritization was not evident, it may be anchored in disease prevalence, controversy around aspects of current patient care, or indeed the identification of a knowledge gap. These expert-crafted evidence-based mini-reviews provide useful insights that may guide the direction of future academic emergency surgery research efforts.

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 ).

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.

Is it possible to adopt the same oncological approach in urgent surgery for colon cancer?

BACKGROUND

Locoregional complications may occur in up to 30% of patients with colon cancer. As they are frequent events in the natural history of this disease, there should be a concern in offering an oncologically adequate surgical treatment to these patients.

AIM

To compare the oncological radicality of surgery for colon cancer between urgent and elective cases.

METHODS

One-hundred and eighty-nine consecutive patients with non-metastatic colon adenocarcinoma were studied over two years in a single institution, who underwent surgical resection as the first therapeutic approach, with 123 elective and 66 urgent cases. The assessment of oncological radicality was performed by analyzing the extension of the longitudinal margins of resection, the number of resected lymph nodes, and the percentage of surgeries with 12 or more resected lymph nodes. Other clinicopathological variables were compared between the two groups in terms of sex, age, tumor location, type of urgency, surgical access, staging, compromised lymph nodes rate, differentiation grade, angiolymphatic and perineural invasion, and early mortality.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the elective and urgency group concerning the longitudinal margin of resection (average of 6.1 in elective vs 7.3 cm in urgency, P = 0.144), number of resected lymph nodes (average of 17.7 in elective vs 16.6 in urgency, P = 0.355) and percentage of surgeries with 12 or more resected lymph nodes (75.6% in elective vs 77.3% in urgency, P = 0.798). It was observed that the percentage of patients aged 80 and over was higher in the urgency group (13.0% in elective vs 25.8% in urgency, P = 0.028), and the early mortality was 4.9% in elective vs 15.2% in urgency (P = 0.016, OR: 3.48, 95%CI: 1.21–10.06). Tumor location (P = 0.004), surgery performed (P = 0.016) and surgical access (P < 0.001) were also different between the two groups. There was no difference in other clinicopathological variables studied.

CONCLUSION

Oncological radicality of colon cancer surgery may be achieved in both emergency and elective procedures.

Operative management of acute abdomen after bariatric surgery in the emergency setting: the OBA guidelines

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting with acute abdominal pain that occurs after months or years following bariatric surgery may present for assessment and management in the local emergency units. Due to the large variety of surgical bariatric techniques, emergency surgeons have to be aware of the main functional outcomes and long-term surgical complications following the most performed bariatric surgical procedures. The purpose of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the WSES in collaboration with IFSO bariatric experienced surgeons, on the management of acute abdomen after bariatric surgery focusing on long-term complications in patients who have undergone laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

METHOD

A working group of experienced general, acute care, and bariatric surgeons was created to carry out a systematic review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and to answer the PICO questions formulated after the Operative management in bariatric acute abdomen survey. The literature search was limited to late/long-term complications following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

CONCLUSIONS

The acute abdomen after bariatric surgery is a common cause of admission in emergency departments. Knowledge of the most common late/long-term complications (&gt; 4 weeks after surgical procedure) following sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and their anatomy leads to a focused management in the emergency setting with good outcomes and decreased morbidity and mortality rates. A close collaboration between emergency surgeons, radiologists, endoscopists, and anesthesiologists is mandatory in the management of this group of patients in the emergency setting.

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.

Evolution of damage control surgery in non-traumatic abdominal pathology: a light in the darkness

Damage control surgery is based on temporal control of the injury, physiologic recovery and posterior deferred definitive management. This strategy began in the 1980s and became a formal concept in 1993. It has proven to be a strategy that reduces mortality in severely injured trauma patients. Nevertheless, the concept of damage control in non-traumatic abdominal pathology remains controversial. This article aims to gather historical experiences in damage control surgery performed in non-traumatic abdominal emergency pathology patients and present a novel management algorithm. This strategy could be a surgical option to treat hemodynamically unstable patients in catastrophic scenarios such as hemorrhagic and septic shock caused by peritonitis, pancreatitis, acute mesenteric ischemia, among others. Therefore, damage control surgery is light amid better short- and long-term results.

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

PURPOSE

Damage control laparotomy (DCL) is used for both traumatic and non-traumatic indications. Failure to achieve primary fascial closure (PFC) in a timely fashion has been associated with complications including sepsis, fistula, and mortality. We sought to identify factors associated with time to PFC in a multicenter retrospective cohort.

METHODS

We reviewed retrospective data from 15 centers in the EAST SLEEP-TIME registry, including age, comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]), small and large bowel resection, bowel discontinuity, vascular procedures, retained packs, number of re-laparotomies, net fluid balance after 24 h, trauma, and time to first takeback in 12-h increments to identify key factors associated with time to PFC.

RESULTS

In total, 368 patients (71.2% trauma, of which 50.6% were penetrating, median ISS 25 [16, 34], with median Apache II score 15 [11, 22] in non-trauma) were in the cohort. Of these, 92.9% of patients achieved PFC at 60.8 ± 72.0 h after 1.6 ± 1.2 re-laparotomies. Each additional re-laparotomy reduced the odds of PFC by 91.5% (95%CI 88.2-93.9%, p < 0.001). Time to first re-laparotomy was highly significant (p < 0.001) in terms of odds of achieving PFC, with no difference between 12 and 24 h to first re-laparotomy (ref), and decreases in odds of PFC of 78.4% (65.8-86.4%, p < 0.001) for first re-laparotomy after 24.1-36 h, 90.8% (84.7-94.4%, p < 0.001) for 36.1-48 h, and 98.1% (96.4-99.0%, p < 0.001) for > 48 h. Trauma patients had increased likelihood of PFC in two separate analyses (p = 0.022 and 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Time to re-laparotomy ≤ 24 h and minimizing number of re-laparotomies are highly predictive of rapid achievement of PFC in patients after trauma- and non-trauma DCL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2B.

Trauma and nontrauma damage-control laparotomy: The difference is delirium (data from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma SLEEP-TIME multicenter trial)

BACKGROUND

Damage-control laparotomy (DCL) has been used for traumatic and nontraumatic indications. We studied factors associated with delirium and outcome in this population.

METHODS

We reviewed DCL patients at 15 centers for 2 years, including demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), diagnosis, operations, and outcomes. We compared 30-day mortality; renal failure requiring dialysis; number of takebacks; hospital, ventilator, and intensive care unit (ICU) days; and delirium-free and coma-free proportion of the first 30 ICU days (DF/CF-ICU-30) between trauma (T) and nontrauma (NT) patients. We performed linear regression for DF/CF-ICU-30, including age, sex, CCI, achievement of primary fascial closure (PFC), small and large bowel resection, bowel discontinuity, abdominal vascular procedures, and trauma as covariates. We performed one-way analysis of variance for DF/CF-ICU-30 against traumatic brain injury severity as measured by Abbreviated Injury Scale for the head.

RESULTS

Among 554 DCL patients (25.8% NT), NT patients were older (58.9 ± 15.8 vs. 39.7 ± 17.0 years, p < 0.001), more female (45.5% vs. 22.1%, p < 0.001), and had higher CCI (4.7 ± 3.3 vs. 1.1 ± 2.2, p < 0.001). The number of takebacks (1.7 ± 2.6 vs. 1.5 ± 1.2), time to first takeback (32.0 hours), duration of bowel discontinuity (47.0 hours), and time to PFC were similar (63.2 hours, achieved in 73.5%). Nontrauma and T patients had similar ventilator, ICU, and hospital days and mortality (31.0% NT, 29.8% T). Nontrauma patients had higher rates of renal failure requiring dialysis (36.6% vs. 14.1%, p < 0.001) and postoperative abdominal sepsis (40.1% vs. 17.1%, p < 0.001). Trauma and NT patients had similar number of hours of sedative (89.9 vs. 65.5 hours, p = 0.064) and opioid infusions (106.9 vs. 96.7 hours, p = 0.514), but T had lower DF/CF-ICU-30 (51.1% vs. 73.7%, p = 0.029), indicating more delirium. Linear regression analysis indicated that T was associated with a 32.1% decrease (95% CI, 14.6%-49.5%; p < 0.001) in DF/CF-ICU-30, while achieving PFC was associated with a 25.1% increase (95% CI, 10.2%-40.1%; p = 0.001) in DF/CFICU-30. Increasing Abbreviated Injury Scale for the head was associated with decreased DF/CF-ICU-30 by analysis of variance (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Nontrauma patients had higher incidence of postoperative abdominal sepsis and need for dialysis, while T was independently associated with increased delirium, perhaps because of traumatic brain injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV.

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.

Laparostomy and temporary abdominal closure outcomes in emergency non-trauma surgery and parameters affecting early definite primary fascial closure

BACKGROUND

The open abdomen or laparostomy is a great advance of surgery based on the concept of damage control surgery. Aim of the study is to review the laparostomy outcomes of non-trauma emergency surgery patients in a district general hospital and identify parameters affecting early definite primary fascial closure.

METHODS

The records of all non-trauma emergency surgical patients who underwent laparostomy in a three-year period in a single institute were studied retrospectively. Outcomes included length of stay, morbidity, mortality, readmission rates, number of re-look operations, rate of definite primary fascial closure and time to closure.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were included. Morbidity was 84.4% and mortality rates were 21.9% (in-hospital), 18.8% (30-day) and 46.9% (overall). Median length of hospital stay was 22 days. Rate of primary fascial closure was 87.5% and median time to closure was two days. The number of relook operations was the only independent prognostic factor of definite early primary fascial closure, with higher rates of closure in patients with 1-2 relooks.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the open abdomen has been demonstrated to improve survival, the precise role in abdominal sepsis has not been elucidated. Current consensus does not support use of open abdomen routinely, however in selected situations it becomes unavoidable. Laparostomy is a valid option in non-trauma emergency surgery and can be managed safely in a district hospital. High closure rates can be achieved if one or two re-look operations are performed with an early attempt for closure.

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.

Rapid Source-Control Laparotomy: Is There a Mortality Benefit in Septic Shock?

BACKGROUND

In the 1990s, damage control laparotomy (DCL) became a proved approach to treat intra-abdominal injuries caused by trauma. In the ensuing two decades, this approach has been applied to non-traumatic abdominal processes as well. Although the benefits of DCL are clear, the benefit of rapid source-control laparotomy (RSCL) for non-traumatic abdominal diseases is much less clear. However, two recent cohort analyses identified significant increases in the mortality rate with RCSL compared with primary fascial closure (PFC). The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of RSCL in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

The 2015 National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database was queried for 11 International Statistical Classifications of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes associated with septic shock. Collected data included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), wound class, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, operative time, number of risk factors, and presence or absence of post-operative pneumonia. The risk factors were diabetes mellitus, alcohol or tobacco abuse, blood dyscrasias, disseminated cancer, and cardiac, gastrointestinal, pulmonary, hepatobiliary, or renal dysfunction. The primary outcomes were rate of re-operation, prevalence of post-operative pneumonia, hospital length of stay (LOS), and death by 30 days.

RESULTS

The RSCL and PFC cohorts were each comprised of 56 patients matched for propensity scores for ICD-10 code. There were no significant differences in wound or ASA class, BMI, gender, or number of risk factors between the two cohorts. The operative time for RSCL was significantly shorter than for PFC (median 84 vs. 128 min, respectively; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in re-operation rate, prevalence of post-operative pneumonia, LOS, or mortality rate between the two cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this analysis showed no clear advantage to RSCL in the management of septic shock, it may be a means to salvage certain patients. The best way to assess the relative value of RSCL is a prospective trial.

Open Abdomen Improves Survival in Patients With Peritonitis Secondary to Acute Superior Mesenteric Artery Occlusion

BACKGROUND

Damage control surgery and open abdomen (OA) have been extensively used in the severe traumatic patients. However, there was little information when extended to a nontrauma setting. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the liberal use of OA as a damage control surgery adjunct improved the clinical outcome in acute superior mesenteric artery occlusion patients.

STUDY DESIGN

A single-center, retrospective cohort review was performed in a national tertiary surgical referral center.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients received OA (OA group) and 65 patients had a primary fascial closure (non-OA group) after diagnosed as peritonitis secondary to acute superior mesenteric artery occlusion from January, 2005 to June, 2016. Revascularization was achieved through endovascular aspiration embolectomy, open embolectomy, or percutaneous stent. No difference of bowel resection length was found between groups in the first emergency surgery. However, more non-OA patients (35.4%) required a second-look enterectomy to remove the residual bowel ischemia than OA patients (13.6%, P<0.05). OA was closed within a median of 7 days (4 to 15 d). There was a mean of 134 cm residual alive bowel in OA, whereas 96 cm in non-OA. More non-OA patients suffered from intra-abdominal sepsis (23.1% vs. 6.8%, P<0.01), intra-abdominal hypertension (31% vs. 0, P<0.01), and acute renal failure (53.8% vs. 31.8%, P<0.05) than OA group after surgery. Short-bowel syndrome occurred infrequently in OA than non-OA patients (9.1% vs. 36.9%, P<0.01). OA significantly decreased the 30-day (27.3% vs. 52.3%, P<0.01) and 1-year mortality rate (31.8 % vs. 61.5%, P<0.01) compared with non-OA group.

CONCLUSIONS

Liberal use of OA, as a damage control adjunct avoided the development of intra-abdominal hypertension, reduced sepsis-related complication, and improved the clinical outcomes in peritonitis secondary to acute SMA occlusion.

Rapid Source-Control Laparotomy: Is There a Mortality Benefit?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence rapid source-control laparotomy (RSCL) has on the mortality rate in non-trauma patients with intra-abdominal infection. The hypothesis was that RSCL reduces deaths and hospital lengths of stay (LOS) in patients compared with definitive repair and primary fascial closure (PFC).

METHODS

The International Classification of Diseases-10 codes for sepsis, gastric and duodenal ulcer perforation or hemorrhage, incisional or ventral hernia with obstruction, intestinal volvulus, ileus with obstruction, diverticulitis with perforation or abscess, vascular disorder of intestine, non-traumatic intestinal perforation, peritoneal abscess, and unspecified peritonitis were used to query the 2015 National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database for all patients treated with either RSCL or PFC. The two groups of patients were compared on the basis of LOS and deaths. Collected data included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), site classification, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, operative time, number of risk factors, and pre-operative septic state.

RESULTS

After adjusting for the aforementioned variables, propensity score-matched cohorts (n = 210 in each cohort) were used to evaluate the influence of incision closure type on LOS and mortality rate. The odds of death (31.4% vs. 21.4%) with RSCL was 1.78 (95% confidence interval 1.08-2.95; p = 0.02) times that of PFC. Closure type was not significantly associated with an increased LOS (median 14 vs. 11 days; p = 0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective cohort analysis demonstrated that RSCL is associated with higher odds of death in general surgical patients with intra-abdominal infection. There is a need for further studies to delineate what, if any, physiologic parameters indicate a need for RSCL.

Nontrauma open abdomens: A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Damage-control surgery with open abdomen (OA) is described for trauma, but little exists regarding use in the emergency general surgery. This study aimed to better define the following: demographics, indications for surgery and OA, fascial and surgical site complications, and in-hospital/long-term mortality. We hypothesize that older patients will have increased mortality, patients will have protracted stays, they will require specialized postdischarge care, and the indications for OA will be varied.

METHODS

A prospective observational study of emergency general surgery OA patients from June 2013 to June 2014 was performed. Demographics, clinical/operative variables, comorbidities, indications for procedure and OA, wound/fascial complications, and disposition were collected. Patients were stratified into age groups (≤ 60, 61-79, and ≥ 80 years). Six-month and 1-year mortality was determined by query of the Social Security Death Index.

RESULTS

A total of 338 laparotomies were performed, of which 96 (28%) were managed with an OA. Median age was 61 years (interquartile range [IQR], 0-68 years), and 51% were male. The median Charlson Comorbidity Index was 2 (IQR, 1.5-5.1), and the median hospital stay was 25 days (IQR, 15-50 days). The most common indications for operation were perforated viscus/free air (20%), mesenteric ischemia (17%), peritonitis (16%), and gastrointestinal hemorrhage (12%). The most common indication for OA was damage control (37%). In the 63 patients with fascial closure, there were 9 (14%) wound infections and 6 (10%) fascial dehiscences. A total of 30% of the patients died in the hospital, and an additional six patients died 6 months after discharge. Patients in the oldest age stratum were more likely to die at 6 months than those in the lower strata.

CONCLUSION

Older patients were more likely to die by 6 months, the median hospital stay was 3 weeks, and there were multiple indications for OA management. With a 6-month mortality of 36% and 70% of survivors requiring postdischarge care, this population represents a critically ill population meriting additional study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and epidemiologic study, level III.

Management and closure of the open abdomen after damage control laparotomy for trauma. A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Damage control laparotomy for trauma (DCL) entails immediate control of haemorrhage and contamination, temporary abdominal closure (TAC), a period of physiological stabilisation, then definitive repair of injuries. Although immediate primary fascial closure is desired, fascial retraction and visceral oedema may dictate an alternate approach. Our objectives were to systematically identify and compare methods for restoration of fascial continuity when primary closure is not possible following DCL for trauma, to simplify these into a standardised map, and describe the ideal measures of process and outcome for future studies.

METHODS

Cochrane, OVID (Medline, AMED, Embase, HMIC) and PubMed databases were accessed using terms: (traum*, damage control, abbreviated laparotomy, component separation, fascial traction, mesh closure, planned ventral hernia (PVH), and topical negative pressure (TNP)). Randomised Controlled Trials, Case Series and Cohort Studies reporting TAC and early definitive closure methods in trauma patients undergoing DCL were included. Outcomes were mortality, days to fascial closure, hospital length of stay, abdominal complications and delayed ventral herniation.

RESULTS

26 studies described and compared early definitive closure methods; delayed primary closure (DPC), component separation (CS) and mesh repair (MR), among patients with an open abdomen after DCL for trauma. A three phase map was developed to describe the temporal and sequential attributes of each technique. Significant heterogeneity in nomenclature, terminology, and reporting of outcomes was identified. Estimates for abdominal complications in DPC, MR and CS groups were 17%, 41% and 17% respectively, while estimates for mortality in DPC and MR groups were 6% and 0.5% (data heterogeneity and requirement of fixed and random effects models prevented significance assessment). Estimates for abdominal closure in the MR and DPC groups differed; 6.30 (95% CI=5.10-7.51), and 15.90 (95% CI=9.22-22.58) days respectively. Reporting poverty prevented subgroup estimate generation for ventral hernia and hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Component separation or mesh repair may be valid alternatives to delayed primary closure following a trauma DCL. Comparisons were hampered by the lack of uniform reporting and bias. We propose a new system of standardised nomenclature and reporting for further investigation and management of the post-DCL open abdomen.

Surgical management of peritonitis secondary to acute superior mesenteric artery occlusion

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

Damage-control laparotomy in nontrauma patients: review of indications and outcomes

BACKGROUND

The principle of damage-control laparotomy (DCL) in trauma is well established. The DCL concept can be applied in emergency general surgery when an abbreviated laparotomy is performed at the initial stage. Subsequent definitive management and abdominal closure are achieved when the patient is stabilized. In this study, we report our experience with DCL in acute general surgical nontrauma patients.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all nontrauma patients who underwent DCL at Auckland City Hospital from January 2008 to December 2010. Data including indications and outcome were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-two nontrauma patients underwent DCL in the 3-year period. The median age was 66 years. There were 22 males and 20 females. The most common primary indications for DCL were bowel ischemia (13 patients), bleeding (13 patients), and peritonitis (10 patients). Majority of patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3 or 4. Overall, 24 patients (57%) underwent closure of the fascia within 7 days, 7 patients were closed after more than 7 days, and 11 patients could not undergo primary closure at all. The main complications after DCL were sepsis (14 patients) and intra-abdominal collections (10 patients). There were significantly fewer postoperative complications in patients undergoing early closure. The medium length of stay in intensive care as well as in hospital was significantly less in the early closure group. However, postoperative respiratory failure was more common in those with early closure (5 vs. 0). The mortality rate overall was 19%, with no significant difference regarding timing of abdominal closure.

CONCLUSION

The DCL principle is often applied to the critically ill surgical patients in the nontrauma setting. This group of critical surgical patients has a high morbidity and mortality. However, early abdominal closure should be performed where possible to prevent complications. It is unclear whether patients with early closure were going to have a better outcome regardless, and prospective studies are needed to address.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level V.

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.

Modern treatment of acute mesenteric ischaemia

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

This was a review of modern treatment strategies for acute mesenteric ischaemia.

RESULTS

Endovascular therapy has become an important alternative, especially in patients with acute thrombotic superior mesenteric artery (SMA) occlusion, where the occlusive lesion can be recanalized either antegradely from the femoral or brachial artery, or retrogradely from an exposed SMA after laparotomy, and stented. Aspiration embolectomy, thrombolysis and open surgical embolectomy, followed by on-table angiography, are the treatment options for embolic SMA occlusion. Endovascular therapy may be an option in the few patients with mesenteric venous thrombosis who do not respond to anticoagulation therapy. Laparotomy is needed to evaluate the extent and severity of visceral organ ischaemia, which is treated according to the principles of damage control surgery.

CONCLUSION

Modern treatment of acute mesenteric ischaemia involves a specialized approach that considers surgical and, increasingly, endovascular options for best outcomes.

Outcomes after Massive Transfusion in Nontrauma Patients in the Era of Damage Control Resuscitation

There are little data regarding the use of massive transfusion protocols (MTP) outside of the trauma setting. This study compares the use of an MTP between trauma and non-trauma (NT) patients. Data were collected for trauma and NT patients from the prospectively maintained MTP database at a Level I trauma center over a 4-year period. Massive transfusion was defined as $ 10 units packed red blood cells (PRBCs) in a 24-hour period. Of 439 MTP activations, 37 (8%) were NT patients (64% male; mean age = 51 years, initial base deficit = -10.8). Activations were for gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 18), bleeding during surgery (n = 13), obstetrical complications (n = 5), and ruptured aortic aneurysm (n = 1). Over-activation of MTP (< 10 units PRBCs/24 hours) was higher in NT than trauma patients (19/37, 51% vs 118/284, 29%, P < 0.01). For massive transfusion patients, 24-hour mortality was higher in NT compared with trauma patients (10/17, 59% vs 100/284, 35%, P = 0.05), but there was no difference in 30-day mortality (10/17, 59% vs 144/284, 51%, P = 0.51). With over-activation in 51% of NT patients, MTP usage outside of trauma is inefficient. Outcomes in NT patients were worse than trauma patients, which may be related to the underlying disease processes.

Damage control strategy for the management of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis: laparoscopic lavage and drainage vs. laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and drainage (LLD) with laparoscopic Hartmann's procedure (LHP) in the management of perforated diverticulitis and to investigate a safer and more effective laparoscopic method for managing acute perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients who underwent emergent LHP or LLD for perforated diverticulitis were identified from a prospectively designed database. All procedure-related information was collected and analyzed. P < 5 % was considered statistically significant in this study.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients underwent emergent laparoscopic procedures (47 LLD and 41 LHP) between 1995 and 2010 for acute perforated diverticulitis. Diagnostic laparoscopy classified 74 (84.1 %) patients as Hinchey III or IV perforated diverticulitis. OT for LHP was 182 ± 54.7 min, and EBL was 210 ± 170.5 ml. Six LHP (14.6 %) were converted to open Hartmann's for various reasons. Moreover the rates of LHP-associated postoperative mortality and morbidity were 2.4 and 17.1 %, respectively. For LLD, the operating time was 99.7 ± 39.8 min, and blood loss was 34.4 ± 21.2 ml. Three patients (6.4 %) were reoperated for the worsening of septic symptoms during post-LLD course. Moreover, the patients with LHP had significantly longer hospital stay than the ones with LLD did (16.3 ± 10.1 vs. 6.7 ± 2.2 days, P < 0.01). In the long-term follow-up, the rate of colostomy closure for LHP is 72.2 %, and 21 of 47 patients who underwent LLD had elective sigmoidectomy for the source control with the rate of 44.7 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LHP and LLD can be performed safely and effectively for managing severe diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis. Compared with LHP, LLD does not remove the pathogenic source; however, the clinical application of this damage control operation to our patients showed significantly better short- and long-term clinical outcomes for managing perforated diverticulitis with various Hinchey classifications.