Effectiveness of Mannheim's Peritonitis Index in Patients With Peritonitis Secondary to Hollow Viscus Perforation in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Jharkhand, India

Introduction Peritonitis refers to the inflammation of the peritoneum and peritoneal cavity. Causes of peritonitis can be bacterial (gastrointestinal or non-gastrointestinal), chemical, traumatic, or ischemic. Peritonitis can be localized or diffuse, acute or chronic. Peritonitis can be primary, secondary, or tertiary, according to the pathogenesis. Peritonitis developed secondary to hollow viscus perforation is a life-threatening condition and a common cause of emergency surgery in India. The Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI) is a simple scoring system that can accurately predict the outcome of peritonitis. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of MPI in predicting mortality risk or prognosis in patients with peritonitis due to hollow viscus perforation. Materials and methods This observational cross-sectional study at the Department of General Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, involved 111 patients with peritonitis due to hollow viscus perforation from December 2021 to March 2022. Detailed history, clinical examination, relevant blood tests, and radiological investigations established a diagnosis of perforation peritonitis, followed by a score assessment. Data were analyzed using SPSS software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Results Patients >50 years had higher mortality (i.e., 18/43) than patients <50 years (i.e., 13/68). Overall mortality was 31, which included one in low risk, 12 in intermediate risk, and 18 in the high-risk group. Mortality was lowest in the low-risk group (i.e., 1/30), highest in the high-risk group (i.e., 18/40), and 12/41 in the intermediate-risk group; the p-value was <0.05, which was highly significant. Mortality was higher in patients presenting after 24 hours, having organ failure, and non-colonic sepsis. Conclusion The MPI scoring system is simple, easy to calculate, cost-effective, precise, and effective in assessing mortality and morbidity risk in patients with peritonitis due to hollow viscus perforation. It can also guide further management strategies.

The Role of the Mannheim Peritonitis Index for Predicting Outcomes in Patients With Perforation Peritonitis in a Rural Hospital in India

Introduction Acute secondary peritonitis due to hollow viscus perforation is a life-threatening surgical condition with significant morbidity and mortality, depending on the severity with outcomes that differ in the Western and developing world. Various scoring systems have been developed to assess the severity and its relation to morbidity and mortality. We conducted this study to evaluate the role of the Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI) in predicting outcomes in perforation peritonitis patients in a rural hospital in India. Materials and methods A prospective study of 50 patients with hollow viscus perforation with secondary peritonitis presented to the emergency department, Acharya Vinoba Bhave Rural Hospital, Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, from 2016 to 2020. Each operated patient was scored according to the MPI to predict mortality. Results The majority of the patients were discharged uneventfully and about 16% (8/50) of the patients expired. The patients with an MPI score of more than 29 had maximum mortality of 62.5%. Mortality was seen in 37.5% of the patients with MPI scores between 21 and 29, whereas no mortality was recorded in patients with an MPI score of 21. Higher mortality was associated with age greater than 50 years (p=0.007), the presence of malignancy (p=0.013), colonic perforation (p=0.014), and fecal contamination (p=0.004). There was no significant correlation with gender (p=0.81), the presence of organ failure (p=1.6), delayed presentation, i.e., preoperative duration >24 hours (p=0.17), and the presence of diffuse peritonitis (p=0.25). Conclusion MPI is a specific, easily reproducible, and less cumbersome scoring method for predicting mortality in patients with hollow viscus perforation (secondary) peritonitis with minimal laboratory investigations. Higher scores correlate with a poorer prognosis and need intensive management, making use of MPI in clinical practice relevant and beneficial, especially in resource-poor settings.

Diagnosis and Management of Intraabdominal Infection: Guidelines by the Chinese Society of Surgical Infection and Intensive Care and the Chinese College of Gastrointestinal Fistula Surgeons

The Chinese guidelines for IAI presented here were developed by a panel that included experts from the fields of surgery, critical care, microbiology, infection control, pharmacology, and evidence-based medicine. All questions were structured in population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes format, and evidence profiles were generated. Recommendations were generated following the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system or Best Practice Statement (BPS), when applicable. The final guidelines include 45 graded recommendations and 17 BPSs, including the classification of disease severity, diagnosis, source control, antimicrobial therapy, microbiologic evaluation, nutritional therapy, other supportive therapies, diagnosis and management of specific IAIs, and recognition and management of source control failure. Recommendations on fluid resuscitation and organ support therapy could not be formulated and thus were not included. Accordingly, additional high-quality clinical studies should be performed in the future to address the clinicians' concerns.

Tertiary peritonitis: A disease that should not be ignored

Intra-abdominal infections can be classified into uncomplicated or complicated (peritonitis). Peritonitis is divided into primary, secondary, and tertiary. Tertiary peritonitis is the less common but the most severe among peritonitis stratifications, being defined as a recurrent intra-abdominal infection that occurs 48 h after a well-succeeded control of a secondary peritonitis. This disease has a complex pathogenesis that is closely related to the capacity of the peritoneal cavity to activate immunological processes. Patients who progress to persistent peritonitis are at an increased risk of developing several infectious complications such as sepsis and multiple organ failure syndrome. Moreover, tertiary peritonitis remains an important cause of hospital death mainly among patients with associated risk factors. The microbiological profile of organisms causing tertiary peritonitis is often different from that observed in other types of peritonitis. In addition, there is a high prevalence of multidrug-resistant pathogens causing this condition, and an appropriate and successful clinical management depends on an early diagnosis, which can be made easier with the use of clinical scores presenting a good prediction value during the intensive care unit admission. Complementarily, immediate therapy should be performed to control the infectious focus and to prevent new recurrences. In this sense, the treatment is based on initial antimicrobial therapy and well-performed peritoneal drainage.

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.

A differentiated approach to repeat small-bowel anastomoses in patients with postoperative peritonitis: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative peritonitis still remains the cause of a high mortality rate in emergency abdominal surgery. Here we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different surgical strategies for small-bowel perforations that resulted in postoperative peritonitis.

METHODS

Surgical management results for 140 patients with postoperative peritonitis due to small-bowel perforations, necrosis and anastomotic leakage were comparatively analyzed. Using the APACHE-II and MPI scoring systems, different surgeon attitudes were examined in three patient groups (primary anastomosis, delayed anastomosis, and enterostomy).

RESULTS

The surgical approach in patient group I (n = 47, APACHE-II 11.7 ± 1.2, MPI 14.7 ± 1.3) involved the closure of small-bowel perforations or small-bowel resection to place primary anastomosis. The mortality rate was 17%. Patient group II (n = 48, APACHE-II 16.8 ± 0.7, MPI 19.3 ± 0.3) underwent delayed small-bowel anastomosis during planned relaparotomies. The mortality rate was 18.8%. Because patients in patient group III (n = 45, APACHE-II 22.3 ± 1.3, MPI 24.6 ± 1.2) were in very critical condition, anastomoses were not placed after bowel resection, and the surgical procedure was completed with enterostomy. The highest mortality rate of 37.8% was documented in this patient group.

CONCLUSION

The differentiated surgical approach undertaken herein using delayed small-bowel anastomosis in more serious patients with postoperative peritonitis was able to mitigate the risk of recurrent anastomotic leaks and was not accompanied by a considerable rise in mortality. The mortality for primary repair and delayed primary closure was basically the same (17.0% and 18.8%, p = 0.03); however, delayed anastomosis in the patients with postoperative peritonitis at higher APACHE-II and MPI scores for severity of illness showed 15.1% less complications in the form of anastomotic leaks (p = 0.04).