INTRODUCTION: The decision to perform a relaparotomy in patients with secondary peritonitis is based on "clinical judgment" with inherent variability among surgeons. Our objective was to review the literature on prognostic variables for ongoing abdominal infection. Predictive variables for positive findings at relaparotomy can generate more objective criteria to support the decision whether to perform a relaparotomy in patients with secondary peritonitis. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for studies assessing the prognostic value of clinical variables predicting outcome of relaparotomy or general outcome in patients with secondary peritonitis. Data on the methodologic quality of the study as well as statistical strength of predictors and validity of individual variables were extracted and scored. A cumulative score was calculated from these three scores, and the variables were ranked. RESULTS: A total of 37 of 197 retrieved articles were included for final assessment. The median score for methodologic quality of individual articles was 36 (range 19-54). After calculation of the combined scores, 76 individual variables (patient, peritonitis, surgery, clinical, and laboratory variables) were identified from which the top 10 were eventually selected. These variables were age, concomitant disease, upper gastrointestinal source of peritonitis, generalized peritonitis, elimination of the focus, bilirubin, creatinine, lactate, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and albumin. This set of variables proved to be moderately predictive for positive findings during relaparotomy in a retrospective cohort of 219 patients operated on for secondary peritonitis (receiver operator curve 0.75, with 95% confidence interval 0.68-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: This review generated a hierarchy (weighted ranking) of published variables that could play a role in the decision to perform a relaparotomy in patients with secondary peritonitis. The top sixtile of ranked variables (10 variables) showed promising results in the discrimination between patients having a positive and negative relaparotomy when tested on a peritonitis patient database. This ranking of variables provides evidence for potential inclusion of variables in future predictive scores, although improvement in overall predictive strength of a set of variables in such a score is needed.
INTRODUCTION: The decision to perform a relaparotomy in patients with secondary peritonitis is based on "clinical judgment" with inherent variability among surgeons. Our objective was to review the literature on prognostic variables for ongoing abdominal infection. Predictive variables for positive findings at relaparotomy can generate more objective criteria to support the decision whether to perform a relaparotomy in patients with secondary peritonitis. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for studies assessing the prognostic value of clinical variables predicting outcome of relaparotomy or general outcome in patients with secondary peritonitis. Data on the methodologic quality of the study as well as statistical strength of predictors and validity of individual variables were extracted and scored. A cumulative score was calculated from these three scores, and the variables were ranked. RESULTS: A total of 37 of 197 retrieved articles were included for final assessment. The median score for methodologic quality of individual articles was 36 (range 19-54). After calculation of the combined scores, 76 individual variables (patient, peritonitis, surgery, clinical, and laboratory variables) were identified from which the top 10 were eventually selected. These variables were age, concomitant disease, upper gastrointestinal source of peritonitis, generalized peritonitis, elimination of the focus, bilirubin, creatinine, lactate, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and albumin. This set of variables proved to be moderately predictive for positive findings during relaparotomy in a retrospective cohort of 219 patients operated on for secondary peritonitis (receiver operator curve 0.75, with 95% confidence interval 0.68-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: This review generated a hierarchy (weighted ranking) of published variables that could play a role in the decision to perform a relaparotomy in patients with secondary peritonitis. The top sixtile of ranked variables (10 variables) showed promising results in the discrimination between patients having a positive and negative relaparotomy when tested on a peritonitispatient database. This ranking of variables provides evidence for potential inclusion of variables in future predictive scores, although improvement in overall predictive strength of a set of variables in such a score is needed.
Authors: R Moreno; J L Vincent; R Matos; A Mendonça; F Cantraine; L Thijs; J Takala; C Sprung; M Antonelli; H Bruining; S Willatts Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Alfonso M Albanese; Eduardo F Albanese; Jorge H Miño; Elena Gómez; Marta Gómez; Marcos Zandomeni; Alicia B Merlo Journal: Surg Radiol Anat Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 1.246
Authors: Volker Assfalg; Petra Wolf; Daniel Reim; Norbert Hüser; Georg Hellbrügge; Edouard Matevossian; Helmut Friess; Bernhard Holzmann; Klaus L Emmanuel; Alexander R Novotny Journal: Surg Today Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 2.549
Authors: Massimo Sartelli; Federico Coccolini; Yoram Kluger; Ervis Agastra; Fikri M Abu-Zidan; Ashraf El Sayed Abbas; Luca Ansaloni; Abdulrashid Kayode Adesunkanmi; Boyko Atanasov; Goran Augustin; Miklosh Bala; Oussama Baraket; Suman Baral; Walter L Biffl; Marja A Boermeester; Marco Ceresoli; Elisabetta Cerutti; Osvaldo Chiara; Enrico Cicuttin; Massimo Chiarugi; Raul Coimbra; Elif Colak; Daniela Corsi; Francesco Cortese; Yunfeng Cui; Dimitris Damaskos; Nicola De' Angelis; Samir Delibegovic; Zaza Demetrashvili; Belinda De Simone; Stijn W de Jonge; Sameer Dhingra; Stefano Di Bella; Francesco Di Marzo; Salomone Di Saverio; Agron Dogjani; Therese M Duane; Mushira Abdulaziz Enani; Paola Fugazzola; Joseph M Galante; Mahir Gachabayov; Wagih Ghnnam; George Gkiokas; Carlos Augusto Gomes; Ewen A Griffiths; Timothy C Hardcastle; Andreas Hecker; Torsten Herzog; Syed Mohammad Umar Kabir; Aleksandar Karamarkovic; Vladimir Khokha; Peter K Kim; Jae Il Kim; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Victor Kong; Renol M Koshy; Igor A Kryvoruchko; Kenji Inaba; Arda Isik; Katia Iskandar; Rao Ivatury; Francesco M Labricciosa; Yeong Yeh Lee; Ari Leppäniemi; Andrey Litvin; Davide Luppi; Gustavo M Machain; Ronald V Maier; Athanasios Marinis; Cristina Marmorale; Sanjay Marwah; Cristian Mesina; Ernest E Moore; Frederick A Moore; Ionut Negoi; Iyiade Olaoye; Carlos A Ordoñez; Mouaqit Ouadii; Andrew B Peitzman; Gennaro Perrone; Manos Pikoulis; Tadeja Pintar; Giuseppe Pipitone; Mauro Podda; Kemal Raşa; Julival Ribeiro; Gabriel Rodrigues; Ines Rubio-Perez; Ibrahima Sall; Norio Sato; Robert G Sawyer; Helmut Segovia Lohse; Gabriele Sganga; Vishal G Shelat; Ian Stephens; Michael Sugrue; Antonio Tarasconi; Joel Noutakdie Tochie; Matti Tolonen; Gia Tomadze; Jan Ulrych; Andras Vereczkei; Bruno Viaggi; Chiara Gurioli; Claudio Casella; Leonardo Pagani; Gian Luca Baiocchi; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2021-09-25 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Massimo Sartelli; Pierluigi Viale; Kaoru Koike; Federico Pea; Fabio Tumietto; Harry van Goor; Gianluca Guercioni; Angelo Nespoli; Cristian Tranà; Fausto Catena; Luca Ansaloni; Ari Leppaniemi; Walter Biffl; Frederick A Moore; Renato Poggetti; Antonio Daniele Pinna; Ernest E Moore Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Massimo Sartelli; Fausto Catena; Luca Ansaloni; Daniel V Lazzareschi; Korhan Taviloglu; Harry Van Goor; Pierluigi Viale; Ari Leppaniemi; Carlo De Werra Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Tobias van den Berg; Martijn W Heymans; Stephanie S Leone; David Vergouw; Jill A Hayden; Arianne P Verhagen; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2013-03-16 Impact factor: 4.615