BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and intensive care support, operative treatment remains the foundation of the management of patients with severe secondary peritonitis (SSP). This management is based on three fundamental principles: (1) Elimination of the source of infection; (2) reduction of bacterial contamination of the peritoneal cavity; and (3) prevention of persistent or recurrent intra-abdominal infection. Although recent studies have emphasized the role of open management of the abdomen and planned re-laparotomies to fulfill these principles, controversy surrounds the optimal approach because no randomized studies exist. METHODS:Patients with SSP, documented clinically, with calculated Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores and appropriate ancillary studies, were allocated randomly to two groups for the management of the abdomen after operation for SSP (group A: open; group B: closed). Both surgical strategies were standardized, and patients were followed up until cure or death. RESULTS: During a 24-month period, 40 patients with SSP were admitted for treatment. Patients in group A (n = 20) and group B (n = 20) did not differ in sex, age, site of origin (etiology), APACHE II score (24 vs. 22), SOFA score (15 vs. 15), or previous operative treatment (< or =1: 20 vs. 20). Postoperatively, there were no differences in the likelihood of acute renal failure (25% vs. 40%), duration of mechanical ventilatory support (10 vs. 12 days), need for total parenteral nutrition (80% vs. 75%), or rate of residual infection or need for reoperation because of the latter (15% vs. 10%). Although the difference in the mortality rate (55% vs. 30%) did not reach statistical significance (p < 0.05; chi-square and Fisher exact test), the relative risk and odds ratio for death were 1.83 and 2.85 times higher in group A. This clinical finding, as evidenced by the clear tendency toward a more favorable outcome for patients in group B, led to termination of the study at the first interim analysis. CONCLUSION: This randomized study from a single institution demonstrates that closed management of the abdomen may be a more rational approach after operative treatment of SSP and questions the recent enthusiasm for the open alternative, which has been based on observational studies.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite recent advances in diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, and intensive care support, operative treatment remains the foundation of the management of patients with severe secondary peritonitis (SSP). This management is based on three fundamental principles: (1) Elimination of the source of infection; (2) reduction of bacterial contamination of the peritoneal cavity; and (3) prevention of persistent or recurrent intra-abdominal infection. Although recent studies have emphasized the role of open management of the abdomen and planned re-laparotomies to fulfill these principles, controversy surrounds the optimal approach because no randomized studies exist. METHODS:Patients with SSP, documented clinically, with calculated Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores and appropriate ancillary studies, were allocated randomly to two groups for the management of the abdomen after operation for SSP (group A: open; group B: closed). Both surgical strategies were standardized, and patients were followed up until cure or death. RESULTS: During a 24-month period, 40 patients with SSP were admitted for treatment. Patients in group A (n = 20) and group B (n = 20) did not differ in sex, age, site of origin (etiology), APACHE II score (24 vs. 22), SOFA score (15 vs. 15), or previous operative treatment (< or =1: 20 vs. 20). Postoperatively, there were no differences in the likelihood of acute renal failure (25% vs. 40%), duration of mechanical ventilatory support (10 vs. 12 days), need for total parenteral nutrition (80% vs. 75%), or rate of residual infection or need for reoperation because of the latter (15% vs. 10%). Although the difference in the mortality rate (55% vs. 30%) did not reach statistical significance (p < 0.05; chi-square and Fisher exact test), the relative risk and odds ratio for death were 1.83 and 2.85 times higher in group A. This clinical finding, as evidenced by the clear tendency toward a more favorable outcome for patients in group B, led to termination of the study at the first interim analysis. CONCLUSION: This randomized study from a single institution demonstrates that closed management of the abdomen may be a more rational approach after operative treatment of SSP and questions the recent enthusiasm for the open alternative, which has been based on observational studies.
Authors: Tyler J Loftus; Philip A Efron; Trina M Bala; Martin D Rosenthal; Chasen A Croft; Michael S Walters; R Stephen Smith; Frederick A Moore; Alicia M Mohr; Scott C Brakenridge Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: M López-Cano; J M García-Alamino; S A Antoniou; D Bennet; U A Dietz; F Ferreira; R H Fortelny; P Hernandez-Granados; M Miserez; A Montgomery; S Morales-Conde; F Muysoms; J A Pereira; R Schwab; N Slater; A Vanlander; G H Van Ramshorst; F Berrevoet Journal: Hernia Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 4.739