Background: Damage control surgery (DCS) has emerged as a new option in the management of non-traumatic peritonitis patients to increase survival in critically ill patients. The purpose of this study was to compare DCS with conventional strategy (anastomosis/ostomies in the index laparotomy) for severe non-traumatic peritonitis regarding postoperative complications, ostomy rate, and mortality and to propose a useful algorithm in the clinical practice. Methods: Patients who underwent an urgent laparotomy for non-trauma peritonitis at a single level I trauma center in Colombia between January 2003 and December 2018, were retrospectively included. We compared patients who had DCS management versus definitive initial surgical management (DISM) group. We evaluated clinical outcomes and morbidities among groups. Results: 290 patients were included; 81 patients were treated with DCS and 209 patients underwent DISM. Patients treated with DCS had a worse critical status before surgery with higher SOFA score [median, DCS group: 5 (IQR: 3–8) vs. DISM group: 3 (IQR: 1–6), p < 0.001]. The length of hospital stay and overall mortality rate of DCS group were not significant statistical differences with DISM group. Complications rate related to primary anastomosis or primary ostomy was similar. There is not difference in ostomy rate among groups. At multivariate analysis, SOFA > 6 points and APACHE-II > 20 points correlated with a higher probability of DCS. Conclusion: DCS in severe non-trauma peritonitis patients is feasible and safe as surgical strategy management without increasing mortality, length hospital of stay, or complications. DCS principles might be applied in the non-trauma scenarios without increase the stoma rate.

Damage Control Surgery may be a Safe Option for Severe Non-Trauma Peritonitis Management: Proposal of a New Decision-Making Algorithm

Pata F.
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
;
2021-01-01

Abstract

Background: Damage control surgery (DCS) has emerged as a new option in the management of non-traumatic peritonitis patients to increase survival in critically ill patients. The purpose of this study was to compare DCS with conventional strategy (anastomosis/ostomies in the index laparotomy) for severe non-traumatic peritonitis regarding postoperative complications, ostomy rate, and mortality and to propose a useful algorithm in the clinical practice. Methods: Patients who underwent an urgent laparotomy for non-trauma peritonitis at a single level I trauma center in Colombia between January 2003 and December 2018, were retrospectively included. We compared patients who had DCS management versus definitive initial surgical management (DISM) group. We evaluated clinical outcomes and morbidities among groups. Results: 290 patients were included; 81 patients were treated with DCS and 209 patients underwent DISM. Patients treated with DCS had a worse critical status before surgery with higher SOFA score [median, DCS group: 5 (IQR: 3–8) vs. DISM group: 3 (IQR: 1–6), p < 0.001]. The length of hospital stay and overall mortality rate of DCS group were not significant statistical differences with DISM group. Complications rate related to primary anastomosis or primary ostomy was similar. There is not difference in ostomy rate among groups. At multivariate analysis, SOFA > 6 points and APACHE-II > 20 points correlated with a higher probability of DCS. Conclusion: DCS in severe non-trauma peritonitis patients is feasible and safe as surgical strategy management without increasing mortality, length hospital of stay, or complications. DCS principles might be applied in the non-trauma scenarios without increase the stoma rate.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11770/345574
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 11
social impact