We have located links that may give you full text access.
A differentiated approach to repeat small-bowel anastomoses in patients with postoperative peritonitis: a prospective cohort study.
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery : Official Publication of the European Trauma Society 2020 October
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).
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).
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app