Open Abdomen and Fluid Instillation in the Septic Abdomen: Results from the IROA Study.

BACKGROUND: Open abdomen (OA) is a surgical option that can be used in patients with severe peritonitis. Few evidences exist to recommend the use of intraperitoneal fluid instillation associated with OA in managing septic abdomen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective analysis of adult patients enrolled in the International Register of Open Abdomen (trial registration: NCT02382770) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 387 patients were enrolled in two groups: 84 with peritoneal fluid instillation (FI) and 303 without (NFI). The groups were homogeneous for baseline characteristics. Overall complications were 92.9% in FI and 86.3% in NFI (p = 0.106). Complications during OA were 72.6% in FI and 59.9% in NFI (p = 0.034). Complications after definitive closure were 70.8% in FI and 61.1% in NFI (p = 0.133). Entero-atmospheric fistula was 13.1% in FI and 12% in NFI (p = 0.828). Fascial closure was 78.6% in FI and 63.7% in NFI (p = 0.02). Analysis of FI in negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) showed: Overall morbidity in NPWT was 94% and in non-NPWT 91.2% (p = 0.622) and morbidity during OA was 68% and 79.4% (p = 0.25), respectively. Definitive fascial closure in NPWT was 87.8% and 96.8% in non-NPWT (p = 0.173). Overall mortality was 40% in NPWT and 29.4% in non-NPWT (p = 0.32) and morality during OA period was 18% and 8.8% (p = 0.238), respectively. CONCLUSION: We found intraperitoneal fluid instillation during open abdomen in peritonitic patients to increase the complication rate during the open abdomen period, with no impact on mortality, entero-atmospheric fistula rate and opening time. Fascial closure rate is increased by instillation. Fluid instillation is feasible even when associated with nonnegative pressure temporary abdominal closure techniques.

Routine prophylactic ureteral stenting before cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: Safety and usefulness from a single-center experience.

OBJECTIVE: There are very few evidences about safety and usefulness of routine prophylactic ureteral stenting (PUS) before cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: An analysis of prospectively collected data about patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC for different sites of primary disease was carried out focusing on ureteral complications. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients who underwent CRS and HIPEC between December 2010 and June 2017 were considered. All patients underwent PUS before CRS and HIPEC. Of them, 91 (66.4%) patients received pelvic peritonectomy, 49 (35.8%) pelvic lymphadenectomy, 31 (22.6%) left hemicolectomy, 44 (32.4%) right hemicolectomy, 46 (33.6%) rectal resection, 56 (40.9%) hysteroannessiectomy, and 39 (28.5%) appendectomy. There was one (0.7%) postoperative ureteral fistula. The cumulative risk of ureteral stent-related major complications was 4.3% (two patients (1.4%) had protracted gross hematuria, two patients (1.4%) had urinary sepsis, and three patients (2.9%) developed hydronephrosis after a period from removing ureteral stents and required restenting. Morbidity due to ureteral stenting was associated with a longer length of stay (LOS) (p=0.053). A total of 52 patients (44.1%) developed renal dysfunction according to the RIFLE (Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss of kidney function, End-stage kidney-disease) criteria: 19.5% were in risk class, 10.2% in acute renal injury class, and 14.4% in acute renal failure class. CONCLUSION: PUS could be a useful tool for reducing iatrogenic ureteral injury, but it is associated with a non-negligible morbidity, which implies longer LOS. A more accurate patient selection for PUS is necessary.

A historical review of surgery for peritonitis secondary to acute colonic diverticulitis: from Lockhart-Mummery to evidence-based medicine.

The management of patients with colonic diverticular perforation is still evolving. Initial lavage with or without simple suture and drainage was suggested in the late 19th century, replaced progressively by the three-stage Mayo Clinic or the two-stage Mickulicz procedures. Fears of inadequate source control prompted the implementation of the resection of the affected segment of colon with formation of a colostomy (Hartman procedure) in the 1970's. Ensuing development of the treatment strategies was driven by the recognition of the high morbidity and mortality and low reversal rates associated with the Hartman procedure. This led to the wider use of resection and primary anastomosis during the 1990's. The technique of lavage and drainage regained popularity during the 1990's. This procedure can also be performed laparoscopically with the advantage of faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. This strategy allows resectional surgery to be postponed or avoided altogether in many patients; and higher rates of primary resection and anastomosis can be achieved avoiding the need for a stoma. The three recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic peritoneal lavage alone to resectional surgery reported inconsistent outcomes. The aim of this review is to review the historical evolution and future reflections of surgical treatment modalities for diffuse purulent and feculent peritonitis. In this review we classified the various surgical strategies according to Krukowski et al. and Vermeulen et al. and reviewed the literature related to surgical treatment separately for each period.

Transverse skin crease versus vertical midline incision versus laparoscopy for right hemicolectomy: a systematic review--current status of right hemicolectomy.

PURPOSE: The right hemicolectomy may be conducted through laparoscopic or laparotomic surgery, transverse or midline incisions. The transverse laparotomy offers some advantages compared to the midline laparotomy and laparoscopy. A literature review was performed to evaluate the possible advantages of the transverse incision versus midline incision or laparoscopic right hemicolectomy. METHODS: A systematic research was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, BioMed Central, and the Science Citation Index. RESULTS: Laparotomic right hemicolectomy with transverse incision is preferable to laparotomic hemicolectomy with midline incision. A transverse incision offers a lessened postoperative pain following physical activity, a lessened need to administer analgesic therapy during the post-operative time, better aesthetic results, and a better post-operative pulmonary function. Open surgery with transverse or midline incision ensured a shorter operative time, lower costs and a greater length of the incision compared to the laparoscopic. However, there are no differences in the oncological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: It was not possible to identify significant differences between the open right hemicolectomy with transverse incision versus the open right hemicolectomy with midline incision or laparoscopic hemicolectomy.