RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Damage control surgery in trauma is widely used but the evidence for the use of laparostomy in non-trauma abdominal emergencies is limited. This study aimed to characterise outcomes in emergency abdominal surgery by comparing laparostomy to one-stage laparotomy for patients of similar illness severity. METHODS: A retrospective study of adult patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery and post-operative intensive care stay was performed between 2016 and 2020 at a major Australian metropolitan hospital. Case selection was from a prospectively maintained database, and case notes were reviewed. Patients having delayed abdominal closure were compared with those having one-stage abdominal closure. The primary outcome was odds of in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), overall hospital LOS, definitive stoma rate and discharge destination. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighteen patients met inclusion criteria (80 laparostomy and 138 non-laparostomy). The most common indications for laparostomy were bowel ischaemia (41.3%), sepsis (26.3%) and physiological instability (22.5%). There was no evidence of difference in odds of in-hospital mortality between groups (adjusted OR = 1.67, CI: 0.85-3.28; p = 0.138). Patients requiring laparostomy had a slightly longer median ICU LOS (4 vs. 3 days; p < 0.001), similar median hospital LOS (19 vs. 14 days, p = 0.245) and similar discharge destination. There was no difference in stoma rate (35.0% vs. 35.5%). CONCLUSION: Compared with standard one-stage laparotomy, laparostomy resulted in similar odds of in-hospital mortality in emergency abdominal surgery patients requiring intensive care.
