The role of peritoneal lavage in benign gynecologic laparoscopic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic surgery offers many advantages compared to invasive surgery but one of the main problems is postoperative pain, partially resulting from the peritoneal inflammatory process mediated by inflammatory cytokines. The rationale of this study is that intraperitoneal washing could remove inflammatory mediators that are the cause of postoperative pain and could help in the removal of CO2 from the abdominal cavity. This article aims to analyze the effects of peritoneal lavage in the reduction of postoperative shoulder pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 277 patients enrolled to undergo laparoscopic gynecologic surgery were included in the study. Women are randomized into two groups, according to the use or non-use of peritoneal lavage with saline solution at the end of laparoscopic gynecological major procedures. RESULTS: Data show that the peritoneal lavage can significantly reduce postoperative pain in the first 36 hours after surgery, as well as patients' requests for analgesics: during the first 3 postoperative days, requests for paracetamol were lower in the YW (Yes Washing) group than the NW (No Washing) group (77 vs. 101; p<0.05); similar results are obtained considering ketorolac administration (62 vs. 71; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Peritoneal lavage after gynecological laparoscopic procedures may be effective in the reduction of postoperative pain and use of analgesics.

Laparoscopic lavage for Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis: factors for treatment failure in two randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The Scandinavian Diverticulitis (SCANDIV) trial and the LOLA arm of the LADIES trial randomized patients with Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis to laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or sigmoid resection. The aim of this analysis was to identify risk factors for treatment failure in patients with Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of the SCANDIV trial and LOLA arm. Treatment failure was defined as morbidity requiring general anaesthesia (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIb or higher) within 90 days. Age, sex, BMI, ASA fitness grade, smoking status, previous episodes of diverticulitis, previous abdominal surgery, time to surgery, and surgical competence were all tested in univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses using an interaction variable. RESULTS: The pooled analysis included 222 patients randomized to laparoscopic lavage and primary resection (116 and 106 patients respectively). Univariable analysis found ASA grade to be associated with advanced morbidity in both groups, and the following factors in the laparoscopic lavage group: smoking, corticosteroid use, and BMI. Significant factors for laparoscopic lavage morbidity in multivariable analysis were smoking (OR 7.05, 95 per cent c.i. 2.07 to 23.98; P = 0.002) and corticosteroid use (OR 6.02, 1.54 to 23.51; P = 0.010). CONCLUSION: Active smoking status and corticosteroid use were risk factors for laparoscopic lavage treatment failure (advanced morbidity) in patients with perforated diverticulitis.

Long-term outcomes and risk factors for diverticulitis recurrence after a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in Hinchey III peritonitis.

PURPOSE: Recently, treatment of Hinchey III diverticulitis by laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has been questioned. Moreover, long-term outcomes have been scarcely reported. Primary outcome was to determine the recurrence rate of diverticulitis after a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage in Hinchey III diverticulitis. Secondary outcomes were identification of associated risk factors for recurrence and elective sigmoidectomy rate. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study in a tertiary referral center was performed. Patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis who underwent a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage between June 2006 and December 2019 were eligible. Diverticulitis recurrence was analyzed according to the Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test, censoring for death, loss of follow-up, or elective sigmoid resection in the absence of recurrence. Risk factors for recurrence were identified using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients had a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (mean age: 63 years; 53.6% women). Four patients had an elective sigmoid resection without recurrences. Recurrence rate was 42% (n = 29) after a median follow-up of 63 months. The cumulative global recurrence at 1, 3, and 5 years was 30% (95% CI, 20-43%), 37.5% (95% CI, 27-51%), and 48.9% (95% CI, 36-64%), respectively. Smoking (HR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.22-6.5; p = 0.016) and episodes of diverticulitis prior to laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (HR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.11-12.81; p < 0.001) were independently associated with an increased risk of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Diverticulitis recurrence after a successful laparoscopic peritoneal lavage is high, decreasing after the first year of follow-up. Smoking and previous episodes of acute diverticulitis independently increase the risk of new episodes of diverticulitis.

Surgeons' attitudes during laparoscopic appendectomy: do subjective intraoperative assessments affect the choice of peritoneal irrigation? A spin-off analysis from the REsiDENT-1 multicentre prospective observational trial.

AIMS: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most performed procedures. The effects of peritoneal lavage (PL) and the reasons to perform it have not been cleared and all meta-analyses didn't show a statistical advantage to prevent infectious complications. This study aims to investigate surgeons' perceptions during LA, comparing intraoperative findings with histological results, and exploring how surgeons' subjectivity influences the decision-making process on PL. METHODS: Data were extracted from the two-year data lock from REsiDENT-1 registry, a prospective resident-led multicentre observational trial. This study investigates the relationships between PL and postoperative intraabdominal abscesses (pIAA) introducing a classification for AA to standardize the intraoperative grading. We included pre, intra, and postoperative variables. We applied our classification proposal, used a five-point Likert scale (Ls) to assess subjective LA difficulty and ran a concordance analysis between the assessment of AA and histology. Subsequently, a multivariate logistic regression model was built to find factors influencing PL. RESULTS: 561 patients were enrolled from twenty-one hospitals and 51 residents. 542 procedures were included in the logistic regression analysis and 441 in the concordance analysis, due to missing data. PL was used in 222 LA (39, 6%). We discovered a moderate positive monotonic relationship between surgical evaluation and histology, p < 0.001. Despite this, the reliability of the surgeon's assessment of appendicitis is progressively lower for gangrenous and perforated forms. The increasing grade of contamination, the increasing grade of subjective difficulty and the intraoperative finding of a gangrenous or perforated appendicitis were independent predictors of PL. CONCLUSION: This study shows how surgeons' evaluation of AA severity overestimated more than half of gangrenous or perforated appendices with the perception of a challenging procedure. These perceptions influenced the choice of PL. We proved that the evaluation during LA could be affected by subjectivity with a non-negligible impact on the decision-making process.

Bedside decompression of abdominal compartment syndrome caused by spontaneous pneumoperitoneum: A case report.

Pneumoperitoneum is the presence of free air within the peritoneal cavity and indicates perforation of a hollow viscus. However, it may also occur in the absence of perforation and in this case, it is called spontaneous pneumoperitoneum (SP). A 57-year-old female patient who was intubated and mechanically ventilated due to respiratory failure developed abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) secondary to massive SP. Peritoneal lavage was performed for the patient both to achieve decompression and to support the diagnosis. Many surgeons proceed with laparotomy as a reflex response for SP due to lack of awareness of the condition. However, laparotomy has no place in this setting. SP coexisting with ACS is extremely rare. With this case report, we aimed to raise awareness of SP among physicians and help avoid unnecessary laparotomies.

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage versus sigmoidectomy for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis: three-year follow-up of the randomised LOLA trial.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare laparoscopic lavage and sigmoidectomy as treatment for perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis during a 36 month follow-up of the LOLA trial. METHODS: Within the LOLA arm of the international, multicentre LADIES trial, patients with perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis were randomised between laparoscopic lavage and sigmoidectomy. Outcomes were collected up to 36 months. The primary outcome of the present study was cumulative morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included reoperations (including stoma reversals), stoma rates, and sigmoidectomy rates in the lavage group. RESULTS: Long-term follow-up was recorded in 77 of the 88 originally included patients, 39 were randomised to sigmoidectomy (51%) and 38 to laparoscopic lavage (49%). After 36 months, overall cumulative morbidity (sigmoidectomy 28/39 (72%) versus lavage 32/38 (84%), p = 0·272) and mortality (sigmoidectomy 7/39 (18%) versus lavage 6/38 (16%), p = 1·000) did not differ. The number of patients who underwent a reoperation was significantly lower for lavage compared to sigmoidectomy (sigmoidectomy 27/39 (69%) versus lavage 17/38 (45%), p = 0·039). After 36 months, patients alive with stoma in situ was lower in the lavage group (proportion calculated from the Kaplan-Meier life table, sigmoidectomy 17% vs lavage 11%, log-rank p = 0·0268). Eventually, 17 of 38 (45%) patients allocated to lavage underwent sigmoidectomy. CONCLUSION: Long-term outcomes showed that laparoscopic lavage was associated with less patients who underwent reoperations and lower stoma rates in patients alive after 36 months compared to sigmoidectomy. No differences were found in terms of cumulative morbidity or mortality. Patient selection should be improved to reduce risk for short-term complications after which lavage could still be a valuable treatment option.

Laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis in the LapLav study: population-based registry study.

BACKGROUND: The standard treatment for Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis was resection with or without a stoma, but recent trials have shown that laparoscopic lavage is a reasonable alternative. This registry-based Swedish study investigated results at a national level to assess safety in real-world scenarios. METHODS: Patients in Sweden who underwent emergency surgery for perforated diverticulitis between 2016 and 2018 were studied. Inverse probability weighting by propensity score was used to adjust for confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 499 patients were included in this study. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with a significantly lower 90-day Comprehensive Complication Index (20.9 versus 32.0; odds ratio 0.77, 95 per cent compatibility interval (c.i.) 0.61 to 0.97) and overall duration of hospital stay (9 versus 15 days; ratio of means 0.84, 95 per cent c.i. 0.74 to 0.96) compared with resection. Patients had 82 (95 per cent c.i. 39 to 140) per cent more readmissions following lavage than resection (27.2 versus 21.0 per cent), but similar reoperation rates. More co-morbidity was noted among patients who underwent resection than those who had laparoscopic lavage. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic lavage is safe in routine care beyond trial evaluations.

Diverticulitis comprises inflammation in pouches (diverticula) of the large intestine. In the most severe instances, this inflammation can cause perforation of the bowel with purulent or faecal peritonitis. If this happens, surgery is needed. The traditional method has been resection of the inflamed bowel with a stoma. A new technique has been proposed whereby the abdomen is rinsed with saline laparoscopically and a drain is placed (laparoscopic lavage). This study aimed to compare these two methods in terms of clinical short-term outcomes, with a focus on complications. It was found that laparoscopic lavage had fewer complications than resectional surgery and a shorter hospital stay. The new method was safe when used in Swedish routine care.

Effects of Sequence of Irrigation, Suction, and Extraction in Cases of Acute Purulent Appendicitis or Gangrenous Perforated Appendicitis After Laparoscopic Appendectomy.

Objective: To evaluate rates of postoperative infection in patients with acute purulent appendicitis or gangrenous perforated appendicitis after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Methods: In this retrospective cohort study the medical records of patients who had undergone LA for acute appendicitis at Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College between January 2015 and December 2019 were reviewed. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on the sequential order in which peritoneal irrigation, suction, and extraction of appendix had been performed. In Group 1 peritoneal irrigation and suction had been performed before extraction of the appendix, and in Group 2 they had been performed after extraction of the appendix. Demographic details, surgery duration, time to first flatus, length of hospital stay, total hospitalization expenses, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Results: The final study sample included 571 patients, 116 (20.3%) in Group 1 and 455 (79.7%) in Group 2. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics, preoperative white blood cell counts, surgery durations, lengths of hospital stay, or total hospitalization expenses between the 2 groups (P > .05). Time to first flatus was significantly shorter in Group 1 (2.1 ± 0.5 days) than in Group 2 (2.3 ± 0.6) (P = .016), and the incidence of surgical wound infection was lower in Group 1 (6.9%) than in Group 2 (14.1%) (P = .038). There were no significant differences in the rates of intra-abdominal abscess, small bowel obstruction, or readmission within 30 days between the 2 groups (P > .05). Conclusion: Patients with acute purulent appendicitis or gangrenous perforated appendicitis are at high risk of surgical wound infection. Peritoneal irrigation and suction before appendix extraction may reduce the incidence of postoperative wound infection.

Transverse vs. median laparotomy in peritonitis and staged lavage: a single center case series.

Background: Staged lavage was first introduced in the 1970s and now serves as a therapeutic option for septic patients with peritonitis. A central aspect of this treatment concept is leaving the abdomen open after a wide incision. To evaluate the influence of transverse vs. median access to the abdomen in staged lavage, data from the authors' patients were analyzed. Methods: To evaluate patients with peritonitis, prospective intensive care data were examined together with data on the surgical details. The main aspects covered here were the surgical details of the lavage (namely, transverse vs. median laparotomy), number of lavages, fascia closure, wound-healing disorders, and observed lethality, in combination with the preoperatively evaluated SAPS-II score, expected hospital lethality, patient age, and the Mannheim Peritonitis Index. Results: Between January 2008 and December 2018, 522 patients were treated with open abdomen and staged lavage. The mean age of the patients was 66.0 years (standard deviation (SD) 15.9 years). A median incision was used in 140 cases, and transverse laparotomy was performed in 382. The mean SAPS-II score was 46.5 (SD 15.7), expected lethality was 39.6% (SD 26.3%), and observed lethality was 19.9%. On average, two lavages were performed after the index operation. Transverse incision was significantly less likely to cause wound-healing disorder (p=0.03), and fascial dehiscence was observed less frequently in the transverse laparotomies group than in median incisions in the statistical trend (p=0.06). Conclusion: In summary, staged lavage reduced expected lethality in patients with peritonitis. Transverse incision caused wound-healing disorders and fascial dehiscence less often. Therefore, the indication for transverse laparotomy should be generous, as this form of treatment is advantageous in case of peritonitis.

Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage versus laparoscopic sigmoidectomy in complicated acute diverticulitis: a multicenter prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (LPL) is feasible in selected patients with pelvic abscess and generalized purulent peritonitis caused by acute diverticulitis. We aimed to compare LPL and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (LS) in complicated acute diverticulitis. METHODS: This prospective, observational, multicenter study included patients with a pelvic abscess not amenable to conservative management and patients with Hinchey III acute diverticulitis, from 2015 to 2018. Sixty-six patients were enrolled: 28 (42%) underwent LPL and 38 (58%) underwent LS. In LS, patients had a primary anastomosis, with or without ileostomy, or an end colostomy (HA). Major outcomes were mortality, morbidity, failure of source control, reoperation, length of stay, and diverticulitis recurrence. RESULTS: Patient demographics were similar in the two groups. In LPL, ASA score > 2 and Mannheim Peritonitis Index were significantly higher (p = 0.05 and 0.004). In LS, 24 patients (63%) had a PA and 14 (37%) an HA. No death was recorded. Overall, morbidity was 33% in LPL and 18% in LS (p = 0.169). However, failure to achieve source control of the peritoneal infection and the need to return to the operating room were more frequent in LPL (p = 0.002 and p = 0.006). Mean postoperative length of stay was comparable (p = 0.08). Diverticular recurrence was significantly higher in LPL (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: LPL is related to a higher reoperation rate, more frequent postoperative ongoing sepsis, and higher recurrence rates. Therefore, laparoscopic lavage for perforated diverticulitis carries a high risk of failure in daily practice.

Is laparoscopic lavage safe in purulent diverticulitis versus colonic resection? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diverticulitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in western population. Colonic resection is recommended by international guidelines as a routinely used technique for purulent diverticulitis. Laparoscopic lavage was introduced as a non-resection alternative. The studies available so far have shown contradictory results. This meta-analysis aims to compare laparoscopic lavage versus colonic resection in patients with Hinchey Ⅲ-Ⅳ diverticulitis. METHODS: We did a systematic review of articles published before March 20, 2019, with no language restriction by searching PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE databases, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases. We included all RCTs and cohort studies comparing outcomes between patients with Hinchey Ⅲ-Ⅳ diverticulitis undergoing laparoscopic lavage versus colonic resection. Important outcomes were mortality, complications, length of stay, readmission and reoperation rates. We combined data to assess the outcomes using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 569 patients with diverticulitis of which more than 80% were Hinchey Ⅲ were enrolled from 3 RCTs and 5 cohort studies. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with shorter operative time (WMD -78.9, 95%CI -100.58 to -57.11, P < 0.0001) and total postoperative hospital stay (WMD -7.62, 95%CI -11.60 to -3.63, P = 0.0002) but a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess (OR 2.69, 95%CI 1.39 to 5.21, P = 0.0032) and secondary peritonitis (OR 5.30, 95%CI 1.91 to 14.73, P = 0.0014). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic lavage for patients with Hinchey Ⅲ to Ⅳ diverticulitis does provide similar mortality, shorter operative time and hospital stay. However, the evidence so far suggests that it might be inadequate for sepsis control and may result in more unplanned reoperations. Further studies are needed to standardize the formal indication for laparoscopic lavage.

Peritoneal lavage with povidone-iodine solution in colorectal cancer-induced rats.

BACKGROUND: Although peritoneal lavage with povidone-iodine (PVPI) is frequently performed after surgery on the gastrointestinal tract, the effects of PVPI on the intestinal epithelial barrier are unknown. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of abdominal irrigation with PVPI on the intestinal epithelial barrier in a colorectal cancer (CRC)-induced rat model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CRC model was induced in rats with azoxymethane and dextran sodium sulfate. Next, a total of 24 male CRC-induced rats were randomly divided into three groups (n = 8): (1) a sham-operated group, (2) an NS group (peritoneal lavage 0.9% NaCl), and (3) a PVPI group (peritoneal lavage with 0.45%-0.55% PVPI). The mean arterial pressure was continuously monitored throughout the experiment. The levels of plasma endotoxin and D-lactate, blood gases, and protein concentration were measured. The ultrastructural changes of the epithelial tight junctions were observed by transmission electron microscopy. RESULTS: The mean arterial pressure after peritoneal lavage was lower in the PVPI group than that in the NS group. The protein concentration and levels of endotoxin and D-lactate were higher in the PVPI group than they were in the PVPI group. In addition, PVPI treatment resulted in a markedly severe metabolic acidosis and intestinal mucosal injury compared with NS rats. CONCLUSIONS: Peritoneal lavage with PVPI dramatically compromises the integrity of the intestinal mucosa barrier and causes endotoxin shock in CRC rats. It is unsafe for clinical applications to include peritoneal lavage with PVPI in colorectal operations.

Copious Irrigation Versus Suction Alone During Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis in Adults.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether copious irrigation of peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis effectively reduces the incidence of postoperative complications and improves the postoperative recovery in adults compared with suction alone. METHODS: In this prospective randomized trial, adult patients with complicated appendicitis were randomized to "irrigation and suction"(IS) group or "suction only"(SO) group. All surgery was performed with a standardized 3-port laparoscopic approach. The IS group received peritoneal irrigation with a minimum of 2000 mL sterile normal saline. The study primary outcomes included wound infection and postoperative intra-abdominal abscess. The study secondary outcomes included duration of operation, first anal exsufflation time, duration of hospital stay and hospital charges. Chi-squared and t-tests were used to analyze the study data. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and June 2016, a total of 260 patients with complicated appendicitis were enrolled in the study. The peritoneal irrigation resulted in a longer operation time (51.6 ± 16.1 vs. 41.5 ± 15.2 min, p <0.001). There was no significant difference in the rate of wound infection between the two groups. However, the patients who received irrigation had a lower postoperative intra-abdominal abscess rate (3.1% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.039), earlier anal exsufflation (25.2 ± 16.5 vs. 30.7 ± 18.1 hr, p = 0.011), shorter hospital stay (10.2 ± 2.5 vs. 12.5 ± 2.8 days, p <0.001) and lower hospital charges (¥14,592 ± 2,251 vs. 16,674 ± 2,163, p <0.001) compared to those received suction alone. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings revealed that copious irrigation of peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic appendectomy could decrease the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess in adult patients with complicated appendicitis. These patients also had faster postoperative recovery and lower hospital charges.

Is the Failure of Laparoscopic Peritoneal Lavage Predictable in Hinchey III Diverticulitis Management?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage is an alternative to sigmoid resection in Hinchey III diverticulitis (generalized purulent peritonitis). The main limitation of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage is the higher rate of reoperation for persistent sepsis in comparison with sigmoid resection. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current study was to identify risk factors for laparoscopic peritoneal lavage failure in patients who have Hinchey III diverticulitis. DESIGN: This was a retrospective multicenter study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in 3 clinical sites in France. PATIENTS: From 2006 to 2015, all consecutive patients undergoing emergent surgery for diverticulitis were reviewed. All patients operated on with laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for laparoscopically confirmed Hinchey III diverticulitis were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was laparoscopic peritoneal lavage failure, defined as reoperation or death at 30 postoperative days. RESULTS: A series of 71 patients (43 men, mean age 58 ± 15 years) were operated on with laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for Hinchey III diverticulitis. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage failed in 14 (20%) of them: 1 died and 13 underwent reoperations. No major complication (Dindo-Clavien score ≥3) occurred after reoperation. Immunosuppressive drugs (p = 0.01) and ASA grade ≥3 (p = 0.02) were associated with laparoscopic peritoneal lavage failure after univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis identified only immunosuppressive drug intake (steroids or chemotherapy for cancer) as an independent predictive factor. Mean length of stay was 14.9 days (5-67). At the end of the 30 first postoperative days, 12 (17%) patients had a stoma. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective nature and the small size of the cohort. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight immunosuppressive drug intake as a major risk factor for laparoscopic peritoneal lavage failure in patients who have Hinchey III diverticulitis. Immunosuppression and severe comorbidities (ASA ≥3) should be considered when selecting a surgical option in patients with Hinchey III diverticulitis. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A423.

One-year results of the SCANDIV randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic lavage versus primary resection for acute perforated diverticulitis.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials demonstrated that laparoscopic lavage compared with resection for Hinchey III perforated diverticulitis was associated with similar mortality, less stoma formation but a higher rate of early reintervention. The aim of this study was to compare 1-year outcomes in patients who participated in the randomized Scandinavian Diverticulitis (SCANDIV) trial. METHODS: Between February 2010 and June 2014, patients from 21 hospitals in Norway and Sweden presenting with suspected perforated diverticulitis were enrolled in a multicentre RCT comparing laparoscopic lavage and sigmoid resection. All patients with perforated diverticulitis confirmed during surgery were included in a modified intention-to-treat analysis of 1-year results. RESULTS: Of 199 enrolled patients, 101 were assigned randomly to laparoscopic lavage and 98 to colonic resection. Perforated diverticulitis was confirmed at the time of surgery in 89 and 83 patients respectively. Within 1 year after surgery, neither severe complications (34 versus 27 per cent; P = 0·323) nor disease-related mortality (12 versus 11 per cent) differed significantly between the lavage and surgery groups. Among the 144 patients with purulent peritonitis, the rate of severe complications (27 per cent (20 of 74) versus 21 per cent (15 of 70) respectively; P = 0·445) and disease-related mortality (8 versus 9 per cent) were similar. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with more deep surgical-site infections (32 versus 13 per cent; P = 0·006) but fewer superficial surgical-site infections (1 versus 17 per cent; P = 0·001). More patients in the lavage group underwent unplanned reoperations (27 versus 10 per cent; P = 0·010). Including stoma reversals, a similar proportion of patients required a secondary operation (28 versus 29 per cent). The stoma rate at 1 year was lower in the lavage group (14 versus 42 per cent in the resection group; P < 0·001); however, the Cleveland Global Quality of Life score did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: The advantages of laparoscopic lavage should be weighed against the risk of secondary intervention (if sepsis is unresolved). Assessment to exclude malignancy (although uncommon) is advised. Registration number: NCT01047462 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

[Laparotomy closure in advanced peritonitis]. / Sposoby zakrytiya laparotomnoi rany pri rasprostranennom peritonite.

AIM: to improve the results of advanced peritonitis management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 743 patients with advanced peritonitis were studied. Patients were divided into 2 groups depending on treatment strategy. RESULTS: Programmed relaparotomy combined with removable draining musculoaponeurotic seams during laparotomy closure decreased mortality from 47.8±2.7% to 24.1±2.3% (p<0.001) and provided 4-fold reduction of postoperative suppuration incidence (p<0.001). Refusal from removable draining musculoaponeurotic seams and use of only cutaneous seams in persistent abdominal hypertension were associated with further decrease of mortality to 15.8±2.7% (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Programmed relaparotomy combined with removable draining musculoaponeurotic seams are advisable for advanced peritonitis management. Laparotomy closure with only cutaneous seams is indicated in case of persistent abdominal hypertension. Large eventration always requires abdominal wall repair. APACHE-III scale scores have significant prognostic value in patients with advanced peritonitis.

The surgical management of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC).

Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) is a neonatal surgical emergency. At its early stages, the management of NEC is largely medical using broad-spectrum antibiotics, gut rest and total parental nutrition. The only absolute indication for surgery is an intra-abdominal perforation. There are several relative indications for surgery based on clinical, biochemical and radiological parameters. Once the decision to intervene is made, several approaches may be taken. Peritoneal lavage can be used as a salvage procedure or definitive management in some cases. The most common approach taken is bowel resection with enterostomy formation. There is a role for primary anastomosis of bowel in limited NEC. In severe, multi-focal NEC a high diverting jejunostomy or "clip and drop technique" can be used. Laparoscopy has a limited role and is not widespread. The surgical complications of NEC include stoma related morbidity, anastomotic leak/stricture and short-bowel syndrome. Long-term data on neurodevelopmental outcomes is sparse but the present literature is suggestive of a negative impact in cases of surgically managed NEC.