Open abdominal management for perforative peritonitis with septic shock: a retrospective analysis on usefulness of a standardized treatment protocol
- 49 Downloads
Damage control surgery (DCS) with open abdominal management (OAM) has been increasingly expanded to include critically ill non-trauma patients. However, there is limited data regarding the usefulness of this protocol for the treatment of severe perforative peritonitis (PP), especially with septic shock (SS). Here, we retrospectively evaluated the usefulness of our OAM protocol for PP with SS.
We retrospectively reviewed patients with from June 2015 to September 2018. The proposed protocol was composed of the following steps: (1) rapid control of contamination; (2) temporary abdominal closure; (3) repeated washout of the abdominal cavity; and (4) delayed definitive surgery. For temporary abdominal closure, a negative pressure wound therapy device was used. The end points were the morbidity and 30-day mortality rates. Logistic backward regression was performed to identify factors associated with complications.
The mortality rate was 4% (1/25) and the overall morbidity rate of surviving patients was 58.3% (14/24). The mean duration of the first DCS was 67.36 ± 22.83 min. The median durations of ventilation and intensive care unit stay were 5 and 7 days, respectively. Although not significant, morbidity might be associated with age, diabetes mellitus, initial operative time, and OAM duration.
A standardized protocol for OAM may improve the outcomes of patients with SS due to PP. This damage control approach can be applied for the treatment of severe abdominal sepsis.
KeywordsDamage control surgery Open abdominal management Perforative peritonitis Secondary peritonitis Septic shock
Damage control surgery
Negative pressure wound therapy
Open abdominal management
White blood cell
Body mass index
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Intensive care unit
KI drafted the manuscript. AU, MY, KA, NM, YT, and YN critically revised the article for important intellectual content. JY is the Department Chairperson and supervised the writing of the manuscript. All of the authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethical approval was obtained from Institutional Review Board of Sakai City Medical Hospital. Consent to participate was not applicable owing to the retrospective nature of the study.
Consent for publication
Availability of data and materials
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
- 10.Wacha H. Mannheim peritonitis index-prediction of risk of death from peritonitis: construction of a statistical and validation of an empirically based index. Theor Surg. 1987;1:169–77.Google Scholar
- 20.Wacha H, Linder MM, Feldman U, Wesch G, Gundlach E, Steifensand RA. Mannheim peritonitis index—prediction of risk of death from peritonitis: construction of a statistical and validation of an empirically based index. Theor Surg. 1987;1:169–77.Google Scholar
- 23.Fugger R, Rogy M, Herbst F, Schemper M, Schulz F. Validation study of the Mannheim peritonitis index. Chirurg. 1988;59:598–601.Google Scholar
- 24.Chaudhari ND, Nakum A, Mahida H. Mannheim’s peritonitis index validation study in the Indian set-up. Int J Sci Res. 2012;7:43–8.Google Scholar
- 25.Notash AY, Salimi J, Rahimian H, Fesharaki MS, Abbasi A. Evaluation of Mannheim peritonitis index and multiple organ failure score in patients with peritonitis. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2005;24:197.Google Scholar
- 27.Budzyński P, Dworak J, Natkaniec M, Pędziwiatr M, Major P, Migaczewski M, et al. The usefulness of the Mannheim Peritonitis Index score in assessing the condition of patients treated for peritonitis. Pol Przegl Chir. 2015;87:301–6.Google Scholar
- 28.Sharma R, Ranjan V, Jain S, Joshi T, Tyagi A, Chaphekar R. A prospective study evaluating utility of Mannheim peritonitis index in predicting prognosis of perforation peritonitis. J Nat Sc Biol Med. 2015;6:S49.Google Scholar