Systemic Review of Open Abdomen versus Primary Closure after Emergency Laparotomy for Peritonitis: Experience in Qazi Hussain Ahmed Medical Complex, Nowshera, Pakistan.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47672/ajhmn.1012Keywords:
Systematic review, Open abdomen, primary closure, emergency laparotomy, PeritonitisAbstract
Objective: In secondary peritonitis patients, optimal management after index laparotomy is poorly defined. Although an open abdomen or temporary abdominal closure with planned relaparotomy is used to reassess bowel viability or contamination severity, recent studies show that primary abdominal closure has comparable morbidity and mortality. The differences between Open Abdomen (OP) and Primary Closure (PC) after emergent laparotomy are examined in this study.
Material and Methods: A systemic review on open abdomen versus primary closure after emergency laparotomy for peritonitis from January 2017 to December 2021 were analyzed. This systemic review was conducted in the department of surgical Qazi Hussain Ahmad Medical complex, Nowshera, Pakistan with approval from the hospital ethical and research committee. The study enrolled 200 patients who met the eligibility requirements. A lottery method was used to divide the patients into two groups at random. Patients with secondary peritonitis requiring emergent laparotomy were identified (N = 200) using the Premier database at a quaternary level. Mannheim Peritonitis Index, lactate, and vasopressor requirement were used to perform propensity matching for PC (n = 100; 65%) or OA (n = 100; 35%). A total of 200 closely matched pairs (PC: OA) were examined.
Results: About 65 percent of the 200 women patients enrolled in the study had an emergency laparotomy (mean age of 52.2 years). Only one relaparotomy was performed on 100 (65.0%) of the (O.A) patients, while 35 (35.0%) had multiple reoperations. Overnight (4 pm–4 am) laparotomies had more temporary closures with O.A (35.0 percent OA vs. 65.0 percent PC, p = 0.05) than daytime laparotomies. Surgical subspecialties performed PC in 82.1 percent of laparotomies, compared to 35.0 percent (p 0.0002) of acute care surgeons. Postoperative complications and n-100 (65.0 percent vs. 35.0 percent, p = 0.0002), mortality (18.0 percent vs. 09.2 percent, p = 0.005), and a longer median length of stay (12 vs. 12 days p = 0.0001) were all higher in OA patients.
Conclusion: The study's systemic review revealed that compared to PC, the complications, mortality rates, and costs associated with OA were significantly higher. Given these findings, more research is needed to determine appropriate OA indications.
Downloads
References
Tolonen, Matti, et al. "Open abdomen with vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction in patients with complicated diffuse secondary peritonitis: a single-center 8-year experience." Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 82.6 (2017): 1100-1105.
Cicuttin, E., Ansaloni, L., Ceresoli, M., Fugazzola, P., Tomasoni, M., Sartelli, M., ... & Coccolini, F. (2020). Trends in open abdomen management in Italy: a subgroup analysis from the IROA project. Updates in surgery, 72(1), 171-177.
de Vries, F. E., Claessen, J. J., Atema, J. J., van Ruler, O., Boermeester, M. A., & CLOSE-UP Study Group. (2020). Immediate closure of abdominal cavity with biologic mesh versus temporary abdominal closure of open abdomen in non-trauma emergency patients (CLOSE-UP study). Surgical Infections, 21(8), 694-703.
Gatt D, Quick CR, Owen-Smith MS: Staples for wound clo- sure: a controlled trial. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1985,67(5):318- 320.
Pickford IR, Brennan SS, Evans M, Pollock AV: Two meth- ods of skin closure in abdominal operations: a controlled clinical trial.Br J Surg 1983,70:226-228.
Ranaboldo CJ, Rowe-Jones DC: Closure of laparotomy wounds: skin staples versus sutures. Br. J Surg 1992, 79: 1172-1172
Zwart HJ, De Ruiter P: Subcuticular, continuous and me- chanical skin closure cosmetic results prospective ran- domized trial. Neth J Surg 1989, 41:57-60.
Smith TO, Sexton D, Mann C, Donell S. Sutures versus sta- plers for skin closure in orthopaedic surgery: meta analysis. BMJ 2010: 340:1199.
Doctor HG. Surgeons and sutures. Ethicon USA 1999;2nd edition.
Townsend CM, Beauchamp DR, Evers MB, et al. The bio- logical basis of modern surgical practice. Harcourt Asia Pvt Ltd Singapore 2001;14th Edn:260-268.
Russel RCG. Sutures in surgery in recent advances in surgery. Volume 12, Ed Russel RCG. 1-15.
Medina dos Santos LR, Freitas CAF, Hojaji FC, et al. Prospec- tive study using skin staplers in head and neck surgery. AM J Surg 1995;170(5):451-452.
Kanagaye JT, Vance CW, Chan L, et al. Comparison of skin stapling devices and standard sutures for pediatric scalp lacerations: a randomized study of cost and time benefits. J Pediatr 1997; 130 (5):808-813.
Meiring L, Cilliers K, Barry R, et al. A comparison of a dis- posable skin stapler and nylon sutures for wound closure. S Afr Med J 1982;62:371-372.
Harvey CF, Logan J. A prospective trial of skin staples and sutures in skin closure. Ir J Med Sci 1986;155 (6):194-196.
Orlinsky M, Goldberg RM, Chan L, et al. Cost analysis of stapler versus suturing for skin closure. Am J Emerg Med 1995;13(1):77-86
Siddiqui, M. R. S., Sajid, M. S., Uncles, D. R., Cheek, L., & Baig, M. K. (2011). A meta-analysis on the clinical effectiveness of transversus abdominis plane block. Journal of clinical anesthesia, 23(1), 7-14.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Muddasar shahzad, Kamran Ahmad, Fazal Ghani, Kamran Hakeem Khan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
