One-stage versus two-stage procedure for the surgical management of patients with acute mesenteric ischemia

Mohamed Abd Allah Abd Elhady, Mohamed Khidr Mohamed, Mohamed Hafez, Mohamed Mostafa Mahmoud
{"title":"One-stage versus two-stage procedure for the surgical management of patients with acute mesenteric ischemia","authors":"Mohamed Abd Allah Abd Elhady, Mohamed Khidr Mohamed, Mohamed Hafez, Mohamed Mostafa Mahmoud","doi":"10.4103/ejs.ejs_323_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Damage control surgery (planned second look) is preferred by many surgeons in the management of patients with acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) with established bowel necrosis. However, some surgeons prefer to perform primary anastomosis during the first operation, making the second look only when indicated. Herein, we compare the perioperative outcomes of the previous two approaches in AMI patients.\n \n \n \n In this prospective, randomized study, AMI was diagnosed in 74 patients who were divided into group A (one-stage approach) and group B (two-stage approach).\n \n \n \n The one-stage approach spent more operative time compared with the first step of the other approach (110 vs. 70 min, respectively). The planned second look had an average of 75 min, and intestinal resection was done in 35.14% of cases due to advancing ischemia. The incidence of leakage was higher in the one-stage group (32.43%) compared with the other (5.4%), leading to a high reoperation rate in the former. ICU stay was longer with the damage control approach. Nonetheless, no difference was detected regarding the hospitalization period. The one-stage approach was associated with a higher 30-day mortality rate (29.73 vs. 8.11% in the other group). Risk factors for mortality included shock at presentation, prolonged operative time, and postoperative leakage.\n \n \n \n The application of the damage control approach in patients with AMI is of great benefit as it is associated with low leakage rates, less need for reoperation, and less incidence of 30-day mortality compared with the one-stage approach.\n","PeriodicalId":22550,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ejs.ejs_323_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Damage control surgery (planned second look) is preferred by many surgeons in the management of patients with acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) with established bowel necrosis. However, some surgeons prefer to perform primary anastomosis during the first operation, making the second look only when indicated. Herein, we compare the perioperative outcomes of the previous two approaches in AMI patients. In this prospective, randomized study, AMI was diagnosed in 74 patients who were divided into group A (one-stage approach) and group B (two-stage approach). The one-stage approach spent more operative time compared with the first step of the other approach (110 vs. 70 min, respectively). The planned second look had an average of 75 min, and intestinal resection was done in 35.14% of cases due to advancing ischemia. The incidence of leakage was higher in the one-stage group (32.43%) compared with the other (5.4%), leading to a high reoperation rate in the former. ICU stay was longer with the damage control approach. Nonetheless, no difference was detected regarding the hospitalization period. The one-stage approach was associated with a higher 30-day mortality rate (29.73 vs. 8.11% in the other group). Risk factors for mortality included shock at presentation, prolonged operative time, and postoperative leakage. The application of the damage control approach in patients with AMI is of great benefit as it is associated with low leakage rates, less need for reoperation, and less incidence of 30-day mortality compared with the one-stage approach.
急性肠系膜缺血患者手术治疗的一段式与两段式手术比较
许多外科医生在治疗急性肠系膜缺血(AMI)且已出现肠坏死的患者时,都会首选损伤控制手术(计划中的第二次手术)。然而,一些外科医生更倾向于在第一次手术中进行初级吻合,只有在有必要时才进行第二次手术。在此,我们比较了前两种方法对 AMI 患者的围手术期效果。 在这项前瞻性随机研究中,74 名患者被确诊为 AMI,他们被分为 A 组(一步法)和 B 组(两步法)。 与另一种方法的第一步相比,一步法花费的手术时间更长(分别为 110 分钟和 70 分钟)。计划中的第二次检查平均耗时75分钟,35.14%的病例因缺血加剧而进行了肠切除。一期手术组(32.43%)与二期手术组(5.4%)相比,渗漏发生率更高,导致前者的再次手术率较高。损伤控制法的重症监护室住院时间更长。不过,在住院时间方面没有发现差异。一期手术与较高的 30 天死亡率有关(29.73%,另一组为 8.11%)。死亡的风险因素包括发病时休克、手术时间延长和术后渗漏。 在急性心肌梗死患者中应用损伤控制方法非常有益,因为与单级方法相比,该方法的漏损率低、再次手术的需求少、30 天死亡率低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信