在严重的腹部脓毒症的治疗中,开腹与初步闭合:哪一种方法是正确的?某参考中心最近5年的结果。

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Tommaso Guagni, P Prosperi, M Marzano, A Falcone, Matteo Bussotti, C Bergamini, M Mastronardi, A Giordano
{"title":"在严重的腹部脓毒症的治疗中,开腹与初步闭合:哪一种方法是正确的?某参考中心最近5年的结果。","authors":"Tommaso Guagni, P Prosperi, M Marzano, A Falcone, Matteo Bussotti, C Bergamini, M Mastronardi, A Giordano","doi":"10.1007/s00423-025-03693-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>WSES guidelines allow open abdomen (OA) for critically ill patients due to secondary peritonitis in the case of inadequate source control, but this option results quite vague and with a low grade of evidence (Grade 2 C). Moreover, the emerging increasing in literature of complications, makes the use of OA in secondary peritonitis more debated. The aim of our study is to analyze the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing OA versus primary closure (PC) in secondary peritonitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected data from Tertiary Trauma Center from 2019 to 2024. The study included patients who underwent urgent laparotomy for severe secondary peritonitis, divided into two groups based on the strategy chosen in the index laparotomy: PC or OA. We retrospectively analyzed the data, considering as primary outcome post-operative mortality, while as secondary outcomes short terms complications and LOS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>283 patients fit the research for the diagnosis of peritonitis but only 176 were included as with a WSES-SSS > = 7. 128 patients (72,7%) were in the PC group, while 48 (27,3%) were managed with an OA strategy. There were no statistical differences in terms of mortality (p = 0.371), between the two groups. Complications were higher in the OA group (p = 0.001). From the logistic regression only MPI resulted an independent factor of mortality (p = 0.016; OR 1.080).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study shows that OA in severe secondary peritonitis does not improve mortality and is associated with higher short-term complications and incisional hernias. However, RCT are necessary to better investigate the role of OA in the management of abdominal sepsis.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":"410 1","pages":"147"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12031820/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Open abdomen versus primary closure in the management of severe abdominal sepsis: What is the right way? Results of the last 5 years of a reference center.\",\"authors\":\"Tommaso Guagni, P Prosperi, M Marzano, A Falcone, Matteo Bussotti, C Bergamini, M Mastronardi, A Giordano\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00423-025-03693-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>WSES guidelines allow open abdomen (OA) for critically ill patients due to secondary peritonitis in the case of inadequate source control, but this option results quite vague and with a low grade of evidence (Grade 2 C). Moreover, the emerging increasing in literature of complications, makes the use of OA in secondary peritonitis more debated. The aim of our study is to analyze the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing OA versus primary closure (PC) in secondary peritonitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected data from Tertiary Trauma Center from 2019 to 2024. The study included patients who underwent urgent laparotomy for severe secondary peritonitis, divided into two groups based on the strategy chosen in the index laparotomy: PC or OA. We retrospectively analyzed the data, considering as primary outcome post-operative mortality, while as secondary outcomes short terms complications and LOS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>283 patients fit the research for the diagnosis of peritonitis but only 176 were included as with a WSES-SSS > = 7. 128 patients (72,7%) were in the PC group, while 48 (27,3%) were managed with an OA strategy. There were no statistical differences in terms of mortality (p = 0.371), between the two groups. Complications were higher in the OA group (p = 0.001). From the logistic regression only MPI resulted an independent factor of mortality (p = 0.016; OR 1.080).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study shows that OA in severe secondary peritonitis does not improve mortality and is associated with higher short-term complications and incisional hernias. However, RCT are necessary to better investigate the role of OA in the management of abdominal sepsis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"volume\":\"410 1\",\"pages\":\"147\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12031820/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-025-03693-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-025-03693-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:WSES指南允许在源控制不充分的情况下,对继发性腹膜炎的危重患者行开腹手术(OA),但这一选择的结果相当模糊,证据等级较低(2c级)。此外,越来越多的文献报道并发症,使得OA在继发性腹膜炎中的应用更具争议。本研究的目的是分析继发性腹膜炎患者行OA与原发性封闭术(PC)的术后结果。方法:收集2019 - 2024年三级创伤中心的数据。该研究纳入了因严重继发性腹膜炎而接受紧急剖腹手术的患者,根据剖腹手术中选择的策略分为两组:PC或OA。我们回顾性分析数据,将术后死亡率作为主要结局,将短期并发症和LOS作为次要结局。结果:283例患者符合腹膜炎的诊断,但只有176例纳入WSES-SSS > = 7。PC组128例(72.7%),OA组48例(27.3%)。两组患者的死亡率无统计学差异(p = 0.371)。OA组并发症发生率较高(p = 0.001)。从逻辑回归来看,只有MPI是死亡率的独立因素(p = 0.016;或1.080)。结论:研究表明严重继发性腹膜炎的OA不能改善死亡率,且与较高的短期并发症和切口疝相关。然而,为了更好地研究OA在腹部败血症治疗中的作用,RCT是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Open abdomen versus primary closure in the management of severe abdominal sepsis: What is the right way? Results of the last 5 years of a reference center.

Purpose: WSES guidelines allow open abdomen (OA) for critically ill patients due to secondary peritonitis in the case of inadequate source control, but this option results quite vague and with a low grade of evidence (Grade 2 C). Moreover, the emerging increasing in literature of complications, makes the use of OA in secondary peritonitis more debated. The aim of our study is to analyze the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing OA versus primary closure (PC) in secondary peritonitis.

Methods: We collected data from Tertiary Trauma Center from 2019 to 2024. The study included patients who underwent urgent laparotomy for severe secondary peritonitis, divided into two groups based on the strategy chosen in the index laparotomy: PC or OA. We retrospectively analyzed the data, considering as primary outcome post-operative mortality, while as secondary outcomes short terms complications and LOS.

Results: 283 patients fit the research for the diagnosis of peritonitis but only 176 were included as with a WSES-SSS > = 7. 128 patients (72,7%) were in the PC group, while 48 (27,3%) were managed with an OA strategy. There were no statistical differences in terms of mortality (p = 0.371), between the two groups. Complications were higher in the OA group (p = 0.001). From the logistic regression only MPI resulted an independent factor of mortality (p = 0.016; OR 1.080).

Conclusion: The study shows that OA in severe secondary peritonitis does not improve mortality and is associated with higher short-term complications and incisional hernias. However, RCT are necessary to better investigate the role of OA in the management of abdominal sepsis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
×
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