You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 128 No. 7, July 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Original Articles
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (47)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

The Choice of Surgical Procedure for Peritonitis due to Colonic Perforation

Angelo Nespoli, MD; Claudia Ravizzini, MD; Matilde Trivella, MD; Marco Segala, MD

Arch Surg. 1993;128(7):814-818.


Abstract

Objective
Because the choice of surgical procedure for colonic perforation is still matter of debate, we retrospectively studied peritonitis caused by spontaneous colonic perforation to assess predictors of mortality and the safety of primary resection and anastomosis.

Design
Case series.

Patients
We investigated one hundred thirty-six consecutive patients with peritonitis due to colonic perforation who were surgically treated in an emergency surgery department. Eighty-one patients underwent primary resection and anastomosis, thirty-three underwent the Hartmann procedure, and twenty-two had simple colostomy. The seriousness of peritonitis was assessed in terms of Hinchey stage, the Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), and the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score.

Results
The overall mortality rate was 20%. The APACHE II scores and MPIs were lower for survivors than for nonsurvivors. The mortality rate was 6% for primary resection and anastomosis, 30% for the Hartmann procedure, and 59% for simple colostomy, but the severity scores were significantly lower in patients who underwent primary resection than those of patients who had the Hartmann procedure and colostomy, respectively.

Conclusions
Since primary resection and anastomosis has been shown to be safe, we suggest that is is proper, even in the presence of peritonitis. In spite of this, we conclude that the surgical procedure does not influence outcome but that the mortality rate is related to the severity of peritonitis, accurately measured by APACHE II score and MPI.

(Arch Surg. 1993;128:814-818)



Author Affiliations

From the Department of Emergency Surgery, Centro E. Palini e G. Bevilacqua, Universita di Milano, and IRCCS, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Operative Management of Diverticular Emergencies: Strategies and Outcomes
Schwesinger et al.
Arch Surg 2000;135:558-563.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Emergency Surgery for Colon Cancer in the Aged
Koperna et al.
Arch Surg 1997;132:1032-1037.
ABSTRACT  

Prognosis and Treatment of Peritonitis: Do We Need New Scoring Systems?
Koperna and Schulz
Arch Surg 1996;131:180-186.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1993 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.