Planned relaparotomy vs relaparotomy on demand in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections. The Peritonitis Study Group of the Surgical Infection Society-Europe

T. Hau, C. Ohmann, A. Wolmershauser, H. Wacha and Q. Yang
Department of General, Thoracic, and Vascular Surgery, Nordwest-Krakenhaus Sanderbusch, Sande, Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To define the role of planned relaparotomy (PR) in the treatment of intraperitoneal infection, compared with that of relaparotomy on demand (RD). DESIGN: Case-control study on the basis of a prospective multicenter cohort analytic study. Statistical evaluation was done by the McNemar test for qualitative data and the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test for qualitative data. SETTING: Eighteen hospitals of different care levels in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. PATIENTS: Thirty-eight of 42 patients with intra-abdominal infections who underwent PR were matched for APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score, age, cause of infection, site of origin of peritonitis, and the ability of the surgeon to securely eliminate the source of infection with 38 patients taken from a cohort of 278 undergoing RD. INTERVENTIONS: Planned relaparotomy was defined as at least one relaparotomy decided on at the time of the first surgical intervention; RD, relaparotomy indicated by clinical findings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality and incidence of postoperative multiple organ failure and infectious complications. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in mortality between patients treated with PR (21%) or RD (13%). Postoperative multiple organ failure as defined by a Goris score of more than 5 was more frequent in the group of patients undergoing PR (50%), compared with the group undergoing RD (24%) (P = .01), as were infectious complications (68% vs 39% [P = .01]). Infectious complications were due to more frequent suture leaks (16% vs 0% [P = .05]), recurrent intra-abdominal sepsis (16% vs 0% [P = .05]), and septecemia (45% vs 18% [P = .05]) in the PR vs the RD groups. The incidence of other complications was not different in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Until larger prospective studies are available, the indication for PR should be evaluated with caution.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Comparison of On-Demand vs Planned Relaparotomy Strategy in Patients With Severe Peritonitis: A Randomized Trial
van Ruler et al.
JAMA 2007;298:865-872.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

When Not Being Superior May Not Be Good Enough
Farjah and Flum
JAMA 2007;298:924-925.
FULL TEXT  

Two Cases of Planned Relaparotomy for Severe Peritonitis Secondary to Gastrointestinal Pathology
Lawson and Seshadri
Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association 2007;43:117-121.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evaluation of Procalcitonin for Predicting Septic Multiorgan Failure and Overall Prognosis in Secondary Peritonitis: A Prospective, International Multicenter Study
Rau et al.
Arch Surg 2007;142:134-142.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Circulating Mediators and Organ Function in Patients Undergoing Planned Relaparotomy vs Conventional Surgical Therapy in Severe Secondary Peritonitis
Zugel et al.
Arch Surg 2002;137:590-599.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Risk Stratification in Emergency Surgical Patients: Is the APACHE II Score a Reliable Marker of Physiological Impairment?
Koperna et al.
Arch Surg 2001;136:55-59.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Chlorhexidine Lavage in the Treatment of Experimental Intra-abdominal Infection
Bondar et al.
Arch Surg 2000;135:309-314.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Surgical Infection Society--Trials and Tribulations: The Importance of Clinical Trials
Dellinger
Arch Surg 1998;133:1192-1197.
FULL TEXT