scholarly journals Damage control surgery for spontaneous perforation of pyometra with septic shock: a case report

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryo Matsumoto ◽  
Shunsuke Kuramoto ◽  
Tomohiro Muronoi ◽  
Kazuyuki Oka ◽  
Yoshihide Shimojyo ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Y L Quake ◽  
C Strong ◽  
A Okpala ◽  
M Shaaban

Abstract Damage control surgery (DCS) is an abbreviated laparotomy used as a temporising measure in critically unwell patients who have limited physiological reserves to tolerate complex definitive surgeries. The aim of DCS is to address life-threatening haemorrhage and manage abdominal contamination. Following an abbreviated laparotomy, patients are continuously resuscitated in intensive care unit until physiological stability can be maintained for definitive surgeries. The role of DCS in the trauma setting is well-described; however, its principles can also be applied in General Surgery for a variety of indications such as mesenteric ischaemia, uncontrolled haemorrhage, and secondary peritonitis. Judicious selection of the non-trauma patient who will benefit from this strategy is paramount. We present two cases of a polytrauma patient (Patient A), and non-trauma patient with abdominal septic shock (Patient B) who underwent DCS at our tertiary centre. Patient A is a 49-year-old male involved in a road traffic accident who sustained multiple injuries including liver laceration, splenic laceration, and colonic injury. Intra-abdominal packing and repair of serosal tears were performed, with a re-look laparotomy 48 hours later -- no further bleeding or visceral injuries were identified. Patient B is a 51-year-old gentleman who re-presented in septic shock due to infected retroperitoneal collection following a bleeding duodenal ulcer, initially managed radiologically. A T tube was inserted into the duodenum with two abdominal drains at initial DCS. After thorough washout, a feeding jejunostomy was sited at the re-look laparotomy. 30-days mortality is 0% and both patients are under follow-up.


2021 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 105872
Author(s):  
Peter Galos ◽  
Michael Hultström ◽  
Angeliki Dimopoulou Creusen ◽  
Gösta Eggertsen ◽  
Jozef Urdzik ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wojciech Staszewicz ◽  
Michel Christodoulou ◽  
François Marty ◽  
Vincent Bettschart

Author(s):  
Roberto Cirocchi ◽  
Georgi Popivanov ◽  
Marina Konaktchieva ◽  
Sonia Chipeva ◽  
Guglielmo Tellan ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Damage control surgery (DCS) is the classic approach to manage severe trauma and has recently also been considered an appropriate approach to the treatment of critically ill patients with severe intra-abdominal sepsis. The purpose of the present review is to evaluate the outcomes following DCS for Hinchey II–IV complicated acute diverticulitis (CAD). Methods A comprehensive systematic search was undertaken to identify all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies, irrespectively of their size, publication status, and language. Adults who have undergone DCS for CAD Hinchey II, III, or IV were included in this review. DCS is compared with the immediate and definitive surgical treatment in the form of HP, colonic resection, and primary anastomosis (RPA) with or without covering stoma or laparoscopic lavage. We searched the following electronic databases: PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge. The protocol of this systematic review and meta-analysis was published on Prospero (CRD42020144953). Results Nine studies with 318 patients, undergoing DCS, were included. The presence of septic shock at the presentation in the emergency department was heterogeneous, and the weighted mean rate of septic shock across the studies was shown to be 35.1% [95% CI 8.4 to 78.6%]. The majority of the patients had Hinchey III (68.3%) disease. The remainder had either Hinchey IV (28.9%) or Hinchey II (2.8%). Phase I is similarly described in most of the studies as lavage, limited resection with closed blind colonic ends. In a few studies, resection and anastomosis (9.1%) or suture of the perforation site (0.9%) were performed in phase I of DCS. In those patients who underwent DCS, the most common method of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) was the negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) (97.8%). The RPA was performed in 62.1% [95% CI 40.8 to 83.3%] and the 22.7% [95% CI 15.1 to 30.3%]: 12.8% during phase I and 87.2% during phase III. A covering ileostomy was performed in 6.9% [95% CI 1.5 to 12.2%]. In patients with RPA, the overall leak was 7.3% [95% CI 4.3 to 10.4%] and the major anastomotic leaks were 4.7% [95% CI 2.0 to 7.4%]; the rate of postoperative mortality was estimated to be 9.2% [95% CI 6.0 to 12.4%]. Conclusions The present meta-analysis revealed an approximately 62.1% weighted rate of achieving GI continuity with the DCS approach to generalized peritonitis in Hinchey III and IV with major leaks of 4.7% and overall mortality of 9.2%. Despite the promising results, we are aware of the limitations related to the significant heterogeneity of inclusion criteria. Importantly, the low rate of reported septic shock may point toward selection bias. Further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical advantages and cost-effectiveness of the DCS approach.


Author(s):  
R. Nascimbeni ◽  
A. Amato ◽  
R. Cirocchi ◽  
A. Serventi ◽  
A. Laghi ◽  
...  

Abstract Perforated diverticulitis is an emergent clinical condition and its management is challenging and still debated. The aim of this position paper was to critically review the available evidence on the management of perforated diverticulitis and generalized peritonitis in order to provide evidence-based suggestions for a management strategy. Four Italian scientific societies (SICCR, SICUT, SIRM, AIGO), selected experts who identified 5 clinically relevant topics in the management of perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis that would benefit from a multidisciplinary review. The following 5 issues were tackled: 1) Criteria to decide between conservative and surgical treatment in case of perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis; 2) Criteria or scoring system to choose the most appropriate surgical option when diffuse peritonitis is confirmed 3); The appropriate surgical procedure in hemodynamically stable or stabilized patients with diffuse peritonitis; 4) The appropriate surgical procedure for patients with generalized peritonitis and septic shock and 5) Optimal medical therapy in patients with generalized peritonitis from diverticular perforation before and after surgery. In perforated diverticulitis surgery is indicated in case of diffuse peritonitis or failure of conservative management and the decision to operate is not based on the presence of extraluminal air. If diffuse peritonitis is confirmed the choice of surgical technique is based on intraoperative findings and the presence or risk of severe septic shock. Further prognostic factors to consider are physiological derangement, age, comorbidities, and immune status. In hemodynamically stable patients, emergency laparoscopy has benefits over open surgery. Options include resection and anastomosis, Hartmann’s procedure or laparoscopic lavage. In generalized peritonitis with septic shock, an open surgical approach is preferred. Non-restorative resection and/or damage control surgery appear to be the only viable options, depending on the severity of hemodynamic instability. Multidisciplinary medical management should be applied with the main aims of controlling infection, relieving postoperative pain and preventing and/or treating postoperative ileus. In conclusion, the complexity and diversity of patients with diverticular perforation and diffuse peritonitis requires a personalized strategy, involving a thorough classification of physiological derangement, staging of intra-abdominal infection and choice of the most appropriate surgical procedure.


2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-64
Author(s):  
Urszula Zielińska-Borkowska ◽  
Aneta Słabuszewska-Joźwiak

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document