Damage Control Surgery in Patients with Non-traumatic Abdominal Emergencies

2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Haltmeier ◽  
Monika Falke ◽  
Oliver Quaile ◽  
Daniel Candinas ◽  
Beat Schnüriger
2013 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. e109-e118 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. G. Weber ◽  
C. Bendinelli ◽  
Z. J. Balogh

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
T Haltmeier ◽  
M Falke ◽  
O Quaile ◽  
D Candinas ◽  
B Schnüriger

Abstract Objective After the successful implementation in trauma patients, damage control surgery (DCS) is being increasingly used in non-traumatic abdominal emergencies, too. However, non-trauma DCS (NT-DCS) is currently a matter of debate and has not yet been comprehensively assessed. The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of NT-DCS on mortality in patients with abdominal emergencies. Methods Systematic literature search using PubMed. Original articles addressing mortality in patients undergoing NT-DCS or non-trauma conventional surgery (NT-CS) for abdominal emergencies were included. Descriptive statistics and two meta-analyses were performed. Meta-analysis 1 compared mortality in patients undergoing NT-DCS vs. NT-CS. Meta-analysis 2 assessed the observed vs. expected mortality rate, based on APACHE, POSSUM and SAPS scores, in the NT-DCS group. Continuous and categorical variables were reported as weighted means and proportions. Effect sizes were described as risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Literature search revealed 1314 articles. Of these, 21 studies published 2004-2019 were included. NT-DCS was performed in 1238 and NT-CS in 936 patients. In the NT-DCS vs. NT-CS group mean age was 61.0 vs. 64.9 years and the proportion of male patients 58.6% vs. 52.9%, respectively. Most frequent indications for NT-DCS were hollow viscus perforation (28.4%), mesenteric ischemia (26.5%), anastomotic leak (19.6%), haemorrhage (18.4%), abdominal compartment syndrome (17.4%), bowel obstruction (15.5%), and pancreatitis (13.1%). In meta-analysis 1, mortality was not significantly different in the NT-DCS vs. NT-CS group (RD 0.09, 95% CI -0.06/0.24). Meta-analysis 2 revealed a significantly lower observed than the expected mortality rate in patients undergoing NT-DCS (RD -0.18, 95 % CI -0.29/-0.06). Heterogeneity of included studies was high in both meta-analyses (I2=89.0% and 79.9%, respectively). Conclusion This meta-analysis revealed no significantly different mortality in patients with abdominal emergencies undergoing NT-DCS vs. NT-CS. However, observed mortality was significantly lower than the expected mortality rate in the NT-DCS group, suggesting a benefit of the DCS approach. Based on these results, the effect of DCS in patients with non-traumatic abdominal emergencies remains unclear. Further prospective investigation into this topic is warranted.


2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 965-973 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edouard Girard ◽  
Julio Abba ◽  
Bastien Boussat ◽  
Bertrand Trilling ◽  
Adrian Mancini ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. e240202
Author(s):  
Benjamin McDonald

An 80-year-old woman presented to a regional emergency department with postprandial pain, weight loss and diarrhoea for 2 months and a Computed Tomography (CT) report suggestive of descending colon malignancy. Subsequent investigations revealed the patient to have chronic mesenteric ischaemia (CMI) with associated bowel changes. She developed an acute-on-chronic ischaemia that required emergency transfer, damage control surgery and revascularisation. While the patient survived, this case highlights the importance of considering CMI in elderly patients with vague abdominal symptoms and early intervention to avoid potentially catastrophic outcomes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. 147-154
Author(s):  
C. Güsgen ◽  
A. Willms ◽  
R. Schwab

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek J. Roberts ◽  
◽  
Niklas Bobrovitz ◽  
David A. Zygun ◽  
Andrew W. Kirkpatrick ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Although damage control (DC) surgery is widely assumed to reduce mortality in critically injured patients, survivors often suffer substantial morbidity, suggesting that it should only be used when indicated. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine which indications for DC have evidence that they are reliable and/or valid (and therefore in which clinical situations evidence supports use of DC or that DC improves outcomes). Methods We searched 11 databases (1950–April 1, 2019) for studies that enrolled exclusively civilian trauma patients and reported data on the reliability (consistency of surgical decisions in a given clinical scenario) or content (surgeons would perform DC in that clinical scenario or the indication predicted use of DC in practice), construct (were associated with poor outcomes), or criterion (were associated with improved outcomes when DC was conducted instead of definitive surgery) validity for suggested indications for DC surgery or DC interventions. Results Among 34,979 citations identified, we included 36 cohort studies and three cross-sectional surveys in the systematic review. Of the 59 unique indications for DC identified, 10 had evidence of content validity [e.g., a major abdominal vascular injury or a packed red blood cell (PRBC) volume exceeding the critical administration threshold], nine had evidence of construct validity (e.g., unstable patients with combined abdominal vascular and pancreas gunshot injuries or an iliac vessel injury and intraoperative acidosis), and six had evidence of criterion validity (e.g., penetrating trauma patients requiring > 10 U PRBCs with an abdominal vascular and multiple abdominal visceral injuries or intraoperative hypothermia, acidosis, or coagulopathy). No studies evaluated the reliability of indications. Conclusions Few indications for DC surgery or DC interventions have evidence supporting that they are reliable and/or valid. DC should be used with respect for the uncertainty regarding its effectiveness, and only in circumstances where definitive surgery cannot be entertained.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document