Comparative Study
Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Outcomes of open abdomen versus primary closure following emergent laparotomy for suspected secondary peritonitis: A propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management following index laparotomy is poorly defined in secondary peritonitis patients. Although "open abdomen" (OA), or temporary abdominal closure with planned relaparotomy, is used to reassess bowel viability or severity of contamination, recent studies demonstrate comparable morbidity and mortality with primary abdominal closure (PC). This study evaluates differences between OA and PC following emergent laparotomy.

METHODS: Using the Premier database at a quaternary care center (2012-2016), nontrauma patients with secondary peritonitis requiring emergent laparotomy were identified (N = 534). Propensity matching for PC (n = 331; 62%) or OA (n = 203; 38%) was performed using variables: Mannheim Peritonitis Index, lactate, and vasopressor requirement. One hundred eleven closely matched pairs (PC:OA) were compared.

RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-four patients (55.0% female; mean age, 59.6 ± 15.5 years) underwent emergent laparotomy. Of the OA patients, 136 (67.0%) had one relaparotomy, while 67 (33.0%) underwent multiple reoperations. Compared to daytime cases, laparotomies performed overnight (6 pm-6 am) had more temporary closures with OA (42.8% OA vs. 57.2% PC, p = 0.04). When assessing by surgeon type, PC was performed in 78.7% of laparotomies by surgical subspecialties compared to 56.7% (p < 0.0001) of acute care surgeons. After propensity matching, OA patients had increased postoperative complications (71.2% vs. 41.4%, p < 0.0001), mortality (22.5% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.006), and longer median length of stay (13 vs. 9 days, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION: Open abdomen was performed in 38.0% of patients, with one-third of those requiring multiple reoperations. Complications, mortality rates, and costs associated with OA were significantly increased when compared to PC. Given these findings, future studies are needed to determine appropriate indications for OA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app