Necrotizing enterocolitis, a rare but severe condition with insidious postoperative complications.

UNLABELLED

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is one of the most frequent causes of gastrointestinal perforation in premature neonates, only few case series and reports being described in adult patients. Early in the course of the disease, superficial mucosal ulceration, sub mucosal edema and hemorrhage occur. Further progression leads to transmural necrosis leading sometimes to bowel perforation. Six cases encountered in our clinic in recent years led us to resume discussions on necrotizing enteritis, not because it is a rare disease, but due to the severe postoperative complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Our lot consisted of four stage 1 patients and two with Bell stage III NEC and severe intestinal injury, necrosis, and perforation. All of the patients were diagnosed preoperatory with other surgical conditions, like appendicitis with peritonitis, perforated duodenal ulcer or acute cholecystitis.

RESULTS

We present to review two cases. For patients undergoing laparotomy, resection of the involved intestine mandates either enterostomy formation or primary anastomosis. An intermediate option is laparotomy with intestinal resection and delayed anastomosis 48 to 72 hours later. Because of the small number of patients in our lot, we cannot advise a certain surgical treatment, but a strategy involving bienterostomyper primam should be further analyzed. The choice of operative intervention reflects multiple variables, including age, physiologic status, institutional resources and surgeon preference based on experience. Primary peritoneal drainage for perforated NEC may help to resuscitate and treat a critically ill patient initially, and in some instances, may be definitive operative intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Relatively rare disease, of unknown etiology and elusive pathogenesis, NEC has initial non-specific symptoms and clinical features that mimic more common surgical diseases. There is considerable controversy regarding which procedure is preferable. Currently, in the absence of rigorous evidence supporting the superiority of one approach over the other, surgical intervention depends mostly on the treating institution or the individual surgeon.