Sheraz Ahmed Rather, Ajaz A Malik, Department of Surgery, Sheri Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences Soura, Srinagar, Kashmir 190006, India.
World J Gastrointest Surg. 2013 Nov 27;5(11):300-5. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v5.i11.300.
To compare the profile of postoperative outcome in secondary peritonitis with sepsis due to complicated appendicitis in two cohorts (drainage vs no-drainage) after appendicectomy in adults in the modern era of effective antibiotics.
A retrospective review of all adult patients who were operated for secondary peritonitis with sepsis due to complicated appendicitis was carried out. Total of 209 patients were identified from May 2005 to April 2009 with operative findings of gangrenous or perforated appendix. The patients were divided into two cohorts, those where prophylactic drainage was established (n = 88) and those where no drain was used (n = 121). Abdominal drain was removed once the drainage ceased or decreased (< 10-20 mL/d in closed system of drainage or when once daily dressing was minimally soaked in open system). Broad spectrum antibiotics to cover the gut flora were started in both cohorts at diagnosis and were stopped once septic features resolved. Peritoneal fluid for aerobic culture and sensitivity were routinely obtained intra operatively; however antibiotic regimens were not changed unless patient failed to respond to the antibiotics based on the institutional protocol. The co-morbidities and their influence on primary end points were noted. Immunocompromised patients, appendicitis complicated by inflammatory bowel disorder and tumors were excluded from the study.
Disease stratification and other demographic features were comparable in both cohorts. There was zero mortality in drainage group while as one patient (0.82%) died in the non-drainage group. The median duration (in days) of hospital stay (6.5 vs 4); antibiotic use (5 vs 3.5); regular parental analgesic use (5 vs 3.5) and paralytic ileus (2.5 vs 2) was more common in the drainage group. Incidence of major wound infection in patients 14 (15.9%) vs 22 (18.18%) and residual intra-abdominal sepsis (inter loop collection/abscess) -7 (8%) vs 13 (10.74%) requiring secondary intervention was not significantly different in drainage and non-drainage cohorts respectively. One patient in the drainage cohort had faecal fistula (1.1%).
The complicated appendicitis in the modern era of antibiotics does not necessitate the use of prophylactic drain placement which at times may even prove counterproductive.
比较在现代抗生素时代,阑尾切除术治疗合并穿孔或坏疽性阑尾炎所致继发性腹膜炎合并脓毒症的两组患者(引流与非引流)的术后结果特征。
对 2005 年 5 月至 2009 年 4 月期间所有因合并穿孔或坏疽性阑尾炎所致继发性腹膜炎合并脓毒症而行手术治疗的成年患者进行回顾性分析。共发现 209 例患者,术中发现阑尾呈坏疽或穿孔。将患者分为两组,一组预防性放置引流管(88 例),另一组未使用引流管(121 例)。一旦引流停止或减少(闭式引流系统中<10-20ml/d,或开放系统中每天换药用敷料仅轻度浸湿),即拔除腹腔引流管。两组患者均在确诊时开始使用广谱抗生素覆盖肠道菌群,并在感染性症状消退后停药。术中常规获得腹腔液进行需氧培养和药敏试验;但除非根据机构方案患者对抗生素治疗无反应,否则不更改抗生素方案。记录并存疾病及其对主要终点的影响。免疫功能低下患者、合并炎症性肠病和肿瘤的阑尾炎患者被排除在本研究之外。
两组患者的疾病分层和其他人口统计学特征相似。引流组无死亡病例,而非引流组有 1 例患者(0.82%)死亡。引流组的中位住院时间(天)(6.5 比 4)、抗生素使用时间(5 比 3.5)、常规使用肠外止痛药(5 比 3.5)和麻痹性肠梗阻(2.5 比 2)更常见。引流组和非引流组患者的主要伤口感染发生率分别为 14 例(15.9%)和 22 例(18.18%),残留腹腔内感染(环间积液/脓肿)-7 例(8%)和 13 例(10.74%)需要二次干预,差异均无统计学意义。引流组有 1 例患者发生粪便瘘(1.1%)。
在现代抗生素时代,合并穿孔或坏疽性阑尾炎不一定需要预防性放置引流管,有时甚至可能适得其反。