Rath Chandra, Samnakay Naeem, Deshpande Girish, Sutyak Krysta M, Basani Laxman, Simmer Karen, Fiander Michelle, Rao Shripada C
Department of Neonatology, Perth Children's Hospital and King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Subiaco, Australia.
School of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Jun 24;6(6):CD006182. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006182.pub3.
Laparotomy and peritoneal drainage are two options for managing preterm very low birth weight infants with surgical necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) or spontaneous intestinal perforation (SIP). Peritoneal drainage has the theoretical benefit of avoiding surgery, whereas laparotomy enables the surgeon to directly visualise the intestines and undertake appropriate interventions. There is debate as to which method is superior. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011.
To evaluate the benefits and harms of peritoneal drainage compared to laparotomy as the initial treatment for surgical NEC or SIP in preterm very low birth weight infants.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trial registries, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify the studies that are included in the review. The latest search date was December 2024.
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in preterm (< 37 weeks gestation) infants with very low birth weight (< 1500 g) with surgical NEC or SIP allocated to peritoneal drainage or laparotomy as initial surgical treatment. Intestinal perforations due to other causes were excluded.
The main outcomes of interest were mortality or neurodevelopmental impairment (NDI) at 18 to 24 months, NDI at 18 to 24 months among survivors, moderate to severe cerebral palsy at 18 to 24 months, mortality before discharge, mortality before 18 to 24 months corrected age, and subsequent laparotomy during initial hospital stay.
We used the original Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess bias in the included RCTs.
We synthesised results for each outcome using meta-analysis, where possible, by calculating risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes, respectively. Where this was not possible due to the nature of the data, we summarised the results narratively. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
We included three trials with a total of 496 preterm very low birth weight infants, of which 469 (94.6%) had a birth weight of less than 1000 g. Two trials were conducted in North America. One multi-centre trial was conducted in the UK, Europe, Asia, New Zealand, and Australia. The overall risk of bias in all three included trials was low, but the nature of the intervention meant that parents, caregivers, or clinical investigators were aware of the intervention groups.
Peritoneal drainage compared to laparotomy Peritoneal drainage likely results in little to no difference in mortality or NDI at 18 to 24 months (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.12; 1 trial, 295 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and NDI at 18 to 24 months among survivors (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.29; RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.14; 1 trial, 206 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Peritoneal drainage likely increases the risk of moderate to severe cerebral palsy (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.86; RD 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.23; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 8.3; 1 trial, 210 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Peritoneal drainage likely results in little to no difference in mortality before discharge (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.54; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.12; I = 0%; 2 trials, 378 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) and mortality before 18 to 24 months of age (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.50; RD 0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.12; 1 trial, 308 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Infants in the peritoneal drainage group are more likely to need subsequent laparotomy during the first hospital stay (RR 2.26, 95% CI 1.73 to 2.95; RD 0.28, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.36; I = 0%; 3 trials, 492 infants; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Peritoneal drainage, when compared to laparotomy, likely results in little to no difference in mortality or overall neurodevelopmental outcomes at 18 to 24 months of age, and mortality before initial hospital discharge in preterm very low birth weight infants with surgical NEC or SIP. However, peritoneal drainage likely results in an increase in the risk of moderate to severe cerebral palsy. In addition, infants in the peritoneal drainage group are more likely to need subsequent laparotomy during the first hospital stay. In the absence of any substantial ongoing RCTs, clinicians may have to use the existing evidence to make management decisions.
This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.
Protocol available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006182. 2011 published review available via doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006182.pub2.
剖腹手术和腹腔引流是治疗患有外科性坏死性小肠结肠炎(NEC)或自发性肠穿孔(SIP)的早产极低出生体重儿的两种选择。腹腔引流理论上有避免手术的益处,而剖腹手术能让外科医生直接观察肠道并进行适当干预。关于哪种方法更优存在争议。这是对2011年首次发表的Cochrane综述的更新。
评估与剖腹手术相比,腹腔引流作为早产极低出生体重儿外科性NEC或SIP初始治疗方法的益处和危害。
我们检索了Cochrane中心对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)、护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)以及两个试验注册库,同时进行参考文献核对、引文检索,并与研究作者联系以确定纳入综述的研究。最新检索日期为2024年12月。
我们纳入了所有将患有外科性NEC或SIP的早产(孕周<37周)极低出生体重儿(出生体重<1500g)随机分配至腹腔引流或剖腹手术作为初始手术治疗的随机对照试验(RCT)或半随机对照试验。排除其他原因导致的肠穿孔。
主要关注的结局指标为18至24个月时的死亡率或神经发育障碍(NDI)、幸存者中18至24个月时的NDI、18至24个月时的中度至重度脑瘫、出院前死亡率、18至24个月矫正年龄前死亡率以及首次住院期间后续剖腹手术情况。
我们使用原始的Cochrane偏倚风险工具(RoB 1)评估纳入的RCT中的偏倚。
我们尽可能通过荟萃分析对每个结局指标的结果进行综合,分别计算二分结局指标的风险比(RR)和连续结局指标的均值差(MD)及其95%置信区间(CI)。由于数据性质无法进行荟萃分析时,我们采用叙述性方式总结结果。我们使用GRADE评估每个结局指标证据的确定性。
我们纳入了三项试验,共496例早产极低出生体重儿,其中469例(94.6%)出生体重小于1000g。两项试验在北美进行。一项多中心试验在英国、欧洲、亚洲、新西兰和澳大利亚进行。所有三项纳入试验的总体偏倚风险较低,但干预措施的性质意味着父母、护理人员或临床研究人员知晓干预组情况。
腹腔引流与剖腹手术相比 腹腔引流在18至24个月时的死亡率或NDI方面可能几乎没有差异(RR 1.02,95%CI 0.88至1.19;风险差(RD)0.01,95%CI -0.09至0.12;1项试验,295例婴儿;中等确定性证据)以及幸存者中18至24个月时的NDI方面可能几乎没有差异(RR 1.01,95%CI 0.79至1.29;RD 0.01,95%CI -0.13至0.14;1项试验,206例婴儿;中等确定性证据)。腹腔引流可能增加中度至重度脑瘫的风险(RR 1.69,95%CI 1.00至2.86;RD 0.12,95%CI 0.00至0.23;额外有害结局的需治疗人数(NNTH)8.3;1项试验,210例婴儿;中等确定性证据)。腹腔引流在出院前死亡率方面可能几乎没有差异(RR 1.12,95%CI 0.82至1.54;RD 0.03,95%CI -0.06至0.12;I = 0%;2项试验,378例婴儿;中等确定性证据)以及18至24个月龄前死亡率方面可能几乎没有差异(RR 1.06,95%CI 0.74至1.50;RD 0.02,95%CI -0.09至0.12;1项试验,308例婴儿;中等确定性证据)。腹腔引流组的婴儿在首次住院期间更有可能需要后续剖腹手术(RR 2.26,95%CI 1.73至2.95;RD 0.28,95%CI 0.20至0.36;I = 0%;3项试验,492例婴儿;中等确定性证据)。
与剖腹手术相比,腹腔引流在18至24个月龄时的死亡率或总体神经发育结局以及患有外科性NEC或SIP的早产极低出生体重儿出院前死亡率方面可能几乎没有差异。然而,腹腔引流可能会增加中度至重度脑瘫的风险。此外,腹腔引流组的婴儿在首次住院期间更有可能需要后续剖腹手术。在没有任何正在进行的实质性RCT的情况下,临床医生可能不得不利用现有证据做出管理决策。
本Cochrane综述无专项资助。
方案可通过doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006182获取。2011年发表的综述可通过doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006182.pub2获取。