Rapid Source-Control Laparotomy: Is There a Mortality Benefit in Septic Shock?

Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2018 Feb/Mar;19(2):225-229. doi: 10.1089/sur.2017.191. Epub 2017 Dec 1.

Abstract

Background: In the 1990s, damage control laparotomy (DCL) became a proved approach to treat intra-abdominal injuries caused by trauma. In the ensuing two decades, this approach has been applied to non-traumatic abdominal processes as well. Although the benefits of DCL are clear, the benefit of rapid source-control laparotomy (RSCL) for non-traumatic abdominal diseases is much less clear. However, two recent cohort analyses identified significant increases in the mortality rate with RCSL compared with primary fascial closure (PFC). The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of RSCL in patients with septic shock.

Methods: The 2015 National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database was queried for 11 International Statistical Classifications of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes associated with septic shock. Collected data included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), wound class, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, operative time, number of risk factors, and presence or absence of post-operative pneumonia. The risk factors were diabetes mellitus, alcohol or tobacco abuse, blood dyscrasias, disseminated cancer, and cardiac, gastrointestinal, pulmonary, hepatobiliary, or renal dysfunction. The primary outcomes were rate of re-operation, prevalence of post-operative pneumonia, hospital length of stay (LOS), and death by 30 days.

Results: The RSCL and PFC cohorts were each comprised of 56 patients matched for propensity scores for ICD-10 code. There were no significant differences in wound or ASA class, BMI, gender, or number of risk factors between the two cohorts. The operative time for RSCL was significantly shorter than for PFC (median 84 vs. 128 min, respectively; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in re-operation rate, prevalence of post-operative pneumonia, LOS, or mortality rate between the two cohorts.

Conclusions: Although this analysis showed no clear advantage to RSCL in the management of septic shock, it may be a means to salvage certain patients. The best way to assess the relative value of RSCL is a prospective trial.

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Laparotomy / methods*
  • Length of Stay
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Prospective Studies
  • Shock, Septic / diagnosis*
  • Shock, Septic / mortality
  • Shock, Septic / therapy*
  • Survival Analysis
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome