-
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Sep 2021Acute appendicitis is one of the most frequent abdominal surgical emergencies. Intra-abdominal abscess is a frequent post-operative complication. The aim of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute appendicitis is one of the most frequent abdominal surgical emergencies. Intra-abdominal abscess is a frequent post-operative complication. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare peritoneal irrigation and suction versus suction only when performing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.
METHODS
According to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted and registered into the Prospero register (CRD42020186848). The risk of bias was defined to be from low to moderate.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies (9 RCTs and 8 CCTs) were selected, including 5315 patients. There was no statistical significance in post-operative intra-abdominal abscess in open (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.75-2.15; I = 74%) and laparoscopic group (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.73-3.13; I = 83%). No statistical significance in reoperation rate in open (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.04-2.49; I = 18%) and laparoscopic group (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.64-2.49; I = 18%). In both open and laparoscopic groups, operative time was lower in the suction group (RR 7.13, 95% CI 3.14-11.12); no statistical significance was found for hospital stay (MD - 0.39, 95% CI - 1.07 to 0.30; I = 91%) and the rate of wound infection (MD 1.16, 95% CI 0.56-2.38; I = 71%).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review has failed to demonstrate the statistical superiority of employing intra-operative peritoneal irrigation and suction over suction-only to reduce the rate of post-operative complications after appendectomy, but all the articles report clinical superiority in terms of post-operative abscess, wound infection and operative times in suction-only group.
Topics: Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Humans; Peritoneal Lavage; Postoperative Complications; Suction
PubMed: 34488825
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-021-00391-y -
JAMA Surgery Feb 2021Perforated colonic diverticulitis usually requires surgical resection, with significant morbidity. Short-term results from randomized clinical trials have indicated that... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Perforated colonic diverticulitis usually requires surgical resection, with significant morbidity. Short-term results from randomized clinical trials have indicated that laparoscopic lavage is a feasible alternative to resection. However, it appears that no long-term results are available.
OBJECTIVE
To compare long-term (5-year) outcomes of laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and primary resection as treatments of perforated purulent diverticulitis.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This international multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in 21 hospitals in Sweden and Norway, which enrolled patients between February 2010 and June 2014. Long-term follow-up was conducted between March 2018 and November 2019. Patients with symptoms of left-sided acute perforated diverticulitis, indicating urgent surgical need and computed tomography-verified free air, were eligible. Those available for trial intervention (Hinchey stages
INTERVENTIONS
Patients were assigned to undergo laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or colon resection based on computer-generated, center-stratified block randomization.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was severe complications within 5 years. Secondary outcomes included mortality, secondary operations, recurrences, stomas, functional outcomes, and quality of life.
RESULTS
Of 199 randomized patients, 101 were assigned to undergo laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and 98 were assigned to colon resection. At the time of surgery, perforated purulent diverticulitis was confirmed in 145 patients randomized to lavage (n = 74) and resection (n = 71). The median follow-up was 59 (interquartile range, 51-78; full range, 0-110) months, and 3 patients were lost to follow-up, leaving a final analysis of 73 patients who had had laparoscopic lavage (mean [SD] age, 66.4 [13] years; 39 men [53%]) and 69 who had received a resection (mean [SD] age, 63.5 [14] years; 36 men [52%]). Severe complications occurred in 36% (n = 26) in the laparoscopic lavage group and 35% (n = 24) in the resection group (P = .92). Overall mortality was 32% (n = 23) in the laparoscopic lavage group and 25% (n = 17) in the resection group (P = .36). The stoma prevalence was 8% (n = 4) in the laparoscopic lavage group vs 33% (n = 17; P = .002) in the resection group among patients who remained alive, and secondary operations, including stoma reversal, were performed in 36% (n = 26) vs 35% (n = 24; P = .92), respectively. Recurrence of diverticulitis was higher following laparoscopic lavage (21% [n = 15] vs 4% [n = 3]; P = .004). In the laparoscopic lavage group, 30% (n = 21) underwent a sigmoid resection. There were no significant differences in the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire or Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Long-term follow-up showed no differences in severe complications. Recurrence of diverticulitis after laparoscopic lavage was more common, often leading to sigmoid resection. This must be weighed against the lower stoma prevalence in this group. Shared decision-making considering both short-term and long-term consequences is encouraged.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01047462.
Topics: Aged; Colectomy; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Female; Humans; Intestinal Perforation; Laparoscopy; Male; Norway; Peritoneal Lavage; Sweden
PubMed: 33355658
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.5618 -
Surgery, Gynecology & Obstetrics Feb 1988The successful management of the contaminated or septic abdomen rests on at least three tenets: The use of systemic perioperative antibiotics, the control of the source... (Review)
Review
The successful management of the contaminated or septic abdomen rests on at least three tenets: The use of systemic perioperative antibiotics, the control of the source of infection and the aspiration of the gross contaminants. The additional use of any modality of IOPL is well entrenched in modern surgical practice. It does, however, owe more to force of habit or prejudice than to sound scientific evidence. Most, if not all, experimental or clinical studies suggesting the benefits of IOPL suffer from many deficiencies, some of which we made a point of emphasizing. In broad terms, one could recognize three major pitfalls invalidating these studies. First, the design of some of the experimental studies bears no resemblance to clinical situations. For example, laparotomy was omitted in either both arms of the trial or in the control arm. Second, far too frequently, the data were drawn from retrospective or uncontrolled trials. Although the value of such studies cannot be denied, the literature is replete with examples of perpetuation of erroneuos concepts through lack of properly designed prospective, randomized controlled studies. Third, many of the trials were performed before the revolutionary introduction of perioperative antibiotics in clinical practice. Of greater concern is the existence of studies which, for unexplained reasons, have ignored this principle. From this review, it seems that neither the benefit nor the safety of IOPL with crystalloid or antiseptic solution has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. The theory for the addition of judicious antibiotics to the IOPL may be stronger, although no absolute proof exists to suggest that this practice will decrease mortality rates from intra-abdominal infections. Obviously, there is a need for well constructed, controlled, prospective clinical trials to examine the role of IOPL in modern surgical groups of patients assembled under the label intra-abdominal infection. Until some stratification of peritonitis in various clinical studies is undertaken, either by how ill the patient is or the source of contamination and its duration, it will be difficult to compare studies from different centers.
Topics: Humans; Peritoneal Lavage
PubMed: 3276017
DOI: No ID Found -
Diagnostic Cytopathology Jun 2021We aimed to assess the sensibility, specificity, and predictive values of cytology of the fluid sediment in patients with pelvic endometriosis diagnosed based on...
BACKGROUND
We aimed to assess the sensibility, specificity, and predictive values of cytology of the fluid sediment in patients with pelvic endometriosis diagnosed based on laparoscopic-guided biopsy.
METHODS
Between January 2017 and September 2018, 71 specimens of peritoneal fluid collected by laparoscopy were evaluated. Fifty-three patients were diagnosed laparoscopically and histologically with endometriosis, and 18 were considered controls (without suspicious endometriosis lesions). We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, the positive and negative predictive value, and the accuracy of endometrial-like cells (ELC) and hemosiderin-laden macrophages (HLM) in the fluid sediment.
RESULTS
Of the 50 patients with endometriosis, 32 (64%) had HLM, 9 (18%) had ELC, and 7 (14%) had both elements. Of the 18 patients without endometriosis, 3 (16%) had HLM, 2 (11%) had ELC, and 1 (5%) had both ELC and HLM. The sensitivity of the cytology of peritoneal fluid sediment for the diagnosis of endometriosis, based on the presence of ELC, was 18%, the specificity was 83%, the positive predictive value was 82%, the negative predictive value was 28.7%, and the accuracy was 36.8%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy based on the presence of HLM were 64%, 83%, 91%, 45.5%, and 69.1%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The study of peritoneal fluids obtained laparoscopically from women undergoing evaluation for endometriosis may identify patients with the disease.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Ascitic Fluid; Cytodiagnosis; Endometriosis; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Peritoneal Lavage; Sensitivity and Specificity; Young Adult
PubMed: 33555651
DOI: 10.1002/dc.24721 -
Surgery Today Sep 2015The significance of peritoneal lavage cytology as a prognostic marker has been examined in various types of cancer. However, the meaning of positive peritoneal lavage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The significance of peritoneal lavage cytology as a prognostic marker has been examined in various types of cancer. However, the meaning of positive peritoneal lavage cytology in colorectal cancer is still controversial. The aim of this review is to evaluate the prognostic significance of positive peritoneal lavage cytology in colorectal cancer.
METHODS
An English literature search was performed on all studies published between 1998 and 2014 that compared the detection of peritoneal free cancer cells with survival or recurrence.
RESULTS
Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria. All studies employed one (or more) of the three techniques used to detect free cancer cells in the peritoneal cavity: (1) conventional cytology, (2) immunocytochemistry or (3) polymerase chain reaction. The incidence of positive peritoneal lavage cytology ranged from 2.2 to 47.2% across the studies. The factors correlated with positive peritoneal lavage cytology were tumor penetration and metastases (lymph node, liver and peritoneum). In nine studies, positive lavage findings were associated with a worse survival, and it was associated with increased recurrence in 13 studies.
CONCLUSION
Positive peritoneal lavage cytology seems to be an indicator of a poor prognosis in colorectal cancer patients. Further studies are needed to clarify the prognostic impact of peritoneal lavage cytology, by comparing the different methods used for the collection of the peritoneal lavage.
Topics: Colorectal Neoplasms; Cytodiagnosis; Humans; Incidence; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Peritoneal Lavage; Prognosis; Specimen Handling; Survival Rate
PubMed: 25373362
DOI: 10.1007/s00595-014-1066-2 -
Advances in Surgery 2013
Review
Topics: Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Decision Making; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Laparoscopy; Peritoneal Lavage; Suction
PubMed: 24298847
DOI: 10.1016/j.yasu.2013.04.002 -
European Review For Medical and... Jul 2023Laparoscopic surgery offers many advantages compared to invasive surgery but one of the main problems is postoperative pain, partially resulting from the peritoneal... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
OBJECTIVE
Laparoscopic surgery offers many advantages compared to invasive surgery but one of the main problems is postoperative pain, partially resulting from the peritoneal inflammatory process mediated by inflammatory cytokines. The rationale of this study is that intraperitoneal washing could remove inflammatory mediators that are the cause of postoperative pain and could help in the removal of CO2 from the abdominal cavity. This article aims to analyze the effects of peritoneal lavage in the reduction of postoperative shoulder pain.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
277 patients enrolled to undergo laparoscopic gynecologic surgery were included in the study. Women are randomized into two groups, according to the use or non-use of peritoneal lavage with saline solution at the end of laparoscopic gynecological major procedures.
RESULTS
Data show that the peritoneal lavage can significantly reduce postoperative pain in the first 36 hours after surgery, as well as patients' requests for analgesics: during the first 3 postoperative days, requests for paracetamol were lower in the YW (Yes Washing) group than the NW (No Washing) group (77 vs. 101; p<0.05); similar results are obtained considering ketorolac administration (62 vs. 71; p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Peritoneal lavage after gynecological laparoscopic procedures may be effective in the reduction of postoperative pain and use of analgesics.
Topics: Humans; Female; Peritoneal Lavage; Laparoscopy; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37522691
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202307_33151 -
Clinical & Translational Oncology :... Sep 2021To demonstrate whether extensive intraoperative peritoneal lavage (EIPL) could yield better results in overall survival and less recurrence, regardless of peritoneal... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND
To demonstrate whether extensive intraoperative peritoneal lavage (EIPL) could yield better results in overall survival and less recurrence, regardless of peritoneal cytology, compared to standard peritoneal lavage (SPL).
METHODS
A prospective randomised multicenter study including 94 patients (47 per arm) to detect a 20% difference in 3-year overall survival in patients with locally advanced tumours without peritoneal carcinomatosis. Three samples of peritoneal fluid were obtained (at the beginning, the end of procedure and after the assigned peritoneal lavage). Clinicopathological and surgical data were analysed by group. Postoperative complications, location of recurrence and surgical approach were evaluated. Overall survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and the uni/multivariate analysis for prognostic factors was carried out using Cox regression analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 86 patients were analysed (4 excluded per group). No statistical differences were observed in clinicopathological or surgical data between groups, considering both groups well-balanced for analysis. Overall survival at 3 years was 64.3% for SPL vs. 62.3% for EIPL (p 0.421). Only three patients had at least one positive peritoneal cytology (1:2). There were no differences regarding postoperative complications (SPL: 37.2% vs. EIPL: 32.5%, p 0.65) or between location of recurrence and number of recurrences. The number of recurrences did not differ between surgical approaches, but locoregional and peritoneal recurrences were fewer with the laparoscopic approach (p 0.048).
CONCLUSIONS
The regular use of extensive peritoneal lavage in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer, regardless of peritoneal cytology, has not been effective as prophylaxis of peritoneal recurrence or better survival.
Topics: Aged; Analysis of Variance; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Female; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Male; Neoplasm Invasiveness; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Peritoneal Lavage; Peritoneal Neoplasms; Prospective Studies; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 33792839
DOI: 10.1007/s12094-021-02596-8 -
The British Journal of Surgery Feb 2010: Morbidity and mortality associated with bacterial peritonitis remain a challenge for contemporary surgery. Despite great surgical improvements, death rates have not... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
: Morbidity and mortality associated with bacterial peritonitis remain a challenge for contemporary surgery. Despite great surgical improvements, death rates have not improved. A secondary debate concerns the volume and nature of peritoneal lavage or washout-what volume, what carrier and what, if any, antibiotic or antiseptic?
METHODS
: A literature search of experimental studies assessing the effect of peritoneal lavage following peritonitis was conducted using Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Twenty-three trials met predetermined inclusion criteria. Data were pooled and relative risks calculated.
RESULTS
: In an experimental peritonitis setting a mortality rate of 48.9 per cent (238 of 487) was found for saline lavage compared with 16.4 per cent (106 of 647) for antibiotic lavage (absolute risk reduction (ARR) 32.5 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 27.1 to 37.7) per cent; (P < 0.001). An ARR of 25.0 (95 per cent c.i. 17.9 to 31.7) per cent P < 0.001) was found for the use of saline compared with no lavage at all. The survival benefit persisted regardless of systemic antibiotic therapy. Antiseptic lavage was associated with a very high mortality rate (75.0 per cent).
CONCLUSION
: Pooled data from studies in experimental peritonitis demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality with antibiotic lavage.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bacterial Infections; Peritoneal Lavage; Peritonitis; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 20069604
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.6906 -
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma,... Mar 2009Diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) is a highly accurate test for evaluating intraperitoneal hemorrhage or a ruptured hollow viscus, but is performed less frequently... (Review)
Review
Diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) is a highly accurate test for evaluating intraperitoneal hemorrhage or a ruptured hollow viscus, but is performed less frequently today due to the increased use of focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) and helical computed tomography (CT). All three of these exams have advantages and disadvantages and thus each still play unique roles in the evaluation of abdominal trauma. Since DPL is performed less frequently today, a review of its indications, technique, and interpretation is pertinent.
Topics: Abdominal Injuries; Humans; Peritoneal Lavage
PubMed: 19267941
DOI: 10.1186/1757-7241-17-13