Annals of surgery · 2008
Peritoneal drainage or laparotomy for neonatal bowel perforation? A randomized controlled trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rees Clare M, Eaton Simon, Kiely Edward M, Wade Angie M, McHugh Kieran, Pierro Agostino
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether primary peritoneal drainage improves survival and outcome of extremely low birth weight (ELBW) infants with intestinal perforation.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Optimal surgical management of ELBW infants with intestinal perforation is unknown.
METHODS: An international multicenter randomized controlled trial was performed between 2002 and 2006. Inclusion criteria were birthweight >or=1000 g and pneumoperitoneum on x-ray (necrotizing enterocolitis or isolated perforation). Patients were randomized to peritoneal drain or laparotomy, minimizing differences in weight, gestation, ventilation, inotropes, platelets, country, and on-site surgical facilities. Patients randomized to drain were allowed to have a delayed laparotomy after at least 12 hours of no clinical improvement.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were randomized (35 drain, 34 laparotomy); 1 subsequently withdrew consent. Six-month survival was 18/35 (51.4%) with a drain and 21/33 (63.6%) with laparotomy (P = 0.3; difference 12% 95% CI, -11, 34%). Cox regression analysis showed no significant difference between groups (hazard ratio for primary drain 1.6; P = 0.3; 95% CI, 0.7-3.4). Delayed laparotomy was performed in 26/35 (74%) patients after a median of 2.5 days (range, 0.4-21) and did not improve 6-month survival compared with primary laparotomy (relative risk of mortality 1.4; P = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.6-3.4). Drain was effective as a definitive treatment in only 4/35 (11%) surviving neonates, the rest either had a delayed laparotomy or died.
CONCLUSIONS: Seventy-four percent of neonates treated with primary peritoneal drainage required delayed laparotomy. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the 2 randomization groups. Primary peritoneal drainage is ineffective as either a temporising measure or definitive treatment. If a drain is inserted, a timely "rescue" laparotomy should be considered. Trial registration number ISRCTN18282954; http://isrctn.org/
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Optimal surgical management of ELBW infants with intestinal perforation is unknown.
METHODS: An international multicenter randomized controlled trial was performed between 2002 and 2006. Inclusion criteria were birthweight >or=1000 g and pneumoperitoneum on x-ray (necrotizing enterocolitis or isolated perforation). Patients were randomized to peritoneal drain or laparotomy, minimizing differences in weight, gestation, ventilation, inotropes, platelets, country, and on-site surgical facilities. Patients randomized to drain were allowed to have a delayed laparotomy after at least 12 hours of no clinical improvement.
RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were randomized (35 drain, 34 laparotomy); 1 subsequently withdrew consent. Six-month survival was 18/35 (51.4%) with a drain and 21/33 (63.6%) with laparotomy (P = 0.3; difference 12% 95% CI, -11, 34%). Cox regression analysis showed no significant difference between groups (hazard ratio for primary drain 1.6; P = 0.3; 95% CI, 0.7-3.4). Delayed laparotomy was performed in 26/35 (74%) patients after a median of 2.5 days (range, 0.4-21) and did not improve 6-month survival compared with primary laparotomy (relative risk of mortality 1.4; P = 0.4; 95% CI, 0.6-3.4). Drain was effective as a definitive treatment in only 4/35 (11%) surviving neonates, the rest either had a delayed laparotomy or died.
CONCLUSIONS: Seventy-four percent of neonates treated with primary peritoneal drainage required delayed laparotomy. There were no significant differences in outcomes between the 2 randomization groups. Primary peritoneal drainage is ineffective as either a temporising measure or definitive treatment. If a drain is inserted, a timely "rescue" laparotomy should be considered. Trial registration number ISRCTN18282954; http://isrctn.org/