Are the Benefits of Rapid Source Control Laparotomy Realized after Acute Colonic Perforation?

Background

The indications for damage-control laparotomy (DCL) in patients with intra-abdominal injuries have evolved from its use in trauma patients with hypothermia, coagulopathy, and acidosis to use in general surgical patients with acute intestinal perforations. Whereas some patients may be acidotic, most are not hypothermic or afflicted with coagulopathies. Recent study suggests the benefits to patients of rapid source-control laparotomy (RSCL) are not realized in patients with acute abdominal emergencies.

Methods

Three years of data (2014-2016) from The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACSNSQIP) were assessed. The patient populations were separated into RSCL patients who had their fascia left open after the initial source control operation and those who had primary fascial closure (PFC). The principal outcome of interest in this study was death within thirty days. A secondary analysis was performed evaluating complications and length of stay.

Results

Of the 1,381 patients who qualified for the study, 396 (28.7%) were managed with RSCL and the remaining 985 patients had PFC. After a univariable analysis, propensity score matching was performed. The median hospital length of stay was 20 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 18-22) versus 14 (95% CI 13-16; p < 0.001) in RSCL and PFC, respectively. A larger number of patients having RSCL went to a rehabilitation facility than those having PFC (18.7%; versus 11.2%; p = 0.014). The 30-day mortality rate in patients in the RSCL group was significantly higher than in the PFC group ((32.6% versus 16.9%; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

These data provide strong evidence that RSCL may not be beneficial for routine use in perforated colon surgery.