Methodology for assessing the severity of diffuse peritonitis and prognosis of relaparotomy

INTRODUCTION. The problem of treating patients with peritonitis has always been and still remains relevant in surgery. Moreover, aspects of treating patients with tertiary peritonitis requiring repeated interventions are of particular importance. The OBJECTIVE of this work was to develop and evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a score-prognostic scale that allows to identify groups of patients with a high risk of persistent surgical infection in the abdominal cavity, in which a single intervention cannot be considered effective even despite the elimination of the primary surgical infection focus.

METHODS AND MATERIALS. To achieve the goal, a correlation was evaluated between a number of factors and the likelihood of relaparotomy in a retrospective group consisting of 111 patients with secondary peritonitis. Based on the achieved data, score-prognostic scale for assessing the severity of peritonitis was developed, which allowed to formulate an algorithm of surgical tactics, which was used in the treatment of 109 patients. A group of 34 people with a high risk of tertiary peritonitis development was allocated from the number of patients – of which 20 patients had a total number of 39 planned surgical interventions.

RESULTS. The use of the developed scale led to an increase in the total number of surgical interventions, however, reducing postoperative mortality by 1.7 times (p = 0.001) mainly due to improved survival rates in the group of patients with severe forms of peritonitis.

CONCLUSION. The obtained results allowed to recommend the developed integral prognostic scale for assessing the severity of peritonitis for use in clinical practice.

1. Steinberg D. On leaving the peritoneal cavity open in acute generalized suppurative peritonitis // American Journal of Surgery. 1979;137(2):216– 220. Doi: 10.1016/0002-9610(79)90148-x.

2. Coccolini F., Roberts D., Ansaloni L. et al. The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients: WSES guidelines // World J Emerg Surg. 2018;13(7). Doi: 10.1186/s13017-018-0167-4.

3. Schegolev A. A., Tovmasyan R. S., Chevokin A. Yu., Muradyan T. G., Plotnikov V. V. Tertiary peritonitis: state of the problem and possible prospects // Medical business. 2018;(4):32–35. Doi: 10.24411/2071-5315-2018-12063. (In Russ.).

4. Atema J. J., Ram K., Schultz M. J., Boermeester M. A. External Validation of a Decision Tool To Guide Post-Operative Management of Patients with Secondary Peritonitis // Surg. Infect. (Larchmt). 2017;2(18):189–195. Doi: 10.1089/sur.2016.017.

5. Sartelli M., Catena F., Ansaloni L. et al. Complicated intra-abdominal infections in a worldwide context: an observational prospective study (CIAOW Study) // World Journal of Emergency Surgery. 2013;(8):1. Doi: 10.1186/1749-7922-8-1.

6. Sartelli M., Chichom-Mefire A., Labricciosa F. M. et al. The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective: 2017 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections // World J Emerg Surg. 2017;(12):36. Doi: 10.1186/s13017-017-0141-6.

7. Muralidhar V. A., Madhu C. P., Sudhir S., Madhu S. Efficacy of Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI) Score in Patients with Secondary Peritonitis // Journal of clinical and diagnostic research. 2014;(12):1–3. Doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/8609.5229.

8. Singer M., Deutschman C. S., Seymour C.W. et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) // JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–810. Doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.028.

9. Saveliev V. S., Filimonov M. I., Podachin P. V., Burnevich S. Z., Yusufov S. G. Choice of therapeutic tactics for common peritonitis // Annals of Surgery. 1998;(6):32–36. (In Russ.). Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kriterii-vybora-effektivnoy-taktiki-hirurgicheskogo-lecheniyarasprostranennogo-peritonita (accessed: 18.02.2021).

10. Dindo D., Demartines N., Clavien P. A.. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey // Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–213. Doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.