2028. 05.27.1651 hitpslemedicine medscape.convatce/1952825-prin ‘emedicine.medscape.com Medscape Surgical Approach to Peritonitis and Abdominal Sepsis Updated: Sep 13, 2021 ‘Author: Ruben Peralta, MD, FACS, FCM, FCCP; Chief Editor: John Geibel, MD, MSc, DSc, AGAF Practice Essentials Peritonits is an inflammation of the peritoneum. It can result from any rupture (perforation) in the abdomen or occur as a ‘complication of other medical conditions. Peritoritis may be primary (ie, occurring spontaneously and not as the result of some ‘other medical problem) or secondary (Ie, resulting fram some other condition). Itis mast often due to infection by bacteria, but may also be due to some kind of a chemical irritant. Sepsis isa life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysrogulated host response to infection [1] Given the scarcity of systemic therapies, [2] surgery remains a cornerstone of peritonitis treatment. Any operation should address the first two principles of the treatment of intraperitoneal infections: + Early and definitive source control ‘+ Elimination of bacteria and toxins from the abdominal cavity The timing and adequacy of surgical source control are paramount concems, in that an improper, untimely, or incorrect, ‘operation may have an overwhelmingly negative effect on outcome, compared with medical therapy. ‘The operative approach is directed by the underlying disease process and the type and severity ofthe intra-abdominal infection, {3, 4, 5] In many cases, the indication for operative intervention will be clear, as in cases of peritonitis caused by ischemic colitis, a ruplured appendix, or colonic diverticula. The surgeon should always strive to arrive at a specific diagnosis and delineate the intra-abdominal anatomy as accurately as possible before the operation. In severe abdominal sepsis, however, delays in operative management may lead to a significantly higher need for reoperation and to worse outcomes overall]; early exploration (ie, before completion of diagnostic studies) may be indicated. Surgical intervention may include resection of a perforated viscus with reanastomosis or the creation ofa fistula, To reduce the bacterial load, lavage of the abdominal cavity is performed, with particular attention to areas prone to abscess formation (eg, paracolic ‘gutters and the subphrenic area) [7] Laparoscopy is gaining wider acceptance in the diagnosis and treatment of abdominal infections. As with all indications for laparoscopic surgery, outcomes vary, depending on the skill and experience of the laparoscopic surgeon. Initial laparoscopic examination of the abdomen can assist in determination of the etiology of peritonitis (eg, right-lower-quadrant [RLQ] pathology in female patients), For complete information on this topic, see Peritonitis and Abdominal Sepsis. Preoperative Preparation Volume resuscitation and the prevention of secondary organ system dysfunction are of the utmost importance in the treatment Of patients with intra-abdominal infections. Depending on the severity of the disease, placement of Foley catheters may be indicated to monitor urine output. Invasive hemodynamic monitoring is warranted in severely ill patients to guide volume resuscitation and inotropic support. Any existing serum electrolyte disturbances and coagulation abnormalities should be corrected to the extent possible before any intervention. Empiric broad-spectrum systemic antibiotic therapy should be initiated as soon as the diagnosis of intra-abdominal infection is suspected, and therapy should subsequently be tailored according to the underlying disease process and the culture results. hitpsilemecicine medscape.comlartcle/1952829-print 192028. 05.27.1651 hitpslemedicine medscape.convatce/1952825-prin Because patients with peritonitis often have severe abdominal pain, adequate analgesia with parenteral narcotic agents should be provided as soon as possible. In the setting of significant nausea, vorniting, or abdominal distention caused by obstruction or ileus, nasogastric decompression should be instituted as soon as possible. In patients with evidence of septic shock or altered mental status, intubation and ventilator support should be considered at an carly stage to prevent further decompensation. Even if patients do not appear critically il initially, arranging for postoperative intensive care support before surgery is often wise, particularly in patients of advanced age and those with significant comorbidities. In patients with severe infections and certain disease processes (eg, necrotizing pancreatitis and bowel ischemia), informed ‘consent should include the potential need for several reoperations and enteric diversion. The involved physicians and surgeon should not downplay the significant morbidities associated with abdominal sepsis when discussing these issues with the patient (or the family. Considerations for Surgical Management General principles of operative intervention A discussion of the specific details of the operative treatment of all the potential etiologies of intraperitoneal infections is beyond the scope of this article. Certain principles always apply to the performance of celiotomies in patients with peritonitis. Operative treatment of peritonitis has three main goals: + To eliminate the source of contamination + To reduce the bacterial inoculum + To prevent recurrent or persistent sepsis. ‘A vertical midline incision is the incision of choice in most patients with generalized peritonitis because it allows access to the entire peritoneal cavity. In patients with localized peritonitis (eg, from acute appendicitis or cholecystitis), an incision directly over the site of the pathologic condition (eg, RLQ or right subcostal incision) is usually adequate, In cases where the etiology of the peritonitis is unclear, initial diagnostic laparoscopy may be useful ‘The intra-abdominal anatomy may be significantly distorted by the presence of inflammatory masses and adhesions. Normal tissue planes and boundaries may be obliterated. The inflamed organs are often very friable, and the surgeon must exercise ‘great caution when exploring the patient with peritoneal infection, Hemodynamic instability may occur at any time during treatment as a consequence of bacteremia and cytokine release. Patients often demonstrate significant fluid shifts with third-spacing. Swelling of the bowel, retroperitoneum, and abdominal wall may preclude safe abdominal closure after prolonged cases in patients who are severely il Inflammation causes regional hyperemia, and sepsis may cause coagulation deficits and platelet dysfunction, leading to increased bleeding. Careful dissection and meticulous hemostasis are of the utmost importance. When faced with extensive abdominal inflammatory disease and septic shock, the surgeon may be better advised to drain the infection temporarily, control the visceral leak quickly (eg, with oversewing or enteric diversion), and defer any definitive repair until after the patient has recovered from the initial insult (ie, a damage-control operation). Open abdomen vs closed abdomen ‘One of the critical decisions in the surgical treatment of patients with severe peritonitis concerns whether to use an open= abdomen or a closed-abdomen technique. ‘The goal of the open-abdomen technique is to provide easy, direct access to the affected area. Source control is achieved through repeated reoperations or through open packing of the abdomen. This technique may be well suited for initial damage control in extensive peritonitis [8] (See Temporary Abdominal Closure Techniques.) It may be considered for elderly patients as well as for younger ones.(9] ‘The open-abdomen technique should also be considered in patients who are at high risk for the development of abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS)—such as patients with intestinal distention or extensive edema of the abdominal wall or intrax abdominal organs—because attempts to perform primary fascial closure under significant tension in these circumstances are associated with an increased incidence of multiple organ (eg, renal and respiratory) failure, necrotizing abdominal-wall infections, and mortality. hitpstlemecicine medscape.comlartcle/1952829-print 292028. 05.27.1651 hitpslemedicine medscape.convatce/1952825-prin ‘The goal of the closed-abdomen technique is to provide definitive surgical treatment at the intial operation, Primary fascial closure is employed, and repeat laparotomy is performed only when clinically indicated. Pancreatitis-associated peritonitis ‘Among the causes of peritoitis, pancreas is unique in several ways. Patients may present wth significant abdominal symptoms and a severe, systemic inflammatory response, yet they may have no clear organ-specific indications for emergency exploration, Not all cases of severe (e, necrotizing) pancreatitis and peripancreatic Mud collection are associated with a superinfection. Patients with pancreatitis-associated peritonitis may be best served by a period of 12-24 hours of observation and intensive medical support. Deterioration of the patient's clinical status or the development of organ-specific indications (eg, intra- abdominal bleeding or gas-forming infection of the pancreas) should lead to prompt operation Percutaneous treatment is reserved for the management of defined peripancreatic luid collections in stable patients. Pancreatic abscess or infected pancreatic necrosis generally should be treated with surgical debridement and repeated ‘exploration. Dehiscence It an anastomotic dehiscence is suspected, percutaneous drainage is of imited value, and the patient should be treated surgically. The image below demonstrates the results of anastomotic dehiscence following colon cancer surgery. ‘A48-year-old man underwent suprapubic laparotomy, right hemicolectomy, and gastroduodenal resection for right colon ‘cancer invading the first portion of the duodenum. He developed abdominal pain and distension. Computed tomography (CT) ‘scanning was used to confirm an anastomotic dehiscence. Figure A shows a contrast-enhanced scan of the abdomen and pelvis that reveals mutiple fluid collections, perihepatic ascites, and mild periportal edema. A collection of fluid containing an air-fluid level is visible anterior to the left lobe of the liver. A second collection is anterior to the splenic flexure of the colon. In figure B, a third fluid collection is present in the inferior aspect of the lesser space and in the transverse mesocolon, Figure C shows the pelvis with a collection of free fluid in the rectovesical pouch, Open-Abdomen Approach ‘Second-look surgery In certain situations, staging the operative approach to intraperitoneal infections is appropriate. Staging may be performed as a ‘scheduled second-look operation or through open management, with or without temporary closure (eg, with mesh or vacuum hitpsilemecicine medscape.comlartcle/1952829-print a92028. 05.27.1651 hitpslemedicine medscape.convatce/1952825-prin assisted closure [VAC)),10, 11] ‘Second-look operations may be employed in a damage-control fashion. In these cases, the patient at initial operation is severely illand unstable from septic shock or coagulopathy (eg, mediator liberation or disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). The {goal of the initial operation is to provide preliminary drainage and to remove obviously necrotic tissue. The patient is then resuscitated and stabilized in an intensive care unit (|CU) setting for 24-36 hours and returned to the operating room for more definitive drainage and source control In conditions related to bowel ischemia, the intial operation aims to remove all frankly devitalized bowel, The second-look ‘operation serves to reevaluate for further demarcation and decision-making regarding reanastomosis or diversion Closure of abdomen ‘Temporary closure of the abdomen to prevent herniation of the abdominal contents and contamination of the abdominal cavity from the outside can be achieved by using gauze and large, impermeable, self-adhesive membrane dressings; mesh (eg, Vicryl, Dexon); nonabsorbable mesh (eg, GORE-TEX, polypropylene), with or without zipper or Veleralike closure devices; and VAC devices (see Table 1 below).(12] The advantages of this management strategy include avoidance of ACS and provision of easy ‘access for reexploration. The disadvantages include significant disruption of respiratory mechanics and potential contamination of the abdomen with nosocomial pathogens. Table 1. Options for Temporary and Permanent Closure After Cefotomy (Open Table in a new window) Closure Technique Description ‘Advantages Disadvantages ‘Abdominal dressing with gauze and Dificut to maintain seal Soltadnesve -eovorgnofteonwewsindi” Inexpensive ay ome volo permease Sapertaleenbare i an Potent large vue membranes without placement of drains between the Easy application layers Fistula formation Rapid loss of tensile strength (in the setting of infection) Potentially large volume Can be applied directly losses bowel Viery! or Dexon ‘Suturing of the mesh to the fascial over Higher incidence of later mesh ‘edges; different options for dressing ‘Alows for drainage ot vectral hema peritoneal fuid development No reopen-and-close option Fistula formation Polypropylene ‘Suturing of the mesh to the fascial Good tensile strength _Risk of intestinal erosion mesh edges; different options for dressing when applied directly over Allows for drainage of bowel peritoneal fuid Potentially large volume losses High risk of mesh infection hitpstlemecicine medscape.comlartcle/1952829-print 492028.05.27.165 hitpslemedicne,medscape.convatce/1952825-prin Fistula formation Potential fluid accumulation undemeath the mesh Good tensile strength imited tissue integration ‘Suturing of the mesh to the fascial ord gaanuiaton tue GORE-TEX mesh edges iferentoptons or fesomng ‘Reopen andclose ad granulation tssue option Rik of es inecton Fistula formaton Expensive Hamann Single mesh tech] Gasset gone one rohyaaton Cena cranageo cost Acclerated Vacuumassitd Sponges appl over os ans gfariaion sue ik often wast closure device attached to controlled, low-level suction formation eee ¥ Wound debridement Fistula formation Can remain in place for longer than 48 hours Good tensile strength ‘Suturing of artificial burr (ie, Velero) to Wittmann patch fascia, staged abdominal closure by application of controlled tension Allows for easy reexploration and eventual primary fascial closure Fistula formation For delayed primary closure (permanent), our experience with the use of human acellular dermis (commercially known as AlloDerm) has been satisfactory, though this option has the disadvantage of being more expensive than others. A study by Mutafchiyski et al included 108 patients with diffuse peritonitis and open abdomen who were treated either: mesh-foil laparostomy without negative pressure or with VAC {13] The investigators found VAC to be associated with higher ‘overall and late primary fascial closure rates, a lower incidence of necrotizing fasciltis, fewer intra-abdominal abscesses and centeroatmospheric fistulas, reduced overall mortality, and shorter ICU and hospital stays. Ina study that involved 53 patients with peritonitis who underwent open-abdomen management, Willms et al found that regardless of the process underlying the peritonitis, the use of a combination of VAC and mesh-mediated fascial traction (MMET) was able to achieve high rates of fascial closure.[14] Ina study that involved 12 patients who underwent open-abdomen therapy at a single center, more than half of whom had ‘sepsis (33.3%) or peritonitis (24.2%) as the indication, Berrevost ot al found that patients who started open-abdomen management with MMFT and negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) from the intial surgery had a significantly better fascial ‘losure rate than those who started 3 or more days later,[15] The use of VAC in conjunction with MMFT yielded high rates of fascial closure. Absence of initial intraperitoneal NPWT and delayed initiation of MMFT were risk factors for nonfascial closure. hitpstlemecicine medscape.comlartcle/1952829-print 592028. 05.27.1651 hitpslemedicine medscape.convatce/1952825-prin Laparoscopic Approach Laparoscopic surgery is commonly used in the treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis, though there is evidence to indicate that it can yield positive outcomes for complicated appendicitis as well{16] For both complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis, the laparoscopic approach is associated with a shorter length of hospital stay and fewer wound infections than is the open approach. However, laparoscopic surgery may be associated with a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess, Laparoscopic diagnosis and peritoneal lavage in patients with peritonitis secondary to diverticulitis has been shown to be safe land has helped to avoid the need for colostomy in many patients in small clinical trials [17] Ina prospective study comparing laparoscopic peritoneal lavage with an open Hartmann procedure for perforated diverticults with generalized peritonitis, peritoneal lavage without operative intervention was found to be feasible, with a comparable mortality and a low risk of short-term recurrence. Successful laparoscopic repair of perforated gastric and duodenal ulcers has also been reported, A study by illuminati et al found laparoscopic lavage/drainage (LALA) to be a potentially effective as a bridge treatment before ‘endovascular aneurysm exclusion and elective colon resection in patients presenting with perforated diverticults with purulent peritonitis associated with an uncomplicated abdominal aortic aneurysm [18] No definitive guidelines have been established regarding the optimal selection of patients for successful laparoscopic repair. ‘Studies have investigated scoring systems (eg, APACHE II, Boey score) for patient risk stratification, in order to allow better selection of patients for laparoscopic repair, ‘The treatment of perihepatic infections via the laparoscopic approach has been well established in acute cholecystitis, where laparoscopic cholecystectomy has become the mainstay of therapy. Primary treatment of subphrenic abscesses and laparoscopic ultrasonography (US).assisted drainage of pyogenic liver abscesses have also been performed successfully. Individual reports also describe successful drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections and complicated intra-abdominal abscesses that are not amenable to percutaneous drainage guided by either computed tomography (CT) or US. ‘As minimally invasive procedures continue to advance technologically, use of these approaches is likely to increase, reducing the need for the open surgical approach for peritoneal abscess drainage. Multiple Reexplorations In severe peritonitis, particularly when it includes extensive retroperitoneal involvement (eg, necrotizing pancreatitis), open treatment with repeat reexploration, debridement, and intraperitoneal lavage has been shown to be effective, ‘The decision to perform a series of reexplorations may be made during the initial surgery if additional debridement and lavage are needed beyond what can be achieved in the first procedure. Indications for planned repeat laparotomy may include failure to achieve adequate source control, diffuse fecal peritonitis, hemodynamic instability, and intra-abdominal hypertension, Multiple reoperations may be associated with significant risks, including those from a substantial inflammatory response, fluid and electrolyte shifts, and hypotension; however, these must be balanced against the risks of persistent necrotic or infectious abdominal foci The opensabdomen technique allows thorough drainage ofthe intraabdominal infection, but the specific indications are not clearly defined. Many trials lack control groups or use historical controls; outcome variables (eg, mortality) are often not specific ‘enough, and data on resource use are limited. To date, no conclusive data suggest a clear advantage for the open approach over the closed approach in the treatment of severe abdominal sepsis; however, in the author's experience, bowel edema and subsequent inflammatory changes limit the use of the closed-abdomen technique. Secondary ACS may ensue if abdominal closure is performed before the inflammatory process has resolved. In some cases, staged operative interventions will be planned. In other cases, patients may present with continued peritonitis or abscess formation requiring "on-demand! relaparotomy. ‘A.2004 study suggested that the mortality of on-demand laparotomy is higher for those patients receiving intervention more than 48 hours after their index operation hitpstlemecicine medscape.comlartcle/1952829-print 692028. 05.27.1651 hitpslemedicine medscape.convatce/1952825-prin Postoperative Care Postoperatively, all patients should be closely monitored in the appropriate clinical setting for adequacy of volume resuscitation, resolution or persistence of sepsis, and the development of organ system failure. Appropriate systemic broad-spectrum antibiotic coverage must be continued without interruption for the appropriate amount of time. ‘The patient's overall condition should improve significantly and progressively within 24-72 hours of the intial treatment (as evidenced by resolution of the signs and symptoms of infection and mobilization of interstitial fluid). However, this time course may be prolonged in patients who are critically ill wth significant multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). Alack of improvement should prompt an aggressive search for a persistent or recurrent intraperitoneal or new extraperitoneal infectious focus. Al patients who are critically ill and patients who are receiving prolonged antibiotic therapy are at increased risk for the development of secondary, opportunistic infections (eg, Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile colitis, fungal infections, central venous catheter infections, and ventiator-associated pneumonia). Accordingly, they should be closely monitored for signs and symptoms of these complications. Patients with severe abdominal infections demonstrate higher incidences of fascial dehiscence and incisional hernia development necessitating later reoperation. Surgical-Site Infection and Delayed Healing Patients requiring surgical intervention for peritonitis demonstrate a significantly increased risk for surgical-ste infection (SSI) and failed wound healing; they should therefore be closely monitored for these potential complications. ‘The incidence of SSI increases with the degree of contamination; therefore, SSI occurs at much higher rates after operations for peritonitis and peritoneal abscess (ie, 5-15%, compared with < 5% for elective abdominal operations for noninfectious etiologies). ‘SSI may be expected if the wound is closed in the setting of gross abdominal contamination (see Table 2 below) Perioperative systemic antibiotic therapy, wound-protector devices, and wound lavage at the end of therapy do not reliably prevent this complication. These wounds should be left open and should be treated with wet-to-dry dressing changes several times a day, or VAC dressing should be applied ‘Table 2. Wound Classification and Risk of Surgical-Site Infection (SSI) (Open Table in a new window) lassicaion Examples iene ot lean Elective surgery wihout violation ofthe gut o infected spaces <2 loan tog Electve bowel aurgery (prepared bowel, mechanical and antbate) 518 Conarnates EMU owl rey ered owe nor sae nae isso ony Grossly contaminated traumatic wounds, significant intestinal plage, grossly 4g infected and devitalized tissue (necrotizing infection) hitpstlemecicine medscape.comlartcle/1952829-print 192028. 05.27.1651 hitpslemedicine medscape.convatce/1952825-prin ‘The same factors that impair the clearance of the abdominal infection contribute to increased problems related to wound healing (eg, malnutrition, severe sepsis, MODS, advanced age, and immunosuppression) and should be addressed aggressively. Contributor Information and Disclosures ‘Author Ruben Peralta, MD, FACS, FCCM, FCCP Deputy Trauma Medical Director, Professor and Director of Trauma, Emergency and Critical Care Fellowship Program, Senior Consultant in Surgery, Trauma, Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Associate Director of Trauma Intensive Care Unit, Hamad General Hospital and Hamad Medical Corporation, Weill Comell Medical College in Qatar Ruben Peralta, MD, FACS, FECM, FCCP is a member of the following medical societies: American Association of Blood Banks, American College of Healthcare Executives, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, Association for ‘Academic Surgery, Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, Massachusetts Medical Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons Disclosure: Nothing to disclose. Coauthor(s) Lena M Napolitano, MD, FACS, FECM, FCCP Professor of Surgery, University of Michigan School of Medicine; Chief, Surgical Critical Care, Program Director, Surgical Critical Care Fellowship, Associate Chair, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health System Lena M Napolitano, MD, FACS, FCCM, FCCP is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American ‘Association for the Surgery of Trauma, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Critical Care Medicine, ‘American College of Physicians, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Association for Academic Surgery, Association of VA Surgeons, Association of Women Surgeons, California Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, Phi Beta Kappa, Shock Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Society of University Surgeons Disclosure: Nothing to disclose. ‘Specialty Editor Board Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape far employment. for: Medscape. David L Morris, MD, PhD, FRACS Professor, Department of Surgery, St George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Australia David L Morris, MD, PhD, FRACS is a member of the following medical societies: British Society of Gastroenterology Disclosure: Received none from RFA Medical for director; Received none from MRC Biotec for director. Chief Editor John Geibel, MD, MSc, DSc, AGAF Vice Chair and Professor, Department of Surgery, Section of Gastrointestinal Medicine, Professor, Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Yale University School of Medicine; Director of Surgical Research, Department of Surgery, Yale-New Haven Hospital; American Gastroenterological Association Fellow; Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine John Geibel, MD, MSc, DSc, AGAF is a member of the following medical societies: American Gastroenterological Association, ‘American Physiological Society, American Society of Nephrology, Association for Academic Surgery, International Society of Nephrology, New York Academy of Sciences, Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract Disclosure: Nothing to disclose. ‘Acknowledgements ‘The authors and editors of Medscape Reference gratefully acknowledge the contributions of previous authors Thomas Genuit, MD, MBA and Sarah C Langenfeld, MD, to the development and writing of the source article. hitpstlemecicine medscape.comlartcle/1952829-print 892028. 05.27.1651 hitpslemedicine medscape.convatce/1952825-prin References 1. Hecker A, Reichert M, Reuf CJ, Schmach T, Riedel JG, Schneck E, et al. Intra-abdominal sepsis: new definitions and current clinical standards. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018 May. 404 (3):257-271. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] 2. Clements TW, Tolonen M, Ball CG, Kirkpatrick AW, Secondary Peritonitis and Intra-Abdominal Sepsis: An Increasingly Global Disease in Search of Better Systemic Therapies. Scand J Surg, 2021 Jun, 110 (2)139-149, [QxMD MEDLINE Link] 3. Sartell M, Catena F, Di Saverio S, Ansaloni L, Malangoni M, Moore EE, et al. Current concept of abdominal sepsis: WSES position paper. World J Emerg Surg. 2014 Mar 27. 9 (1):22. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text) 4, [Guideline] Sartell M, Catena F, Abu-Zidan FM, AnsaloniL, Bif! WL, Boermeester MA, et al. Management of intra-abdominal infections: recommendations by the WSES 2016 consensus conference. World J Emerg Surg. 2017. 12:22. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text} 5. [Guideline] Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar. 43 (3):304-377. [QxMD MEDLINE Link}. 6. Sartlli M, Abu-Zidan FM, Labricciosa FM, Kluger Y, Coccolin F, Ansaloni L, ot al. Physiological parameters for Prognosis in ‘Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) Study: a WSES observational sludy. World J Emerg Surg. 2019. 14:34. [QxMD MEDLINE Link. (Full Tex!) 7. Kayaodiu HA, Ozkan N, Yenidogan €, Késeoglu RD. Efect of antibiotic lavage in adhesion prevention in bacterial peritonitis, Ulus Travma Acil Gerrahi Derg. 2013 May. 19 (3):189-84. {QxMD MEDLINE Link] 8. Ordofiez CA, Parra M, Garcia A, Rodriguez F, Caicedo Y, Serna JU, et al. Damage Control Surgery may be a Safe Option for Severe Non-Trauma Peritontis Management: Proposal of a New Decision-Making Algorithm. World J Surg. 2021 Apr. 45 (4):1043-1052 [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. ‘98. Rausel S, Pappalardo V, Ceresoli M, Catena F, Sartell, Chiarugi M, et al. Open abdomen management for severe peritonitis in elderly. Results from the prospective International Register of Open Abdomen (IROA): Cohort study. Int J Surg. 2020 Oct. 82:240- 244. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] 10. Popovié M, Barisié G, Markovié V, Petrovié J, Krivokapié Z. Use of vacuum-assisted closure device in a disastrous form of abdominal sepsis and stoma site infection: systematic review and report of a case. Acta Chir lugosl. 2012. 59 (2):111-S. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] 11. Brllantino A, Andreano M, Lanza M, D'Ambrosio V, Fusco F, Antropoli M, etal. Advantages of Damage Control Strategy With ‘Abdominal Negative Pressure and Instllation in Patients With Difluse Peritonis From Perforated Diverticular Disease. Surg Innov. 2019 Dec, 26 (6):656-661, [QxMD MEDLINE Link). 12. Prichayudh S, Sriussadaporn S, Samom P, Pak-ArtR, Sriussadapom S, Kritayakirana K, et al. Management of open abdomen with aan absorbable mesh closure. Surg Today. 2011 Jan. 41 (1):72-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link] 18. Mutafchiyski VM, Popivanov Gl, Kjossev KT, Chipeva S. Open abdomen and VAC® in severe diffuse peritonitis. J R Army Med Comps. 2016 Feb. 162 (1):30-4. [QxMD MEDLINE Link) 14, Willms A, Gasgen C, Schaaf S, Bieler D, von Websky M, Schwab R. Management of the open abdomen using vacuum-assisted wound closure and mesh-mediated fascial traction. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2016 Jan. 400 (1)'91-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link} 15. Berrevoet F, Lampaert S, Singh K, Jakipbayeva K, van Cleven S, Vanlander A. Early Iniliation of a Standardized Open Abdomen Treatment With Vacuum Assisted Mesh-Mediated Fascial Traction Achieves Best Results. Front Surg, 2020. 7:606539. [QxMD MEDLINE Link} 46. Miyano G, Okazaki T, Kato Y, Marusasa T, Takahashi T, Lane Gu, et al, Open versus laparoscopic treatment for pan-peritonitis secondary to perforated appendicitis in children: a prospective analysis. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2010 Sep. 20 (7)'655-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link}. 17. White Si, Frenkiel B, Martin PJ. A ten-year audit of perforated sigmoid diverticulitis: highlighting the outcomes of laparoscopic lavage. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010 Nov. 53 (11): 1537-41. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. 18. Illuminati G, Krizzuk D, Calio FG, Urciuol P, Pizzardi G, Pasqua R. Laparoscopic lavage/drainage as a bridge treatment for perforated diverticultis with purulent peritonitis associated with an abdominal aortic aneurysm A retrospective case-control study. ‘Ann ttal Chir. 2018. 90:258-263. [QxMD MEDLINE Link) 419. TrentiL, Biondo S, Golda 7, Monica M, Kreisler E, Fraccalvier Det al. Generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis: Hartman's procedure or primary anastomosis, Int J Colorectal Ds. 2011 Mar. 26 (3):377-84. [OxMD MEDLINE Link} hitpstlemecicine medscape.comlartcle/1952829-print 99