Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal drainage of the intra-abdominal abscess

H. H. Stone, Richard Mullins, W. E. Dunlop, P. R. Strom

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Controversy as to whether the intra-abdominal abscess should be drained extraperitoneally or through formal laparotomy still rages. Arguments for a transperitoneal approach include no need to identify specific locus preoperatively and uniform drainage of all abscesses, especially any otherwise unrecognized pus collection. Proponents for the extraperitoneal route stress failure to contaminate previously uninvolved peritoneal spaces and more reliable avoidance of injury to intestine, predisposing to subsequent intestinal fistula. To resolve this impasse, a prospective study of each method was based upon a schedule of previously randomized treatment options. After 32 months of study, 60 patients had been enrolled without obvious differences between treatment groups with respect to demographic features, preoperative definition and locus of infection, precipitating cause of sepsis, associated diseases, responsible bacteria and antibiotic therapy. With-the transperitoneal approach, five patients had hollow viscus injury, while seven eventually had an intestinal fistula develop, causing major problems in four. Despite no obvious intestinal injury with the extraperitoneal route, two transient intestinal fistulas did occur. Seven patients drained transperitoneally had additional abscesses discovered, yet another operation was required to drain at least one complicating abscess in seven of this same group. With the extraperitoneal route, only two patients needed reoperation to drain another abscess. Although there were more deaths and complications in the group drained transperitoneally, morbidity (47 per cent) and mortality (7 per cent) were not significantly different statistically. Such data refute the professed superiority of a transperitoneal approach to intra-abdominal abscess drainage, both from need to reoperative for second abscess as well as incidence of later intestinal fistula. Best results were noted with abscess identification through computerized tomography followed by extraperitoneal drainage.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)549-552
Number of pages4
JournalSurgery Gynecology and Obstetrics
Volume159
Issue number6
StatePublished - 1984
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Abdominal Abscess
Abscess
Intestinal Fistula
Drainage
Wounds and Injuries
Rage
Viscera
Suppuration
Reoperation
Laparotomy
Intestines
Sepsis
Appointments and Schedules
Therapeutics
Tomography
Demography
Prospective Studies
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Morbidity
Bacteria

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal drainage of the intra-abdominal abscess. / Stone, H. H.; Mullins, Richard; Dunlop, W. E.; Strom, P. R.

In: Surgery Gynecology and Obstetrics, Vol. 159, No. 6, 1984, p. 549-552.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Stone, H. H. ; Mullins, Richard ; Dunlop, W. E. ; Strom, P. R. / Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal drainage of the intra-abdominal abscess. In: Surgery Gynecology and Obstetrics. 1984 ; Vol. 159, No. 6. pp. 549-552.
@article{717b07ab99c54f65b007d86546a1025f,
title = "Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal drainage of the intra-abdominal abscess",
abstract = "Controversy as to whether the intra-abdominal abscess should be drained extraperitoneally or through formal laparotomy still rages. Arguments for a transperitoneal approach include no need to identify specific locus preoperatively and uniform drainage of all abscesses, especially any otherwise unrecognized pus collection. Proponents for the extraperitoneal route stress failure to contaminate previously uninvolved peritoneal spaces and more reliable avoidance of injury to intestine, predisposing to subsequent intestinal fistula. To resolve this impasse, a prospective study of each method was based upon a schedule of previously randomized treatment options. After 32 months of study, 60 patients had been enrolled without obvious differences between treatment groups with respect to demographic features, preoperative definition and locus of infection, precipitating cause of sepsis, associated diseases, responsible bacteria and antibiotic therapy. With-the transperitoneal approach, five patients had hollow viscus injury, while seven eventually had an intestinal fistula develop, causing major problems in four. Despite no obvious intestinal injury with the extraperitoneal route, two transient intestinal fistulas did occur. Seven patients drained transperitoneally had additional abscesses discovered, yet another operation was required to drain at least one complicating abscess in seven of this same group. With the extraperitoneal route, only two patients needed reoperation to drain another abscess. Although there were more deaths and complications in the group drained transperitoneally, morbidity (47 per cent) and mortality (7 per cent) were not significantly different statistically. Such data refute the professed superiority of a transperitoneal approach to intra-abdominal abscess drainage, both from need to reoperative for second abscess as well as incidence of later intestinal fistula. Best results were noted with abscess identification through computerized tomography followed by extraperitoneal drainage.",
author = "Stone, {H. H.} and Richard Mullins and Dunlop, {W. E.} and Strom, {P. R.}",
year = "1984",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "159",
pages = "549--552",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Surgeons",
issn = "1072-7515",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal drainage of the intra-abdominal abscess

AU - Stone, H. H.

AU - Mullins, Richard

AU - Dunlop, W. E.

AU - Strom, P. R.

PY - 1984

Y1 - 1984

N2 - Controversy as to whether the intra-abdominal abscess should be drained extraperitoneally or through formal laparotomy still rages. Arguments for a transperitoneal approach include no need to identify specific locus preoperatively and uniform drainage of all abscesses, especially any otherwise unrecognized pus collection. Proponents for the extraperitoneal route stress failure to contaminate previously uninvolved peritoneal spaces and more reliable avoidance of injury to intestine, predisposing to subsequent intestinal fistula. To resolve this impasse, a prospective study of each method was based upon a schedule of previously randomized treatment options. After 32 months of study, 60 patients had been enrolled without obvious differences between treatment groups with respect to demographic features, preoperative definition and locus of infection, precipitating cause of sepsis, associated diseases, responsible bacteria and antibiotic therapy. With-the transperitoneal approach, five patients had hollow viscus injury, while seven eventually had an intestinal fistula develop, causing major problems in four. Despite no obvious intestinal injury with the extraperitoneal route, two transient intestinal fistulas did occur. Seven patients drained transperitoneally had additional abscesses discovered, yet another operation was required to drain at least one complicating abscess in seven of this same group. With the extraperitoneal route, only two patients needed reoperation to drain another abscess. Although there were more deaths and complications in the group drained transperitoneally, morbidity (47 per cent) and mortality (7 per cent) were not significantly different statistically. Such data refute the professed superiority of a transperitoneal approach to intra-abdominal abscess drainage, both from need to reoperative for second abscess as well as incidence of later intestinal fistula. Best results were noted with abscess identification through computerized tomography followed by extraperitoneal drainage.

AB - Controversy as to whether the intra-abdominal abscess should be drained extraperitoneally or through formal laparotomy still rages. Arguments for a transperitoneal approach include no need to identify specific locus preoperatively and uniform drainage of all abscesses, especially any otherwise unrecognized pus collection. Proponents for the extraperitoneal route stress failure to contaminate previously uninvolved peritoneal spaces and more reliable avoidance of injury to intestine, predisposing to subsequent intestinal fistula. To resolve this impasse, a prospective study of each method was based upon a schedule of previously randomized treatment options. After 32 months of study, 60 patients had been enrolled without obvious differences between treatment groups with respect to demographic features, preoperative definition and locus of infection, precipitating cause of sepsis, associated diseases, responsible bacteria and antibiotic therapy. With-the transperitoneal approach, five patients had hollow viscus injury, while seven eventually had an intestinal fistula develop, causing major problems in four. Despite no obvious intestinal injury with the extraperitoneal route, two transient intestinal fistulas did occur. Seven patients drained transperitoneally had additional abscesses discovered, yet another operation was required to drain at least one complicating abscess in seven of this same group. With the extraperitoneal route, only two patients needed reoperation to drain another abscess. Although there were more deaths and complications in the group drained transperitoneally, morbidity (47 per cent) and mortality (7 per cent) were not significantly different statistically. Such data refute the professed superiority of a transperitoneal approach to intra-abdominal abscess drainage, both from need to reoperative for second abscess as well as incidence of later intestinal fistula. Best results were noted with abscess identification through computerized tomography followed by extraperitoneal drainage.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0021687418&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0021687418&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 6390758

AN - SCOPUS:0021687418

VL - 159

SP - 549

EP - 552

JO - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

JF - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

SN - 1072-7515

IS - 6

ER -