Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 160

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prognosis and Treatment of Peritonitis: Do We Need New Scoring Systems?

Koperna, Thomas·1996·Archives of Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical significance of present scoring systems for prognosis and treatment in patients with secondary bacterial peritonitis and to define risk factors for patient survival and outcome not included in the scores. A secondary objective was to review our therapeutic regimens and the need for reoperation with regard to outcome. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: University hospital, secondary referral center. PATIENTS: From 1992 to 1995, 92 patients with secondary peritonitis were examined at the University Surgical Clinic, Vienna, Austria. the populations as a whole consisted of 56 men and 36 women with an average age of 56 +/- 19 years. Forty-four percent of patients had postoperative peritonitis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality, multiple organ system failure (MOSF), relaparotomy. RESULTS: The mortality rate in patients with an APACHE II (Adult Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) score of less than 15 was 4.8%, while mortality rose to 46.7% in those with a score of 15 or higher (P = .001). The average total mortality rate was 18.5%. The prognosis for patients without organ failure or with failure of one organ system was excellent (mortality rate, 0%); quadruple organ failure, however, had a mortality rate of 90%. Initial thrombocytopenia ( < 60 x 10(9)/L), four-quadrant peritonitis, and diabetes mellitus were associated with significantly higher mortality. Leukopenia (white blood cells, < 6 x 10(9)/L) and inappropriate antibiotic therapy as determined by the antibiogram were mildly significant for higher mortality. The need for relaparotomy resulted in substantially higher mortality (P < .001). The impossibility of definitive operative resolution of the intra-abdominal pathologic findings at initial operation had no significant effect on mortality, possibly because planned reoperations were always carried out in those cases. For patients with definitive resolution at initial operation, it was possible to reduce the traditionally high mortality rate associated with relaparotomy on demand by making the decision for reexploration promptly, within the first 48 hours. Nevertheless, the 52.4% mortality rate observed in those cases was still much higher than the 33% found in patients who were not free of disease after the initial operation. CONCLUSION: The prognosis in peritonitis is decisively influenced by the health status of the patient at the beginning of treatment and by any concomitant risk factors. As a result, a fairly accurate prediction of the outcome of the disease can initially be made on the basis of the APACHE II score and the MOSF score according to Goris. However, the certainty that severely ill patients with high scores often die has little clinical relevance, since it does not provide any therapeutic alternatives to the attending physician. The decision to perform a relaparotomy must be made as soon as possible, at least before MOSF emerges. Already existing MOSF will lead to the "point of no return."

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archsurg.1996.01430140070019

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 160

Metadata

Authors
Koperna, T.
Venue
Archives of Surgery
Published
1996-02-01
Volume
131
Issue
2
Pages
180
ISSN
0004-0010 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2068404748
Cited by
160
References
2
FWCI
3.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prognosis and Treatment of Peritonitis: Do We Need New Scoring Systems? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archsurg.1996.01430140070019
The paper
Koperna, T. (1996). Prognosis and Treatment of Peritonitis: Do We Need New Scoring Systems? Archives of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1996.01430140070019

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.