Cited by 20Abdominal vascular conditions and treatmentsAbdominal Surgery and ComplicationsIntestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions

Usefulness of damage control approach in patients with limited acute mesenteric ischemia: A prospective study of 85 patients

Brillantino, Antonio, Lanza, Michele, Antropoli, Massimo, Amendola, Alfonso, Squillante, Simone, Bottino, Vincenzo, Renzi, Adolfo, Castriconi, Maurizio·2022·Updates in Surgery

Abstract

To evaluate the efficacy of the damage control approach by two-step surgical procedure in not critical patients (without sepsis or septic shock) with peritonitis from limited acute mesenteric ischemia. From April 2013 to April 2020, 85 patients [49 (57.7%) women and 36 (42.3%) men, median age 69.5 (range 38-92)] were enrolled in this study and underwent emergency surgery. After resection of ischemic bowel, basing on the individual decision of the single surgeon, the patients underwent primary end-to-end anastomosis (Group 1) or damage control approach (Group 2) including primary laparotomy with resection of ischemic bowel, temporary abdominal closure and a second-look procedure at 48 h with re-evaluation of bowel vitality. Forty-seven (55.3%) patients underwent one-stage surgical treatment and 38 (44.7%) patients received a two-step procedure. In the latter group, at second exploration, 8 (21%) patients required a further intestinal resection, due to mesenteric ischemia progression. Both anastomosis dehiscence rate and need for ileostomy in Group 1 patients were significantly higher than in Group 2 (23.4% vs 5.3%: p = 0.03 and 19.1% vs 2.6%: p = 0.03; Fisher's exact test). No significative differences in mortality and morbidity rate were found between the two groups. The damage control approach by two-step surgical procedure may represent a valid innovative option in the management of not critical patients with limited acute mesenteric ischemia, achieving a better clinical outcome if compared with surgical treatment by one-step procedure.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13304-021-01192-3

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brillantino, A., Lanza, M., Antropoli, M., Amendola, A., Squillante, S., Bottino, V., Renzi, A., & Castriconi, M.
Affiliations
  • Ospedale Antonio Cardarelli (IT)
  • Ospedale Buon Consiglio Fatebenefratelli (IT)
Corresponding author
Brillantino, Antonio
Venue
Updates in Surgery
Published
2021-10-22
Volume
74
Issue
1
Pages
337-342
ISSN
  • 2038-131X (ISSN-L)
  • 2038-3312
OpenAlex
W3206808368
Cited by
18
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Updates in Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Abdominal vascular conditions and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Abdominal Surgery and Complications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Intestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
Keywords
damage control surgery, temporary abdominal closure, second-look laparotomy, bowel resection, anastomotic leakage, ileostomy, peritonitis, emergency surgery
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Intestines, Laparotomy, Male, Peritonitis, Prospective Studies, Mesenteric Ischemia

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