The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Laparotomy versus Peritoneal Drainage for Necrotizing Enterocolitis and Perforation
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perforated necrotizing enterocolitis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in premature infants, and the optimal treatment is uncertain. We designed this multicenter randomized trial to compare outcomes of primary peritoneal drainage with laparotomy and bowel resection in preterm infants with perforated necrotizing enterocolitis. METHODS: We randomly assigned 117 preterm infants (delivered before 34 weeks of gestation) with birth weights less than 1500 g and perforated necrotizing enterocolitis at 15 pediatric centers to undergo primary peritoneal drainage or laparotomy with bowel resection. Postoperative care was standardized. The primary outcome was survival at 90 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included dependence on parenteral nutrition 90 days postoperatively and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: At 90 days postoperatively, 19 of 55 infants assigned to primary peritoneal drainage had died (34.5 percent), as compared with 22 of 62 infants assigned to laparotomy (35.5 percent, P=0.92). The percentages of infants who depended on total parenteral nutrition were 17 of 36 (47.2 percent) in the peritoneal-drainage group and 16 of 40 (40.0 percent) in the laparotomy group (P=0.53). The mean (+/-SD) length of hospitalization for the 76 infants who were alive 90 days after operation was similar in the primary peritoneal-drainage and laparotomy groups (126+/-58 days and 116+/-56 days, respectively; P=0.43). Subgroup analyses stratified according to the presence or absence of radiographic evidence of extensive necrotizing enterocolitis (pneumatosis intestinalis), gestational age of less than 25 weeks, and serum pH less than 7.30 at presentation showed no significant advantage of either treatment in any group. CONCLUSIONS: The type of operation performed for perforated necrotizing enterocolitis does not influence survival or other clinically important early outcomes in preterm infants. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00252681.).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Neu, J., & Walker, W. A. (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1005408 · Cited by 2,141
The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection
Mazuski, J. E., Tessier, J. M., May, A. K., Sawyer, R. G., Nadler, E. P., Rosengart, M. R., Chang, P. K., O'Neill, P. J., Mollen, K. P., Huston, J. M., et al. (2017) · Surgical Infections · doi:10.1089/sur.2016.261 · Cited by 573
Loepke, A. W., & Soriano, S. G. (2008) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e318167ad77 · Cited by 458
Metadata
- Authors
- Moss, R. L., Dimmitt, R. A., Barnhart, D. C., Sylvester, K. G., Brown, R. L., Powell, D. M., Islam, S., Langer, J. C., Sato, T. T., Brandt, M. L., Lee, H., Blakely, M. L., Lazar, E. L., Hirschl, R. B., Kenney, B. D., Hackam, D. J., Zelterman, D., & Silverman, B. L.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2006-05-25
- Volume
- 354
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 2225-2234
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2167025239
- Cited by
- 427
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 23.27
- 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: Laparotomy versus Peritoneal Drainage for Necrotizing Enterocolitis and Perforation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa054605
- The paper
- Moss, R. L., Dimmitt, R. A., Barnhart, D. C., Sylvester, K. G., Brown, R. L., Powell, D. M., Islam, S., Langer, J. C., Sato, T. T., Brandt, M. L., Lee, H., Blakely, M. L., Lazar, E. L., Hirschl, R. B., Kenney, B. D., Hackam, D. J., Zelterman, D., & Silverman, B. L. (2006). Laparotomy versus Peritoneal Drainage for Necrotizing Enterocolitis and Perforation. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa054605
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.