Search

INTRODUCTION: Inter-hospital variation in the management of small bowel obstruction (SBO) has been described in other countries, but the extent to which similar variations exist in Denmark remains unknown. This study aimed to compare the management of SBO between hospitals in Denmark and identify potential areas for improvement METHODS. This was a multicentre prospective study performed at six emergency hospitals. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of SBO were eligible for inclusion. The primary study endpoints were the proportion of patients undergoing operative versus non-operative management, laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery and the success rate of non-operative management.RESULTS: A total of 316 patients were included. No differences were noted in diagnostic pathways or operative versus non-operative management. However, variations were noted in compliance with peri-operative care bundles, ranging from 63.2% to 95.8%. The surgical approach also varied, with the use of laparoscopic surgery ranging from 20.7% to 71.0% (p less-than 0.001). Variations were also noted in duration of surgery (63-124 minutes, p less-than 0.001), time to re-introduction of normal diet and length of hospital stay (3-8.5 days, p less-than 0.001). No differences were observed in 30-day or 90-day mortality rates.CONCLUSION: The management of SBO in Denmark is relatively standardised. Future efforts should focus on improving adherence to multidisciplinary peri-operative protocols, optimising patient selection for laparoscopic surgery and standardising nutritional therapy.FUNDING: None.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04750811.

INTRODUCTION: Inter-hospital variation in the management of small bowel obstruction (SBO) has been described in other countries, but the extent to which similar variations exist in Denmark remains unknown. This study aimed to compare the management of SBO between hospitals in Denmark and identify potential areas for improvement METHODS. This was a multicentre prospective study performed at six emergency hospitals. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of SBO were eligible for inclusion. The primary study endpoints were the proportion of patients undergoing operative versus non-operative management, laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery and the success rate of non-operative management.RESULTS: A total of 316 patients were included. No differences were noted in diagnostic pathways or operative versus non-operative management. However, variations were noted in compliance with peri-operative care bundles, ranging from 63.2% to 95.8%. The surgical approach also varied, with the use of laparoscopic surgery ranging from 20.7% to 71.0% (p less-than 0.001). Variations were also noted in duration of surgery (63-124 minutes, p less-than 0.001), time to re-introduction of normal diet and length of hospital stay (3-8.5 days, p less-than 0.001). No differences were observed in 30-day or 90-day mortality rates.CONCLUSION: The management of SBO in Denmark is relatively standardised. Future efforts should focus on improving adherence to multidisciplinary peri-operative protocols, optimising patient selection for laparoscopic surgery and standardising nutritional therapy.FUNDING: None.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04750811.

Purpose: Anastomotic leakage after small bowel resection in emergency laparotomy is a severe complication. A consensus on the risk factors for anastomotic leakage has not been established, and it is still unclear if peritonitis is a risk factor. This systematic review aimed to evaluate if an entero-entero/entero-colonic anastomosis is safe in patients with peritonitis undergoing abdominal acute care surgery. Methods: A systematic literature review based on PRISMA guidelines was performed, searching the databases Pubmed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct for studies of anastomosis in peritonitis. Patients with an anastomosis after non-planned small bowel resection (ischemia, perforation, or strangulation), including secondary peritonitis, were included. Elective laparotomies and colo-colonic anastomoses were excluded. Due to the etiology, traumatic perforation, in-vitro, and animal studies were excluded. Results: This review identified 26 studies of small-bowel anastomosis in peritonitis with a total of 2807 patients. This population included a total of 889 small-bowel/right colonic resections with anastomoses, and 242 enterostomies. All studies, except two, were retrospective reviews or case series. The overall mortality rates were 0–20% and anastomotic leakage rates 0–36%. After performing a risk of bias evaluation there was no basis for conducting a meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was rated as low. Conclusion: There was no evidence to refute performing a primary small-bowel anastomosis in acute laparotomy with peritonitis. There is currently insufficient evidence to label peritonitis as a risk factor for anastomotic leakage in acute care laparotomy with small-bowel resection. Trial registration: The review was registered with the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews on 14/07/2020 with the ID: CRD42020168670.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Perforation is a severe complication of peptic ulcer disease. Evidence regarding perioperative management of patients undergoing surgery for perforated peptic ulcer is scarce without any clear guidelines. This study aimed to investigate the clinical practice and possible differences in the perioperative management of patients undergoing emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcers in Denmark.METHODS: The study was an anonymous, nationwide questionnaire survey. All doctors working at general surgical departments in Denmark were included. The questionnaire consisted of four parts; 1) demographic details including job position, subspecialty, geographic location, and surgical experience, 2) pre- and postoperative use of nasoenteral tubes, 3) routine use of nil-by-mouth (NBM) regime, 4) questions regarding postoperative nutrition.Subgroup analyses were performed according to job position and subspecialty.RESULTS: In total, the questionnaire was answered by 287 surgeons, of which 74% were experienced surgeons being able to perform surgery for perforated peptic ulcers independently.Pre- and postoperative nasoenteral tubes were used routinely by the majority of the respondents. One of five surgeons routinely practiced a postoperative NBM regime. Generally, the respondents allowed clear fluids postoperatively without restrictions but were reluctant to allow free fluids or solid foods. Two of three surgeons routinely used tube- or parental nutrition. The results varied depending on job position and subspecialty.CONCLUSIONS: After emergency surgery, the postoperative management of patients with perforated peptic ulcers varies considerably among general surgeons in Denmark. Evidence-based national or international guidelines are needed to standardize and optimize the clinical practice.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Perforation is a severe complication of peptic ulcer disease. Evidence regarding perioperative management of patients undergoing surgery for perforated peptic ulcer is scarce without any clear guidelines. This study aimed to investigate the clinical practice and possible differences in the perioperative management of patients undergoing emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcers in Denmark.METHODS: The study was an anonymous, nationwide questionnaire survey. All doctors working at general surgical departments in Denmark were included. The questionnaire consisted of four parts; 1) demographic details including job position, subspecialty, geographic location, and surgical experience, 2) pre- and postoperative use of nasoenteral tubes, 3) routine use of nil-by-mouth (NBM) regime, 4) questions regarding postoperative nutrition.Subgroup analyses were performed according to job position and subspecialty.RESULTS: In total, the questionnaire was answered by 287 surgeons, of which 74% were experienced surgeons being able to perform surgery for perforated peptic ulcers independently.Pre- and postoperative nasoenteral tubes were used routinely by the majority of the respondents. One of five surgeons routinely practiced a postoperative NBM regime. Generally, the respondents allowed clear fluids postoperatively without restrictions but were reluctant to allow free fluids or solid foods. Two of three surgeons routinely used tube- or parental nutrition. The results varied depending on job position and subspecialty.CONCLUSIONS: After emergency surgery, the postoperative management of patients with perforated peptic ulcers varies considerably among general surgeons in Denmark. Evidence-based national or international guidelines are needed to standardize and optimize the clinical practice.

Acute abdomen is a common cause of admission to hospital. Emergency laparotomy is associated with a significant morbidity and mortality due to deranged physiology and surgery-induced stress. Damage control laparotomy is on the rise as an operative strategy for the septic abdomen as well as for trauma laparotomy but lacks definition in the non-trauma setting. Principles of perioperative care in elective surgery are currently applied to the emergency abdominal surgery patients and should be further studied in the future to reduce morbidity and mortality.