Implantation of Prophylactic Nonabsorbable Intraperitoneal Mesh in Patients With Peritonitis Is Safe and Feasible

BACKGROUND: Patients with peritonitis undergoing emergency laparotomy are at increased risk for postoperative open abdomen and incisional hernia. This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of prophylactic intraperitoneal mesh implantation compared with conventional abdominal wall closure in patients with peritonitis undergoing emergency laparotomy. METHOD: A matched case-control study was performed. To analyze a high-risk population for incisional hernia formation, only patients with at least two of the following risk factors were included: male sex, body mass index (BMI) >25 kg/m(2), malignant tumor, or previous abdominal incision. In 63 patients with peritonitis, a prophylactic nonabsorbable mesh was implanted intraperitoneally between 2005 and 2010. These patients were compared with 70 patients with the same risk factors and peritonitis undergoing emergency laparotomy over a 1-year period (2008) who underwent conventional abdominal closure without mesh implantation. RESULTS: Demographic parameters, including sex, age, BMI, grade of intraabdominal infection, and operating time were comparable in the two groups. Incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs) was not different between groups (61.9 vs. 60.3 %; p = 0.603). Enterocutaneous fistula occurred in three patients in the mesh group (4.8 %) and in two patients in the control group (2.9 %; p = 0.667). The incidence of incisional hernia was significantly lower in the mesh group (2/63 patients) than in the control group (20/70 patients) (3.2 vs. 28.6 %; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic intraperitoneal mesh can be safely implanted in patients with peritonitis. It significantly reduces the incidence of incisional hernia. The incidences of SSI and enterocutaneous fistula formation were similar to those seen with conventional abdominal closure.

Emergency referrals for syncopes - is an ambulatory treatment safe?

Patients after syncopy arrive frequently in an emergency unit. Two scoring systems have been validated for clinical decision making, use of diagnostic methods and need for hospitalisation. Goal of the study was quality control of ambulatory treatment of syncope patients in a University Emergency Department. 200 consecutive patients with syncope were documented, 109 of whom followed by phone-call during two years. The decision for hospitalisation or ambulatory treatment was up to the treating doctor. Age-distribution was biphasic: female sex mainly below the age 25, from 55 to 75 predominantly men. Etiology of syncope remained unclear for the majority of cases, a few neurologic (n=3) or cardiac (n=5) reasons were found with treatment consequences.