Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 17, 2026
Lung Rapid Recovery Procurement Combined with Abdominal Normothermic Regional Perfusion in Controlled Donation after Circulatory Death
Published on: August 15, 2022
Rapid Source-Control Laparotomy: Is There a Mortality Benefit in Septic Shock?
James Vogler1, Leslie Hart2, Sharon Holmes1
11 Department of Surgery, Grand Strand Regional Medical Center , Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.
Background:
In the 1990s, damage control laparotomy (DCL) became a proved approach to treat intra-abdominal injuries caused by trauma. In the ensuing two decades, this approach has been applied to non-traumatic abdominal processes as well. Although the benefits of DCL are clear, the benefit of rapid source-control laparotomy (RSCL) for non-traumatic abdominal diseases is much less clear. However, two recent cohort analyses identified significant increases in the mortality rate with RCSL compared with primary fascial closure (PFC). The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of RSCL in patients with septic shock.
Methods:
The 2015 National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database was queried for 11 International Statistical Classifications of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes associated with septic shock. Collected data included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), wound class, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, operative time, number of risk factors, and presence or absence of post-operative pneumonia. The risk factors were diabetes mellitus, alcohol or tobacco abuse, blood dyscrasias, disseminated cancer, and cardiac, gastrointestinal, pulmonary, hepatobiliary, or renal dysfunction. The primary outcomes were rate of re-operation, prevalence of post-operative pneumonia, hospital length of stay (LOS), and death by 30 days.
Results:
The RSCL and PFC cohorts were each comprised of 56 patients matched for propensity scores for ICD-10 code. There were no significant differences in wound or ASA class, BMI, gender, or number of risk factors between the two cohorts. The operative time for RSCL was significantly shorter than for PFC (median 84 vs. 128 min, respectively; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in re-operation rate, prevalence of post-operative pneumonia, LOS, or mortality rate between the two cohorts.
Conclusions:
Although this analysis showed no clear advantage to RSCL in the management of septic shock, it may be a means to salvage certain patients. The best way to assess the relative value of RSCL is a prospective trial.
