Time limit to rescue intestine with viability at risk caused by blood flow disruption in patients presenting with acute abdomen

0Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: Early management is crucial for acute intestinal blood flow disorders; however, no published study has identified criteria for the time limit for blood flow resumption. This study specifically examines the time factors for avoiding intestinal resection. Methods: The subjects of this retrospective cohort study were 125 consecutive patients who underwent emergency surgery for a confirmed diagnosis of intestinal strangulation (n = 86), incarceration (n = 27), or volvulus (n = 12), between January 2015 and March 2021. Intestinal resection was performed when intestinal irreversible changes had occurred even after ischemia was relieved surgically. We analyzed the relationship between the time from computed tomography (CT) imaging to the start of surgery (C-S time) and intestinal resection using the Kaplan–Meier method and calculated the estimated intestinal rescue rate. Patient background factors affecting intestinal resection were also examined. Results: The time limit for achieving 80% intestinal rescue rate was 200 min in C-S time, and when this exceeded 300 min, the intestinal rescue rate dropped to less than 50%. Multivariate analysis identified the APACHE II score as a significant influencing factor. Conclusion: A rapid transition from early diagnosis to early surgery is critical for patients with acute abdomen originating from intestinal blood flow disorders. The times from presentation at the hospital to surgery should be reduced further, especially for severe cases.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kyuno, T., Otsuka, K., Kobayashi, M., Yoshida, E., Sato, K., Kawagishi, R., … Takagane, A. (2022). Time limit to rescue intestine with viability at risk caused by blood flow disruption in patients presenting with acute abdomen. Surgery Today, 52(11), 1627–1633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-022-02495-7

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free