Search

Purpose. To evaluate the results of Damage Control Strategy (DCS) in the treatment of generalized peritonitis from perforated diverticular disease in patients with preoperative severe systemic diseases. Methods. All the patients with diffuse peritonitis (Hinchey 3 and 4) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score ≥3 were included and underwent DCS consisting of a 2-step procedure. The first was peritoneal lavage, perforated colon-stapled resection, and temporary abdominal closure with negative pressure wound therapy combined with instillation. The second step, 48 hours later, included the possibility of restoring intestinal continuity basing on local and general patients’ conditions. Results. Thirty patients (18 [60%] women and 12 [40%] men, median age 68.5 [range = 35-84] years) were included (18 [60%] ASA III, 11 [36.7%] ASA IV, and 1 [0.03%] ASA V). Seven patients (23.3%) showed sepsis and 1 (3.33%) septic shock. At second surgery, 24 patients (80%) received a colorectal anastomosis and 6 patients (20%) underwent a Hartmann’s procedure. Median hospital stay was 18 days (range = 12-62). Postoperative morbidity rate was 23.3% (7/30) and included 1 anastomotic leak treated with Hartmann’s procedure. Consequently, at discharge from hospital, 23 patients (76.6%) were free of stoma. Primary fascial closure was possible in all patients. Conclusions. DCS with temporary abdominal closure by negative pressure wound therapy combined with instillation in patients with diffuse peritonitis from complicated diverticulitis could represent a feasible surgical option both in hemodynamically stable and no stable patients, showing encouraging results including a low stoma rate and an acceptable morbidity rate.

To evaluate the efficacy of the damage control approach by two-step surgical procedure in not critical patients (without sepsis or septic shock) with peritonitis from limited acute mesenteric ischemia. From April 2013 to April 2020, 85 patients [49 (57.7%) women and 36 (42.3%) men, median age 69.5 (range 38-92)] were enrolled in this study and underwent emergency surgery. After resection of ischemic bowel, basing on the individual decision of the single surgeon, the patients underwent primary end-to-end anastomosis (Group 1) or damage control approach (Group 2) including primary laparotomy with resection of ischemic bowel, temporary abdominal closure and a second-look procedure at 48 h with re-evaluation of bowel vitality. Forty-seven (55.3%) patients underwent one-stage surgical treatment and 38 (44.7%) patients received a two-step procedure. In the latter group, at second exploration, 8 (21%) patients required a further intestinal resection, due to mesenteric ischemia progression. Both anastomosis dehiscence rate and need for ileostomy in Group 1 patients were significantly higher than in Group 2 (23.4% vs 5.3%: p = 0.03 and 19.1% vs 2.6%: p = 0.03; Fisher's exact test). No significative differences in mortality and morbidity rate were found between the two groups. The damage control approach by two-step surgical procedure may represent a valid innovative option in the management of not critical patients with limited acute mesenteric ischemia, achieving a better clinical outcome if compared with surgical treatment by one-step procedure.

PURPOSE: This study was performed according to a prospective, randomized, open design. The aim was to test the efficacy of local application of nifedipine ointment in healing acute thrombosed external hemorrhoids. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients who gave their informed consent were recruited; they received clinical examination and anoscopy. A questionnaire to evaluate symptoms, pain, and concurrent use of analgesics was administered. Patients treated with nifedipine (n=50) used topical 0.3 percent nifedipine and 1.5 percent lidocaine ointment every 12 hours for two weeks. The control group, consisting of 48 patients, received topical 1.5 percent lidocaine ointment during therapy. RESULTS: Results obtained were as follows: complete relief of pain in 43 patients (86 percent) of the nifedipine-treated group as opposed to 24 patients (50 percent) of the control group after 7 days of therapy (P < 0.01); oral analgesics were used by 4 patients (8 percent) in the nifedipine-treated group as opposed to 26 patients (54.1 percent) of the control group after 7 days of therapy (P < 0.01); and resolution of acute thrombosed external hemorrhoids was achieved after 14 days of therapy in 46 patients (92 percent) of the nifedipine-treated group, as opposed to 22 patients (45.8 percent) of the control group (P < 0.01). We did not observe any systemic side effect in patients treated with nifedipine. CONCLUSIONS: Our study clearly demonstrates that the use of topical nifedipine, which at present is for treatment of cardiovascular disorders, is a reliable new option in the conservative treatment of thrombosed external hemorrhoids.

PURPOSE: Chronic anal fissure may be treated by chemical or surgical sphincterotomy. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of local application of nifedipine and lidocaine ointment in healing chronic anal fissure. METHODS: The study was performed according to a prospective, randomized, double-blind design. One hundred ten patients who gave informed consent were recruited. They received a clinical examination, a questionnaire to evaluate symptoms and pain, anorectal manometry, and anoscopy. Healing of anal fissure at Day 42 of therapy was defined as the primary efficacy variable of the study. Patients treated with nifedipine (n = 55) used topical 0.3 percent nifedipine and 1.5 percent lidocaine ointment every 12 hours for 6 weeks. The control group (n = 55) received topical 1.5 percent lidocaine and 1 percent hydrocortisone acetate ointment during therapy. Anal pressures were measured by recording resting and maximal voluntary contraction pressures at baseline and at Day 21. Long-term outcomes were determined after a median follow-up of 18 months. RESULTS: Healing of chronic anal fissure was achieved after 6 weeks of therapy in 94.5 percent of the nifedipine-treated patients (P < 0.001) as opposed to 16.4 percent of the controls. Mean anal resting pressure decreased from a mean value ± standard deviation of 47.2 ± 14.6 to 42 ± 12.4 mmHg in the nifedipine group. This represents a mean reduction of 11 percent (P = 0.002). Changes of maximal voluntary contraction in nifedipine-treated patients were not significant. No changes in mean anal resting pressure and maximal voluntary contraction were observed in the control group. We did not observe any systemic side effect in patients treated with nifedipine. After the blinding was removed, recurrence of the fissure was observed in 3 of 52 patients in the nifedipine group within 1 year of treatment, and 2 of these patients healed with an additional course of topical nifedipine and lidocaine ointment. CONCLUSIONS: Our study clearly demonstrates that the therapeutic use of topical nifedipine and lidocaine ointment should be extended to the conservative treatment of chronic anal fissure.

PURPOSE: This study was performed according to a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter design. The aim was to test the efficacy of local application of nifedipine gela in healing acute anal fissure by relaxing the internal anal sphincter. METHODS: Two hundred eighty-three patients who gave informed consent were recruited; they received a clinical examination. A questionnaire to evaluate the symptoms and the pain was administered, and a proctoscopy and anorectal manometry were performed. Patients treated with nifedipine (n=141) used topical 0.2 percent nifedipine gel every 12 hours for three weeks. The control group, consisting of 142 patients, received topical 1 percent lidocaine and 1 percent hydrocortisone acetate gel during therapy. Manometry was performed before and on Days 14 and 21. Anal pressures were measured by recording resting and squeeze pressures. RESULTS: Results obtained were as follows: total remission from acute anal fissure was achieved after 21 days of therapy in 95 percent of the nifedipine-treated patients (P