Evolution of diagnosis and surgical treatment of intra-abdominal infiltrates, abscesses of primary and postoperative origin in patients

Abstract

Purpose – to improve the results of surgical treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infiltrates and abscesses through the introduction of the latest imaging methods and surgical technologies. Materials and methods. In the clinic of the Department of Surgical Diseases No 1, on the basis of the Surgery Center of the Kyiv City Clinical Hospital No. 1 from 2006 to 2019 218 patients with primary and secondary intra-abdominal infiltrates, abscesses and fluid formations were treated. The patients’ age ranged from 16 to 85 years. There were 107 (49.08%) male patients, 111 (50.92%) female patients. Depending on the time of hospitalization (by years), the patients were divided into two groups: the control group (CG) (2006–2012) 117 (53.67%) patients and the study group (SG) (2013–2019) 101 (46.33%) patients. The SG used the latest imaging technologies and improved methods of surgical treatment. Results. The patients were divided into two groups: primary in 191 (87.61%) and secondary postoperative infiltrates and abscesses in 27 (12.39%). The causes of primary infiltrates and abscesses were: complicated forms of appendicitis in 74 (33.94%), perforated stomach and duodenal ulcer in 48 (22.02%), complicated forms of cholecystitis in 69 (31.65%). Postoperative infiltrates and abscesses were observed in 27 (12.39%) patients who underwent urgent surgery: adgeolysis of adhesive ileus in 14 (6.42%) and complicated hernias of various localization in 13 (5.97%). Postoperative complications were diagnosed in 43 (19.72%) patients, of whom 34 (15.59%) from the surgical wound and 29 (15.18%) of the abdominal cavity, who required relaparotomy or laparoscopy, with destructive appendicitis in 10 (13.51%), perforated gastric ulcer and 12 duodenal ulcer in 6 (12.5%), destructive cholecystitis in 9 (13.04%), adhesive intestinal obstruction in 13 (19.12%) and with strangulated and complicated hernias in 14 (17.28%) of the examined patients. During relaparotomy, incompetence of the intestinal wall and intestinal sutures was established in 11 out of 32 patients, an ileostomy was imposed in 7, and cecostomy in 1 patient. Actually, in the control group, 8 (6.84%) patients died on the background of ongoing peritonitis, thrombosis of mesenteric vessels and multiple organ failure and concomitant ailments and in the study group 4 (3.96%) patients died. Conclusions. Surgical treatment is individualized depending on the disease, so with destructive appendicitis from 74 (38.74%) laparotomic in 42 (21.99%), laparoscopic in 32 (16.75%), and in 12 (6.28%) with conversion; perforated gastric ulcer and duodenal ulcer in 48 (25.13%) open laparotomy; with cholecystitis of 69 (36.13%) patients, 48 (25.13%) had laparotomy and 21 (11.00%) had laparoscopic examination. The use of the latest imaging and treatment technologies: Doppler ultrasonography, hydrojet scalpel and laparoscopy in 64 (33.51%), allowed to have better near and long-term results and to reduce postoperative mortality from 6.84% to 3.96%, with an average of 5.5%. The research was carried out in accordance with the principles of the Helsinki declaration. The study protocol was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of these Institutes. The informed consent of the patient was obtained for conducting the studies. The authors declare no conflicts of interests. Key words: destructive appendicitis, cholecystitis, perforated gastric ulcer and 12-duodenal ulcer, adhesive leakage, strangulated hernias, diagnosis and treatment.