title: Laparoscopic vs open repair of gastric perforation and abdominal lavage of associated peritonitis in pigs.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Laparoscopy is increasingly used in conditions complicated by peritonitis, e.g., peptic ulcer perforation. Of some theoretical concern is the capnoperitoneum, which may aggravate peritonitis and induce septic shock due to increased intraabdominal pressure and distension of the peritoneum. This animal study was devised to analyze the effectiveness of laparoscopic versus traditional open repair of gastric perforation and abdominal lavage for associated peritonitis.
  
  
  METHODS
  To simulate gastric perforation, female Duroc pigs were subjects to standardized gastrotomy. Either 6 or 12 h after gastric perforation, the animals underwent either traditional open or laparoscopic repair of the gastric defect and peritoneal lavage. The subjects were divided into the following four groups: peritonitis for 6 h and open surgery (group I) or laparoscopic surgery (group II); peritonitis for 12 h and open surgery (group III) or laparoscopic surgery (group IV). After an observation period of 6 days, the surviving animals were killed. The main outcome criteria were survival, perioperative changes of hemodynamics suggestive for septic shock, bacteremia, and endotoxemia.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There were no significant differences between group I and II. Mortality was 22% in group III, as compared to 78% in group IV (p = 0.045). In group IV, the incidence of perioperative bacteremia and plasma endotoxin concentrations were significantly higher than in group III. Concomitantly, decreased mean arterial pressure and systemic vascular resistance, and increased cardiac output suggested a higher incidence of septic shock in group IV.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Critical appraisal of laparoscopic surgery is warranted in conditions associated with severe, longstanding peritonitis.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, University Hospital Eppendorf, University of Hamburg, Martinistrasse 52, 20251 Hamburg, Germany.
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Bloechle
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Emmermann
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Strate
authors.forename: U J
authors.initials: UJ
authors.lastname: Scheurlen
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Schneider
authors.forename: E
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Achilles
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Wolf
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Mack
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Zornig
authors.forename: C E
authors.initials: CE
authors.lastname: Broelsch
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001794:Blood Pressure; D002302:Cardiac Output; D004731:Endotoxins / Q000097:blood; D005260:Female; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects; D010439:Peptic Ulcer Perforation / Q000150:complications / Q000601:surgery; D010533:Peritoneal Lavage / Q000379:methods; D010538:Peritonitis / Q000209:etiology / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy*; D011183:Postoperative Complications; D018805:Sepsis / Q000209:etiology; D012772:Shock, Septic / Q000209:etiology; D013275:Stomach Rupture / Q000150:complications / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000601:surgery*; D013552:Swine; D014655:Vascular Resistance
chemical_list: D004731:Endotoxins