Open versus closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage

A comparison on safety, rapidity, efficacy

G. C. Velmahos, D. Demetriades, M. Stewart, E. E. Cornwell, Juan A. Asensio, H. Belzberg, V. Berne

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There is considerable debate between the proponents of open and closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL). A prospective study was undertaken on 130 patients submitted to DPL. We performed 55 (42.3%) closed and 75 (57.7%) open lavages with sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 96.6% for the former and 92.2 and 100% for the latter. The mean time for insertion of the catheter and initiation of fluid infusion was significantly less in the closed DPL group, and so were the number of cases with prolonged procedures. No intra-abdominal or wound complications were detected with either method, but there were 10 DPL failures due to inability to conclude the procedure successfully and derive a definite result. Eight of these (10.6%) belonged to the open group and two (3.6%) to the closed (P <0.05). Our findings suggest closed DPL is as equally sensitive and specific as closed DPL, but is more expeditious and offers inconclusive results less often. Both procedures are useful and should be parts of surgical training.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)235-238
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh
Volume43
Issue number4
StatePublished - Aug 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Peritoneal Lavage
Safety
Therapeutic Irrigation
Catheters
Prospective Studies
Sensitivity and Specificity
Wounds and Injuries

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Velmahos, G. C., Demetriades, D., Stewart, M., Cornwell, E. E., Asensio, J. A., Belzberg, H., & Berne, V. (1998). Open versus closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage: A comparison on safety, rapidity, efficacy. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, 43(4), 235-238.

Open versus closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage : A comparison on safety, rapidity, efficacy. / Velmahos, G. C.; Demetriades, D.; Stewart, M.; Cornwell, E. E.; Asensio, Juan A.; Belzberg, H.; Berne, V.

In: Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Vol. 43, No. 4, 08.1998, p. 235-238.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Velmahos, GC, Demetriades, D, Stewart, M, Cornwell, EE, Asensio, JA, Belzberg, H & Berne, V 1998, 'Open versus closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage: A comparison on safety, rapidity, efficacy', Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 235-238.
Velmahos, G. C. ; Demetriades, D. ; Stewart, M. ; Cornwell, E. E. ; Asensio, Juan A. ; Belzberg, H. ; Berne, V. / Open versus closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage : A comparison on safety, rapidity, efficacy. In: Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh. 1998 ; Vol. 43, No. 4. pp. 235-238.
@article{5acac813d8884235805dcd97b99b6e57,
title = "Open versus closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage: A comparison on safety, rapidity, efficacy",
abstract = "There is considerable debate between the proponents of open and closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL). A prospective study was undertaken on 130 patients submitted to DPL. We performed 55 (42.3{\%}) closed and 75 (57.7{\%}) open lavages with sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 96.6{\%} for the former and 92.2 and 100{\%} for the latter. The mean time for insertion of the catheter and initiation of fluid infusion was significantly less in the closed DPL group, and so were the number of cases with prolonged procedures. No intra-abdominal or wound complications were detected with either method, but there were 10 DPL failures due to inability to conclude the procedure successfully and derive a definite result. Eight of these (10.6{\%}) belonged to the open group and two (3.6{\%}) to the closed (P <0.05). Our findings suggest closed DPL is as equally sensitive and specific as closed DPL, but is more expeditious and offers inconclusive results less often. Both procedures are useful and should be parts of surgical training.",
author = "Velmahos, {G. C.} and D. Demetriades and M. Stewart and Cornwell, {E. E.} and Asensio, {Juan A.} and H. Belzberg and V. Berne",
year = "1998",
month = "8",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "235--238",
journal = "Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh",
issn = "0035-8835",
publisher = "Edinburgh University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Open versus closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage

T2 - A comparison on safety, rapidity, efficacy

AU - Velmahos, G. C.

AU - Demetriades, D.

AU - Stewart, M.

AU - Cornwell, E. E.

AU - Asensio, Juan A.

AU - Belzberg, H.

AU - Berne, V.

PY - 1998/8

Y1 - 1998/8

N2 - There is considerable debate between the proponents of open and closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL). A prospective study was undertaken on 130 patients submitted to DPL. We performed 55 (42.3%) closed and 75 (57.7%) open lavages with sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 96.6% for the former and 92.2 and 100% for the latter. The mean time for insertion of the catheter and initiation of fluid infusion was significantly less in the closed DPL group, and so were the number of cases with prolonged procedures. No intra-abdominal or wound complications were detected with either method, but there were 10 DPL failures due to inability to conclude the procedure successfully and derive a definite result. Eight of these (10.6%) belonged to the open group and two (3.6%) to the closed (P <0.05). Our findings suggest closed DPL is as equally sensitive and specific as closed DPL, but is more expeditious and offers inconclusive results less often. Both procedures are useful and should be parts of surgical training.

AB - There is considerable debate between the proponents of open and closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL). A prospective study was undertaken on 130 patients submitted to DPL. We performed 55 (42.3%) closed and 75 (57.7%) open lavages with sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 96.6% for the former and 92.2 and 100% for the latter. The mean time for insertion of the catheter and initiation of fluid infusion was significantly less in the closed DPL group, and so were the number of cases with prolonged procedures. No intra-abdominal or wound complications were detected with either method, but there were 10 DPL failures due to inability to conclude the procedure successfully and derive a definite result. Eight of these (10.6%) belonged to the open group and two (3.6%) to the closed (P <0.05). Our findings suggest closed DPL is as equally sensitive and specific as closed DPL, but is more expeditious and offers inconclusive results less often. Both procedures are useful and should be parts of surgical training.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031715160&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031715160&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 235

EP - 238

JO - Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh

JF - Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh

SN - 0035-8835

IS - 4

ER -