Debridement and “Peritoneal Toilet”

  • John Bohnen


• The degree of peritoneal contamination correlates with the severity of infection and outcome. • The host responds to peritoneal infection by absorbing pathogens into the bloodstream and by mounting a local peritoneal inflammatory reaction; both responses kill bacteria but affect the host adversely. • The goal of peritoneal toilet is to remove mechanically as many contaminants as possible to reduce the severity of infection and limit adverse host responses. • Surgically aggressive forms of peritoneal debridement may remove more contaminating material, but at the cost of increased resources and adverse effects. Their value is controversial.


Peritoneal Cavity Peritoneal Lavage Source Control Abdominal Infection Temporary Abdominal Closure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Schein M, Saadia R, Decker G (1988) Intraoperative peritoneal lavage Surg Gynecol Obstet 166:187–195 (Collective review of antibiotic lavage of the peritoneal cavity)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stephen M, Loewenthal J (1979) Continuing peritoneal lavage in high-risk peritonitis. Surgery 85:603–606 (Early study that strongly supported continuous postoperative lavage; not stratified for severity of illness; no concurrent control group.)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hudspeth AS (1975) Radical surgical debridement in the treatment of advanced generalized bacterial peritonitis. Arch Surg 110:1233–1236 (Uncontrolled study that showed zero mortality for radical debridement for abdominal infection.)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Polk HC, Fry DE (1980) Radical surgical debridement in the treatment for established peritonitis. The results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 192:350–355 (Controlled trial that found no benefit from radical debridement, challenging Hudspeth's findings.)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steinberg D (1979) On leaving the peritoneal cavity open in acute generalized suppurative peritonitis. Am J Surg 137:216–220 (Early study showing benefit of laparostomy.)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Teichmann W, Wittmann DH, Andreone PA (1986) Scheduled reoperations (Etappenlavage) for diffuse peritonitis. Arch Surg 121:147–152 (Promising results from scheduled reoperation.)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wittmann DH, Aprahamian C, Bergstein JM (1990) Etappenlavage: advanced diffuse peritonitis managed by planned multiple laparotomies utilizing zippers, slide fastener, and Velcro analogue for temporary abdominal closure. World J Surg 14:218–226 (Promising results again, discussion of technique.)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bohnen JMA, Mustard RA, Oxholm SE et al (1988) APACHE II score and abdominal sepsis: a prospective study. Arch Surg 123:225–229 (Physiologic alterations correlate with probability of death from abdominal infection.)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stephen M, Loewenthal J (1978) Generalized infective peritonitis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 147:231–234 (Fecal peritonitis was associated with greater mortality.)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (1964) Postoperative wound infections: the influence of ultraviolet irradiation of the operating room and of various other factors. Ann Surg 160[Suppl 2]:1–132 (Classic paper showing that heavier wound contamination is associated with greater wound infection rates.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hau T, Ahrenholz DH, Simmons RL (1979) Secondary bacterial peritonitis: the biologic basis of treatment. Curr Probl Surg 16:1–65 (Seminal paper that integrated the biology, clinical presentation, and principles of management of intra-abdominal infection.)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leiboff AR, Soroff HS (1987) The treatment of generalized peritonitis by closed postoperative peritoneal lavage. Arch Surg 122:1005–1010 (Summary of work on postoperative lavage cast doubt on its value.)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kinney EV, Polk HC (1987) Open treatment of peritonitis: an argument against. Adv Surg 21:19–28 (Argument against laparoscopy, highlighting complications.)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schein M, Decker GAG (1990) Gastrointestinal fistulas associated with large abdominal wall defects: experience with 43 patients. Br J Surg 77:97–100 (Large series of dreaded complications from open management of abdominal infections.)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moore EE, Burch JM, Franciose RJ, Offner PJ, Biffl WL (1998) Staged physiologic restoration and damage control surgery. World J Surg 22:1184–1191 (Method of achieving abdominal closure in stages when inadvisable or impossible at first laparotomy.)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bohnen JMA, Marshall JC, Fry DE, Johnson SB, Solomkin JS (1999) Clinical and scientific importance of source control in abdominal infections: summary of a symposium. Can J Surg 42:122–126 (Surgical Infection Society symposium on the definition and importance of source control in abdominal infection.)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schein M, Wittmann DH, Aprahamian CC, Condon RE (1995) The abdominal compartment syndrome: the physiological and clinical consequences of elevated intra-abdominal pressure. J Am Coll Surg 180:745–753 (Comprehensive review.)PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Bohnen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations