Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effectiveness of intraoperative peritoneal lavage with saline in patient with intra-abdominal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

World Journal of Emergency Surgery volume 18, Article number: 24 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) with saline has been widely used in surgical practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL with saline in patients with intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) remains controversial. This study aims to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of IOPL in patients with IAIs.

Methods

The databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, CNKI, WanFang, and CBM databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2022. Random-effects models were used to calculate the risk ratio (RR), mean difference, and standardized mean difference. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of the evidence.

Results

Ten RCTs with 1318 participants were included, of which eight studies on appendicitis and two studies on peritonitis. Moderate-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (0% vs. 1.1%; RR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.02–6.39]), intra-abdominal abscess (12.3% vs. 11.8%; RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.70–1.48]; I2 = 24%), incisional surgical site infections (3.3% vs. 3.8%; RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.18–2.86]; I2 = 50%), postoperative complication (11.0% vs. 13.2%; RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.39–1.41]; I2 = 64%), reoperation (2.9% vs. 1.7%; RR,1.71 [95% CI, 0.74–3.93]; I2 = 0%) and readmission (5.2% vs. 6.6%; RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.48–1.87]; I2 = 7%) in patients with appendicitis when compared to non-IOPL. Low-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (22.7% vs. 23.3%; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.45–2.09], I2 = 0%) and intra-abdominal abscess (5.1% vs. 5.0%; RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.16–6.98], I2 = 0%) in patients with peritonitis when compared to non-IOPL.

Conclusion

IOPL with saline use in patients with appendicitis was not associated with significantly decreased risk of mortality, intra-abdominal abscess, incisional surgical site infection, postoperative complication, reoperation, and readmission compared with non-IOPL. These findings do not support the routine use of IOPL with saline in patients with appendicitis. The benefits of IOPL for IAI caused by other types of abdominal infections need to be investigated.

Background

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have become the second leading cause of sepsis in patients in the intensive care unit, following respiratory infection [1,2,3]. The results of a study showed that the mortality was 4.4% in complicated IAI with sepsis and 67.8% in complicated IAI with septic shock [4]. The mortality of IAI varied greatly due to different infection sites and pathogens, and the overall mortality caused by complicated IAIs was about 10% [5, 6]. Therefore, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), the World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Canadian Surgical Society (CSS), the Chinese Society of Surgical Infection and Intensive Care (CSSIIC) and other organizations have developed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to address serious harms caused by IAIs [7,8,9,10,11].

Intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) is a widely used approach to control the source of infection in patients with IAIs [12, 13]. However, the effectiveness of IOPL has been controversial since it was first proposed in 1905 [14]. A study showed that compared with no irrigation, the use of IOPL reduced the risk of intra-abdominal abscess (7.7% vs. 19.4%, P < 0.0001), but there was no significant difference in incisional surgical site infection (0.4% vs. 1.8%, P = 0.05) [15]. However, another retrospective study showed that compared with no irrigation, the use of IOPL increased the risk of intra-abdominal abscess (17.2% vs. 4.0%, P = 0.002) and incisional surgical site infection (SSI) (8.6% vs. 1.0%, P = 0.003) [16]. The recommendations on the use of IOPL in patients with IAIs vary greatly across current CPGs due to current contradictory evidence [7, 8]. Therefore, a systematic review (SR) is needed so that evidence-based recommendations can be formulated to guide the proper use of IOPL.

Several SRs aimed to investigate the effectiveness of IOPL, but these reviews only focused on appendicitis, ignoring other types of abdominal infections [17,18,19,20,21,22]. In addition, they mainly included observational studies, the quality of which was low or very low, for data synthesis [17,18,19, 22]. Furthermore, they did not analyze some important outcomes such as mortality, reoperation, and readmission and outcomes by the extent of scope of infection, the volume of irrigation, and the type of population [17,18,19,20,21,22].

Therefore, this SR aims to comprehensively explore the effectiveness of IOPL with saline in patients with IAI and to analyze whether the type of infection, the volume of flushing and the type of population affect the effectiveness of IOPL. The findings from our review can help clinicians in their daily practice and will inform future CPGs.

Methods

This SR was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook [23]. We report the results in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement [24]. This review has been registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42019145109) and the protocol has been published [25].

Search strategy

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, and China Biology Medicine disc (CBM) databases from the inception dates to December 31, 2022. We used database-specific combinations of the following search terms and phrases: intra-abdominal infections, peritoneal sepsis, intraperitoneal infection, peritonitis, appendicitis, stomach rupture, irrigation, lavage, intraoperation, surgery, and their derivatives. The details of search strategy are shown in Additional file 1: Table S1. Supplementary searches were conducted on Google and clinical trial registry platforms. Finally, we reviewed the references from the included articles manually to identify any missed potentially studies. The inclusion of studies was not restricted by publication status or language.

Eligibility criteria

Trials were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: (1) patients diagnosed with IAIs and requiring surgery, regardless of age, gender and other factors; (2) all patients in the intervention group underwent IOPL with normal saline (Ringer's solution was regarded as normal saline) during operation, the control group were only treated with conventional aspiration; and (3) randomized controlled trials.

Study selection

Four groups of investigators performed study selection independently. There were three stages of screening: (1) In phase one, we screened titles and abstracts of search results to exclude literature that obviously did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria; (2) In phase two, full-text articles were obtained for articles identified by one or both investigators as potentially relevant; (3) In phase three, the full texts of eligible articles were reviewed independently by the same two researchers. Any disagreements were solved through discussion or consultation with a third investigator.

Data extraction

Two researchers independently extracted the following information from each study: (1) basic information: the first author, publication year, country, type of population, type of disease, scope of infection, age and gender, etc.; (2) intervention protocol: type of procedure, irrigation volume and follow-up, etc.; (3) outcome: the primary outcomes are mortality and intra-abdominal abscess (IAA). Detailed definition for each outcome was described in Additional file 1: Table S2. If sufficient data were not available, we contacted the authors of studies by email to request them or calculated from other reported data according to methods recommended by the Cochrane Handbook (Additional file 1: Table S3) [23].

Risk of bias and quality of evidence

Two researchers independently assessed the risk of bias (RoB) of the included RCTs using the Cochrane RoB tool [23]. The RoB of each RCT was evaluated based on seven items: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias. Each item was graded as low risk, high risk, or unclear risk. We resolved disagreements by discussion or by consultation with another investigator. We assessed the quality of the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for all outcomes [26]. The quality of meta-analysis of RCTs starts at high quality and can be downgraded based on risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision, inconsistency, and publication bias to levels of moderate, low, and very low quality. We performed the assessment using the GRADEpro software and generated a summary of findings table [27].

Data analysis

We did our data analysis with RevMan 5.4 software and STATA15.0 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA). We used a random-effects model and pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes [28]. Heterogeneity was assessed by the I2 statistic and values of 25%, 50%, and 75% were considered low, moderate, and high, respectively [23, 29].

We performed pre-specified subgroup analysis on the following variables: (1) type of infection: patients are divided into diffuse (e.g., diffuse peritonitis) or localized (e.g., limited to a certain organ area, such as local infection of the appendix) IAIs based on the infection area involved; (2) type of population (child or adult): child was defined as younger than 18 years old, and adult was 18 years and older; (3) irrigation volume (≥ 3 or < 3 L): it is determined by the average or median flushing volume; (4) country income level (high-income (HIC) or low- and middle-income (LMIC)): according to the World Bank standard. Due to most of the articles did not clearly define the type of infection and population, we judged these based on inclusion criteria, baseline characteristics, and volume of peritoneal flushing. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to assess the robustness of our findings by excluding one research for every analysis [23]. Publication bias was detected by Egger’s test [30].

Results

Overall, the combined search identified 10,878 records, of which 10,834 were excluded based on duplicates and the title and abstract evaluation. The remaining 44 articles underwent full-text evaluation, and 34 were excluded (Additional file 1: Table S4). Finally, ten RCTs including 1318 patients were included [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. The PRISMA diagram of the study selection process is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Literature search and screening process

Full size image

Characteristics of included studies

Ten RCTs were published from 1982 to 2020, nine were journal papers [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38, 40] and one was a doctoral thesis [39]. Eight RCTs [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40] focused on appendicitis and two RCTs [31, 32] focused on peritonitis caused by perforation or injury to the stomach, duodenum, small intestine, appendix, etc. No studies focused on infectious pancreatitis or fecal peritonitis. Eight RCTs involved adults [31, 32, 34,35,36,37, 39, 40] and two involved children [33, 38]. The majority of the patients with peritonitis involved in two RCTs [31, 32] were diffuse infections, and the patients with appendicitis involved in eight RCTs were localized infections [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Peritonitis studies have mainly focused on the outcomes of mortality, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), incisional surgical site infections (SSI), and postoperative complications. Studies on appendicitis not only examine these outcomes, but also evaluate reoperation, readmission, operative time, length of stay, and hospital charges. Eight RCTs performed laparoscopic appendectomy [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40] and two RCTs performed open surgery [31, 32] (Table 1). The RoB assessment showed that none of the included RCTs were blinded to participants and personnel. All RCTs did not specify whether the assessment of the outcome was blinded, six RCTs were unclear about allocation concealment, and four RCTs were unclear about random sequence generation (Additional file 1: Fig. S1).

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies
Full size table

Mortality

Three RCTs with 373 patients reported on mortality, one included patients with appendicitis and two included patients with peritonitis [31, 32, 40]. There were no reported deaths in the IOPL group and two (1.1%) in the non-IOPL group. The use of IOPL was not significantly associated with a decreased risk of mortality compared to non-IOPL for patients with appendicitis (RR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.02–6.39]) (Fig. 2A). Ten patients with peritonitis (22.7%) died in the IOPL group, compared to 10 patients (23.3%) in the non-IOPL group. The use of IOPL was not significantly associated with a decreased risk of mortality compared to non-IOPL for patients with peritonitis (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.45–2.09], I2 = 0%) (Fig. 2A). No significant differences in mortality were found in other subgroups stratified by the type of population (child: no data on mortality; adult: RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.43–1.91]), irrigation volume (< 3L: RR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.02–6.39]; ≥ 3L: RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.45–2.09]), and country income level (HIC: RR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.29–3.03]; LMIC: RR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.34–2.31]) (Table 2, Additional file 1: Fig. S2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Primary outcomes in patients with IAIs who used IOPL compared with patients who did not

Full size image
Table 2 Subgroup analysis of primary outcomes in patients with IAIs who used IOPL compared with patients who did not
Full size table

IAA

Nine RCTs with 1232 patients reported on IAA, seven included patients with appendicitis and two included patients with peritonitis [31,32,33,34,35, 37,38,39,40]. IAA occurred in 67 patients with appendicitis (12.3%) in the IOPL group and 72 patients with appendicitis (11.8%) in the non-IOPL group. The use of IOPL was not significantly associated with a decreased risk of IAA compared to non-IOPL for patients with appendicitis (RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.70–1.48], I2 = 24%) (Fig. 2B). IAA occurred in two patients with peritonitis (5.1%) in the IOPL group and two patients with peritonitis (5.0%) in the non-IOPL group. The use of IOPL was not significantly associated with a decreased risk of IAA compared to non-IOPL for patients with peritonitis (RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.16–6.98], I2 = 0%) (Fig. 2B). No significant differences in IAA were found in other subgroups stratified by the type of population (child: RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.57–1.70]; adult: RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.66–1.58]), irrigation volume (< 3L: RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.67–1.41]; ≥ 3L: RR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.30–2.67]), and country income level (HIC: RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.66–1.46]; LMIC: RR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.39–2.12]) (Table 2, Additional file 1: Fig. S2).

Incisional SSI

Six RCTs with 849 patients reported on incisional SSI, five included patients with appendicitis and one included patients with peritonitis [32, 34,35,36, 38, 40]. Incisional SSI occurred in 12 patients with appendicitis (3.3%) in the IOPL group and 16 patients with appendicitis (3.8%) in the non-IOPL group. The use of IOPL was not significantly associated with a decreased risk of incisional SSI compared to non-IOPL for patients with appendicitis (RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.18–2.86], I2 = 50%) (Fig. 3A). Incisional SSI occurred in five patients with peritonitis (17.2%) in the IOPL group and six patients with peritonitis (20.7%) in the non-IOPL group. The use of IOPL was not significantly associated with a decreased risk of incisional SSI compared to non-IOPL for patients with peritonitis (RR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.29–2.43]) (Fig. 3A).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Secondary outcomes in patients with IAIs who used IOPL compared with patients who did not

Full size image

Postoperative complication

Nine RCTs with 1096 patients reported on postoperative complication, seven included patients with appendicitis and two included patients with peritonitis [31, 32, 34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Postoperative complication occurred in 52 patients with appendicitis (11.0%) in the IOPL group and 71 patients with appendicitis (13.2%) in the non-IOPL group. The use of IOPL was not significantly associated with a decreased risk of postoperative complication compared to non-IOPL for patients with appendicitis (RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.39–1.41], I2 = 64%) (Fig. 3B). Postoperative complication occurred in 12 patients with peritonitis (28.6%) in the IOPL group and 11 patients with peritonitis (25.6%) in the non-IOPL group. The use of IOPL was not significantly associated with a decreased risk of postoperative complication compared to non-IOPL for patients with peritonitis (RR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.55–2.23], I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3B).

Reoperation

Six RCTs with 1019 patients reported on reoperation, in which all included patients were appendicitis [33,34,35, 37, 38, 40]. Reoperation occurred in 14 patients with appendicitis (2.9%) in the IOPL group and 9 patients with appendicitis (1.7%) in the non-IOPL group. The use of IOPL was not associated with a significantly decreased risk of reoperation compared with non-IOPL in patients with appendicitis (RR, 1.71[95% CI, 0.74–3.93], I2=0%) (Fig. 4A).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Secondary outcomes in patients with appendicitis who used IOPL compared with patients who did not

Full size image

Readmission

Five RCTs with 759 patients reported on readmission, in which all included patients were appendicitis [33, 34, 37, 38, 40]. Readmission occurred in 18 patients with appendicitis (5.2%) in the IOPL group and 27 patients with appendicitis (6.6%) in the non-IOPL group. The pooled estimates demonstrated that IOPL use was not associated with a significantly decreased risk of readmission compared with non-IOPL in patients with appendicitis (RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.48–1.87], I2 = 7%) (Fig. 4B).

Operative time, LOS and hospital charge

Six RCTs reported on operative time [33,34,35,36,37, 39], seven RCTs reported on LOS [33,34,35,36, 38,39,40], and two RCTs reported on hospital charge [33, 35]. These studies only involve patients with appendicitis [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. The results showed that compared with the no-IOPL group, the use of IOPL somewhat prolonged the operation time in patients with appendicitis (MD, 9.48 min [95% CI, 6.12–12.84], I2 = 62%). Results of LOS (MD = -0.65 days, 95% CI [-1.60 to 0.29], I2 = 94%) and hospital charge (SMD = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.38 to 0.45], I2 = 96%) were highly heterogenous (Fig. 4C–E). We found that different health systems were a source of high heterogeneity, and the heterogeneity of LOS (MD = 0.02 days, 95% CI [-0.27 to 0.31], I2 = 0%) and hospital charge (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI [-0.26 to 0.26]) was reduced after excluding studies of Sun et al. [35] and Wang et al. [36] from China.

Sensitive analysis and publication bias

Sensitivity analysis for mortality was robust, while the result for IAA was less robust. The study of Sardiwalla et al. [37] had the greatest impact on the results of IAA. After excluding the study of Sardiwalla et al. [37], the RR of IAA changed from 1.05 (95% CI, 0.78–1.42) to 0.87 (95% CI, 0.62–1.24), without affecting the conclusion. A further analysis found that the study of Sardiwalla et al. [37] was stopped prematurely by the internal review due to the excess risk experienced by the IOPL group (Additional file 1: Fig. S3). The result of Egger's test for IAA showed that there was no significant evidence of publication bias (P = 0.72) (Additional file 1: Fig. S4).

Quality of evidence

For patients with appendicitis, the certainty of evidence for mortality, IAA, incisional SSI, postoperative complication, reoperation, readmission, was downgraded from “high” to “moderate” by one level due to the wide confidence intervals of the findings. We did not find any possible downgraded factor for the outcomes of operative time, therefore, the certainty of the evidence for operative time is “high”. For patients with peritonitis, the certainty of evidence for mortality, IAA, incisional SSI, and postoperative complications was downgraded from “high” to “low” by two levels due to the small sample size and wide confidence intervals of the findings. (Additional file 1: Table S5).

Discussion

This meta-analysis included ten RCTs with a total of 1318 patients, of which the majority concerned patients with appendicitis. We found that the use of IOPL did not provide additional benefits compared with non-IOPL with regards to mortality, IAA, incisional SSI, postoperative complication, reoperation, and readmission in patients with appendicitis. The benefits of the IOPL with saline for peritonitis patients are unclear due to the small sample size of the research. In the future, large, high-quality RCTs will be required to examine how IOPL affects individuals with peritonitis and other abdominal infections.

This SR included two studies on peritonitis and eight studies on appendicitis. Previous studies demonstrated that saline lavage reduced aerobic and anaerobic bacteria counts in peritoneal fluid, but it did not provide additional benefits for the outcomes of mortality and IAA [41,42,43]. The results of our SR are consistent with these previous findings except for reoperation [17,18,19]. A SR by Oweira et al. [21] reported that non-IOPL only during laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis is associated with a lower reoperation rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.37 [95% CI, 0.14–0.96]) compared with peritoneal irrigation. However, we found that the two RCTs [33, 34] included by Oweira et al. [21] had problems with the extraction of reoperation data, which led to inconsistent findings with our review.

Many surgeons believe that “Dilution is the solution to pollution” [44]. However, moderate-quality evidence from our study does not support this view. The possible mechanisms for the ineffectiveness of IOPL were as follows [45, 46]: (1) bacteria adhere to the peritoneal mesothelial cells, such that irrigations cannot decrease the microorganism load on the peritoneum; (2) irrigation may cause bacterial dislocation and diffuse or remote inoculation, leading to pollution by spreading microorganisms; (3) irrigation may dilute mediators of phagocytosis such as opsonic proteins and immunoglobulins. In addition, high-quality evidence showed that IOPL with saline can prolong the operation time by about 10 min. Further, a retrospective study of 8168 patients with complicated appendicitis showed that every 1-min increase in operative time independently increased the likelihood of any SSI (OR, 1.010 [95% CI, 1.008–1.013]) and readmission (OR, 1.004 [95% CI, 1.000–1.007) [47]. The occurrence of SSI will not only increase the patient's hospital stay by 7 to 10 days, but also increase the cost of each readmission by 20,000 to 28,000 US dollars [48,49,50].

The 2017 World Society of Emergency Surgery guidelines [7] suggested that Routine use of intraoperative irrigation for appendectomies does not prevent intra-abdominal abscess formation and may be avoided, while the 2017 World Surgical Infection Society guideline [8] suggested, Use of irrigation with crystalloid fluid to remove visible debris and gross contamination before abdominal closure in patients with IAI, generally limiting lavage to those areas with gross involvement as an adjunct to the source control procedure. The main reason for the inconsistency of recommendations was that the guidelines did not use evidence from SRs when making their recommendations, but used the results of observational studies or RCTs. In 2005, a survey of the United Kingdom showed that 97% of surgeons used IOPL, and nearly half of them used saline for peritoneal irrigation [12]. However, current moderate-quality evidence does not support the routine use of IOPL in patient with appendicitis. Therefore, CPGs for IAI should consider updating the recommendations to avoid inappropriate use of IOPL, with the associated waste of time and medical resources.

This study has several limitations. First, most of the included studies on IAIs focused on appendicitis, while there are no studies that focus on other types of IAIs (e.g., pancreatitis, fecal peritonitis and etc.). Therefore, generalizing the results of this study to other types of IAIs may not be sufficient. Second, subgroup effects could not be evaluated when there were less than two trials in each subgroup. In addition, subgroup analyses were restricted by the study-level nature of the data. Most of the included articles did not clearly define the type of infection and population. Third, the Cochrane risk of bias tool used to assess the quality of surgical studies may have been relatively lenient, and other researchers may have different evaluation criteria.

Conclusion

Evidence from moderate-quality studies suggested that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality, IAA, incisional SSI, postoperative complication, reoperation, or readmission in patients with appendicitis when compared to non-IOPL. Therefore, the regular use of IOPL with saline in patients with appendicitis should be avoid. An investigation is still needed to determine the advantages of IOPL for IAI caused by other types of abdominal infections.

Availability of data and materials

All data analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

IOPL:

Intraoperative peritoneal lavage

IAI:

Intra-abdominal infection

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

GRADE:

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation

WSES:

World Society of Emergency Surgery

WSIS:

World Surgical Infection Society

IDSA:

Infectious Diseases Society of America

CSS:

Canadian Surgical Society

CSSIIC:

Chinese Society of Surgical Infection and Intensive Care

CPG:

Clinical practice guideline

IAA:

Intra-abdominal abscess

SSI:

Surgical site infection

RR:

Risk ratio

HIC:

High-income country

LMIC:

Low- and middle-income country

CI:

Confidence interval

MD:

Mean difference

SMD:

Standardized mean difference

PRISMA:

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis

SR:

Systematic review

References

  1. Menichetti F, Sganga G. Definition and classification of intra-abdominal infections. J Chemother. 2009;21(Suppl 1):3–4. https://doi.org/10.1179/joc.2009.21.Supplement-1.3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sartelli M, Coccolini F, Kluger Y, et al. WSES/GAIS/SIS-E/WSIS/AAST global clinical pathways for patients with intra-abdominal infections. World J Emerg Surg. 2021;16(1):49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-021-00387-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Sakr Y, Jaschinski U, Wittebole X, et al. Sepsis in intensive care unit patients: worldwide data from the intensive care over nations audit. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018;5(12):ofy313. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofy313.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Sartelli M, Abu-Zidan FM, Catena F, et al. Global validation of the WSES Sepsis Severity Score for patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections: a prospective multicentre study (WISS Study). World J Emerg Surg. 2015;10(1):61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-015-0055-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Sartelli M, Catena F, Ansaloni L, et al. Complicated intra-abdominal infections in a worldwide context: an observational prospective study (CIAOW Study). World J Emerg Surg. 2013;8(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-8-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Sartelli M, Catena F, Ansaloni L, et al. Complicated intra-abdominal infections worldwide: the definitive data of the CIAOW Study. World J Emerg Surg. 2014;9(1):37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-9-37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Sartelli M, Chichom-Mefire A, Labricciosa FM, et al. The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective: 2017 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections. World J Emerg Surg. 2017;12:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-017-0141-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Mazuski JE, Tessier JM, May AK, et al. The surgical infection society revised guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection. Surg Infect. 2017;18(1):1–76. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2016.261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Bradley JS, et al. Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the surgical infection society and the infectious diseases society of America. Surg Infect. 2010;11(1):79–109. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2009.9930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chow AW, Evans GA, Nathens AB, et al. Canadian practice guidelines for surgical intra-abdominal infections. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2010;21(1):11–37. https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/580340.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Wu X, Wu J, Wang P, et al. Diagnosis and management of intraabdominal infection: guidelines by the Chinese society of surgical infection and intensive care and the Chinese college of gastrointestinal fistula surgeons. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(Supplement_4):S337–62. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Whiteside OJ, Tytherleigh MG, Thrush S, et al. Intra-operative peritoneal lavage–who does it and why? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2005;87(4):255–8. https://doi.org/10.1308/1478708051847.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Muehlstedt SG, Pham TQ, Schmeling DJ. The management of pediatric appendicitis: a survey of North American pediatric surgeons. J Pediatr Surg. 2004;39(6):875–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.02.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Price J. Surgical intervention in cases of general peritonitis. Proc Phila Cty Med Soc. 1905;26(189):199.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Escolino M, Becmeur F, Saxena A, et al. Infectious complications after laparoscopic appendectomy in pediatric patients with perforated appendicitis: is there a difference in the outcome using irrigation and suction versus suction only? results of a multicentric international retrospective study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2018;28(10):1266–70. https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2018.0061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hartwich JE, Carter RF, Wolfe L, et al. The effects of irrigation on outcomes in cases of perforated appendicitis in children. J Surg Res. 2013;180(2):222–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2012.04.043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Kelly A, et al. Irrigation versus suction alone in laparoscopic appendectomy: is dilution the solution to pollution? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Innov. 2018;25(2):174–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350617753244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gammeri E, Petrinic T, Bond-Smith G, et al. Meta-analysis of peritoneal lavage in appendicectomy. BJS Open. 2018;3(1):24–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs5.50118.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Siotos C, Stergios K, Prasath V, et al. Irrigation versus suction in laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: a meta-analysis. J Surg Res. 2019;235:237–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.10.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yen YT, Loh EW, Tam KW. Effect and safety of peritoneal lavage for appendectomy: a meta-analysis. Surgeon. 2021;19(6):e430–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2021.01.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Oweira H, Elhadedy H, Reissfelder C, et al. Irrigation during laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis increases the operative time and reoperation rate: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Updates Surg. 2021;73(5):1663–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-01075-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Burini G, Cianci MC, Coccetta M, et al. Aspiration versus peritoneal lavage in appendicitis: a meta-analysis. World J Emerg Surg. 2021;16(1):44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-021-00391-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhou Q, Shi Q, Yu X, et al. Effectiveness of intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) with saline in patient with intra-abdominal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7):e036273. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036273.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):158–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, et al. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1:97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Sterne JAC, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(10):1046–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00377-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hunt JL. Generalized peritonitis. To irrigate or not to irrigate the abdominal cavity. Arch Surg. 1982;117(2):209–12. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1982.01380260075013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schein M, Gecelter G, Freinkel W, et al. Peritoneal lavage in abdominal sepsis. A controlled clinical study. Arch Surg. 1990;125(9):1132–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1990.01410210058008.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. St Peter SD, Adibe OO, Iqbal CW, et al. Irrigation versus suction alone during laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis: a prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg. 2012;256(4):581–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31826a91e5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Snow HA, Choi JM, Cheng MW, et al. Irrigation versus suction alone during laparoscopic appendectomy; a randomized controlled equivalence trial. Int J Surg. 2016;28:91–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.01.099.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sun F, Wang H, Zhang F, et al. Copious irrigation versus suction alone during laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis in adults. J Invest Surg. 2018;31(4):342–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941939.2017.1319995.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang Z, Wu X. Role of peritoneal lavage in laparoscopic treatment of acute appendicitis with purulent peritonitis. J Clin Med. 2017;4(9):1608–9 (Article in Chinese).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sardiwalla II, Koto MZ. Laparoscopic lavage versus suction only in complicated acute appendicitis: a prospective randomized control trial. Int Surg. 2018;103(7–8):371–7. https://doi.org/10.9738/INTSURG-D-18-00025.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nataraja RM, Panabokke G, Chang AD, et al. Does peritoneal lavage influence the rate of complications following pediatric laparoscopic appendicectomy in children with complicated appendicitis? A prospective randomized clinical trial. J Pediatr Surg. 2019;54(12):2524–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2019.08.039.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Palao MTS. Impact of irrigation vs. suction in the rate of post-surgical abscesses in laparoscopic appendectomies for complicated acute appendicitis: Isaac trial. https://digitum.um.es/digitum/handle/10201/74941. Accessed Feb 20, 2023.

  40. Gemici E, Bozkurt MA, Sürek A, et al. Laparoscopic lavage versus aspiration alone in perforated acute appendicitis: a prospective randomized controlled study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2020;30(1):14–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000745.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Myers E, Hurley M, O’Sullivan GC, et al. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage for generalized peritonitis due to perforated diverticulitis. Br J Surg. 2008;95:97–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6024.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sugimoto K, Hirata M, Takishima T, et al. Mechanically assisted intraoperative peritoneal lavage for generalized peritonitis as a result of perforation of the upper part of the gastrointestinal tract. J Am Coll Surg. 1994;179(4):443–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Leiboff AR, Soroff HS. The treatment of generalized peritonitis by closed postoperative peritoneal lavage. A critical review of the literature. Arch Surg. 1987;122(9):1005–10. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1987.01400210043006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Prescient Surgical. The solution to pollution is dilution. https://www.prescientsurgical.com/insights/the-solution-to-pollution-is-dilution-1. Accessed Feb 20, 2023.

  45. Deaver JB. The diagnosis and treatment of peritonitis of the upper abdomen. Boston Med Surg J. 1910;162(15):485–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. St Peter SD, Holcomb GW 3rd. Should peritoneal lavage be used with suction during laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis? Adv Surg. 2013;47:111–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yasu.2013.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Iglesias NJ, Arrowood R, Montgomery L, et al. Operative time is independently associated with morbidity in pediatric complicated appendicitis. J Surg Res. 2022;276:143–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.02.045.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. de Lissovoy G, Fraeman K, Hutchins V, et al. Surgical site infection: incidence and impact on hospital utilization and treatment costs. Am J Infect Control. 2009;37(5):387–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2008.12.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zimlichman E, Henderson D, Tamir O, et al. Health care-associated infections: a meta-analysis of costs and financial impact on the US health care system. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(22):2039–46. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9763.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Owens PL, Barrett ML, Raetzman S, et al. Surgical site infections following ambulatory surgery procedures. JAMA. 2014;311(7):709–16. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This study was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (No. lzujbky-2021-ey13).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Qi Zhou and Wenbo Meng have contributed equally and joint first authors

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China

    Qi Zhou, Zijun Wang, Kehu Yang & Yaolong Chen

  2. Department of General Surgery, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China

    Wenbo Meng

  3. University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA

    Yanhan Ren

  4. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, National Clinical Research Center for Child Health and Disorders, Ministry of Education Key Laboratory of Child Development and Disorders, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Pediatrics, Chongqing, China

    Qinyuan Li & Zhengxiu Luo

  5. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marja A. Boermeester

  6. Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology and Metabolism, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Marja A. Boermeester

  7. Department of Plastic Surgery, AIC Kijabe Hospital, Kijabe, Kenya

    Peter Muli Nthumba

  8. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Peter Muli Nthumba

  9. Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Jennifer Rickard

  10. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

    Bobo Zheng

  11. School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China

    Hui Liu, Siya Zhao & Xiao Liu

  12. The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China

    Qianling Shi

  13. Research Unit of Evidence-Based Evaluation and Guidelines, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (2021RU017), School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China

    Yaolong Chen

  14. Chevidence Lab of Child and Adolescent Health, Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

    Yaolong Chen

  15. Department of Surgery, Western Michigan University School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, MI, USA

    Robert G. Sawyer

Authors
  1. Qi Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenbo Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yanhan Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qinyuan Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marja A. Boermeester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter Muli Nthumba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jennifer Rickard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bobo Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Hui Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Qianling Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Siya Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Zijun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Xiao Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Zhengxiu Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Kehu Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Yaolong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Robert G. Sawyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

QZ: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, methodology, software, formal analysis, writing—original draft. WM: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, formal analysis, validation, writing—original draft. YR: data curation, investigation, methodology, software, writing—review & editing. QL: data curation, investigation, formal analysis, writing—review & editing. MAB: writing—review & editing. PMN: writing—review & editing. JR: writing—review & editing. BZ: data curation, investigation, methodology. HL: data curation, investigation, methodology. QS: data curation, investigation, methodology. SZ: data curation, investigation, methodology. ZW: data curation, investigation, methodology. XL: data curation, investigation, methodology. ZL: writing—review & editing. KY: writing—review & editing. YC: conceptualization, validation, writing—review & editing, funding acquisition, resources, project administration, supervision. RGS: conceptualization, writing—review & editing, project administration, supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yaolong Chen.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study is a Meta-analysis and ethics statement is not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. Additional Table 1.

Search strategy; Additional Table 2. Definition for each outcome; Additional Table 3. Details on the missing SDs imputation for each outcome; Additional Table 4. Characteristics of excluded studies; Additional Table 5. GRADE assessment (summary of findings table); Additional Figure 1. Risk of bias assessment; Additional Figure 2. Forest plots with subgroup analysis of primary outcomes; Additional Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis of primary outcomes; Additional Figure 4. Publication bias (Egger’s test).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, Q., Meng, W., Ren, Y. et al. Effectiveness of intraoperative peritoneal lavage with saline in patient with intra-abdominal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Emerg Surg 18, 24 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00496-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-023-00496-6

Keywords

World Journal of Emergency Surgery

ISSN: 1749-7922