PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10068823

[In Process Citation]

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the majority of surgeons regard Hartmann's operation as therapeutic standard in perforations of the colon complicated by peritonitis this procedure has been critically discussed in recent years. Advocates of one-stage techniques criticized bad postoperative results (high morbidity and mortality) and long-term outcome (low rates of intestinal restoration). The aim of our study was to investigate whether the late results after Hartmann's operation justify this criticism. METHOD: From 1982 to 1997 Hartmann's operations were performed in 103 patients for colonic perforations. In 63% of cases inflammatory diseases caused colonic complications. The average Mannheimer Peritonitis Index (MPI) was 19. Seventeen patients died postoperatively (mortality: 16.5%). In 69 patients (80%) intestinal restoration could be performed after an average interval of 122 days (complication rate: 6%, no mortality). On follow-up, patients were asked to give information on their general state, changes of housing, abdominal complaints, and quality of life. RESULTS: Data on 93% of patients could be obtained. The median follow-up time was 75 months. Eleven patients had died; the remaining 72 were investigated. 86% described the quality of their lives as good or very good; only 11% indicated severe loss of activity. Quality of life did not differ between patients in whom intestinal continuity had been restored and those in whom it had not been restored. Anastomotic structures developed in 7% of cases, always after stapled anastomosis. CONCLUSIONS: According to our results, long-term outcome after Hartmann's operation is good. 80% of patients underwent intestinal restoration with low morbidity (6%) and no mortality. A great majority of patients indicated the quality of their lives as good or very good: this assessment was not dependent on restoration of intestinal continuity.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Kriwanek, M Gschwantler, P Beckerhinn, C Armbruster, R Roka. 1999. [In Process Citation]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001040050605

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗