Randomized, prospective comparison of open and closed peritoneal lavage for abdominal trauma

Bryan Troop, Timothy Fabian, Betty Alsup, Kenneth Kudsk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study objective: The study was designed to determine if open peritoneal lavage is superior to closed peritoneal lavage. Design and participants: Patients who were admitted to a trauma center and needed peritoneal lavage were assigned to alternate trauma teams. Team 1 performed only open lavages one month and then switched to closed lavages; team 2 did only closed lavages and then switched to open lavages. Measurements: The incidences of positive lavages and lavage complication were noted, Also measured were the length of time for catheter insertion, length of time of fluid retrieval, volume of effluent, technical difficulty of lavage, training level of the operator, effluent RBC count, and material cost. Results: Two hundred twenty patients were randomized, No differences were noted in complication rate, volume of effluent, or length of time for fluid retrieval. Significant differences were noted for catheter insertion time (3,6 minutes for closed lavage and 6.9 minutes for open), ease of catheter insertion (closed technique is favored), and material cost ($96.26 for open lavage and $69.70 for closed lavage). Conclusion: Closed peritoneal lavage is superior to open peritoneal lavage in abdominal trauma; it is faster, easier to use, cheaper, and as safe as open lavage.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1290-1292
Number of pages3
JournalAnnals of Emergency Medicine
Volume20
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1991

Fingerprint

Peritoneal Lavage
Therapeutic Irrigation
Wounds and Injuries
Catheters
Costs and Cost Analysis
Trauma Centers

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Randomized, prospective comparison of open and closed peritoneal lavage for abdominal trauma. / Troop, Bryan; Fabian, Timothy; Alsup, Betty; Kudsk, Kenneth.

In: Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 20, No. 12, 01.01.1991, p. 1290-1292.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Troop, Bryan ; Fabian, Timothy ; Alsup, Betty ; Kudsk, Kenneth. / Randomized, prospective comparison of open and closed peritoneal lavage for abdominal trauma. In: Annals of Emergency Medicine. 1991 ; Vol. 20, No. 12. pp. 1290-1292.
@article{cfe68a36537946eb993ec86d0319f843,
title = "Randomized, prospective comparison of open and closed peritoneal lavage for abdominal trauma",
abstract = "Study objective: The study was designed to determine if open peritoneal lavage is superior to closed peritoneal lavage. Design and participants: Patients who were admitted to a trauma center and needed peritoneal lavage were assigned to alternate trauma teams. Team 1 performed only open lavages one month and then switched to closed lavages; team 2 did only closed lavages and then switched to open lavages. Measurements: The incidences of positive lavages and lavage complication were noted, Also measured were the length of time for catheter insertion, length of time of fluid retrieval, volume of effluent, technical difficulty of lavage, training level of the operator, effluent RBC count, and material cost. Results: Two hundred twenty patients were randomized, No differences were noted in complication rate, volume of effluent, or length of time for fluid retrieval. Significant differences were noted for catheter insertion time (3,6 minutes for closed lavage and 6.9 minutes for open), ease of catheter insertion (closed technique is favored), and material cost ($96.26 for open lavage and $69.70 for closed lavage). Conclusion: Closed peritoneal lavage is superior to open peritoneal lavage in abdominal trauma; it is faster, easier to use, cheaper, and as safe as open lavage.",
author = "Bryan Troop and Timothy Fabian and Betty Alsup and Kenneth Kudsk",
year = "1991",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0196-0644(05)81067-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "1290--1292",
journal = "Annals of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0196-0644",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized, prospective comparison of open and closed peritoneal lavage for abdominal trauma

AU - Troop, Bryan

AU - Fabian, Timothy

AU - Alsup, Betty

AU - Kudsk, Kenneth

PY - 1991/1/1

Y1 - 1991/1/1

N2 - Study objective: The study was designed to determine if open peritoneal lavage is superior to closed peritoneal lavage. Design and participants: Patients who were admitted to a trauma center and needed peritoneal lavage were assigned to alternate trauma teams. Team 1 performed only open lavages one month and then switched to closed lavages; team 2 did only closed lavages and then switched to open lavages. Measurements: The incidences of positive lavages and lavage complication were noted, Also measured were the length of time for catheter insertion, length of time of fluid retrieval, volume of effluent, technical difficulty of lavage, training level of the operator, effluent RBC count, and material cost. Results: Two hundred twenty patients were randomized, No differences were noted in complication rate, volume of effluent, or length of time for fluid retrieval. Significant differences were noted for catheter insertion time (3,6 minutes for closed lavage and 6.9 minutes for open), ease of catheter insertion (closed technique is favored), and material cost ($96.26 for open lavage and $69.70 for closed lavage). Conclusion: Closed peritoneal lavage is superior to open peritoneal lavage in abdominal trauma; it is faster, easier to use, cheaper, and as safe as open lavage.

AB - Study objective: The study was designed to determine if open peritoneal lavage is superior to closed peritoneal lavage. Design and participants: Patients who were admitted to a trauma center and needed peritoneal lavage were assigned to alternate trauma teams. Team 1 performed only open lavages one month and then switched to closed lavages; team 2 did only closed lavages and then switched to open lavages. Measurements: The incidences of positive lavages and lavage complication were noted, Also measured were the length of time for catheter insertion, length of time of fluid retrieval, volume of effluent, technical difficulty of lavage, training level of the operator, effluent RBC count, and material cost. Results: Two hundred twenty patients were randomized, No differences were noted in complication rate, volume of effluent, or length of time for fluid retrieval. Significant differences were noted for catheter insertion time (3,6 minutes for closed lavage and 6.9 minutes for open), ease of catheter insertion (closed technique is favored), and material cost ($96.26 for open lavage and $69.70 for closed lavage). Conclusion: Closed peritoneal lavage is superior to open peritoneal lavage in abdominal trauma; it is faster, easier to use, cheaper, and as safe as open lavage.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0025935595&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0025935595&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0196-0644(05)81067-4

DO - 10.1016/S0196-0644(05)81067-4

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 1290

EP - 1292

JO - Annals of Emergency Medicine

JF - Annals of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0196-0644

IS - 12

ER -