A Prospective, Randomized Comparison between Open and Closed Peritoneal Lavage Techniques
- 1 July 1990
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health
- Vol. 30 (7) , 880-883
- https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-199007000-00019
Abstract
We randomized 327 blunt trauma patients to compare the open peritoneal lavage technique with the percutaneous (Seldinger wire) technique. The open and closed lavage groups were similar with respect to accuracy and safety. There were one complication in the percutaneous group and two in patients treated by the open method. The incidence of positive lavage was similar in each group. There was one false positive in the percutaneous group and none in the open method group. False negative results did not occur by either method. The percutaneous lavage method required less time for performance, had better patient tolerance, and only required one surgeon to perform the procedure. Percutaneous diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL), in the hands of trauma surgeons, is a safe and acceptable alternative to the open DPL method and actually had several advantages as mentioned above.This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Prospective Randomized Trial of the Lazarus-Nelson vs. the Standard Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter for Peritoneal Lavage in Blunt Abdominal TraumaPublished by Wolters Kluwer Health ,1987
- Open Versus Closed Diagnostic Peritoneal LavageAnnals of Surgery, 1984
- Comparison of the Lazarus-Nelson Peritoneal Lavage Catheter with the Standard Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter in Abdominal TraumaPublished by Wolters Kluwer Health ,1982
- TECHNIQUE FOR PERITONEAL-LAVAGE WITHOUT RISK OR COMPLICATION1979