{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024824952259707194, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022278803309993635, 'mean_word_length': 5.313253012048193, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Outcome of primary peritoneal drainage for perforated necrotizing enterocolitis: comparison between laparotomy and drainage.

Perforation of the gastrointestinal tract in neonates is still associated with high mortality rates. Laparotomy is usually required to treat gastrointestinal perforation, however peritoneal drainage under local anesthesia has been also described as an alternative mode of treatment. In our institute, laparotomy was the first choice for the management of gastrointestinal perforation in neonates until 1999. Because of the high mortality rates in this group of patients, our policy has since changed to the use of primary peritoneal drainage instead. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of primary peritoneal drainage (PPD) and primary laparotomy (PL) procedures in the management of gastrointestinal perforation due to necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates. Between 1994 - 1998, ten babies with intestinal perforation underwent PL, whereas fifteen newborns with similar findings were treated with PPD between 1999 and 2003. Eight (80 %) of the patients died in the PL group prior to 1999. In the PPD group 8 (53.3 %) of babies required no further treatment and were discharged without any complications. Four (26.7 %) patients in this group needed laparotomy later, and three (75 %) of them survived. In conclusion, we believe that PPD is more effective than PL for the management of perforated necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates. Laparotomy can be used in particularly unresponsive cases after primary peritoneal drainage.