Skip to main content
Download PDF

Magnitude of in-hospital mortality and its associated factors among patients undergone laparotomy at tertiary public hospitals, West Oromia, Ethiopia, 2022

BMC Surgery volume 24, Article number: 193 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Laparotomy surgery, which involves making an incision in the abdominal cavity to treat serious abdominal disease and save the patient’s life, causes significant deaths in both developed and developing countries, including Ethiopia. The number studies examining in-hospital mortality rates among individuals that undergone laparotomy surgery and associated risk factors is limited.

Objective

To assess the magnitude of in-hospital mortality and its associated factors among patients undergone laparotomy at tertiary hospitals, West Oromia, Ethiopia, 2022.

Methods

An institutional based retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. Data were collected using systematic random sampling and based on structured and pretested abstraction sheets from 548 medical records and patient register log. Data were checked for completeness and consistency, coded, imported using Epi-data version 4.6, cleaned and analyzed using SPSS version 25 software. Variables with p < 0.2 in the Bi-variable logistic regression analysis were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. The fit of the model was checked by the Hosmer‒Lemeshow test. Using the odds ratio adjusted to 95% CI and a p value of 0.05, statistical significance was declared.

Results

A total of 512 patient charts were reviewed, and the response rate was 93.43%. The overall magnitude of in-hospital mortality was 7.42% [95% CI: 5.4–9.8]. American society of Anesthesiology physiological status greater than III [AOR = 7.64 (95% CI: 3.12–18.66)], systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg [AOR = 6.11 (95% CI: 1.98–18.80)], preoperative sepsis [AOR = 3.54 (95% CI: 1.53–8.19)], ICU admission [AOR = 4.75 (95% CI: 1.50-14.96)], and total hospital stay greater than 14 days [(AOR = 6.76 (95% CI: 2.50-18.26)] were significantly associated with mortality after laparotomy surgery.

Concussion

In this study, overall in- hospital mortality was high. Early identification patient’s American Society of Anesthesiologists physiological status and provision of early appropriate intervention, and pays special attention to patients admitted with low systolic blood pressure, preoperative sepsis, intensive care unit admission and prolonged hospital stay to improve patient outcomes after laparotomy surgery.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

A laparotomy is a form of surgery requiring cutting into the abdominal cavity to treat serious abdominal diseases and save life [1]. It is the most common kind of surgery for conditions such as abdominal infections, intestinal obstruction, tumors, hernias, and intestinal traumas [2]. Globally, mortality rate for laparotomy surgery ranges between 8 and 18%, with varying rates in high, low, and middle-income countries [3,4,5,6].

Evidence from the Netherlands and Japan has shown that some patients recover and are discharged from the hospital after laparotomy surgery, while others develop an event that causes in-hospital mortality [7, 8]. A prior study revealed that the mortality rate after elective laparotomies in middle-income and low-income countries was equivalent to the death rate after emergency laparotomies in high-income countries [9]. Laparotomy is one of the top three surgical treatments in sub-Saharan Africa [10], accounts for a higher proportion of surgical procedures, and contributes to 2–3 times higher in-hospital mortality [11].

Evidence from Malawi and Tanzania showed that the magnitude of in-hospital mortality after laparotomy was 14.8% and 17%, respectively [12, 13]. A study from Ethiopia showed that the magnitude of in-hospital mortality after laparotomy was 8.1–8.5% ( [14, 15].

Preexisting comorbidities, systemic sepsis, inadequate tissue oxygenation, patients presenting late for surgery, delays prior to hospitalization, and late referral were all factors contributing to in-hospital mortality after laparotomy in Sub-Saharan Africa [16, 17]. Great progress has been made over the last two decades, and the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery 2030 recommends that district hospitals in both developed and developing countries provide basic surgical care and emergency care, including laparotomy, as well as a range of other services [18].

Ethiopia has worked to fill gaps in life-saving surgery through safe surgery, improving access to safe, necessary anaesthetic and surgical interventions in hospitals [19]. A previous study indicated that identifying factors associated with postoperative mortality was regarded as an indirect measure of surgical quality, aiding in the identification of reasons for increased mortality and the identification of selected practical intervention strategies [20, 21].

Despite the fact that several studies have been conducted in developed as well as developing countries among patients who had undergone laparotomy surgery, scholars are aware of very few studies on factors associated with in-hospital mortality among patients who had undergone laparotomy surgery. There have been no previous studies in the study area.

This multicentre study aims to assess magnitude of in-hospital mortality and associated factors for patients undergone laparotomy surgery in tertiary hospitals in western Oromia, Ethiopia, 2022.

Methods

Study area and period

The study was carried out from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021, at tertiary hospitals in western Oromia. Ambo University Referral Hospital, Nekemte Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Wallaga University Referral Hospital, Jimma University Specialized Hospital, and Mettu Karl Comprehensive Specialized Hospital are the five public tertiary hospitals in Western Oromia. The study was conducted at the three hospitals randomly selected by lottery method and listed below. Ambo University Referral Hospital is located in Ambo, the capital of East Showa, and is 114 km from Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa. The hospital serves around 5 million people and serves as a teaching hospital, offering multidisciplinary services, such as surgical interventions [22].

Nekemte Comprehensive Specialized Hospital is located in Nekemte town, East Wallaga, Ethiopia. The hospital provides services to approximately 5 million people in the catchment area and has multidisciplinary specialists [23, 24].

Mettu Karl Hospital is in Mettu, a city 600 km from Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa. The hospital serves over 2.5 million people in the Ilu Ababor Region, Gambella Regional State, and the Southern Nationality and People’s Republic. The hospital provides multidisciplinary services, including surgery, and serves about 13,453 inpatients and 80,000 outpatients per year [25].

Study design

An institutional-based cross-sectional study.

Source and study population

Source population

Patients who undergone laparotomy surgery.

Study population

Patients who undergone laparotomy surgery from January 1, 2017- December 31, 2021 GC.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria

Patients who undergone laparotomy surgery.

Exclusion criteria

Cesarean section, obstetrics & Gynecologic laparotomy.

Study variables

Dependent variable

In-hospital mortality.

Independent variables

Patient-related factors are age, sex, ASA status, residence, presence of comorbidities, and systolic blood pressure.

Disease-related factors are initial admission, surgical indication or diagnosis, duration of onset of symptoms, urgency of surgery, presence of preoperative sepsis, and postoperative complications.

Care-related factors are preoperative imaging, laboratory tests, organ function tests, blood transfusion, intraoperative blood loss, preoperative medication, prophylaxis antibiotics, vasopressor use, anaesthesia drugs, use of the WHO checklist, duration of surgery, postoperative follow-up, hospital stay, intensive care unit admission, and duration of stay in the intensive care unit.

Operational definition

Laparotomy

Surgical incision into the abdominal cavity for treatment or diagnosis [1].

In-hospital mortality

Death occurred in the hospital after laparotomy [14].

ASA status

The American Society of Anaesthesiologists’ physiological status classification system categorises patients based on operative risk at the time of assessment into six classes (I-VI): ASA I: healthy patients; ASA II: mild systemic disease; ASA III: severe systemic disease with functional loss; ASA IV: severe systemic disease that is a constant threat to life; ASA V: morbid patients unlikely to survive with or without surgery; ASA VI: brain death and organ donation [26].

Comorbidity

Presence of any systemic disease other than surgical reason [14].

Sample size determination

The sample size (n) needed for the study was calculated according to an observational study performed at the University of Gondar Compressive Specialized Hospital [14] and determined by the single population proportion formula.

n = \(\frac{(\text{Z}\frac{{\upalpha }}{2}{)}^{2} \text{p}\left(1-p\right)}{{\text{d}}^{2}}\) where

n = desired sample size.

P = the overall prevalence of mortality 8.1% [14].

\(\text{Z}\frac{{\upalpha }}{2}\)= critical value at the 95% confidence interval, i.e., 1.96

d = Margin of error between the sample and the proportion, i.e., 3% (0.03).

n = \(\frac{{\left(1.96\right)}^{2} 0.081\left(1-0.081\right)}{{\left(0.03\right)}^{2}}\)= 318, by adding a 10% =32 nonresponse rate sample size for the first objective = 350.

For the second objective, the sample size was calculated by considering significantly associated factors. Preoperative sepsis (AOR = 6.7), mechanism of abdominal injury (blunt abdominal injury) (AOR = 7.25), age > 65 (AOR = 6.7), and SBP < 90 mmHg (AOR = 8.6).

The final sample size for this study was taken from the 2nd objective: 332 + 33 (10%) = 365. Because the sampling procedure has a design effect (1.5), multiplied by the final sample size for the second objective, it was 365 × 1.5 = 548 (Table 1:).

Table 1 Sample size determination to assess the magnitude of in-hospital mortality and its associated factors among patients undergone laparotomy at tertiary hospitals, West Oromia, Ethiopia, 2022 (for second objective)
Full size table

Sampling procedure

All patients who undergone laparotomy surgery from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021, were included through a systematic random sampling technique using the hospital ward registration list as a sampling frame, and the sample size for selected hospitals was proportionally allocated (Fig. 1:).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Schematic presentation of sampling procedure on magnitude of in-hospital mortality and its associated factors mortality among patients undergone laparotomy at tertiary hospitals, West Oromia, Ethiopia, 2022

Full size image

Data collection tools and procedure

A structured checklist prepared in English and adapted from [14, 27,28,29] was used to collect data. Data collectors collected all the information from the chart into a data abstraction format. Six BSc nurses (two in each hospital) were recruited to collect data and three MSC nurses (one in each hospital) to supervise daily activities in each hospital.

Data quality management

Investigators gave training on the use of the study protocol to data collectors and supervisors. The abstract sheet was pretested on 27 (5%) medical records at the Wallaga University Referral Hospital. The reliability of the data extraction sheet has been checked and verified by experts. During data collection, all data were collected and correctly compiled in a prepared format. The investigators supervised and facilitated the entire data collection and completeness check process.

Data processing and analysis procedure

The data were checked for completeness and consistency and then coded and entered using Epi-Data Version 4.6. The data were also cleaned and analyzed using SPSS version 25. The outliers were screened through visual assessment for scattered plot diagrams. Box plots and histograms, as well as Kolmogorov-Spiro, were used to test normality. Descriptive statistics were computed to determine frequencies and summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, median, IQR, and percentage). The data were summarized and presented using text, tables, and charts. All variables with P < 0.2 in the bi-variable analysis were included in the final model of multivariable analysis to control possible confounders. The correlation between independent variables was tested for multicollinearity by using the variance inflation factor (VIF = 1.17–4.23) and correlation matrix < 1. Model fitness was checked with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (0.103). A statistically significant value was declared using the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) at a 95% confidence interval and a p value < 0.05.

Results

Patient-related factors

A total of 512 patient charts were reviewed with a 93.43% response rate, while 36 (6.57%) were excluded due to missing or incomplete outcome variables. The majority of them, 401 (78.32%), were between the ages of 18 and 64 year. Patients ranged in age from 1 to 92 year, with a mean of 36.24 and SD = 0.755 year. Among the 512 study participants, 319 (62.3%) were males, and 281 (54.9%) were from rural areas. The majority of patients (n = 388, or 75.8%) had American Society of Anesthesiologists Physiological Status I. Preoperatively associated comorbidities were present in 73 (14.3%) of the patients. The majority of the 482 study participants (94.1%) had a systolic blood pressure of greater than 90 mmHg (Table 2).

Table 2 Patients related factors among patients undergone laparotomy at tertiary hospitals, West Oromia, Ethiopia, 2022 (n = 512)
Full size table

Disease-related factors

Among the 512 participants, 294 (57.4%) were seen initially at the emergency department, and 82 (16%) were admitted for elective laparotomy. The majority of patients, 482 (82.2%), presented within 7 days of their initial symptoms, and 115 (22.5%) had preoperative sepsis. Thirty (36.6%) patients were admitted for elective laparotomy for cholelithiasis; fourteen (17.1%) had gastric outlet obstruction; and eleven (13.4%) had rectal cancer. The majority of patients (84.9%) were admitted for a non-traumatic emergency laparotomy. The most common reason for a non-traumatic emergency laparotomy was to diagnose acute appendicitis, which accounted for 27.55%, followed by small bowel obstruction, which accounted for 17.8%. The most common reason for a traumatic emergency laparotomy was diaphragmatic injury 29.6% (Table 3):.

Table 3 Admission status of patients undergone laparotomy at tertiary hospitals, West Oromia, Ethiopia, 2022 (n = 512)
Full size table

Health care intervention

An abdominal ultrasound was performed for 43.9% of the 512 patients. Among 512 patients, 73.4% had hemoglobin 11–18 mg/dl, 93.4% of study participants had a platelet count of 150–450 × 109/L, and 73.4% of study participants had a platelet count of 4–11 × 103/mm3. Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered to 100% of patients, but only 86.5% received preoperative medication. Within 30 days, 3.3% of patients had a re-laparotomy within 30 days (Table 4:).

Table 4 Factors related to health care intervention among patients undergone laparotomy surgery at tertiary hospitals, West Oromia, Ethiopia, 2022 (n = 512)
Full size table

Surgical procedure

Appendectomy was the most common surgical procedure performed (27.1%), followed by anastomosis resection (15.2%). Almost all patients (99.8%) undergone surgery under general anesthesia, and the WHO surgical safety checklist was used for 86.3% of the patients. One hundred and seven (20.9%) patients received early surgical intervention, 79.1% received surgical intervention more than six hours after hospital admission, and the majority of patients (90%) experienced intraoperative blood loss of ≤ 500 ml (Table 5).

Table 5 Surgical procedure among patients undergone laparotomy surgery at tertiary hospitals, West Oromia, Ethiopia, 2022 (n = 512)
Full size table

Patient condition and transfer after surgery

Only 3.2% of patients were directly transferred from the operating theatre to the intensive care unit, while 94.3% of patients were transferred to the surgical ward after the operation. The majority of patients (92.2%) stayed in the hospital for less than 14 days, with a median of 7 and an interquartile range of 7 ± 4 days. One hundred fifty-one (29.5%) had postoperative surgical complications, including hemorrhage (3.3%), hospital-acquired pneumonia (2.9%), and wound infection (9.0%) (Table 6:). More than three quarters of patient’s undergone laparotomy, (92.58%) were discharged with alive (after improvement) (Fig. 2:).

Table 6 Post-operative care and hospital stay among patients undergone laparotomy surgery at tertiary hospitals, West Oromia, Ethiopia, 2022 (n = 512)
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Discharge status. A total of 512 patients undergone laparotomy, the overall in-hospital mortality rate was 7.42%

Full size image

Factors associated with in-hospital mortality

In the final multivariable analysis, age of patients, ASA status, comorbidity, low systolic blood pressure at admission, presence of preoperative sepsis, re-laparotomy within 30 days, blood transfusion, duration of anesthesia, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, ICU admission, intraoperative vasopressor use, length of hospital stay, and postoperative surgical complications had values of 0.2. A significant association between the outcome variable and multivariable logistic regression was discovered. Patients with ASA status III, low systolic blood pressure at admission, preoperative sepsis, ICU admission, and length of hospital stay of 14 had a p value of less than 0.05.

The odds of death after laparotomy surgery for patients with an ASA status of ≥ III was approximately 7.6 times higher than for patients with an ASA status of I and II [AOR = 7.64 (95% CI: 3.12–18.66)]. The odds of death after laparotomy was six times higher in patients with systolic blood pressures of less than 90 mmHg at admission [AOR = 6.11 (95% CI: 1.98–18.80)] than in patients with blood pressures of greater than 90 mmHg at admission. The odds of mortality after laparotomy surgery was 3.5 times higher in patients with preoperative sepsis than in patients without sepsis [AOR = 3.54 (95% CI: 1.53–8.19)]. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit had a 4.7 more likely to die than those who were not admitted. The odds of death among patients who stayed in the hospital for ≥ 14 days were 6.7 times greater than those who stayed for < 14 days [AOR = 6.76 (95% CI: 2.50–18.26)] (Table 7:).

Table 7 Bi-variable & multivariable logistic regression analysis on factors associated with in-hospital mortality after laparotomy (n = 512)
Full size table

Discussion

The overall in-hospital mortality rate among patients who had undergone laparotomy was 7.42% [95% CI: 5.4–9.8]. This study agreed with the studies performed at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialty Hospital [14], St. Paul Millennium Hospital, Addis Ababa, 8.5% [15], Nigeria, 8% [30]. These studies also show lower results than studies conducted in Mali (14.8%) [12], Ghana (11.5%) [31], Tanzania (17%) [27] and Denmark (20.2%) [32]. Possible explanations for the discrepancy include study duration, indication, and study design. The Mali study was conducted prospectively at a single center over six months among adults hospitalized for emergency laparotomies, whereas the Ghana and Tanzania studies included a one-year retrospective for emergency laparotomies. A study in Denmark was conducted among 18-year-old patients who were hospitalized for abdominal emergencies. The deviations may be due to differences in the respondents’ sociodemographic characteristics and the length of the study. The evidence also suggested that the study’s short duration may not have been long enough to adequately represent the full spectrum of mortality [28]. This study also compared less with two previous studies conducted in the United States, where mortality rates were 21% and 23.3% [33, 34]. The difference could be explained by the fact that both of these studies were conducted in a trauma center among patients undergoing traumatic laparotomies. There are also differences in age between study units. The first study, conducted in the United States, included only patients aged 16 and above, while the second study included patients aged 55 and above. Previous research found that when study units were elderly, the risk of death after laparotomy surgery increased [12, 35].

Regarding factors, patients with ASA status ≥ III were nearly eight times more likely to die than those with ASA status I and II. This study consistent with the studies performed at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialty Hospital [14]. In contrast, Addis Ababa, St. In the Paul Millennium Hospital study, patients’ ASA status had no effect on mortality after emergency laparotomy [15], and a study performed in South Africa found that patients with lower ASA had a higher mortality rate [28]. The difference could be explained by the study’s short duration and the age groups represented in the study units. The majority of study units in Addis Ababa study were found in the 19–29 age groups among patients with abdominal trauma, whereas the study in South Africa included adult patients who were admitted to emergency laparotomy surgery for only three months. A previous study discovered that older patients had a higher ASA physical status, which was associated with an increased incidence of postoperative adverse events. ASA may help improve surgical intervention by assessing patient age and physical condition [36]. The findings from this study are supported by studies done in Malawi [12], the UK [37,38,39], Singapore [40], the USA [33], Turkey [41] and Ireland [42]. The possible explanation for this consistency is that patients’ ASA status contributes to decreased physiological reserve and that the negative effect of underlying abdominal pathology may contribute to an increased risk of postoperative mortality in laparotomy patients [43].

In this study, patients with a SBP less than 90 mmHg at admission were approximately six times more likely to die than patients with a systolic blood pressure greater than 90 mmHg. This finding is supported by studies conducted in Gondar [14], Addis Ababa [15], the United States of America [34] and the Netherlands [7]. The reason for consistency may be explained by the possibility that patients with intra-abdominal disease may experience hypovolemia due to intraluminal fluid accumulation, intra-abdominal hemorrhage, distributive shock from severe inflammation, or hypovolemia from the gastrointestinal tract through vomiting or diarrhea. In these cases, fluid resuscitation will need to continue during the perioperative period in accordance with the underlying cause [44].

The current study identified that patients who had preoperative sepsis were nearly four times more likely to die than those who did not have preoperative sepsis. This finding is consistent with findings from a study performed at the University of Gondar Comprehensive specialized Hospital [14], UK and Brazil [37, 45]. Evidence from the USA also showed that the presence of severe sepsis was independently associated with mortality after laparotomy surgery [46]. It can be explained that patients with preoperative sepsis are more likely to develop postoperative complications that result in organ dysfunction due to tissue hypo-perfusion, increased morbidity and mortality, and hospitalizations costs [47,48,49].

In this study, intensive care unit admission was a significant factor associated with mortality. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit while in the hospital were nearly five times more likely to die than those who were not admitted. This finding is supported by research conducted in various parts of the world, including South Africa [28], Rwanda [50], the UK [39], Singapore [40], Ireland [42], the Netherlands [7], and China [51].

This may be explained by patients admitted to the intensive care unit having a poor clinical outcome following laparotomy surgery due to poor general health and multiple potential risk factors. The length of stay in the intensive care unit can have an impact on patient mortality. Early discharge from intensive care may save the patient’s life by preventing treatment and hospital complications [52].

The length of hospital stay was found to be significantly associated to mortality in this study. Patients who stayed in the hospital for more than 14 days were nearly seven times more likely to die than those who did not. This study is supported by research from South Africa and Nigeria that shows that patients hospitalized for more than 14 days after laparotomy surgery have a higher risk of dying. The length of hospital stay may reflect the severity of the disease, necessitating a lengthy hospital stay until recovery, or the patient’s medical condition [28, 53]. One possible explanation for the similarity is that patients who stay in the hospital for an extended period of time are more vulnerable to postoperative complications, nosocomial infections, and increased mortality after laparotomy surgery [54,55,56].

Limitation and strength of the study

This is the first multicenter study conducted on in-hospital mortality after laparotomy at tertiary hospitals in the study area and Ethiopia, which may provide insight into the severity of the current problem and the need for the patient’s perioperative care and may be used as a reference for future researchers.

Conclusion

In this study, the overall magnitude of in-hospital mortality after laparotomy was high. American Society of Anesthesiology physiological status, low systolic blood pressure at admission, presence of preoperative sepsis at admission, intensive care unit admission, and length of hospital stay greater than fourteen days were factors associated with in-hospital mortality among patients who undergone laparotomy surgery.

Recommendations

To the respective institutions, hospitals, and health care professionals

General recommendation to decrease in-hospital mortality after laparotomy surgery.

  • The authors’ advice is to use preoperative risk identification guidelines, appropriate perioperative resuscitation and optimisation, early control of the sources of sepsis, and appropriate monitoring in the postoperative critical care unit for patients who stay in the hospital for a long time.

  • For seriously ill patients with sepsis, treatments, including fluid resuscitation, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and laboratory investigation, should be immediately initiated.

  • For future researchers, we recommend that researchers who are interested in the area conduct prospective follow-up studies.

Data availability

The datasets used or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request through email: alsanbenti4760@gmail.com.

Abbreviations

AOR:

Adjusted Odd Ratio

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologists

CI:

Confidence Interval

ICU:

Intensive Care Unit

SBP:

Systolic Blood Pressure

UK:

United Kingdom

USA:

United States of America

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. Strik C, Stommel MW, Schipper LJ, van Goor H, Ten Broek RP. Risk factors for future repeat abdominal surgery. Langenbeck’s Archives Surg. 2016;401(6):829–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Gejoe G, Yadev I, Rahul M. Emergency laparotomies at a tertiary care center—a hospital-based cross-sectional study. Indian J Surg. 2017;79(3):206–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Aggarwal G, Peden CJ, Mohammed MA, Pullyblank A, Williams B, Stephens T, et al. Evaluation of the collaborative use of an evidence-based care bundle in emergency laparotomy. JAMA Surg. 2019;154(5):e190145–e.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Barazanchi AW, Xia W, MacFater W, Bhat S, MacFater H, Taneja A, et al. Risk factors for mortality after emergency laparotomy: scoping systematic review. ANZ J Surg. 2020;90(10):1895–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stevens CL, Brown C, Watters DA. Measuring outcomes of clinical care: victorian emergency laparotomy audit using quality investigator. World J Surg. 2018;42(7):1981–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tolstrup M-B, Watt SK, Gögenur I. Morbidity and mortality rates after emergency abdominal surgery: an analysis of 4346 patients scheduled for emergency laparotomy or laparoscopy. Langenbeck’s Archives Surg. 2017;402(4):615–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hietbrink F, Smeeing D, Karhof S, Jonkers HF, Houwert M, van Wessem K, et al. Outcome of trauma-related emergency laparotomies, in an era of far-reaching specialization. World J Emerg Surg. 2019;14(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shimada H, Fukagawa T, Haga Y, Oba K. Does postoperative morbidity worsen the oncological outcome after radical surgery for gastrointestinal cancers? A systematic review of the literature. Annals Gastroenterological Surg. 2017;1(1):11–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pooled analysis of WHO Surgical. Safety Checklist use and mortality after emergency laparotomy. J Br Surg. 2019;106(2):e103–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Watters D, Wilson L. The comparability and utility of perioperative mortality rates in global health. Curr Anesthesiology Rep. 2021;11(1):48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Collaborative G. Mortality of emergency abdominal surgery in high-, middle-and low-income countries. 2016.

  12. Sincavage J, Msosa VJ, Katete C, Purcell LN, Charles A. Postoperative complications and risk of Mortality after Laparotomy in a Resource-Limited setting. J Surg Res. 2021;260:428–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mbabala D. Predictors and short term outcomes for patients who underwent laparotomy at Muhimbili National Hospital a cross section study. Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences; 2020.

  14. Oumer KE, Ahmed SA, Tawuye HY, Ferede YA. Outcomes and associated factors among patients undergone emergency laparotomy: a retrospective study. Int J Surg Open. 2021;36:100413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Abebe K, Bekele M, Tsehaye A, Lemmu B, Abebe E. Laparotomy for abdominal injury indication & outcome of patients at a teaching hospital in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2019;29(4).

  16. Ogbuanya AU-O, Amah D. Delay in presentation and challenges of treatment of complicated abdominal wall hernias in rural southeast Nigeria. Nigerian J Surg Sci. 2018;28(2):26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ackland G, Abbott T, Cain D, Edwards M, Sultan P, Karmali S, et al. Preoperative systemic inflammation and perioperative myocardial injury: prospective observational multicentre cohort study of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122(2):180–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Meara JG, Leather AJ, Hagander L, Alkire BC, Alonso N, Ameh EA, et al. Global surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet. 2015;386(9993):569–624.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Burssa D, Teshome A, Iverson K, Ahearn O, Ashengo T, Barash D, et al. Safe surgery for all: early lessons from implementing a national government-driven surgical plan in Ethiopia. World J Surg. 2017;41(12):3038–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mortality of emergency. Abdominal surgery in high-, middle- and low-income countries. Br J Surg. 2016;103(8):971–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Krishnamurthy V, Ishwaraprasad G, Rajanna B, Samudyatha U, Pruthvik B. Mortality pattern and trends in surgery wards: a five year retrospective study at a teaching hospital in Hassan district, Karnataka, India. Int Surg J. 2016;3(3):1125–9.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kefale B, Betero G, Temesgen G, Degu A. Management practice, and treatment outcome and its associated factors among hospitalized stroke patient at Ambo University Referral Hospital, Ethiopia: an institutional Based Cross Sectional Study. 2019.

  23. Fetensa G, Milkiyas N, Besho M, Hasen T, Teshoma M. Assessment of knowledge and practice of life style modification among hypertensive patients at Nekemte specialized hospital, western Oromia, Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study design. J Cardiovasc Dis Diagnosis. 2019;7(6).

  24. Firdisa G, Tilahun T, Kejela G. Determinants of uterovaginal prolapse in Western Ethiopia. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(2):421–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sheleme T, Mamo G, Melaku T, Sahilu T. Glycemic control and its predictors among adult diabetic patients attending Mettu Karl Referral Hospital, Southwest Ethiopia: a prospective observational study. Diabetes Therapy. 2020;11(8):1775–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Teni FS, Burström K, Berg J, Leidl R, Rolfson O. Predictive ability of the American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status classification system on health-related quality of life of patients after total hip replacement: comparisons across eight EQ-5D-3L value sets. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Amone D, Okello TR, Okot C, Kitara D, Mugabi P, Ogwang MD. Short-term outcomes of laparotomy in the two teaching hospitals of Gulu university, northern Uganda. 2020.

  28. Naidoo R, Faurie M, Oosthuizen G, Hardcastle T. Comparative outcome analysis of trauma and non-trauma emergency laparotomy using a modified NELA tool format. S Afr J Surg. 2021;59(1):12–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gebremedhn EG, Agegnehu AF, Anderson BB. Outcome assessment of emergency laparotomies and associated factors in low resource setting. A case series. Annals Med Surg. 2018;36:178–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Achiek M, Tawad F, Alier B, Yur C. One Stop Management of Sigmoid Volvulus in an African setting with limited resources. East Cent Afr J Surg. 2015;20(1):68–72.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hendriksen BS, Keeney L, Morrell D, Candela X, Oh J, Hollenbeak CS et al. Epidemiology and perioperative mortality of exploratory laparotomy in rural Ghana. Annals Global Health. 2020;86(1).

  32. Tengberg L, Cihoric M, Foss N, Bay-Nielsen M, Gögenur I, Henriksen R, et al. Complications after emergency laparotomy beyond the immediate postoperative period–a retrospective, observational cohort study of 1139 patients. Anaesthesia. 2017;72(3):309–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Joseph B, Zangbar B, Pandit V, Kulvatunyou N, Haider A, O’Keeffe T, et al. Mortality after trauma laparotomy in geriatric patients. J Surg Res. 2014;190(2):662–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Harvin JA, Maxim T, Inaba K, Martinez-Aguilar MA, King DR, Choudhry AJ, et al. Mortality following emergent trauma laparotomy: a multicenter, retrospective study: mortality after emergent trauma laparotomy. J Trauma Acute care Surg. 2017;83(3):464.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. St-Louis E, Sudarshan M, Al-Habboubi M, El-Husseini Hassan M, Deckelbaum D, Razek T, et al. The outcomes of the elderly in acute care general surgery. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016;42(1):107–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Luedi MM, Kauf P, Mulks L, Wieferich K, Schiffer R, Doll D. Implications of patient age and ASA physical status for operating room management decisions. Anesth Analgesia. 2016;122(4):1169–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Poulton TE, Moonesinghe R, Raine R, Martin P, Anderson ID, Bassett MG, et al. Socioeconomic deprivation and mortality after emergency laparotomy: an observational epidemiological study. Br J Anaesth. 2020;124(1):73–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Aitken RM, Partridge JS, Oliver CM, Murray D, Hare S, Lockwood S, et al. Older patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: observations from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA) years 1–4. Age Ageing. 2020;49(4):656–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Peacock O, Bassett M, Kuryba A, Walker K, Davies E, Anderson I, et al. Thirty-day mortality in patients undergoing laparotomy for small bowel obstruction. J Br Surg. 2018;105(8):1006–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Chua MSH, Chan DKH. Increased morbidity and mortality of emergency laparotomy in elderly patients. World J Surg. 2020;44(3):711–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hacım NA, Akbaş A, Ulgen Y, Aktokmakyan TV, Meric S, Tokocin M, et al. Association of Preoperative Risk Factors and mortality in older patients following emergency abdominal surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Annals Geriatric Med Res. 2021;25(4):252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ahmed M, Garry E, Moynihan A, Rehman W, Griffin J, Buggy D. Perioperative factors associated with postoperative morbidity after emergency laparotomy: a retrospective analysis in a university teaching hospital. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Shah J, Martin J, Abdelkarim M, Murali S, et al. The risk and predictors of mortality in octogenarians undergoing emergency laparotomy: a multicentre retrospective cohort study. Langenbeck’s Archives Surg. 2021;406(6):2037–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Poulton T, Murray D, team NELAp. Pre-optimisation of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: a review of best practice. Anaesthesia. 2019;74:100–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Stahlschmidt A, Novelo B, Freitas LA, Passos SC, Dussán-Sarria JA, Félix EA, et al. Predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing elective surgery in a university hospital: a prospective cohort. Revista brasileira de anestesiologia. 2018;68:492–8.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Becher RD, Peitzman AB, Sperry JL, Gallaher JR, Neff LP, Sun Y, et al. Damage control operations in non-trauma patients: defining criteria for the staged rapid source control laparotomy in emergency general surgery. World J Emerg Surg. 2016;11(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The Third International Consensus definitions for Sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(3):304–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Liu V, Escobar GJ, Greene JD, Soule J, Whippy A, Angus DC, et al. Hospital deaths in patients with sepsis from 2 independent cohorts. JAMA. 2014;312(1):90–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Baison GN. Outcomes of Laparotomy at a Large Referral Center in Rwanda 2015.

  51. Wu J, Shu P, He H, Li H, Tang Z, Sun Y et al. Predictors of mortality in patients with acute small-bowel perforation transferred to ICU after emergency surgery: a single-centre retrospective cohort study. Gastroenterol Rep. 2021.

  52. Power GS, Harrison DA. Why try to predict ICU outcomes? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2014;20(5):544–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ogbuanya AU-O, Ugwu NB. Emergency laparotomy at district hospitals in a developing nation: a review of indications and outcomes of treatment. J Emerg Pract Trauma. 2021;7(2):111–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Marfil-Garza BA, Belaunzarán-Zamudio PF, Gulias-Herrero A, Zuñiga AC, Caro-Vega Y, Kershenobich-Stalnikowitz D, et al. Risk factors associated with prolonged hospital length-of-stay: 18-year retrospective study of hospitalizations in a tertiary healthcare center in Mexico. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(11):e0207203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Lee SY, Lee S-H, Tan JH, Foo HS, Phan PH, Kow AW, et al. Factors associated with prolonged length of stay for elective hepatobiliary and neurosurgery patients: a retrospective medical record review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. FF MT MAS. Prevalence and risk factors associated with post operative infections in the Limbe Regional Hospital of Cameroon. open Surg J. 2014;8(1).

Download references

Acknowledgements

First, we would like to thank the University of Gondar, College of Medicine and Health Science, School of Nursing, for giving ethical clearance. Our acknowledgement goes to the hospital administrators, heads of the operating room, intensive care unit, surgical ward, and health professionals of all tertiary hospitals in West Oromia for their cooperation in giving preliminary information. Last, we would like to thank all data collectors and supervisors for actively accomplishing their duties during the data collection period.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of health science, Wallaga University, Nekemte, Ethiopia

    Aliyi Benti Daba

  2. College of Medicine and Health Science, University of Gondar, Gondar, Ethiopia

    Debrework Tesgera Beshah & Esayas Alemshet Tekletsadik

Authors
  1. Aliyi Benti Daba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Debrework Tesgera Beshah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Esayas Alemshet Tekletsadik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.B Data entry, data analysis, writing abstract and introduction, and preparing figures and tables. D.T Wrote discussion, conclusion, limitation and strength. E.A Wrote methodology and recommendation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aliyi Benti Daba.

Ethics declarations

Ethical considerations and consent to participate

Before conducting this study, ethical clearance was obtained from the University of Gondar, the College of Medicine and Health Sciences, the research and community services offices, and the School of Nursing (IBR#235/2014). Permission for this study was obtained from the respective hospital after submitting the ethical clearance, and agreement was reached that the collected data was used only for study purposes. A waiver letter of cooperation was secured from hospital administrators (hospital medical directors) since patients were not directly involved in this study (since the data for this study were obtained from the patient’s chart). The head of the main operating room and the head of medical records were communicated to access the registration book of surgical patients and their medical records after explaining the purpose and all the processes to set the appropriate data collection time. The medical record identification information (name and card number) was not recorded on the abstraction sheet. Informed consent was not required (since the data was collected from patient charts), but the collected data from the patients’ medical records was kept confidential and in a cabinet with a key. The collected information was not accessible to anyone other than the research team. All methods were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant guidelines and regulations. The identified number (code) was used to preserve anonymity instead of the patient’s name and card number.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

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

Daba, A.B., Beshah, D.T. & Tekletsadik, E.A. Magnitude of in-hospital mortality and its associated factors among patients undergone laparotomy at tertiary public hospitals, West Oromia, Ethiopia, 2022. BMC Surg 24, 193 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02477-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-024-02477-1

Keywords

BMC Surgery

ISSN: 1471-2482

Contact us