Efficacy of peritoneal drainage in very-low-birth-weight neonates with Bell’s stage II necrotizing enterocolitis: A single-center retrospective study

Table 1 General information

Groups	n	Sex, n (%)		Birth weight	1-min Apgar score	5-min Apgar score
		Male	Female
Conservative treatment	42	26 (61.9)	16 (38.1)	2.11 ± 1.00	8.05 ± 1.15	9.29 ± 0.71
Peritoneal drainage group	24	13 (54.17)	11 (45.83)	2.05 ± 0.88	7.88 ± 1.15	9.00 ± 0.83
Exploratory laparotomy group	36	28 (77.78)	8 (22.22)	1.98 ± 0.84	8.19 ± 1.21	9.08 ± 0.77
t value		4.01		0.13	1.02	2.24
P value		0.134		0.936	0.601	0.326

Table 2 Comparison of improvement of clinical symptoms

Groups	Fasting time (d)	Abdominal distension relief time (d)	Time for fecal occult blood negative conversion (d)
Conservative treatment	12.36 ± 3.01	7.19 ± 1.88	8.36 ± 1.46
Peritoneal drainage group	7.08 ± 1.72a	4.21 ± 1.10a	4.58 ± 0.97a
Exploratory laparotomy group	7.11 ± 1.60a	3.94 ± 1.07a	5.42 ± 1.13a,b
t value	61.00	54.85	65.84
P value	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001

^aP < 0.05 vs conservative treatment.

^bP < 0.05 vs peritoneal drainage group.

Table 3 Patient prognosis in three groups

Groups	Hospital length of stay (d)	Cure, n (%)	Conversion to laparotomy n (%)
Conservative treatment	29.26 ± 5.18	35 (83.33)	7 (16.67)
Peritoneal drainage group	23.58 ± 3.67a	22 (91.67)	2 (8.33)
Exploratory laparotomy group	23.94 ± 3.02a	33 (91.67)	0 (0.00)a
t value	26.25	-	-
P value	< 0.001	0.533	0.023

^aP < 0.05 vs conservative treatment.

Table 4 Complications in three groups of neonates, n (%)

Groups	Intestinal perforation	Intestinal stenosis	Peritoneal abscess
Conservative treatment	9 (21.43)	6 (14.29)	5 (11.9)
Peritoneal drainage group	2 (8.33)	1 (4.17)	1 (4.17)
Exploratory laparotomy group	3 (8.33)	1 (2.78)	1 (2.78)
P value	0.203	0.183	0.328

The Fisher’s exact probability test is used.