Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) account for a major cause of morbidity and mortality, representing the second most common sepsis-related death with a hospital mortality of 23–38%. Prompt identification of sepsis source, appropriate resuscitation, and early treatment with the shortest delay possible are the cornerstones of management of IAIs and are associated with a more favorable clinical outcome. The aim of source control is to reduce microbial load by removing the infection source and it is achievable by using a wide range of procedures, such as definitive surgical removal of anatomic infectious foci, percutaneous drainage and toilette of infected collections, decompression, and debridement of infected and necrotic tissue or device removal, providing for the restoration of anatomy and function. Damage control surgery may be an option in selected septic patients. Intra-abdominal infections can be classified as uncomplicated or complicated causing localized or diffuse peritonitis. Early clinical evaluation is mandatory in order to optimize diagnostic testing and establish a therapeutic plan. Prognostic scores could serve as helpful tools in medical settings for evaluating both the seriousness and future outlook of a condition. The patient’s conditions and the potential progression of the disease determine when to initiate source control. Patients can be classified into three groups based on disease severity, the origin of infection, and the patient’s overall physical health, as well as any existing comorbidities. In recent decades, antibiotic resistance has become a global health threat caused by inappropriate antibiotic regimens, inadequate control measures, and infection prevention. The sepsis prevention and infection control protocols combined with optimizing antibiotic administration are crucial to improve outcome and should be encouraged in surgical departments. Antibiotic and antifungal regimens in patients with IAIs should be based on the resistance epidemiology, clinical conditions, and risk for multidrug resistance (MDR) and Candida spp. infections. Several challenges still exist regarding the effectiveness, timing, and patient stratification, as well as the procedures for source control. Antibiotic choice, optimal dosing, and duration of therapy are essential to achieve the best treatment. Promoting standard of care in the management of IAIs improves clinical outcomes worldwide. Further trials and stronger evidence are required to achieve optimal management with the least morbidity in the clinical care of critically ill patients with intra-abdominal sepsis.

Background: Traumatic injuries of the duodenum are generally rare but when they occur, they can result in serious complications. Inaccurate injury classification, delayed diagnosis, or late treatment can significantly raise morbidity and mortality. A multidisciplinary approach is often necessary. Mechanisms of injury: Isolated duodenal injuries are relatively uncommon due to the duodenum’s proximity to pancreas and major vascular structures. Duodenal injuries can result from blunt or penetrating trauma. Classification: The 2019 World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES)-American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) guidelines recommend incorporating both the AAST-OIS grading and the patient’s hemodynamic status to stratify duodenal injuries into four categories: Minor injuries WSES class I, Moderate injuries WSES class II, Severe injuries WSES class III, and WSES class IV. Diagnosis: The diagnostic approach involves a combination of clinical assessment, laboratory investigations, radiological imaging and, in particular situations, surgery. Prompt diagnosis is critical because delays exceeding 24 h are associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications and a significant rise in mortality. Contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT) represents the gold standard for diagnosis in patients who are hemodynamically stable. Management: Duodenal trauma requires a multimodal approach that considers hemodynamic stability, the severity of the injury and the presence of associated lesions. Non-operative management (NOM) is reserved for hemodynamically stable patients with minor duodenal injuries without perforation (AAST I/WSES I), as well as all duodenal hematomas (WSES I–II/AAST I–II) in the absence of associated abdominal organ injuries requiring surgical intervention. All hemodynamically unstable patients, those with peritonitis, or with CT findings consistent with duodenal perforations or AAST grade III or higher injuries are candidates for emergency surgery. If intervention is required, primary repair should be the preferred option whenever feasible, while damage control surgery is the best choice in cases of hemodynamic instability, severe associated injuries, or complex duodenal lesions. Definitive reconstructive surgery should be postponed until the patient has been adequately resuscitated. The role of endoscopic techniques in the treatment of duodenal injuries and their complications is expanding. Conclusions: Duodenal trauma is burdened by potentially high mortality. Among the possible complications, duodenal fistula is the most common, followed by duodenal obstruction, bile duct fistula, abscess, and pancreatitis. The overall mortality rate for duodenal trauma persists to be significant with an average rate of 17%. Future prospective research needed to reduce the risk of complications following duodenal trauma.