Acute peptic perforation: clinical profile and our experience with operative outcome

Pratik H. Shah; Hemang A. Panchal

doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20163606

Authors

Pratik H. Shah Department of Surgery, GMERS Medical College and Hospital, Sola, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Hemang A. Panchal Department of Surgery, GMERS Medical College and Hospital, Sola, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20163606

Keywords:

Clinical profile, Outcome, Perforated peptic ulcer, Surgical management

Abstract

Background: Perforated peptic ulcer is a serious complication of peptic ulcers with potential risk of grave complications. This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical presentation, management and outcome of patients with peptic ulcer perforation in our setting and to identify predictors of outcome of these patients.

Methods: This was a retrospective study of patients who were operated for perforated peptic ulcers at Sheth V.S. General Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India during period of 2003 to 2005. Data were collected using a pretested and coded questionnaire and analyzed.

Results: Out of 50 cases enrolled in the study, 2 were treated by drainage under local anesthesia among them one expired and another one was undergone definite surgery 2 days later, so 49 patients treated by operative line of management. Males (n = 40) out-numbered females (n = 10) by a ratio of 4:1. The highest number in age group was 41-50 years, which are 12 in number. 66% patients were labourers. 32% had past history of acid peptic disease. The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alcohol and smoking was reported in 8%, 6% and 40% respectively, 14% having alcohol and tobacco consumption, 32% having no other history. 98% showing free gas and 2% doesn’t showing free gas on plain erect x ray abdomen in our study. Duodenal (n = 41) to Gastric (n = 8) perforation ratio were 5:1. Graham’s omental patch (Graham’s omentopexy) of the perforations was performed in 80% of cases. Complication and mortality rates were 36.7% and 2.04% respectively. In follow up n = 20 patients showing mild to moderate abdominal pain.

Conclusions: Perforation of peptic ulcer remains a frequent clinical problem in our environment predominantly affecting 41-50 years group labourer males known to suffer from Peptic ulcer disease. Simple closure with omental patch followed by Helicobacter pylori eradication was effective with excellent results in majority of survivors despite patients’ late presentation in our center.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Türkdoğan MK, Hekim H, Tuncer İ, Aksoy H: The epidemiological and endoscopic aspects of peptic ulcer disease in Van region. Eastern J Med. 1999;4(1):6-9.

Elnagib E, Mahadi SE, Mohamed E, Ahmed ME. Perforated peptic ulcer in Khartoum. Khartoum Med J. 2008;1(2):62-4.

Jave EE, Sillas CO, Gutiérrez CCA. Factors associated with postoperative complications and mortality in perforated peptic ulcer. Circulation. 2011;79:128-35.

Testini M, Portincasa P, Piccinni G, Lissidini G, Pellegrini F, Greco L. Significant factors associated with fatal outcome in emergency open surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. World J Gastroenterol. 2003;9:2338-40.

Soll AH. Peptic ulcer and its complications. In Sleisinger and Fordtran’s gastrointestinal and liver disease: pathophysiology, diagnosis, management. 6th edition. Edited by: Feldman M, Scharschmidt BF, Sleisenger MH. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; 1998:620-678.

Rajesh V, Sarathchandra S, Smile SR. Risk factors predicting operative mortality in perforated peptic ulcer disease. Trop Gastroenterol. 2003;24:148-150.

Hermansson M, Holstein CS, Zilling T. Surgical approach and prognostic factors after peptic ulcer perforation. Eur J Surg. 1999;165:566-72.

Boey J, Choi KY, Alagaratnam TT, Poon A. Risk stratification in perforated duodenal ulcers. a prospective validation of predictive factors. Ann Surg. 1986;205:22-6.

Hill AG. The management of perforated peptic ulcer in a resource poor environment. East Afr Med J. 2001;78(8):346-8.

Windsor JA, Hill AG. The management of perforated peptic ulcer. N Z Med J. 1995;47-8.

Cuschieri A. Disorders of stomach and duodenum. In Essential surgical practice. 4 edition. Edited by: Cuschieri A, Steel RJC, Moosa AR. London: Arnold. 2002:261-319.

Mehboob M, Khan JA, Shafiqr R, Saleem SM, Abdul QA. Peptic duodenal perforation-an audit. JCPSP. 2000;10:101-3.

Gutierrez L, Pena C, Merquez R, Fakih F, Adame E, Medina J. Simple closure or vagotomy and pyloroplasty for the treatment of a perforated duodenal ulcer comparison of results. Dig Surg. 2000;17:225.

Visick AH. Measured radical gastrectomy review of operations for peptic ulcer. Lancet. 1948;1:505-10.

Schein M, Saadia R, Decker GA. Perforated peptic ulcer at the J. G. Strijdom Hospital: A retrospective study of 99 patients. S Afr Med J. 1986;70(5):21-3.

Nuhu A, Madziga AG, Gali BM. Acute perforated duodenal ulcer in Maiduguri. Internet J Surg. 2009;21:1.

Nasio NA, Saidi H. Perforated peptic ulcer disease at Kenyatta National Hospital, Nairobi. East Central African J Surg. 2009;14(1):13-6.

Tessema E, Meskel Y, Kotiss B. Perforated peptic ulcer in Tikur Anbessa Hospital. Ethiop Med Journal 2005, 43(1):9-13. 26.

Collier DS, Pain JA. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and peptic ulcer perforation. Gut. 1985;26:359-63.

Amela S, Serif B, Lidija L. Early radiological diagnostics of gastrointestinal infection in the management of peptic ulcer perforation. Radiol Oncol. 2006;40(2):67-72.

Chen SC, Yen ZS, Wang HP, Lin FY, Hsu CY, Chen WJ. Ultrasonography is superior to plain radiography in the diagnosis of pneumoperitonium. Br J Surg. 2002;89:351-4.