Percutaneous drain for high risk cases of perforative peritonitis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20160238Keywords:
Perforative peritonitis, Percutaneous drain, High mortality rate, Conservative managementAbstract
Background: Perforative peritonitis is most common general surgery emergency encountered. It is also associated with high operative mortality and morbidity. Most cases present late on second and third day with severe peritonitis and hemodynamic instability. Resulting in hypotension and circulatory shock due to septicaemia and third space fluid loss. In these patients conventional immediate laparotomy and perforation closure was associated with high mortality. Henceforth we managed those high risk patients with percutaneous drain and conservative Taylor’s regimen was followed.
Methods: Aim of this study was to analyse series of high risk perforation cases managed with percutaneous drain under local anesthesia for whom conventional surgery of immediate laparotomy were associated with high mortality rates. Those conservatively managed patients were serially monitored and put on Taylor’s regimen previously used for sealed early perforation.
Results: Retrospectively 9 cases of high risk perforative peritonitis managed with percutaneous drain were studied and we found that mortality rate was 22% compared to more than 60% in cases taken up for immediate laparotomy.
Conclusions: High risk patients for whom conventional surgery is associated with increased mortality, percutaneous drain under local anaesthesia and improving the hemodynamic status by non-operative Taylor’s regimen seems to be associated with decreased mortality and morbidity.
Metrics
References
Paimela H, Oksala N, Kivilaakso E. Surgery for peptic ulcer today. A study on the incidence, methods and mortality in surgery for peptic ulcer in Finland between 1987 and 1999. Dig Surg. 2004;21:185-91.
Higham J, Kang J, Majeed A. Recent trends in admissions and mortality due to peptic ulcer in England: Increasing frequency of haemorrhage among older subjects. Gut. 2002;50:460-4.
Bucher P, Oulhaci W, Morel P, Ris F, Huber O. Conservative treatment of perforated gastro duodenal ulcer. Swiss Med Wkly. 2007;137:337-40.
Saber A. Perforated Duodenal Ulcer in High Risk Patients. In: Chai J editor. Peptic Ulcer Disease. In Tech. Rijeka, Croatia. 2011:271-85.
Nusree R. Conservative management of perforated peptic ulcer. Thai J Surg. 2005;26:5-8.
Boyd O, Jackson N. How is risk defined in high-risk surgical patient management? Crit Care. 2005;9:390-6.
Lohsiriwat V, Prapasrivorakul S, Lohsiriwat D. Perforated peptic ulcer: clinical presentation, surgical outcomes, and the accuracy of the Boey scoring system in predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality. World J Surg. 2009;33:80-5.
Kocer B, Surmeli S, Solak C, Unal B, Bozkurt B, Yildirim O et al. Factors affecting mortality and morbidity in patients with peptic ulcer perforation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;22:565-70.
Bertleff MJ, Lange JF. Perforated peptic ulcer disease: a review of history and treatment. Dig Surg. 2010;27:161-9.
Dascalescu C, Andriescu L, Bulat C, Danila R, Dodu L, Acornicesei M et al. Taylor's method: A therapeutic alternative for perforated gastroduodenal ulcer. Hepatogastroenterology. 2006;53:543-6.
Uccheddu A, Floris G, Altana ML, Pisanu A, Cois A, Farci SL. Surgery for perforated peptic ulcer in the elderly. Evaluation of factors influencing prognosis. Hepatogastroenterology. 2003;50:1956-8.
Marshall C, Ramaswamy P, Bergin FG, Rosenberg IL, Leaper DJ. Evaluation of a protocol for the non-operative management of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 1999;86:131-4.
Gul YA, Shine MF, Lennon F. Non-operative management of perforated duodenal ulcer. Ir J Med Sci. 1999;168:254-6.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
