A comparative study between the outcomes of various surgical procedure in management of ileal perforation of tertiary care in central India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20230262Keywords:
Ileal perforation, Ileostomy, Perforation peritonitis, Resection anastomosisAbstract
Background: This study was done to establish the outcomes of surgical procedure in management of ileal perforation.
Methods: This study included 70 patients admitted to surgical emergency with acute abdomen. These patients were divided into 3 groups group A, group B, group C. The surgical management was done as primary repair (group A) and resection and anastomosis (group B) and primary repair with ileostomy (group C); Comparative study was done between all procedure. Study centre was L. N. medical college and hospital and research centre, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Study duration was from March 2021 to September 2022.
Results: This study highlights the life-saving role of loop ileostomy for postoperative intestinal leakage in cases of primary repair of perforation. It is recommended that whenever intestinal leakage is suspected in the postoperative period, urgent exploratory laparotomy must be undertaken and the continuing peritoneal contamination should be controlled by exteriorizing the site of intestinal leak as loop ileostomy.
Conclusions: In our study we have found that, for a single perforation, primary repair is the procedure of choice and for multiple perforation with good systemic support, resection anastomosis is procedure of choice. For patient with poor systemic support, loop ileostomy is preferred procedure as it decreases the mortality.
Metrics
References
Mittal S, Singh H, Munghate A, Singh G, Garg A, Sharma J. A Comparative Study between the Outcome of Primary Repair versus Loop Ileostomy in Ileal Perforation. Surg Res Pract. 2014;729018:4.
Rathore AH, Khan IA, Saghir W. Prognostic indices of typhoidperforation. Ann Trop Med Parasitol. 1987;81(3):283-9.
Siddiqui S. Epidemiologic patterns and control strategies in typhoid fever. J Pak Med Asso. 1991;41(6):143-61.
Pal DK. Evaluation of best surgical procedures in typhoid perforation-an experience of 60 cases. Trop Doctor. 1998;28(1):16-8.
Wani RA, Parray FQ, Bhat NA, Wani MA, Bhat TH, Farzana F. Nontraumatic terminal ileal perforation. World J Emergency Surg. 2006;24(1):7.
Adesunkanmi ARK, Badmus TA, Fadiora FO, Agbakwuru EA. Generalized peritonitis secondary to typhoid ileal perforation: assessment of severity using modified APACHEII score. Indian J Surg. 2005;67(1):29-35.
Talwar S, Sharma RK. Typhoid enteric perforation. Aus N Zeal J Surg. 1997;67(6):351-3.
Beniwal U, Jindal D. Comparative study of operative procedures in typhoid perforation. Indian J Surg. 2003;65(2):172-7.
Nadkarni FM, Shetly SD, Kagzi RS. Small-bowel perforation. A study of 32 cases. Arch Surg. 1981;116:53-7.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
