World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 80–85 | Cite as

Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Clinical Presentation, Surgical Outcomes, and the Accuracy of the Boey Scoring System in Predicting Postoperative Morbidity and Mortality

  • Varut LohsiriwatEmail author
  • Siriluck Prapasrivorakul
  • Darin Lohsiriwat



The purposes of this study were to determine clinical presentations and surgical outcomes of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU), and to evaluate the accuracy of the Boey scoring system in predicting mortality and morbidity.


We carried out a retrospective study of patients undergoing emergency surgery for PPU between 2001 and 2006 in a university hospital. Clinical presentations and surgical outcomes were analyzed. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) of each Boey score on morbidity and mortality rate was compared with zero risk score. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis was used to compare the predictive ability between Boey score, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI).


The study included 152 patients with average age of 52 years (range: 15–88 years), and 78% were male. The most common site of PPU was the prepyloric region (74%). Primary closure and omental graft was the most common procedure performed. Overall mortality rate was 9% and the complication rate was 30%. The mortality rate increased progressively with increasing numbers of the Boey score: 1%, 8% (OR = 2.4), 33% (OR = 3.5), and 38% (OR = 7.7) for 0, 1, 2, and 3 scores, respectively (p < 0.001). The morbidity rates for 0, 1, 2, and 3 Boey scores were 11%, 47% (OR = 2.9), 75% (OR = 4.3), and 77% (OR = 4.9), respectively (p < 0.001). Boey score and ASA classification appeared to be better than MPI for predicting the poor surgical outcomes.


Perforated peptic ulcer is associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity. The Boey risk score serves as a simple and precise predictor for postoperative mortality and morbidity.


Peptic Ulcer Disease Primary Closure Perforated Peptic Ulcer Mannheim Peritonitis Index Boey Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Behrman SW (2005) Management of complicated peptic ulcer disease. Arch Surg 140:201–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ng EK, Chung SC, Sung JJ et al (1996) High prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection in duodenal ulcer perforations not caused by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Br J Surg 83:1779–1781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kate V, Ananthakrishnan N, Badrinath S (2001) Effect of Helicobacter pylori eradication on the ulcer recurrence rate after simple closure of perforated duodenal ulcer: retrospective and prospective randomized controlled studies. Br J Surg 88:1054–1058PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ng EK, Lam YH, Sung JJ et al (2000) Eradication of Helicobacter pylori prevents recurrence of ulcer after simple closure of duodenal ulcer perforation: randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 231:153–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rix TE, Bates T (2007) Pre-operative risk scores for the prediction of outcome in elderly people who require emergency surgery. World J Emerg Surg 2:16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boey J, Choi SK, Poon A et al (1987) Risk stratification in perforated duodenal ulcers. A prospective validation of predictive factors. Ann Surg 205:22–26Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee FY, Leung KL, Lai BS et al (2001) Predicting mortality and morbidity of patients operated on for perforated peptic ulcers. Arch Surg 136:90–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Linder MM, Wacha H, Feldmann U et al (1987) The Mannheim Peritonitis Index. An instrument for the intraoperative prognosis of peritonitis. Chirurg 58:84–92Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Notash AY, Salimi J, Rahimian H et al (2005) Evaluation of Mannheim Peritonitis Index and multiple organ failure score in patients with peritonitis. Indian J Gastroenterol 24:197–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schein M, Gecelter G, Freinkel Z et al (1990) APACHE II in emergency operations for perforated ulcers. Am J Surg 159:309–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mishra A, Sharma D, Raina VK (2003) A simplified prognostic scoring system for peptic ulcer perforation in developing countries. Indian J Gastroenterol 22:49–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arici C, Mesci A, Dincer D et al (2007) Analysis of risk factors predicting (affecting) mortality and morbidity of peptic ulcer perforations. Int Surg 92:147–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Makela JT, Kiviniemi H, Ohtonen P et al (2002) Factors that predict morbidity and mortality in patients with perforated peptic ulcers. Eur J Surg 168:446–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Billing A, Frohlich D, Schildberg FW (1994) Prediction of outcome using the Mannheim peritonitis index in 2003 patients. Peritonitis Study Group. Br J Surg 81:209–213Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kocer B, Surmeli S, Solak C et al (2007) Factors affecting mortality and morbidity in patients with peptic ulcer perforation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 22:565–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Janik J, Chwirot P (2000) Perforated peptic ulcer–time trends and patterns over 20 years. Med Sci Monit 6:369–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lanas A, Serrano P, Bajador E et al (1997) Evidence of aspirin use in both upper and lower gastrointestinal perforation. Gastroenterology 112:683–689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siu WT, Chau CH, Law BK et al (2004) Routine use of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 91:481–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barczynski M, Res F, Cichon S et al (1999) Perioperative mortality for perforated duodenal and gastric ulcer—analysis of 226 patients. Przegl Lek 56:192–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Calam J, Baron JH (2001) ABC of the upper gastrointestinal tract: pathophysiology of duodenal and gastric ulcer and gastric cancer. BMJ 323:980–982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hojgaard L, Mertz Nielsen A et al (1996) Peptic ulcer pathophysiology: acid, bicarbonate, and mucosal function. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 216:10–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Debongnie JC, Wibin E, Timmermans M et al (1995) Are perforated gastroduodenal ulcers related to Helicobacter pylori infection? Acta Gastroenterol Belg 58:208–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gilliam AD, Speake WJ, Lobo DN et al (2003) Current practice of emergency vagotomy and Helicobacter pylori eradication for complicated peptic ulcer in the United Kingdom. Br J Surg 90:88–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Serejo LG, da Silva-Junior FP, Bastos JP et al (2007) Risk factors for pulmonary complications after emergency abdominal surgery. Respir Med 101:808–813PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mangram AJ, Horan TC, Pearson ML et al (1999) Guideline for prevention of surgical site infection, 1999. Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 20:250–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Arias CA, Quintero G, Vanegas BE et al (2003) Surveillance of surgical site infections: decade of experience at a Colombian tertiary care center. World J Surg 27:529–533PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    So JB, Yam A, Cheah WK et al (2000) Risk factors related to operative mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing emergency gastrectomy. Br J Surg 87:1702–1707PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M (2005) Systematic review comparing laparoscopic and open repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 92:1195–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Varut Lohsiriwat
    • 1
    Email author
  • Siriluck Prapasrivorakul
    • 1
  • Darin Lohsiriwat
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj HospitalMahidol UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations