Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Perforated Duodenal Ulcer: Has Anything Changed?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction:

To assess the current management and outcome of perforated duodenal peptic ulcer managed with open repair, a focused analysis was conducted, excluding gastric, traumatic and iatrogenic perforations.

Patients and Methods:

A retrospective study of a 6-year period identified 61 patients. Mean age was 59 (range 19–87) years and 33 (54%) were male. Medical history included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in 46%, smoking in 30%, atherosclerosis in 26% and excessive alcohol use in 23%.

Results:

Generalized abdominal tenderness was recorded in 64% of the cases. The mean (SD) C-reactive protein value was 100 (141) g/l and white blood cell count was 12.8 (7.9) E9/l. Plain abdominal X-ray was positive for air in 87% (41/47) and CT scan in 86% (18/21). Four patients (7%) were operated without radiological imaging. There were 31 patients (51%) with a delay of 24 h or more from the start of symptoms to surgery. The mean (SD) delay from admission to surgery was 9 (3) (range 3–12) h. The treatment consisted of open suture repair in 92%, peritoneal lavage in 92%, external drainage in 80% and nasogastric decompression in 92%. The overall hospital mortality and morbidity rates were 11 and 21%, respectively. The duodenal suture leak rate was 7% and intra-abdominal abscess rate was 2%.

Conclusion:

The majority of patients with perforated duodenal ulcer can be diagnosed with conventional clinical and radiological methods, and treated according to established surgical principles. The mortality and duodenal morbidity rates have remained unchanged for the last decade. Shortening preoperative delay could improve the prognosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pacelli F, Doglietto GB, Alfieri S, Piccioni E, Sgadari A, Gui D, Crucitti F. Prognosis in intra-abdominal infections. Multivariate analysis on 604 patients. Arch Surg 1996;131:641–645.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lamme B, Boermeester MA, Belt EJT, van Till JWO, Gouma DJ, Obertop H. Mortality and morbidity of planned relaparotomy versus relaparotomy on demand for secondary peritonitis. Br J Surg 2004;91:1046–1054.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mulari K, Leppäniemi A. Severe secondary peritonitis following gastrointestinal tract perforation. Scand J Surg 2004;93:204–208.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van Ruler O, Lamme B, Gouma DJ, Reitsma JB, Boermeester MA. Variables associated with positive findings at relaparotomy in patients with secondary peritonitis. Crit Care Med 2007;35:468–476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hynninen M, Wennervirta J, Leppäniemi A, Pettilä V. Organ dysfunction and long term outcome in secondary peritonitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2008;393:81–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Moller MH, Adamsen S, Wojdemann M, Moller M. Perforated peptic ulcer: how to improve outcome? Scand J Gastroenterol 2009;44:15–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lau WY, Leung KL, Kwong KH, Davey IC, Robertson C, Dawson JJW, Chung SCS, Li AKC. A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique. Ann Surg 1996;224:131–138.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Siu WT, Leong HT, Law BKB, Chau CH, Li ACN, Fung KH, Tai YP, Li MKW. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer. A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2002;235:313–319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Noguiera C, Sergio Silva A, Nunes Santos J, Gomes Silva A, Ferreira J, Mator E, Vilaca H. Perforated peptic ulcer: main factors of morbidity and mortality. World J Surg 2003;27:782–787.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Robson AJ, Richards JMJ, Ohly N, Nixon SJ, Paterson-Brown S. The effect of surgical subspecialization on outcomes in peptic ulcer disease complicated by perforation and bleeding. World J Surg 2008;32:1456–1461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bhogal RH, Athwal R, Durkin D, Deakin M, Cheruvu CNV. Comparison between open and laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease. World J Surg 2008;32:2371–2374.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lohsiiriwat V, Prapasrivorakul S, Lohsiiriwat 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;33:80–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bertleff MJOE, Halm JA, Bemelman WA, van der Ham AC, van der Harst E, Oei HI, Smulders JF, Steyerberg EW, Lange JF. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: the LAMA trial. World J Surg 2009;33:1368–1373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pieracci FM, Barie PS. Management of severe sepsis of abdominal origin. Scand J Surg 2007;96:184–196.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M. Systematic review comparing laparoscopic and open repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 2005;92:1195–1207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M. Comparison of laparoscopic vs open repair for perforated duodenal ulcers. Surg Endosc 2005;19:1565–1571.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Subedi SK, Afaq A, Adhikary S, Niraula SR, Agrawal CS. Factors influencing mortality in perforated duodenal ulcer following emergency surgical repair. J NMA J Nepal Med Assoc 2007;46:31–35.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Koc M, Yoldas Ö, Kilic YA, Göcmen E, Ertan T, Dizen H, Tez M. Comparison and validation of scoring systems in a cohort of patients treated for perforated peptic ulcer. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2007;393:581–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M. Management strategies, early results, and risk factors of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. World J Surg 2005;29:1299–1310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Svanes C. Trends in perforated peptic ulcer: incidence, etiology, treatment, and prognosis. World J Surg 2000;24:277–283.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sanabria A, Villegas MI, Morales Uribe CH. Laparoscopic repair for perforated ulcer disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;4:CD004778. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004778.pub2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Svanes C, Lie RT, Svanes K, Lie SA, Soreide O. Adverse effects of delayed treatment for perforated peptic ulcer. Ann Surg 1994;220:168–175.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ari Leppäniemi MD, PhD, DMCC.

Additional information

“Perforated duodenal ulcer, has anything changed?” was presented at the 10th European Congress of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 13–17 May 2009, Antalya, Turkey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Koskensalo, S., Leppäniemi, A. Perforated Duodenal Ulcer: Has Anything Changed?. Eur J Trauma 36, 145–150 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-010-9128-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-010-9128-7

Key Words

Navigation