Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Risk factors for leak after omentopexy for duodenal ulcer perforations

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

Abstract

Aims

Duodenal ulcer perforations are frequently encountered but there is limited literature regarding risk factors for leak after omentopexy.

Methodology

The record of 100 patients of duodenal ulcer perforation undergoing omentopexy by open approach was prospectively maintained to identify any significant factors contributing towards leak.

Results

Out of 100 patients undergoing omentopexy, 9 (9%) developed leak; when leak occurred, the mortality was very high (44.4%). Patients who developed leak (09) were compared against those who did not (91), and it was seen that seen that duration of symptoms before surgery (> 3 days), amount of intra-abdominal contamination (> 2 L), low body mass index (BMI < 19.35 kg/m2), serum creatinine (> 1.5 mg/dl), and deranged International Normalized Ratio (INR) were found to be significant on univariate analysis; however, multivariate analysis revealed only low BMI and high creatinine to be contributory towards leak.

Conclusion

Leak after omentopexy carries a high morbidity and mortality. Identification of risk factors may help in optimizing patients at risk and reduce the incidence of leak and its sequelae.

Trial registration number

CTRI/2020/03/023798.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chung KT, Shelat VG. Perforated peptic ulcer - an update. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;9:1–12. https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v9.i1.1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kumar K, Pai D, Srinivasan K, et al. Factors contributing to releak after surgical closure of perforated duodenal ulcer by Graham’s Patch. Trop Gastroenterol. 2002;23:190–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sharma SS, Mamtani MR, Sharma MS, et al. A prospective cohort study of postoperative complications in the management of perforated peptic ulcer. BMC Surg. 2006;6:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-6-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Chan KS, Wang YL, Chan XW, et al. Outcomes of omental patch repair in large or giant perforated peptic ulcer are comparable to gastrectomy. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2021;47:1745–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-019-01237-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maghsoudi H, Ghaffari A. Generalized peritonitis requiring re-operation after leakage of omental patch repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:124–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/1319-3767.77243.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Agarwal N, Gupta A, Jain B, et al. Omental patch repair for duodenal ulcer perforation- analysis of factors affecting outcome: a prospective study. J Gastroenterol Pancreatol Liver Disord. 2018;6:1–6. https://doi.org/10.15226/2374-815X/6/2/001125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lund S, Chauhan KK, Zietlow J, et al. Risk factors for gastrointestinal leak after perforated peptic ulcer disease operative repair. Am Surg. 2021;87:1879–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348211056263.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gupta S, Kaushik R, Sharma R, et al. The management of large perforations of duodenal ulcers. BMC Surg. 2005;5:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-5-15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Cellan-Jones C. A rapid method of treatment in perforated duodenal ulcer. Br Med J. 1929;1:1076–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Tarasconi A, Coccolini F, Biffl WL, et al. Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines. World J Emerg Surg. 2020;15:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-019-0283-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Sivaram P, Sreekumar A. Preoperative factors influencing mortality and morbidity in peptic ulcer perforation. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018;44:251–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-017-0777-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nomani AZ, Malik AK, Qureshi MS. A new prognostic scoring system for perforation peritonitis secondary to duodenal ulcers. J Pak Med Assoc. 2014;64:50–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Etonyeaku AC, Agbakwuru EA, Akinkuolie AA, et al. A review of the management of perforated duodenal ulcers at a tertiary hospital in south western Nigeria. Afr Health Sci. 2013;13:907–13. https://doi.org/10.4314/ahs.v13i4.7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Seyoum N, Ethicha D, Assefa Z, et al. Risk factors that affect morbidity and mortality in patients with perforated peptic ulcer diseases in a teaching hospital. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2020;30:549–58. https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v30i4.10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9796-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kartheuser AH, Leonard DF, Penninckx F, et al. Waist circumference and waist/hip ratio are better predictive risk factors for mortality and morbidity after colorectal surgery than body mass index and body surface area. Ann Surg. 2013;258(5):722–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182a6605a.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. McDermott FD, Heeney A, Kelly ME, et al. Systematic review of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative risk factors for colorectal anastomotic leaks. Br J Surg. 2015;102:462–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9697.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Iversen LH, Thomsen GH, Thorlacius-Ussing O. Systemic coagulation activation and anastomotic leakage after colorectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42:56–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02235183.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Menekse E, Kocer B, Topcu R, et al. A practical scoring system to predict mortality in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. World J EmergSurg. 2015;10:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-015-0008-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Patel S, Kalra D, Kacheriwala S, et al. Validation of prognostic scoring systems for predicting 30-day mortality in perforated peptic ulcer disease. Turk J Surg. 2019;35:252–8. https://doi.org/10.5578/turkjsurg.4211.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Gupta V, Singh SP, Pandey A, et al. Study on the use of t-tube for patients with persistent duodenal fistula: is it useful? World J Surg. 2013;37:2542–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2196-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Boey J, Wong J. Perforated duodenal ulcers. World J Surg. 1987;11:319–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01658109.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rivai MI, Suchitra A, Janer A. Evaluation of clinical factors and three scoring systems for predicting mortality in perforated peptic ulcer patients, a retrospective study. Ann Med Surg. 2021;69:1027–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Irvin TT, Goligher JC. Aetiology of disruption of intestinal anastomoses. Br J Surg. 1973;60:461–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800600612.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Awad S, Abd El-Rahman AI, Abbas A, et al. The assessment of perioperative risk factors of anastomotic leakage after intestinal surgeries; a prospective study. BMC Surg. 2021;21:29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-01044-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Murugiah L, Mariappan K, Palani M. A study of risk factors influencing anastomotic leakage after small bowel anastomosis. J Evid Based Med Health. 2017;4:2411–8. https://doi.org/10.18410/jebmh/2017/476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nair A, Dinker RP, Jagadish S. Predicting anastomotic disruption after emergent small bowel surgery. Dig Surg. 2006;23:38–43. https://doi.org/10.1159/000093493.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Benoist S, Panis Y, Alves A, et al. Impact of obesity on surgical outcomes after colorectal resection. Am J Surg. 2000;179:275–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(00)00337-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Volk A, Kersting S, Held HC, et al. Risk factors for morbidity and mortality after single-layer continuous suture for ileocolonic anastomosis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;2011(26):321–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-010-1040-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kobold EE, Thal AP. A simple method for the management of experimental wounds of the duodenum. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1963;1963(116):340–4.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Di Nicola V. Omentum a powerful biological source in regenerative surgery. Regen Ther. 2019;11:182–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reth.2019.07.008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, India

    Poornima Dogra, Robin Kaushik, Simrandeep Singh & Sushma Bhardwaj

Authors
  1. Poornima Dogra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robin Kaushik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simrandeep Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sushma Bhardwaj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robin Kaushik.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (GMCH Chandigarh) and was conducted accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

Informed consent for participation was obtained from all individual participants.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dogra, P., Kaushik, R., Singh, S. et al. Risk factors for leak after omentopexy for duodenal ulcer perforations. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 49, 1163–1167 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-022-02058-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-022-02058-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation