Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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).

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

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. Behrman SW (2005) Management of complicated peptic ulcer disease. Arch Surg 140:201–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 83:1779–1781

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 88:1054–1058

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 231:153–158

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 2:16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boey J, Choi SK, Poon A et al (1987) Risk stratification in perforated duodenal ulcers. A prospective validation of predictive factors. Ann Surg 205:22–26

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee FY, Leung KL, Lai BS et al (2001) Predicting mortality and morbidity of patients operated on for perforated peptic ulcers. Arch Surg 136:90–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Linder MM, Wacha H, Feldmann U et al (1987) The Mannheim Peritonitis Index. An instrument for the intraoperative prognosis of peritonitis. Chirurg 58:84–92

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 24:197–200

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schein M, Gecelter G, Freinkel Z et al (1990) APACHE II in emergency operations for perforated ulcers. Am J Surg 159:309–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mishra A, Sharma D, Raina VK (2003) A simplified prognostic scoring system for peptic ulcer perforation in developing countries. Indian J Gastroenterol 22:49–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 92:147–154

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 168:446–451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 81:209–213

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kocer B, Surmeli S, Solak C et al (2007) Factors affecting mortality and morbidity in patients with peptic ulcer perforation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 22:565–570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Janik J, Chwirot P (2000) Perforated peptic ulcer–time trends and patterns over 20 years. Med Sci Monit 6:369–372

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lanas A, Serrano P, Bajador E et al (1997) Evidence of aspirin use in both upper and lower gastrointestinal perforation. Gastroenterology 112:683–689

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Siu WT, Chau CH, Law BK et al (2004) Routine use of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 91:481–484

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Barczynski M, Res F, Cichon S et al (1999) Perioperative mortality for perforated duodenal and gastric ulcer—analysis of 226 patients. Przegl Lek 56:192–197

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Calam J, Baron JH (2001) ABC of the upper gastrointestinal tract: pathophysiology of duodenal and gastric ulcer and gastric cancer. BMJ 323:980–982

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hojgaard L, Mertz Nielsen A et al (1996) Peptic ulcer pathophysiology: acid, bicarbonate, and mucosal function. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 216:10–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Debongnie JC, Wibin E, Timmermans M et al (1995) Are perforated gastroduodenal ulcers related to Helicobacter pylori infection? Acta Gastroenterol Belg 58:208–212

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 90:88–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Serejo LG, da Silva-Junior FP, Bastos JP et al (2007) Risk factors for pulmonary complications after emergency abdominal surgery. Respir Med 101:808–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 20:250–278

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 27:529–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 87:1702–1707

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Prannok Road, Bangkok, 10700, Thailand

    Varut Lohsiriwat, Siriluck Prapasrivorakul & Darin Lohsiriwat

Authors
  1. Varut Lohsiriwat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siriluck Prapasrivorakul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Darin Lohsiriwat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Varut Lohsiriwat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

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 33, 80–85 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-008-9796-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

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

Keywords

Search

Navigation