» Articles » PMID: 11146785

Predicting Mortality and Morbidity of Patients Operated on for Perforated Peptic Ulcers

Overview
Journal Arch Surg
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2001 Jan 13
PMID 11146785
Citations 45
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Hypothesis: Since the early 1990s, the laparoscopic technique has been increasingly used for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcer. It is important to validate a risk scoring system that can stratify patients into various risk groups before comparing the treatment outcome of laparoscopic repair against that of conventional open surgery. The scoring system should be able to predict the likelihood of mortality and morbidity. Boey score and APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score may be of use in patient stratification.

Design: Retrospective review of relevant case notes by one reviewer.

Setting: A teaching hospital treating 0. 5 million to 1 million patients during the study period.

Patients: Patients operated on for perforated peptic ulcer between January 1989 and December 1998. Patients treated conservatively were excluded.

Main Outcome Measures: Mortality and postoperative complications (morbidity).

Results: A total of 436 patients (365 male and 71 female) with a mean +/- SD age of 51.5 +/- 18.3 years (range, 14-92 years) were studied. Duodenal perforation accounted for 344 (78.9%) of 436 cases. The mortality rate was 7.8% (34/436), and 89 patients had postoperative complications. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that only the APACHE II score predicted both mortality and morbidity. Although the Boey score predicted mortality, it failed to predict morbidity. However, the Boey score predicted the chance of conversion in patients undergoing laparoscopic repair.

Conclusions: The APACHE II score may be a useful tool for stratifying patients into various risk groups, and the Boey score might select appropriate patients for laparoscopic repair.

Citing Articles

A Review on Treatment of Perforated Peptic Ulcer by Minimally Invasive Techniques.

Coco D, Leanza S Maedica (Bucur). 2022; 17(3):692-698.

PMID: 36540584 PMC: 9720636. DOI: 10.26574/maedica.2022.17.3.692.


Pattern of Presentation, Management and Early Outcome in Patients with Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease in a Semi-urban Tertiary Hospital.

Gbenga O, Ayokunle D, Ganiyu A, Adekoya I Ethiop J Health Sci. 2022; 31(5):975-984.

PMID: 35221614 PMC: 8843151. DOI: 10.4314/ejhs.v31i5.9.


Evaluation of clinical factors and three scoring systems for predicting mortality in perforated peptic ulcer patients, a retrospective study.

Rivai M, Suchitra A, Janer A Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021; 69:102735.

PMID: 34466223 PMC: 8385391. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102735.


Potential use of peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score as a conversion index of laparoscopic-perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) repair.

Wang Y, Wu Y, Fu C, Liao C, Cheng C, Hsieh C Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020; 48(1):61-69.

PMID: 33219825 PMC: 8825607. DOI: 10.1007/s00068-020-01552-5.


Laparoscopic repair of a perforated duodenal ulcer: another use of a round ligament flap.

Allart K, Prevot F, Rebibo L, Regimbeau J Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2018; 13(4):542-545.

PMID: 30524628 PMC: 6280083. DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2018.76070.