» Articles » PMID: 35221614

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

Overview
Specialty Health Services
Date 2022 Feb 28
PMID 35221614
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Perforated peptic ulcer is a life-threatening complication with a high morbidity and mortality. It is the most common indication for emergency operation in peptic ulcer disease (PUD) patients. This study aimed to describe the pattern of presentation, management and early outcome in patients with perforated PUD.

Methods: This was a prospective study of patients who had operation for perforated PUD at Ekiti State University Teaching Hospital (EKSUTH), Ado-Ekiti, Southwestern Nigeria from June 2015 to May 2020.

Results: Forty-six patients were studied with their ages ranging from 21-85 years. Their mean age was 49.9±16.3 years while the median was 54 years. Males outnumbered females by a ratio of 5.5:1. Majority (56.5%) of the patients were farmers and artisans. Duration of symptoms was 6 hours to 9 days (mean 2.7±1.9 days). Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs use, herbal concoction, alcohol and smoking was found in 54.3%, 52.2%, 30.4% and 21.7% respectively. More duodenal perforations (63.0%) were recorded. Graham's patch closure was done for 27 (58.7%) while the remaining (41.3%) had primary closure with omentoplasty. Sixteen (34.8%) had postoperative complications with wound infection predominating. Overall postoperative mortality was 17.4%. Age ≥ 60 years (p=0.04), premorbid illness (p=0.01), delayed presentation ≥ 48 hours (p=0.01), shock (p=0.01) and intraperitoneal effluent ≥ 2000ml (p=0.03) were associated with mortalities.

Conclusion: Perforated PUD accounts for high morbidities and mortalities in our setting. Abuse of NSAIDs and herbal concoction ranked highest among the risk factors. Efforts at curtailing indiscriminate sales of NSAIDs and herbal concoction will reduce the menace.

Citing Articles

Gastric perforation biopsy: is it obsolete?.

Steyn P, Karusseit O Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2024; 409(1):139.

PMID: 38676744 PMC: 11055769. DOI: 10.1007/s00423-024-03325-9.

References
1.
Dongo A, Uhunmwagho O, Kesieme E, Eluehike S, Alufohai E . A Five-Year Review of Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease in Irrua, Nigeria. Int Sch Res Notices. 2017; 2017:8375398. PMC: 5471598. DOI: 10.1155/2017/8375398. View

2.
Sivri B . Trends in peptic ulcer pharmacotherapy. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2004; 18(1):23-31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-8206.2004.00203.x. View

3.
Etonyeaku A, Agbakwuru E, Akinkuolie A, Omotola C, Talabi A, Onyia C . A review of the management of perforated duodenal ulcers at a tertiary hospital in south western Nigeria. Afr Health Sci. 2014; 13(4):907-13. PMC: 4056487. DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v13i4.7. View

4.
Teshome H, Birega M, Taddese M . Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease in a Tertiary Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Five Year Retrospective Study. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2020; 30(3):363-370. PMC: 7445938. DOI: 10.4314/ejhs.v30i3.7. View

5.
Kang J, Elders A, Majeed A, Maxwell J, Bardhan K . Recent trends in hospital admissions and mortality rates for peptic ulcer in Scotland 1982-2002. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006; 24(1):65-79. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02960.x. View