Study on the use of T-tube for patients with persistent duodenal fistula: is it useful?

Perforated peptic ulcer

Worldwide perforated peptic ulcer disease is the leading cause of mortality after abdominal emergency surgery Rapid clinical assessment, proper diagnostics, and timely decision-making are vital in handling patients with suspected or identified perforated peptic ulcer CT has high diagnostic sensitivity, whereas perforation is only evident on three-quarters of plain abdominal X-rays Delay in surgical intervention increases mortality risk Simple closure of the perforated ulcer is still the preferred method of surgery Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach in experienced hands

Complex duodenal fistulae: a surgical nightmare

INTRODUCTION

A common feature of external duodenal fistulae is the devastating effect of the duodenal content rich in bile and pancreatic juice on nearby tissues with therapy-resistant local and systemic complications. This study analyzes the results of different management options with emphasis on successful fistula closure rates.

METHODS

A retrospective single academic center study of adult patients treated for complex duodenal fistulas over a 17-year period with descriptive and univariate analyses was performed.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were identified. First line treatment was surgical in 38 (76%) cases and consisted of resuture or resection with anastomosis combined with duodenal decompression and periduodenal drainage in 36 cases, rectus muscle patch, and surgical decompression with T-tube in one each. Fistula closure rate was 29/38 (76%). In 12 cases, the initial management was nonoperative with or without percutaneous drainage. The fistula was closed without surgery in 5/6 patients (1 patient died with persistent fistula). Among the remaining 6 patients eventually operated, fistula closure was achieved in 4 cases. There was no difference in successful fistula closure rates among initially operatively versus nonoperatively managed patients (29/38 vs. 9/12, p = 1.000). However, when considering eventually failed nonoperative management in 7/12 patients, there was a significant difference in the fistula closure rate (29/38 vs. 5/12, p = 0.036). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 20/50 (40%).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical closure combined with duodenal decompression in complex duodenal leaks offers the best chance of successful outcome. In selected cases, nonoperative management can be tried, accepting that some patients may require surgery later.

Iatrogenic Duodenal Perforation After Surgery: a Systematic Review

Duodenal perforation consequent to prior surgery is a rare but severe complication carrying serious consequences if not promptly managed. This study aims to identify the best treatment pathway available to date. This is a systematic review registered to PROSPERO. The literature research was conducted on Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane up to February 2022 to identify all papers reporting surgical-related duodenal perforations. Twelve articles were included. Most of these studies were case reports or case series. The most common cause of perforation was laparoscopic cholecystectomy (72.7%). The median time to symptom appearance was 2 days. Most of these perforations were severe injuries located in the first portion of the duodenum. Only one patient was treated with a non-interventional conservative management, which failed. Five patients were managed with interventional non-surgical treatments: 4 with endoscopy (50% failure) and one with a percutaneous occluder. Different surgical treatments were reported: direct suture (100% failure), direct suture and T-tube duodenostomy (75% failure), simple abdominal drainage, and suture with pyloric exclusion. Further extensive surgeries were also reported. The overall mortality rate was 13.6%, with a median hospital stay of 38.5 days. This review shows a wide spectrum of managements for patients with duodenal perforation related to prior surgery. The decision on which treatment to adopt must consider patient’s clinical setting and duodenal defect characteristics (size, site, and time to diagnosis). A tentative treatment flowchart is provided, although larger sample size studies are needed to obtain a treatment pathway based on evidence.

Risk factors for leak after omentopexy for duodenal ulcer perforations

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.

Surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcers: laparoscopic versus open approach

INTRODUCTION

Perforated peptic ulcers are a surgical emergency that can be repaired using either laparoscopic surgery (LS) or open surgery (OS). No consensus has been reached on the comparative outcomes and safety of each approach.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, we conducted a 12-year retrospective review (2005-2016) and identified 6260 adult patients who underwent either LS (n = 616) or OS (n = 5644) to repair perforated peptic ulcers. To mitigate selection bias and adjust for the inherent heterogeneity between groups, we used propensity-score matching with a case (LS):control (OS) ratio of 1:3. We then compared intraoperative outcomes such as operative time, and 30-day postoperative outcomes including infectious and non-infectious complications, and mortality.

RESULTS

Propensity-score matching created a total of 2462 matched pairs (616 in the LS group, 1846 in the OS group). Univariate analysis demonstrated successful matching of patient characteristics and baseline clinical variables. We found that OS was associated with a shorter operative time (67.0 ± 28.6 min, OS versus 86.9 ± 57.5 min, LS; P < 0.001) but a longer hospital stay (8.6 ± 6.2 days, OS versus 7.8 ± 5.9 days, LS; P = 0.001). LS was associated with a lower rate of superficial surgical site infections (1.5%, LS versus 4.2%, OS; P = 0.032), wound dehiscence (0.3%, LS versus 1.6%, OS; P = 0.030), and mortality (3.2%, LS versus 5.4%, OS; P = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Fewer than 10% of patients with perforated peptic ulcers underwent LS, which was associated with reduced length of stay, lower rate of superficial surgical site infections, wound dehiscence, and mortality. Given our results, a greater emphasis should be provided to a minimally invasive approach for the surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcers.

Perforated peptic ulcer

Perforated peptic ulcer is a common emergency condition worldwide, with associated mortality rates of up to 30%. A scarcity of high-quality studies about the condition limits the knowledge base for clinical decision making, but a few published randomised trials are available. Although Helicobacter pylori and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are common causes, demographic differences in age, sex, perforation location, and underlying causes exist between countries, and mortality rates also vary. Clinical prediction rules are used, but accuracy varies with study population. Early surgery, either by laparoscopic or open repair, and proper sepsis management are essential for good outcome. Selected patients can be managed non-operatively or with novel endoscopic approaches, but validation of such methods in trials is needed. Quality of care, sepsis care bundles, and postoperative monitoring need further assessment. Adequate trials with low risk of bias are urgently needed to provide better evidence. We summarise the evidence for perforated peptic ulcer management and identify directions for future clinical research.

Perforations of the esophagus and stomach: what should I do?

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal and gastroduodenal perforations are relatively uncommon; however, they both can be potentially life-threatening. Esophageal perforations most commonly occur due to iatrogenic injury, forceful retching (Boerhaave's syndrome), malignancy, foreign body ingestion, or caustic injury. Gastroduodenal perforations are most commonly due to peptic ulcer disease or malignancy. Pain and signs of sepsis are the most common presenting symptoms and signs.

METHODS

Determining the extent of critical illness and addressing hemodynamics and sepsis are the first priorities. Identifying the location and size of the perforation as well as extent of contamination is the next priorities. Although surgical intervention has been the mainstay of treatment, newer approaches have led to a heterogeneity of approaches.

CONCLUSION

For esophageal perforation, observation, endoscopic, radiological, and surgical approaches may be appropriate. For gastroduodenal perforation, surgical approach is still the most appropriate, although a concomitant acid-reducing operation is usually not necessary. Despite these advances, mortality for both perforations can still be high. Sound judgment is necessary for optimal results.

Strategies to improve the outcome of emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a common surgical emergency that carries high mortality and morbidity rates. Globally, one-quarter of a million people die from peptic ulcer disease each year. Strategies to improve outcomes are needed.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for evidence related to the surgical treatment of patients with PPU. The clinical registries of trials were examined for other available or ongoing studies. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and meta-analyses were preferred.

RESULTS

Deaths from peptic ulcer disease eclipse those of several other common emergencies. The reported incidence of PPU is 3.8-14 per 100,000 and the mortality rate is 10-25 per cent. The possibility of non-operative management has been assessed in one small RCT of 83 patients, with success in 29 (73 per cent) of 40, and only in patients aged less than 70 years. Adherence to a perioperative sepsis protocol decreased mortality in a cohort study, with a relative risk (RR) reduction of 0.63 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.41 to 0.97). Based on meta-analysis of three RCTs (315 patients), laparoscopic and open surgery for PPU are equivalent, but patient selection remains a challenge. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori after surgical repair of PPI reduces both the short-term (RR 2.97, 95 per cent c.i. 1.06 to 8.29) and 1-year (RR 1.49, 1.10 to 2.03) risk of ulcer recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Mortality and morbidity from PPU can be reduced by adherence to perioperative strategies.