Surgical intervention for intestinal typhoid perforation

AIM

Typhoid perforation is the most fatal complication of typhoid fever in developing countries and is most often caused by the bacteria Salmonella Typhi. There are conflicting views as to which type of surgical intervention gives the best outcome. The aim of this study was to determine the mortality associated with the different types of surgical interventions employed in patients with typhoid perforation.

METHOD

This was a retrospective review of the medical records of adult and paediatric surgical patients treated in the general and paediatric surgical units of the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital. Information was obtained from medical records at the Korle Bu Teaching Hospital in Accra, Ghana, between January 2009 and April 2012. The data was analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 20 and 22.

RESULTS

133 patients (median age of 21 years, 72.2% males) with typhoid perforation were included in the study. The typhoid perforation specific mortality rate was 12.8%. Males had a significantly lower mortality rate (7.3%) compared to females (27%). Simple bowel closure (85.7% of total) was the most common surgical intervention performed and patients operated upon with this method had a significantly lower mortality rate (9.6%) compared to patients with bowel resection (31.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, patients treated with intestinal resection were more likely to die from typhoid perforation and female gender was a risk factor for death. Simple bowel closure was the predominant surgical procedure.

Comparison of endoscopic based diagnosis with Helicobacter urease test for Helicobacter pylori infection

Background

Helicobacter pylori is an important risk factor for gastritis, peptic ulcers and gastric cancer. The prevalence in developed countries is lower than 40 % but higher than 80 % in some developing countries. It is 75 % in Ghana. The Helicobacter urease test (HUT) is performed at endoscopy and gives an accurate diagnosis. The HUT is not routinely done at our facility and presumption of H. pylori is made based on endoscopic findings and H. pylori eradication prescribed, as the incidence in the general population is presumed high. Is this endoscopic diagnosis sufficient for diagnosing and treating H. pylori? We aimed to assess the feasibility of an endoscopic based H. pylori diagnosis and its accuracy using a HUT as the gold standard in consecutive patients.

Methods

Seventy-six consecutive adult patients with dyspepsia were assessed by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. A clinical diagnosis of H. pylori or not was made. Biopsy samples were collected for HUT. H. pylori was diagnosed if HUT was positive. The results were then compared.

Results

Median age of patients was 45.0 years. H. pylori prevalence detected by HUT was 51.3 % (95 % CI 40.0–63.0). Sensitivity of endoscopic diagnosis of H. pylori was 71.8 % (95 % CI 55.1–85.0) and specificity was 37.8 % (95 % CI 22.5–55.2). There was no association between clinical findings (73.7 %) and HUT (26.3 %) (OR = 0.80; [95 % CI 0.24–2.64], p = 0.682). There was also no association between endoscopic diagnosis (71.8 %) and HUT (28.2 %), (OR = 1.55; 95 % CI 0.59–4.06, p = 0.373).

Conclusion

Helicobacter pylori infection was not as high as that published in earlier reports. The endoscopic diagnosis alone is not sufficient to make a diagnosis of H. pylori.