Araujo-López A, Aburto-Fernández MC, López-Arvizu E, Alvarado-González A, Gutiérrez-Santiago JL, Álvarez-Manilla de Orendain A, Arteaga-Villalba LR, Herrera-Díaz A, Muñoz-Chávez R, Jiménez-Ríos CO, Lerma-Alvarado RM

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 4-10
PDF size: 321.82 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Peptic-gastro-duodenal ulcers are considered with a complication incidence of 2 to 11%, where up to 60% are located in the duodenum and the site of greatest perforation is the gastric antrum, which is the most frequent causative agent is Helicobacter pylori and NSAIDs. The dilemma between treatment has been maintained for a long time; primary closure or omentum patch, without importance depending on each patient. Material and methods: We present a series of cases of two hospitals of second level, where we compared the primary closure against the placement of the patch of omentum, where we analyzed age, sex, comorbidities, type of technique implemented, with respect to hospital discharge and evolution, study which has better forecast to be able to be implemented by residents in training of 3rd and 4th year of General Surgery. Results: The two patient universes were analyzed, where 75% of the patients of the General Hospital of Querétaro had an early improvement and lower risk of leakage, under primary closure, compared to 25% performed by the other hospital, with a higher rate of complications and longer in-hospital stay in which omentum patch was performed. Conclusions: We demonstrate that performing a primary closure in patients with Johnson III perforated gastric ulcers, under residents of the last year of general surgery, has a lower rate of complications.

REFERENCES

1. Mouly C, Chati R, Scotté M, Regimbeau JM. Therapeutic management of perforated gastro-duodenal ulcer: literature review. J Visc Surg. 2013; 150 (5): 333-340.

2. Arora BK, Arora R, Arora A. Modified Graham’s repair for peptic ulcer perforation: reassessment study. Int Surg J. 2017; 4 (5): 1667-1671.

3. Seetharam K, Tanmay J, Monty K. Simple Modification of pedicled omental patch for peptic ulcer perforation; a resident’s technique. Stanley Medical Journal. 2016; 3 (1): 39-40.

4. Cellan-Jones CJ. A rapid method of treatment in perforated duodenal ulcer. Br Med J. 1929; 1 (3571): 1076-1077.

5. Bertleff MJ, Stegmann T, Liem RS, Kors G, Robinson PH, Nicolai JP et al. Comparison of closure of gastric perforation ulcers with biodegradable lactide-glycolide-caprolactone or omental patches. JSLS. 2009; 13 (4): 550-554.

6. Yamamoto K, Takahashi O, Arioka H, Kobayashi D. Evaluation of risk factors for perforated peptic ulcer. BMC Gastroenterol. 2018; 18 (1): 28.

7. Bertleff MJ, Liem RS, Bartels HL, Robinson PH, Van der Werff JF, Bonjer HJ et al. The “stamp method”: a new treatment for perforated peptic ulcer? Surg Endosc. 2006; 20 (5): 791-793.

8. Kim JH, Chin HM, Bae YJ, Jun KH. Risk factors associated with conversion of laparoscopic simple closure in perforated duodenal ulcer. Int J Surg. 2015; 15: 40-44.

9. Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer. JSLS. 2013; 17 (1): 15-22.

10. Søreide K, Thorsen K, Harrison EM, Bingener J, Møller MH, Ohene-Yeboah M et al. Perforated peptic ulcer. Lancet. 2015; 386 (10000): 1288-1298.

11. Lau WY. Perforated peptic ulcer: open versus laparoscopic repair. Asian J Surg. 2002; 25 (4): 267-269.