ArticleEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2010
Perforated Duodenal Ulcer: Has Anything Changed?
Article in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reno-Duodenal Fistula as a Complication of Staghorn Stones and Renal Pelvis Tumor: A Case Presentation.Cureus · 2024Article
- Complex duodenal fistulae: a surgical nightmare.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2023Article
- Short- and long-term outcomes of surgical management of peptic ulcer complications in the era of proton pump inhibitors.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2018Article
- Is it possible to reduce the surgical mortality and morbidity of peptic ulcer perforations?Turkish journal of surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo assess the current management and outcome of perforated duodenal peptic ulcer managed with open repair, a focused analysis was conducted, excluding gastric, traumatic and iatrogenic perforations. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective study of a 6-year period identified 61 patients. Mean age was 59 (range 19-87) years and 33 (54%) were male. Medical history included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in 46%, smoking in 30%, atherosclerosis in 26% and excessive alcohol use in 23%.
resultsGeneralized abdominal tenderness was recorded in 64% of the cases. The mean (SD) C-reactive protein value was 100 (141) g/l and white blood cell count was 12.8 (7.9) E9/l. Plain abdominal X-ray was positive for air in 87% (41/47) and CT scan in 86% (18/21). Four patients (7%) were operated without radiological imaging. There were 31 patients (51%) with a delay of 24 h or more from the start of symptoms to surgery. The mean (SD) delay from admission to surgery was 9 (3) (range 3-12) h. The treatment consisted of open suture repair in 92%, peritoneal lavage in 92%, external drainage in 80% and nasogastric decompression in 92%. The overall hospital mortality and morbidity rates were 11 and 21%, respectively. The duodenal suture leak rate was 7% and intra-abdominal abscess rate was 2%.
conclusionThe majority of patients with perforated duodenal ulcer can be diagnosed with conventional clinical and radiological methods, and treated according to established surgical principles. The mortality and duodenal morbidity rates have remained unchanged for the last decade. Shortening preoperative delay could improve the prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.