ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
A pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of urgent endoscopy for gastroduodenal perforation.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastroduodenal perforation is potentially life threatening and requires early diagnosis and treatment. Urgent endoscopy facilitates detecting bleeding sites and achieving hemostasis. However, there is no consensus on urgent endoscopy for gastroduodenal perforation in Japan.
methodsWe evaluated the effectiveness and safety of urgent endoscopy for gastroduodenal perforation. We compared clinical characteristics between 140 patients who underwent urgent endoscopy (urgent endoscopy group) and 16 patients did not (no urgent endoscopy group) at Hiroshima City Asa Citizens Hospital between December 2005 and December 2018.
resultsEndoscopic diagnosis was possible in all urgent endoscopy group. In contrast, correct diagnosis of the perforation site was made on CT in 99 cases (63%). Furthermore, the proportion of cases with correct diagnosis of the perforation site by CT findings differed significantly between the urgent endoscopy group and the no urgent endoscopy group (66% vs. 38%, p < 0.05). No complications of urgent endoscopy were observed. Primary perforation site was gastric in 42 cases and duodenal in 114. In the 42 gastric perforation cases, 12 gastric perforation cases (29%) were managed conservatively, successfully in 9 (75%); 2 cases (17%) required delayed emergency surgery for worsening peritonitis. In the 114 duodenal perforation cases (duodenal ulcer in all cases), 52 cases (46%) were managed conservatively, successfully in 48 (92%); 3 cases (6%) required delayed emergency surgery for worsening peritonitis. A significantly higher proportion of gastric perforation cases than duodenal perforation cases required surgical treatment (76% vs. 57%, p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed localized abdominal pain (no peritonism) (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.08-0.75; p < 0.01) and perforation diameter ≤ 5 mm (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.36; p < 0.01) as significant independent clinical factors for successful conservative management of duodenal ulcer perforation.
conclusionsUrgent endoscopy in gastroduodenal perforation enabled primary diagnosis and perforation site identification, and facilitated deciding the management strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34009476What 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.