ArticleSurgery today2024
Pathophysiology and surgical outcomes of patients with fungal peritonitis from upper gastrointestinal tract perforation: a retrospective study.
Article in Surgery today, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A rare case of idiopathic gastric rupture in an elderly female.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Distribution and drug resistance analysis of pathogens in early-stage digestive tract perforation complicated with peritonitis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the pathophysiology and surgical outcomes of emergency surgery for upper gastrointestinal tract perforation with and without fungal peritonitis and identify the risk factors for fungal peritonitis.
methodsThe subjects of this retrospective study were patients with upper gastrointestinal perforation and peritonitis who underwent emergency surgery at a single medical center in Japan. The patients were allocated to two groups according to the presence or absence of fungal peritonitis: group F and group N, respectively.
resultsAt the time of surgery, ascitic fluid culture or serum β-D glucan levels were available for 54 patients: 29 from group F and 25 from group N, respectively. The stomach was perforated in 14 patients (25.9%) and the duodenum was perforated in 40 patients (74.1%). Group F had a higher proportion of patients with low preoperative prognostic nutritional index scores (≤ 40) and C-reactive protein levels and a higher postoperative complication rate. The time to initiate food intake and the postoperative hospital stay were also significantly longer in group F. Multivariate analysis identified that the perforation site of the stomach was a risk factor for fungal peritonitis.
conclusionPatients with fungal peritonitis from upper gastrointestinal tract perforation had higher postoperative complication rates, delayed postoperative recovery, and a longer hospital stay. Gastric perforation was a risk factor for fungal peritonitis.
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.