Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39569228›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Clinical Presentations, Treatments, and Complications of Ileal Perforation at a Tertiary Center: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Eesha Ashok, Nishith M Ekka, Dipendra K Sinha, Kumar Gaurav, Binay Kumar, Neyaz Ahmad, Deepak Kumar, Sumit Chandra, Prem P Choudhary

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Eesha AshokSurgery, Srirama Chandra Bhanja (SCB) Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, IND.
Nishith M EkkaGeneral Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, IND.
Dipendra K SinhaGeneral Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, IND.
Kumar GauravGeneral Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, IND.
Binay KumarGeneral Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, IND.
Neyaz AhmadGeneral Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, IND.
Deepak KumarGeneral Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, IND.
Sumit ChandraGeneral Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, IND.
Prem P ChoudharyGeneral Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Ileal perforations represent one of the most common surgical emergencies in India, associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates. The causes of these perforations include infections such as tuberculosis and enteric fever, as well as malignancy and trauma. Management options encompass ileostomy, resection with anastomosis, and primary closure. Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical profile, etiology, management strategies, and complications associated with ileal perforation. Methodology A total of 70 patients with ileal perforation were included in the study. The proportions of various etiological factors, surgical interventions, and their associated complications were analyzed. The study aimed to determine whether ileostomy leads to fewer complications compared to primary repair. Results Ileal perforation is more prevalent in males than in females, with an incidence ratio of 2.68:1, predominantly affecting individuals in their 30s. Antituberculosis treatment does not consistently protect against perforation. Delays in presentation are linked to a higher likelihood of developing pyoperitoneum, increased chances of stoma creation (with a mean delay of 2.50 days in the closure group compared to 4.98 days in the ileostomy group), and greater mortality. Closure was performed in 18 patients (25.7%), while 52 patients (74.3%) underwent stoma creation. The duration of surgery was longer in the closure group (2.889 hours) than in the ileostomy group (2.635 hours) and also greater in the mortality group (three hours) compared to the non-mortality group (2.64 hours). The mean number of perforations was 1.59 ± 0.970, with 1.33 ± 0.840 in the closure group and 1.67 ± 1.004 in the ileostomy group. A higher number of perforations is associated with an increased likelihood of stoma creation. The most common cause of perforation was nonspecific, accounting for 40% of cases. The most frequently encountered complication was wound infection, occurring in 42.9% of patients. The mean duration of hospital stay was shorter in the ileostomy group (9.50 ± 5.500 days) than in the closure group (17.22 ± 19.219 days). Death occurred in 18.6% of cases, with higher rates observed in males (8:5), patients with delayed presentation, and elderly patients. A significant p-value was found in relation to leaks and fecal fistulas. Conclusions No significant difference was observed in complications associated with the various surgical procedures performed. However, a delay in presentation is linked to a higher rate of complications and increased mortality.

Indexed as

enteric perforationileal perforationileostomypyoperitoneumresection and anastomosisstoma related complicationswidal test

Identifiers

PMID39569228
PMCPMC11578607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.