ArticleCureus2025
Graham's Patch Versus Modified Graham's Patch in the Management of Perforated Duodenal Ulcer.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPerforation of a duodenal ulcer is a severe complication of peptic ulcer disease that requires prompt resuscitation and appropriate surgical intervention to minimize morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to compare the outcomes and complications of Graham's patch versus modified Graham's patch repair in patients with perforated duodenal ulcers admitted to a tertiary care hospital in Bangladesh.
methodsThis comparative observational study was conducted in the Department of Surgery at Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH) in Dhaka, Bangladesh, over a six-month period in 2018. Patients diagnosed with duodenal ulcer perforation were selected based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants prior to enrollment. A total of 60 patients (30 in each group) were included using a systematic sampling method. Data on post-operative outcomes and complications, such as leakage and wound infection, were collected using a pre-designed data sheet. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, V. 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
resultsThe study included 60 participants with a mean age of 34.22±8.59 years (range: 16-53 years) and a male-to-female ratio of 2:1. In the Graham's patch group, 90% of patients had pus in the intraperitoneal cavity, compared to 67% in the modified Graham's patch group. Wound infection and post-operative fever were the most common complications observed in both groups, with no statistically significant differences (p=0.59; p=0.78). The average hospital stay was six days for the Graham's patch group and eight days for the modified Graham's patch group, also showing no significant difference between the groups (p=0.145).
conclusionThis study compared the short-term outcomes of traditional versus modified Graham's patch repairs for perforated duodenal ulcers and found no significant differences in post-operative complications or hospital stay. Both techniques were safe and effective, allowing surgeons to choose based on experience and intra-operative factors, with the modified patch potentially offering easier handling for certain cases. However, due to limitations like small sample size and short follow-up, larger multi-center trials are needed to better assess long-term outcomes and guide surgical practice.
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.