Clinical study of perforations among patients at a tertiary care hospital

Authors

  • Mahesh S. V. Department of General Surgery, Malla Reddy Medical College for Women, Suraram, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
  • Dilip Kumar Reddy Department of General Surgery, Mamata Medical College, Khammam, Telangana, India
  • Hota P. K. Department of General Surgery, Mamata Medical College, Khammam, Telangana, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20183726

Keywords:

Abdomen, Clinical study, Perforations

Abstract

Background: Non-traumatic gastrointestinal perforations have received far less attention in the recent medical literature than inflammations, tumoral or traumatic lesions of solid abdominal organs. The objective is to study perforations among patients at a tertiary care hospital.

Methods: Patients diagnosed as non-traumatic perforations of the internal organs as diagnosed by authors were planned to be included for the present study. Diagnosis was based on history, clinical examination, and required investigations. All such patients were included in the present study that was enrolled for the present study during the study period. Such 50 patients could be studied. Non-traumatic perforation with regard to age, sex, causes, clinical presentation, diagnostic modalities required was evaluated.

Results: Most common age group involved is in 3rd to 4th decade in the present study. Male preponderance (82%) was seen; with a male to female ratio was 4.6:1. The time lapse between onset of symptoms and presentation at the hospital was more than 24 hours in 24% of the study population. Abdominal pain was the most consistent symptom and was seen in 100% of the study population in the present study followed by vomiting (52%) and fever (46%). Distended abdomen was seen in 46% of study population in the present study. Tenderness was seen in all the cases and is more prominent at the site of perforation. Guarding/rigidity and absent bowel sounds were seen in 92% of the study population. Sensitivity of imaging in detecting gas under diaphragm was 72% by USG abdomen and 80% by plain radiography.

Conclusions: Risk factors for increased morbidity and mortality in the present study include older age group, delayed presentation and features of shock.

References

Svanes C, Soreide J, Skarstein A, Fevang BT, Bakke P, Vollset SE, et al. Smoking and ulcer perforation. Gut. 1997;41:177-80.

Siu WT, Leong HT, Lau BKB. Laparoscopic repair for perforated duodenal ulcer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2002;235:313-9.

Dandapat MC, Mukherjee LM, Mishra SB. Gastro-intestinal perforations. Indian J Surg. 1991;53(5):189-93.

Jhobta RS, Attri AK, Kaushik R, Sharma R, Jhobta A. Spectrum of perforation peritonitis in India-review of 504 consecutive cases. World J Emerg Surg. 2006;1:26.

Rao KS, Waddi S. Study of 100 Cases of outcome of peritonitis patients due to intestinal perforation depending on various clinical and biochemical para meters. Age. 2016;20(30):10.

Kemparaj T, Khadri S. Gastrointestinal perforation–our experience. Internet J Surg. 2012;28.

Shankar B. Evaluation of etiology and clinical outcome of non-traumatic free perforation of small bowel. Int J Current Res. 2016;8(5):32002-6.

Mohan Rao, Samee AA, Khan SM. Hollow viscous perforation: a retrospective study. Int J Recent Scientific Res. 2015;6(3):3250-4.

Vinod Kumar B, Mathew AS. Clinical study of abdominal hollow visceral perforation non-traumatic. J Evol Med Dental Sci. 2014;3:8366-71.

Malik P, Yadav BL, Haldeniya K, Anuragi G, Goyal R. A 3-year prospective study of 1400 cases of perforation peritonitis: Asia’s largest single centre study. Global J Med Res. 2014;14(3):48-54.

Shrestha K, Paudel BR, Shah LL. Spectrum of perforation peritonitis -260 cases experience. Postgraduate Med J NAMS. 2010;10(2):29-32.

Vyas AK, Tanwani R, Raghuvanshi RS, Khantal N. A prospective study of perforation peritonitis in a tertiary health care centre of central India. Ann Int Med Dental Res. 2017;3(2):SG67-9.

Chen S, Wang H, Chen W, Lin FY, Hsu CY, Chang KJ, et al. Selective use of ultrasonography for the detection of pneumo-peritoneum. Acad Emergency Med. 2002;9(6):643-5.

Ibtesam KS, Shadydy AL. Ultrasound versus plain radiography in the detection of pneumo-peritoneum. Iraqi J Community Med. 2006;19(1):65-8.

Romero JA, Castaño N. Ultrasonography is superior to plain radiography in the diagnosis of pneumo-peritoneum. Br J Surg. 2002;89(3):351-4.

Pandian P, Pachaipondy M, Ramula M. Comprehensive study of hollow viscous perforation and its management. IOSR-JDMS. 2016;15(12):1-4.

Downloads

Published

2018-08-25

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles