DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20173380
Published: 2017-07-24

Surgical audit of current management practices of ileal perforations presenting in a tertiary care institute of North India

Satish Dalal, Mahavir Singh, Dinesh Kumar, Amandeep Saharan, Chiesel Bhatia

Abstract


Background: Small bowel perforation is one of the commonest causes of abdominal emergency in India and other tropical countries mostly due to high incidence of enteric fever and tuberculosis. Surgical approach to these patients is standard but the choice of procedure continues to be debated. It is very important to find the appropriate management of these patients to reduce high mortality and morbidity.

Methods: This prospective study on 50 patients of perforation peritonitis with small bowel perforation. After initial resuscitation with intravenous fluids and antibiotics surgery was done by midline incision and three modalities of surgical techniques were compared i.e. primary closure of perforation, resection and anastomosis and ileostomy depending upon the general condition of patient and local condition of gut.

Results: Out of 50 patients, ten underwent primary repair of perforation, four patients were managed with ileal resection and end to end anastomosis and rest 36 patient required faecal diversion in form of ileostomy. Two patients expired in post-operative period that were cases of abdominal tuberculosis.

Conclusion: Primary closure of perforation is preferable in patients with single small perforation with healthy surrounding bowel. Resection anastomosis is advocated in multiple perforations of any size with localized peritonitis of diseased segment pertaining to good general condition of patient. Ileostomy is lifesaving procedure particularly in patients of fulminant enteritis and peritonitis of long duration with associated co-morbidities but requires second surgery for closure.


Keywords


Ileostomy, Peritonitis, Primary closure, Resection anastomosis (RA)

Full Text:

PDF

References


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;5:1-26.

Hussain T, Alam SN, Manzar S. Outcome of ileostomy in cases of small bowel perforation. Pak J Surg. 2005;21:65-71.

Edino ST, Yakubu AA, Mohammed AZ, Abubakar IS. Prognostic factors in typhoid ileal perforation: a prospective study of 53 cases. J National Med Assoc. 2007;99(9):1042-5.

Kapoor VK. Abdominal tuberculosis: the Indian contribution. Indian J Gastroenterol. 1998;17(4):141-7.

Adesunkanmi AK, Badmus TA, Fadiora FO, Agbakwuru EA: Generalized peritonitis secondary to typhoid ileal perforation: assessment of severity using modified APACHE II score. Indian J Surg. 2005;67:29-33.

Ajao OG. Typhoid perforation: factors affecting mortality and morbidity. J Int Surg. 1982;67(4):317-9.

Malik AM, Laghari AA, Mallah Q, Qureshi GA, Talpur AH, Effendi S, et al. Different surgical options and ileostomy in typhoid perforation. World J Med Sci. 2006;1(2):112-6.

Person KO, Person B, Wexner SD. Complications of construction and closure of temporary loop ileostomy. J Am Coll Surg. 2005;201:759-73.

Wani RA, Parry FQ, Bhat NA, Wani MA, Bhat TH, Farzana F. Nontraumatic terminal ileal perforation. World J Emerg Surg. 2006;1:7.

Patil V, Vijayakumar A, Ajitha MB, Kumar SL. Comparison between tube ileostomy and loop ileostomy as a diversion procedure. ISRN Surg. 2012;5:112-7.

Ali MZ, Munir K, Zaffar A, Anwar MI. Surgical audit of emergency ileostomies. JRMC. 2012;16(1):45-7.

Batra P, Gupta D, Rao S, Narang R, Batra R. Spectrum of gastrointestinal perforation peritonitis in rural central India. J MGIMS. 2013;18(1):44-8.

Karamcharya B, Sharma VK. Result of typhoid perforation management: our experience in BIR Hospital, Nepal. Kathmandu Univ Med J. 2006;4:22-4.

Chun LJ, Haigh PI, Tam MS, Abbas MA. Defunctioning loop ileostomy for pelvic anastomoses: predictors of morbidity and nonclosure. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(2):167-74.

Nadkarni KM, Shetty SD, Kagzi RS, Pinto AC, Bhalerao RA. Small- bowel perforations. A study of 32 cases. Arch Surg. 1981:116:53-7.

Mohil RS, Singh T, Arya S, Bhatnagar D. Risk adjustment is crucial in comparing outcome of various surgical modalities in patients with ileal perforation. Patient Safety in Surg. 2008;2:31.

Bakx R, Busch OR, Bemelman WA, Veldink GJ, Siors JF, Van Lanschot JJ. Morbidities of temporary ileostomies. Dig Surg. 2004;21:277-81.

Abacarian H, Pearl RK. Stomas. Surg Clin North Am. 1988;68:1295-305.

Eggleston FC, Santoshi B, Singh CM. Typhoid perforation of the bowel. Experiances in 78 cases. Ann Surg. 1979;190:31-5.

Memon Saleh AB. Surgical audit of management of typhoid perforation. J Surg Pak. 2001;6:4-5.

Aziz M, Qadir A, Aziz M, Faizullah. Prognostic factor in typhioid perforation. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2005;15:704-7.

Shaikh GS, Fatima S, Shaikh S. Typhoid ileal perforation: a surgical audit. RMJ. 2011;26:22-5.