Comparison of the efficacy of Jabalpur prognostic scoring system with Mannheims peritonitis index in evaluation of prognosis in patients with perforation peritonitis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20192961Keywords:
Mannheims peritonitis index scoring system, Jabalpur prognostic scoring system, Perforation peritonitisAbstract
Background: Peritonitis is defined as inflammation of the serosal membrane that lines the abdominal cavity and the organs contained therein. Peritonitis is often caused by the introduction of infection into the otherwise sterile peritoneal environment through the perforation of the bowel, such as the ruptured appendix or colonic diverticulum. The disease may also be caused by the introduction of a chemically irritating material, such as gastric acid from a perforated ulcer. Peritonitis secondary to perforation of the gastrointestinal tract, a common occurrence in this country, requires emergency surgical intervention and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality rates.
Methods: This was a comparative prospective cohort study in which 150 patients presenting with symptoms peritonitis secondary to hollow viscus perforation in general surgery department, Sri Venktaeshwara Medical College, Tiruapti from March 2017 to November 2018 were taken for the study.
Results: Jabalpur prognostic scoring system has a slightly higher area under the curve of 96% when compared with the Mannheims peritonitis index score with 95%. So this shows that the Jabalpur prognostic scoring system has slightly greater indices than, that of Mannheims peritonitis index scoring system in predicting the prognosis of perforative peritonitis.
Conclusions: In patients with perforation peritonitis, Jabalpur prognostic scoring system is an easy and reliable predictor in evaluating prognosis. In developing countries like India, where in resources are limited, Jabalpur prognostic scoring system will greatly help in predicting prognosis in patients with perforarion peritonitis. Because of its cost effectiveness, availability and ease of use, it is recommended as a part in the holistic approach of treatment of perforation peritonitis.References
Swanes C, Soreide JA, Soreide O, Bakke P, Vollset SE, Skarstein A. Smoking and ulcer perforation. Gut. 1997;41:177-80.
Siu WT, Leong HT, Lau BKB. Laparoscopic repair for perforated duodenal ulcer: a randomised controlled trial Ann Surg. 2002;235:313-9.
Billing A, Frölich D, Schildberg FW. Prediction of outcome using the Mannheim peritonitis index in 2003 patients. Br J Surg. 1994;81:209-13.
Notash AY, Salimi J, Rahimian H, Fesharaki MH, Abbasi A. Evaluation of Mannheim peritonitis index and multiple organ failure score in patients with peritonitis. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2005;24(5):197-200.
Yoshiko K, Masayuki N. Study of Mannheim Peritonitis Index to Predict Outcome of Patients with Peritonitis. Japanese J Gastroenterol Surg. 2004;37(1):7-13.
Qureshi AM. Predictive power of Mannheim peritonitis index. J Coll Physicians Surgeons Pakistan. 2005;15(11):693-6.
Mishra A, Sharma D, Raina VK. A simplified prognostic scoring system for peptic ulcer perforation in developing countries. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2003;22:49-53.
Subangi KG, Aravind N. A Comparative Study Of Pulp Scoring Vs Jabalpur Prognostic Scoring In Predicting Outcome In Patients With Peptic Ulcer Perforation. IOSR J Dental Med Sci. 2018;17(2):45-53.
