Perforated ulcer at the gastrojejunal anastomosis: a rare complication of pancreaticoduodenectomy (case report).

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is recognized as one of the most intricate abdominal surgical procedures, often accompanied by high morbidity rates. The occurrence of an anastomotic ulcer at the gastrojejunal anastomosis post-pancreaticoduodenectomy surgery is a relatively uncommon complication, albeit potentially leading to severe, life-threatening consequences. The predominant symptomatology manifests as acute abdominal pain accompanied by peritonitis. Conventionally, diagnosis is achieved through computed tomography (CT) scans, facilitating subsequent management, and surgical management is recommended in the majority of instances. Herein, we present a rare case of a patient who experienced ulcer perforation at the gastrojejunal anastomosis site after undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy with stomach preservation, and we reviewed the available literature to gain more comprehension of this rare complication of this type of surgical intervention.

Postoperative Bowel Obstruction as a Rare Complication of an Abdominal Drain.

Although routine intra-abdominal drain insertion following surgery represents a common practice worldwide, its utility has been questioned during the last decades. Several comparative studies have failed to document significant benefits from routine draining, and drain insertion has been correlated with various complications as well. Drain-related complications include, but are not limited, to infection, bleeding, and tissue erosion. Herein, we present the case of a 32-year-old patient with perforated peptic ulcer and purulent peritonitis, whose postoperative course was complicated by early mechanical bowel obstruction due to an abdominal drain. A high level of clinical suspicion, along with accurate imaging diagnosis, dictated prompt removal of the drain, which resulted in immediate resolution of the patient's symptoms. We aim to increase the clinical awareness of this rare complication related to intra-abdominal drain utilization with this report.

Early Identification of Patients with Potential Failure of Nonoperative Management for Gastroduodenal Peptic Ulcer Perforation.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to identify objective factors associated with failure of nonoperative management (NOM) of gastroduodenal peptic ulcer perforation (GDUP) and establish a scoring model for early identification of patients in whom NOM of GDUP may fail. METHODS: A total of 71 patients with GDUP were divided into NOM (cases of NOM success) and operation groups (cases requiring emergency operation or conversion from NOM to operation). Using logistic regression analysis, a scoring model was established based on the independent factors. The patients were stratified into low-risk and high-risk groups according to the scores. RESULTS: Of the 71 patients, 18 and 53 were in the NOM and operation groups, respectively. Ascites in the pelvic cavity on computed tomography (CT) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score at admission were identified as independent factors for NOM failure. The scoring model was established based on the presence of ascites in the pelvic cavity on CT and SOFA score ≥2 at admission. The operation rates for GDUP were 28.6% and 86.0% in the low-risk (score, 0) and high-risk groups (scores, 2 and 4), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our scoring model may help determine NOM failure or success in patients with GDUP and make decisions regarding initial treatment.

Methamphetamine-related peptic ulcer perforation: a growing medical concern.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have been done in the literature on perforations due to substance abuse, and there are limited publications on perforations related to inhaled methamphetamine. Recently, in our clinic, we observed an increase in the number of patients with perforated peptic ulcer, which we think is secondary to a significant increase in the consumption of this drug. The main purpose of this study is to determine whether the use of inhaled methamphetamine known as 'fire and ice' is a factor directly related to peptic perforation and its complications and also to determine the demographic variables of patients with peptic ulcer perforation due to this substance use, in the context of the literature. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted by examining the medical records of 29 gastric perforation patients who underwent surgical treatment in our clinic in 2021. Data were transferred to SPSS.23 (IBM Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) program and evaluated with statistical analysis. Normality assumptions of continuous variables were examined with Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, and variance homogeneity was examined with Levene's test. Bi-level comparisons, t-test if the data are normally distributed and Mann-Whitney U-test for bi-level comparisons where the data are not normally distributed were used. Relationships between categorical variables were examined by Chi-square test analysis. P<0.05 was accepted as the level of significance in all analyzes. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were divided into two groups as methamphetamine users (n=13) and non-users (n=16). There was a statistically significant difference according to the lower age in the group using methamphetamine (31.69-48.8-P=0.025). The pres-ence of PU history differed significantly between the groups (P=0.009). Interestingly, aspartate transaminase alanine aminotransferase values were lower in substance dependents (P=0.020). Furthermore, there was a significant difference in localization between groups (P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of gender, clinical presentation, and other laboratory values. CONCLUSION: Methamphetamine consumption, known as fire and ice, is an important risk factor for ulcer development and subsequent perforation, especially in young patients and long-term consumption of this narcotic substance. It has been determined that this risk factor, which is currently considered rare, has been seen in a very large number in a short time in our clinic. The use of this substance, which is considered a major social threat, is becoming more and more widespread, and this study is only a small part of the iceberg reflected in the general surgery clinic of a hospital.

A comparative study on laparoscopic and open surgical approaches for perforated peptic ulcer repair: efficacy and outcomes analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open sutures for peptic ulcer perforation (PPU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies from inception to March 31, 2023. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cl) were also calculated. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. This study was performed using the Stata (V.16.0) software. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies involving 17,228 patients were included in this study. In terms of postoperative outcomes, the laparoscopic group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = -0.29, 95%CI = -0.44 to -0.13, P = 0.00), less blood loss (MD = -0.45, 95%CI = -0.82 to -0.08, P = 0.02), fewer wound infection (OR = 0.20, 95%CI = 0.17 to 0.24, P = 0.00), fewer pneumonia (OR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.41 to 0.87, P = 0.01), fewer respiratory complications (OR = 0.26, 95%CI = 0.13 to 0.55, P = 0.00) and lower postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.51, 95%CI = 0.33 to 0.78, P = 0.00). The laparoscopic group had a lower mortality rate (OR = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.27 to 0.49, P = 0.00) than the open group. We also found that the laparoscopic group had a higher overall complication rate than the open group (OR = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.34 to 0.60, P = 0.00). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic repair was associated with a lower risk of mortality than open repair in patients with PPU. Laparoscopic repair may be a better option in patients with PPU.

[Laparoscopic treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers]. / Laparoskopicheskaya tekhnologiya lecheniya probodnykh yazv zheludka i dvenadtsatiperstnoi kishki.

The review is devoted to laparoscopic technology in the treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers. Searching for literature data was performed in the PubMed, Google, Springer Link online library, Cochrane Systematic Review databases. We analyzed reviews, prospective and retrospective studies devoted to various strategies in the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers. Demographic, clinical and epidemiological features of these patients, indications and contraindications for endoscopic suturing of perforations, features of laparoscopic procedures and causes of conversions to open surgery were studied. Finally, we compared the results of laparoscopic and open surgeries.

Predicting in-hospital mortality risk for perforated peptic ulcer surgery: the PPUMS scoring system and the benefit of laparoscopic surgery: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The major treatment for perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) is surgery. It remains unclear which patient may not get benefit from surgery due to comorbidity. This study aimed to generate a scoring system by predicting mortality for patients with PPU who received non-operative management (NOM) and surgical treatment. METHOD: We extracted the admission data of adult (≥ 18 years) patients with PPU disease from the NHIRD database. We randomly divided patients into 80% model derivation and 20% validation cohorts. Multivariate analysis with a logistic regression model was applied to generate the scoring system, PPUMS. We then apply the scoring system to the validation group. RESULT: The PPUMS score ranged from 0 to 8 points, composite with age (< 45: 0 points, 45-65: 1 point, 65-80: 2 points, > 80: 3 points), and five comorbidities (congestive heart failure, severe liver disease, renal disease, history of malignancy, and obesity: 1 point each). The areas under ROC curve were 0.785 and 0.787 in the derivation and validation groups. The in-hospital mortality rates in the derivation group were 0.6% (0 points), 3.4% (1 point), 9.0% (2 points), 19.0% (3 points), 30.2% (4 points), and 45.9% when PPUMS > 4 point. Patients with PPUMS > 4 had a similar in-hospital mortality risk between the surgery group [laparotomy: odds ratio (OR) = 0.729, p = 0.320, laparoscopy: OR = 0.772, p = 0.697] and the non-surgery group. We identified similar results in the validation group. CONCLUSION: PPUMS scoring system effectively predicts in-hospital mortality for perforated peptic ulcer patients. It factors in age and specific comorbidities is highly predictive and well-calibrated with a reliable AUC of 0.785-0.787. Surgery, no matter laparotomy or laparoscope, significantly reduced mortality for scores < = 4. However, patients with a score > 4 did not show this difference, calling for tailored approaches to treatment based on risk assessment. Further prospective validation is suggested.

Perforated Stress Ulcer of the Duodenum: a Case of an Unexpected Diagnosis in a COVID-19 Patient Following Dilatation and Curettage Procedure.

Background: Stress ulcers in the upper gastrointestinal tract can arise from pathologies related to erosive or inflammatory insults in critically ill patients. The relationship between stressful bodily events and the ischemia and perforation of stress ulcers is poorly understood. Objective: We present a case of perforated stress ulcer following an abortion that was treated by dilatation and curettage (D&C) and complicated by a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Case presentation: A 40-year-old lady presented to the emergency room complaining of diffuse abdominal pain, she was recently diagnosed with an incomplete abortion and managed via a D&C procedure in an external hospital. A computed tomography (CT) scan was done at our center for the abdomen and pelvis, showing extensive pneumoperitoneum, which brought the radiologist's attention to suspect a small bowel perforation presumably accompanying a uterine perforation secondary to the D&C. There were no obvious signs of pelvic small bowel perforation in the initial CT images. The perforated duodenal stress ulcer was diagnosed the next day by a new CT scan following oral contrast ingestion and managed surgically by repair and omental patch, and no other bowel perforations were found upon surgical exploration. After the surgery, the patient was diagnosed with COVID-19, and her clinical status deteriorated gradually during the following week, and she passed away from a cardiac arrest. Conclusion: It is unclear whether septic abortion or COVID-19 has resulted in stress ulcer perforation in our patient. This case report highlights the importance of raising early suspicion in the diagnosis of stress ulcer perforation in critically ill patients to reduce the risk of morbidity and mortality.

Analysis of risk factors for duodenal leak after repair of a duodenal perforation.

BACKGROUND: Repairing of a duodenal perforation is a well accepted procedure, but clinically, approximately 4% of patients develop duodenal leaks after perforation repair, increasing the risk of death. We retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 168 patients at our hospital to explore risk factors for duodenal leak after perforation repair and developed a nomogram for predicting postoperative duodenal leak. METHODS: This retrospective case-control study totalled 168 patients undergoing repair of a duodenal perforation with omentopexy at the General Surgery Department, Dongnan Hospital of Xiamen University, from January 2012 to January 2022. The patients were divided into the non-leak group and the leak group. Risk factors were evaluated by analyzing the patient's sex, shock, diameter and anatomic position of the ulcer, use of NSAIDS and Glucocorticoid, history of drinking, diabetes, chronic diseases, age, time of onset of symptoms and lab tests. RESULT: One hundred fifty-six patients (92.9%) who did not develop leaks after repair of a duodenal perforation were included in the non-leak group, and 12 (7.1%) developed leaks were included in the leak group. In univariate analysis, there were significant differences between the two groups referring to age, shock, NSAIDs, albumin, and perforation size (P < 0.05). The area under the ROC curve for perforation diameter was 0.737, the p-value was 0.006, the optimal cutoff point was 11.5, sensitivity was 58.3%, and specificity was 93.6%, the positive predictive value is 41.1%, and the negative predictive value is 98.0%. In the internal validation of the performance of the nomogram, the C-index and AUC of the model were 0.896(95%CI 0.81-0.98), demonstrating that the nomogram model was well calibrated. CONCLUSION: The study discussed the risk factors for postoperative duodenal leak in patients undergoing repair of a duodenal perforation, and a nomogram was constructed to predict the leak. Future prospective studies with large sample sizes and multiple centres are needed to further elucidate the risk of duodenal leak after repair of a duodenal perforation.

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach.

BACKGROUND: Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remain a surgical emergency accounting for 37% of all peptic ulcer-related deaths. Surgery remains the standard of care. The benefits of laparoscopic approach have been well-established even in the elderly. However, because of inconsistent results with specific regard to some technical aspects of such technique surgeons questioned the adoption of laparoscopic approach. This leads to choose the type of approach based on personal experience. The aim of our study was to critically appraise the use of the laparoscopic approach in PPU treatment comparing it with open procedure. METHODS: A retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients underwent surgical procedure for PPU was performed. Patients undergoing PPU repair were divided into: Laparoscopic approach (LapA) and Open approach (OpenA) groups and clinical-pathological features of patients in the both groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 453 patients underwent PPU simple repair. Among these, a LapA was adopted in 49% (222/453 patients). After propensity score matching, 172 patients were included in each group (the LapA and the OpenA). Analysis demonstrated increased operative times in the OpenA [OpenA: 96.4 ± 37.2 vs LapA 88.47 ± 33 min, p = 0.035], with shorter overall length of stay in the LapA group [OpenA 13 ± 12 vs LapA 10.3 ± 11.4 days p = 0.038]. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality [OpenA 26 (15.1%) vs LapA 18 (10.5%), p = 0.258]. Focusing on morbidity, the overall rate of 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the LapA group [OpenA 67 patients (39.0%) vs LapA 37 patients (21.5%) p = 0.002]. When stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification, the severity of postoperative complications was statistically different only for C-D 1-2. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present study, we can support that laparoscopic suturing of perforated peptic ulcers, apart from being a safe technique, could provide significant advantages in terms of postoperative complications and hospital stay.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the management of acute peptic ulcer perforation: to be reconsidered(?).

OBJECTIVE: Peptic ulcer perforation presents the most serious complication of ulcer disease with mortality that varies significantly depending on the age and conditions. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was effective worldwide in 2020 and continues to date. The aim of this study was to investigate the initial clinical parameters and short-term outcomes of patients with acute peptic ulcer perforation before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in the Department of Surgery, University Hospital Ostrava, Czech Republic. The patients undergoing surgical modality of a simple suture of peptic ulcer perforation with/without omentoplasty in the post-coronavirus disease 2019 (January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021) and the pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019) had been incorporated in this study. RESULTS: This study included a total of 46 cases (26 in the pre-coronavirus disease 2019, 20 in the post-coronavirus disease 2019). The age, body mass index, Boey score, duration of symptoms, surgery time, and length of hospital stay were comparable in both study subgroups. During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, patients were admitted with a statistically significantly lower degree of perioperative risk according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (p=0.013). Notably, 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly higher in pre-coronavirus disease 2019 (73.1 vs. 55.0%, p=0.038). The mortality rate in the laparoscopic group was 13.6%, in the laparotomy group 41.4%, and the mortality rate was higher in pre-coronavirus disease 2019 than in post-coronavirus disease 2019 (34.6 vs. 20.0%, p=0.166). CONCLUSION: In fact, the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic had not significantly influenced therapeutic management and short-term outcomes of patients undergoing acute surgical repair of peptic ulcer perforation.

Outcomes of laparoscopic modified Cellan-Jones repair versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer at a community hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive or open Graham Patch repair remains the gold standard approach for management of perforated peptic ulcers (PPU). Herein, we report outcomes of laparoscopic technique and compare it with open approach at a community hospital. METHODS: Retrospective observational study conducted comparing laparoscopic modified Cellan-Jones repair (mCJR) versus the standard open repair of PPU. Patients aged 18-90 years during 2016-2021 were offered either a minimally invasive or open approach depending on surgeon laparoscopic capability, and were compared in terms of demographics, co-morbidities, intra-operative details, and short-term outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients were included (46.9% males, mean age 52.9 years, mean BMI 25.0, ASA ≥ III 75.5%, 75.5% smokers, 26.5% current NSAIDs use, and 71.4% alcohol drinkers). Duodenum was the most common perforation site (57.1%), and majority of ulcers were 1-2 cm (72.9%). Laparoscopic approach was performed in 16 consecutive patients (32.7%) by a single surgeon, with no conversions. Preoperative characteristics were similar for both groups. Compared to open approach, laparoscopic group were taken to operation immediately (< 4 h) (87.5% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001), had lower estimated blood loss (11.8 ml vs. 73.8 ml, p = 0.063), and longer operative time (117.1 min vs. 85.6 min, p = 0.010). Postoperatively, nasogastric tube was removed earlier in laparoscopic group (POD1-2, 87.5% vs. 24.2%, p = 0.001), with earlier resumption of diet (POD1-2, 62.6% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.002), less narcotic usage (< 3 days, 58.3% vs. 6.1%, p < 0.001), earlier return of bowel function (POD1-2, 43.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.003) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (3.7 days vs. 16.1 days, p < 0.001). Both in-house mortality and morbidity rates were lower in the laparoscopic group, but not statistically significant [(0% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.347) and (12.5% vs. 39.4%, p = 0.500), respectively]. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic mCJR is a feasible method for repair of PPU, and it is associated with shorter LOS, and less narcotics usage in comparison to the open repair approach.

Perforated Peptic Ulcer of the Duodenum After the Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

Perforated ulcers of the gastric remnant and duodenum seem to be a rare complication after a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Diagnosis of this complication can be difficult given a vague presentation, however, early intervention is critical to prevent further morbidity. We present the case of a 38-year-old male with a perforated duodenal ulcer nearly a year after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Upon presentation, he complained of 8 hours of epigastric pain. His medical history was significant for chronic peptic ulcer disease and a negative history of H. pylori. Recently, he had been prescribed naproxen by his primary care physician for knee pain. His vital signs were normal with the exception of his systolic blood pressure which was 190 mmHg. He was diaphoretic and peritonitic on exam. He was taken emergently for a diagnostic laparoscopy and found to have a perforation of ∼5 mm of the anterior portion of his duodenum. This was repaired laparoscopically with an omental patch and the patient recovered without any further intervention required. While this is a rare complication reported in the literature, this or similar complications of the remnant stomach may be underrepresented in publications. The surgical intervention of this disease will either be resection of the remnant or an omental patch. However, controversy remains as to the proper post-operative medical treatment. For our patient, the inciting agent was likely the naproxen he was given and this was stopped immediately. Patient education and ownership should remain a cornerstone for patients that have undergone a Roux-en-y gastric bypass.

Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcers: analysis of outcomes and identification of predictive factors of conversion.

BACKGROUND: The surgical treatment for perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs) can be safely performed laparoscopically. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients who received different surgical approaches for PPU and to identify the predictive factors for conversion to open surgery. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed patients treated for PPUs from 2002 to 2020. Three groups were identified: a complete laparoscopic surgery group (LG), a conversion to open group (CG), and a primary open group (OG). After univariate comparisons, a multivariate analysis was conducted to identify the predictive factors for conversion. RESULTS: Of the 175 patients that underwent surgery for PPU, 104 (59.4%) received a laparoscopic-first approach, and 27 (25.9%) required a conversion to open surgery. Patients treated directly with an open approach were older (p < 0.0001), had more comorbidities (p < 0.0001), and more frequently had a previous laparotomy (p = 0.0001). In the OG group, in-hospital mortality and ICU need were significantly higher, while the postoperative stay was longer. Previous abdominal surgery (OR 0.086, 95% CI 0.012-0.626; p = 0.015), ulcer size (OR 0.045, 95% CI 0.010-0.210; p < 0.0001), and a posterior ulcer location (OR 0.015, 95% CI 0.001-0.400; p = 0.012) were predictive factors for conversion to an open approach. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the benefits of the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of PPUs. Previous laparotomies, a greater ulcer size, and a posterior location of the ulcer are risk factors for conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic repair.

[Emergency laparoscopy in the treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers]. / Ekstrennaya laparoskopiya pri lechenii perforativnykh gastroduodenal'nykh yazv.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of endoscopic and open treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: There were 445 patients with perforated gastroduodenal ulcers between 2013 and 2021. Endoscopic suturing of perforation was performed in 172 patients (38.7%), 273 ones underwent open surgery. RESULTS: Among 172 patients scheduled for endoscopy, 160 (93.6%) ones underwent laparoscopic suturing of perforation. Morbidity rate was 5.0% (n=8), postoperative mortality rate - 1.3% (n=2). Comparison of the outcomes after laparoscopic suturing of ulcers in 160 patients and open surgery in 134 patients showed that laparoscopy was followed by 2.5 times lower incidence of complications and 3 times lower postoperative mortality. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic laparoscopy is advisable in patients with perforated ulcers and no contraindications. In most cases, surgery can be successfully and effectively completed without conversion to laparotomy. Endoscopic closure of ulcerative defect is preferable since this procedure has certain advantages over traditional intervention, contributes to significant reduction in morbidity, mortality and hospital-stay.

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer - routine procedure or targeted patient selection?

INTRODUCTION: Peptic ulcer is one of the most common diseases of the proximal gastrointestinal tract. Its complications are relatively common, the most serious one being peptic ulcer perforation with the incidence of about 10 cases per 100,000 population per year and the mortality rate of 10-40%. Surgical suture via laparoscopy or laparotomy is the only treatment option. The aim of the study was to compare the short-term results of laparoscopic and open repair of acute peptic ulcer perforation and evaluate the accuracy of the Boey scoring system in the Czech population. METHODS: Retrospective study conducted at the surgical department of the University Hospital Ostrava. The patients underwent laparoscopic or open repair of perforated peptic ulcer in 2017-2021. RESULTS: The study included 60 patients; laparoscopic repair was performed in 43.3% of the patients, and open repair in 56.7%. Postoperative morbidity was 70.0%, mild complications were reported in 23.3% of the patients, and severe complications in 16.7%. Patients undergoing the laparoscopic repair showed a higher incidence of mild as well as severe complications (26.9% vs 20.6% and 19.2% vs 14.7%) but also a higher incidence of an uncomplicated postoperative course. Overall postoperative mortality was 30.0% (laparoscopy 15.4%, laparotomy 41.2%). The study results confirmed the estimated baseline risk of mortality based on the Boey score. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic repair may be the procedure of choice for patients with no or low risk factors. Patients undergoing laparoscopy showed a higher incidence of mild and severe complications. The higher mortality of patients after open repair is related to their worse initial clinical condition. Preoperative determination of mortality risk using the Boey score is accurate and appropriate in terms of choosing the surgical approach.

Drug-induced duodenal perforation in the paediatric patient with thalassemia major, an unreported side effect of iron- chelating agent: A case report.

Duodenal ulcer disease is uncommon in paediatric age group. Its perforation is even rarer. However, it should be kept in mind when examining children with acute abdomen especially if there are signs of shock or possibility of upper gastrointestinal bleed. We report a case of a 6 years old female child, a known case of thalassemia major and taking oral Deferasirox since two years of age. She had atypical presentation as there was no previous history of peptic ulcer disease and she only suffered epigastric pain and vomiting for a week but due to lack of proper diagnosis at a local clinic developed duodenal ulcer perforation, which was ultimately diagnosed at a tertiary care hospital and managed with Graham Patch Closure.

Role of Radiology and Laparoscopy in Childhood Peptic Ulcer Perforation.

Objective: Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) in children is an uncommon disorder. An estimated 1.3 percent to 20 percent of people die from perforated peptic ulcers (PPU), a PUD consequence. Using a database, we assess the prevalence and prognosis of PPU in patients. We also do radiological and laparoscopic operations for PPU in young patients. In pediatric patients, sufficient accumulation of knowledge about laparoscopic repair is at the level of case reports. This study aims to assess the results in pediatric cases operated for PUP by open or laparoscopic surgery and determine the role of computed tomography (CT) in diagnosing PUP. Methods: Data was collected from the Department of Pediatric Surgery, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Turkey, from 2015 to 2020. Patients under 18 years of age who were operated on for PUP between 2015 and 2020 were divided into two groups. Group 1 involved those patients operated by laparoscopic surgery, whereas Group 2 involved those used by open surgery. Both groups were retrospectively evaluated in terms of demographic data, clinical findings, preoperative-intraoperative findings and surgical methods (open or laparoscopic), duration of surgery, duration of nasogastric intubation, time of return to oral feeding, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications. Results: 18 patients consisting of 15 boys and 3 girls were included in the study. Group 1 involved 10 patients, whereas Group 2 involved 8 patients. In Group 1, the symptom onset period was 1.6 ± 1.9 days, and in Group 2, it was 6.6 ± 6.1 days. In the erect abdominal radiographs (AXR) of 10 (58.8%) patients, the air was under the diaphragm. Six patients whose erect AXRs showed no attitude under the diaphragm but had abdominal pain and acute abdominal manifestation were given abdominal computed tomography (CT) scanning. In all patients with PUP, laparoscopic/open surgery involves primary suturing and repair by omentoplasty (Graham patch). The mean operative time was 87.0 ± 26.3 minutes in Group 1 and 122.5 ± 57.6 minutes in Group 2. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.9 ± 1.3 days in Group 1 and 5.8 ± 2.1 days in Group 2. Neither group developed any major surgical complications. Conclusions: Adolescents with a history of sudden onset and severe abdominal pain may present with peptic ulcer perforation even if there is no known diagnosis of peptic ulcer or predisposing factor. In cases suspected of PUP, it is vital to order and carefully examine erect AXR, which is an easy and inexpensive method. Computed tomography should be the first choice in patients without free air in ADBG but whose anamnesis and findings match peptic ulcer perforation.