BACKGROUND: The non-operative management of perforated peptic ulcer has previously been shown to be both safe and effective although it remains controversial. A protocol for non-operative management was set up in this hospital in 1989. Adherence to the guidelines in the protocol has been audited over a 6-year period with a review of outcome. METHODS: The case-notes of patients with a diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer were reviewed. Twelve guidelines from the protocol were selected for evaluation of compliance to the protocol. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients underwent non-operative treatment initially. Eight patients failed to respond and underwent operation. Complications included abscess formation (seven patients), renal failure (one), gastric ileus (one), chest infection (two), and cardiac failure and stroke (one). Four deaths occurred in this group. Adherence to certain protocol guidelines was poor, notably those concerning prevention of thromboembolism, use of antibiotics, use of contrast examination to confirm the diagnosis and referral for follow-up endoscopy. Two gastric cancers were detected on subsequent endoscopy. CONCLUSION: This experience demonstrates that non-operative treatment can be used successfully in a general hospital. Adherence to protocol guidelines was found to be variable and the protocol has therefore been simplified. This study highlights the need for an accurate diagnosis and the importance of follow-up endoscopy.
BACKGROUND: The non-operative management of perforated peptic ulcer has previously been shown to be both safe and effective although it remains controversial. A protocol for non-operative management was set up in this hospital in 1989. Adherence to the guidelines in the protocol has been audited over a 6-year period with a review of outcome. METHODS: The case-notes of patients with a diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer were reviewed. Twelve guidelines from the protocol were selected for evaluation of compliance to the protocol. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients underwent non-operative treatment initially. Eight patients failed to respond and underwent operation. Complications included abscess formation (seven patients), renal failure (one), gastric ileus (one), chest infection (two), and cardiac failure and stroke (one). Four deaths occurred in this group. Adherence to certain protocol guidelines was poor, notably those concerning prevention of thromboembolism, use of antibiotics, use of contrast examination to confirm the diagnosis and referral for follow-up endoscopy. Two gastric cancers were detected on subsequent endoscopy. CONCLUSION: This experience demonstrates that non-operative treatment can be used successfully in a general hospital. Adherence to protocol guidelines was found to be variable and the protocol has therefore been simplified. This study highlights the need for an accurate diagnosis and the importance of follow-up endoscopy.
Authors: W H Schwesinger; C P Page; K R Sirinek; H V Gaskill; G Melnick; W E Strodel Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2001 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Massimo Sartelli; Fausto Catena; Fikri M Abu-Zidan; Luca Ansaloni; Walter L Biffl; Marja A Boermeester; Marco Ceresoli; Osvaldo Chiara; Federico Coccolini; Jan J De Waele; Salomone Di Saverio; Christian Eckmann; Gustavo P Fraga; Maddalena Giannella; Massimo Girardis; Ewen A Griffiths; Jeffry Kashuk; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Vladimir Khokha; Yoram Kluger; Francesco M Labricciosa; Ari Leppaniemi; Ronald V Maier; Addison K May; Mark Malangoni; Ignacio Martin-Loeches; John Mazuski; Philippe Montravers; Andrew Peitzman; Bruno M Pereira; Tarcisio Reis; Boris Sakakushev; Gabriele Sganga; Kjetil Soreide; Michael Sugrue; Jan Ulrych; Jean-Louis Vincent; Pierluigi Viale; Ernest E Moore Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 5.469