Journal of visceral surgery · 2013
Therapeutic management of perforated gastro-duodenal ulcer: literature review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mouly C, Chati R, Scotté M, Regimbeau J-M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Management of perforated gastro-duodenal ulcer (GDU) is not consensual, from no operative treatment to surgery by simple closure, gastrectomy and vagotomy. The purpose of this study is to report results of the literature concerning management of perforated GDU.
METHODS: Two authors, identified in the databases Pubmed and Embase studies, related to the therapeutic management of perforated GDU. The data were extracted from articles published between 1940 and 2012.
RESULTS: Non-operative treatment is feasible for patients in good general condition and in good local circumstances without evolved peritonitis with a success rate more than 50%. Simple closure is the standard method. Laparoscopy is a safe and feasible method for patient with delay of treatment less than 24 hours and without associated complications with a success (meaning non conversion) of 80% and a mortality less than 1%. Rate of conversion is 7.9%, and increases in case of ulcer size >6 mm, frail ulcer edges, bleeding associated, unusual location and septic shock. Helicobacter pylori eradication is essential. Gastric tube, abdominal irrigation and drainage are still debated. Two-stage treatment for perforated gastric carcinoma, which represents 10 to 16% of gastric perforation, is a good option for frail patients with resectable tumors.
CONCLUSION: Management of perforated GDU is still a subject of debate without guidelines but with several possibilities of treatment depending of local circumstances of peritonitis and size of defect >20 mm, general conditions, surgeon patterns and experience.
METHODS: Two authors, identified in the databases Pubmed and Embase studies, related to the therapeutic management of perforated GDU. The data were extracted from articles published between 1940 and 2012.
RESULTS: Non-operative treatment is feasible for patients in good general condition and in good local circumstances without evolved peritonitis with a success rate more than 50%. Simple closure is the standard method. Laparoscopy is a safe and feasible method for patient with delay of treatment less than 24 hours and without associated complications with a success (meaning non conversion) of 80% and a mortality less than 1%. Rate of conversion is 7.9%, and increases in case of ulcer size >6 mm, frail ulcer edges, bleeding associated, unusual location and septic shock. Helicobacter pylori eradication is essential. Gastric tube, abdominal irrigation and drainage are still debated. Two-stage treatment for perforated gastric carcinoma, which represents 10 to 16% of gastric perforation, is a good option for frail patients with resectable tumors.
CONCLUSION: Management of perforated GDU is still a subject of debate without guidelines but with several possibilities of treatment depending of local circumstances of peritonitis and size of defect >20 mm, general conditions, surgeon patterns and experience.