Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2006
External duodenal fistula following closure of duodenal perforation.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Verma G R, Kaman Lileshwar, Singh Gurpreet, Singh Rajinder, Behera Arunanshu, Bose Shashank Mohan
Аннотация
AIM: Retrospective analysis of experience with management of external duodenal fistula (EDF) without using total parenteral nutrition (TPN).
METHOD: Medical records of 31 patients with EDF following closure of duodenal ulcer perforation, treated over a 7-year period (1994-2001), were studied. Twenty-one patients (68%) had evidence of sepsis at presentation or during the course of treatment. None could afford TPN for optimum time. All patients received hospital-based enteral nutrition through nasojejunal tube, besides supportive medical treatment and/or surgery. Peritonitis or failure to insert nasojejunal tube for enteric alimentation led to early surgery.
RESULTS: Two patients died of septicemia and multi-organ failure within 48 hours of admission. Fourteen patients (48.3%) initially received conservative treatment (Group I); six of them later required surgery. Fifteen patients (51.7%) underwent early surgery due to peritonitis (n=9) or failure to establish enteral feeding (n=6) (Group II); wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess and septicemia were more common in these patients than those in Group I. Survival rate was higher in Group I than in Group II (86% versus 40%; p< 0.05). Septicemia and gastrectomy were the independent factors associated with high mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: EDF can be satisfactorily managed without TPN. Successful placement of enteral feeding line, supportive treatment and delayed surgery can achieve survival in 85% of patients. Minimum intervention is recommended when early surgery is performed in peritonitis or to establish enteral feeding line.
METHOD: Medical records of 31 patients with EDF following closure of duodenal ulcer perforation, treated over a 7-year period (1994-2001), were studied. Twenty-one patients (68%) had evidence of sepsis at presentation or during the course of treatment. None could afford TPN for optimum time. All patients received hospital-based enteral nutrition through nasojejunal tube, besides supportive medical treatment and/or surgery. Peritonitis or failure to insert nasojejunal tube for enteric alimentation led to early surgery.
RESULTS: Two patients died of septicemia and multi-organ failure within 48 hours of admission. Fourteen patients (48.3%) initially received conservative treatment (Group I); six of them later required surgery. Fifteen patients (51.7%) underwent early surgery due to peritonitis (n=9) or failure to establish enteral feeding (n=6) (Group II); wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess and septicemia were more common in these patients than those in Group I. Survival rate was higher in Group I than in Group II (86% versus 40%; p< 0.05). Septicemia and gastrectomy were the independent factors associated with high mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: EDF can be satisfactorily managed without TPN. Successful placement of enteral feeding line, supportive treatment and delayed surgery can achieve survival in 85% of patients. Minimum intervention is recommended when early surgery is performed in peritonitis or to establish enteral feeding line.