Risk factors for reintervention after surgery for perforated gastroduodenal ulcer. BJS 2016; 103: 1676-1682.
Published: 18th August 2016
Authors: R. B. Hasselager, N. Lohse, P. Duch, M. H. Møller
Perforated gastroduodenal ulcer carries a high mortality rate. Need for reintervention after surgical repair is associated with worse outcome, but knowledge on risk factors for reintervention is limited. The aim was to identify prognostic risk factors for reintervention after perforated gastroduodenal ulcer in a nationwide cohort.
All patients treated surgically for perforated gastroduodenal ulcer in Denmark between 2003 and 2014 were included using data from the Danish Clinical Register of Emergency Surgery. Potential risk factors for reintervention were assessed, and their crude and adjusted associations calculated by the competing risks subdistribution hazards approach.
A total of 4086 patients underwent surgery for perforated gastroduodenal ulcer during the study interval. Median age was 71·1 (i.q.r. 59·6–81·0) years and the overall 90‐day mortality rate was 30·8 per cent (1258 of 4086). Independent risk factors for reintervention were: male sex (adjusted hazard ratio (
Obese men with coexisting diseases and high disease severity who have surgery for gastroduodenal perforation are at increased risk of reoperation.Full text
You may also be interested in
Quality assurance of surgery in the randomized ST03 trial of perioperative chemotherapy in carcinoma of the stomach and gastro‐oesophageal junction.
Authors: W. H. Allum, E. C. Smyth, J. M. Blazeby, H. I. Grabsch, S. M. Griffin, S. Rowley et al.
Meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials of early versus delayed cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis.
Authors: N. Moody, A. Adiamah, F. Yanni, D. Gomez
Authors: Y. Y. Broza, S. Khatib, A. Gharra, A. Krilaviciute, H. Amal, I. Polaka et al.
Authors: S. Ahlin, C. Cefalù, I. Bondia‐Pons, E. Capristo, L. Marini, A. Gastaldelli et al.
Development and validation of a staging system for gastric adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy.
Authors: J. X. Lin, C. Yoon, J. Desiderio, B. C. Yi, P. Li, C. H. Zheng et al.
Hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma after perioperative management of portal hypertension. BJS 2019; 106: 1066-1074.
Authors: N. Takemura, T. Aoki, K. Hasegawa, J. Kaneko, J. Arita, N. Akamatsu et al.
Meta‐analysis of risk factors and complications associated with atrial fibrillation after oesophagectomy. BJS 2019; 106: 534-547.
Authors: D. Schizas, M. Kosmopoulos, S. Giannopoulos, S. Giannopoulos, D. G. Kokkinidis, N. Karampetsou et al.
Changes in gut hormones, glycaemic response and symptoms after oesophagectomy. BJS 2019; 106: 735-746.
Authors: J. A. Elliott, N. G. Docherty, C. F. Murphy, H.‐G. Eckhardt, S. L. Doyle, E. M. Guinan et al.
Diagnostic performance of MRI for assessment of response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal cancer. BJS 2019; 106: 596-605.
Authors: S. E. Vollenbrock, F. E. M. Voncken, J. M. van Dieren, D. M. J. Lambregts, M. Maas, G. J. Meijer et al.
Major hepatectomy with or without pancreatoduodenectomy for advanced gallbladder cancer. BJS 2019; 106: 626-635.
Authors: T. Mizuno, T. Ebata, Y. Yokoyama, T. Igami, J. Yamaguchi, S. Onoe et al.
Meta‐analysis of clinical outcome after treatment for achalasia based on manometric subtypes. BJS 2019; 106: 332-341.
Authors: C. Andolfi, P. M. Fisichella