AUTHOR AND EDITOR INFORMATION

Section 1 of 10  

• Authors and Editors
• Introduction
• Relevant Anatomy
• Contraindications
• Workup
• Treatment
• Complications
• Outcome and Prognosis
• Future and Controversies
• References

INTRODUCTION

Section 2 of 10  

• Authors and Editors
• Introduction
• Relevant Anatomy
• Contraindications
• Workup
• Treatment
• Complications
• Outcome and Prognosis
• Future and Controversies
• References

History of the Procedure

Lau and Leow have indicated that perforated peptic ulcer was clinically recognized by 1799, but the first successful surgical management of gastric ulcer was by Ludwig Heusner in Germany in 1892. In 1894, Henry Percy Dean from London was the first surgeon to report successful repair of a perforated duodenal ulcer.

Partial gastrectomy, although performed for perforated gastric ulcer as early as 1892, did not become a popular treatment until the 1940s. This was carried out as a result of the perceived high recurrence rate of ulcer symptoms after simple repair. The physiological effects of truncal vagotomy on acid secretion had been known since the early 19th century, and this approach was introduced to the treatment of chronic duodenal ulcer in the 1940s. The next development in the management of peptic ulcer disease was the introduction of high selective vagotomy in the late 1960s. However, neither of these approaches proved to be useful, and several postoperative complications, including high rates of ulcer recurrence, have limited their use. Currently, in patients with gastric perforation, simple closure of perforated ulcers is more commonly performed than gastric resection.

During World War I, the mortality rate following isolated injuries of the small intestine and colon was approximately 66% and 59%, respectively. The possible reasons for the high mortality and morbidity rates at that time may have been related to the following factors:

• Knowledge in the area of bowel injuries and the pathophysiological changes triggered by such injuries was inadequate.
• Clinical skills and diagnostic techniques that allow early detection of such injuries were lacking.
• Intravenous saline solutions or blood transfusions were not used in the management of hypovolemia and hemodynamic changes of these patients.
• No antibiotics were available.
• Laparotomy was not recommended in abdominal injuries.
• The technical maneuvers to assess bowel injuries and to mobilize ascending and descending colon were generally not recommended.

During the early years of World War II, Ogilvie, a leading surgeon in the British Army, recommended colostomy for management of all colonic injuries. This notion was supported by a publication from the office of the Surgeon General of the United States. However, the data presented in Ogilvie's series were not convincing. He reported a mortality rate of 53% for colonic injuries treated with colostomy, a rate similar to that observed during World War I.

According to Ogilvie, the reason for the apparent failure of colostomy to improve the mortality rate in World War II is that primary repairs were used to treat less-severe injuries during World War I. Many patients in World War I were treated expectantly and were not included in the mortality data. On the other hand, Ogilvie's data included all patients with bowel injuries. These apparent differences in the methodology used have convinced surgeons to continue using colostomies in such injuries after World War II.

Several reports clearly indicate that surgeons used colostomy during the Korean and Vietnam wars, particularly in the management of left colonic injuries. However, in civilian injuries, it has been reported that primary repair can be successfully used. By the end of 1980s, primary repair was considered the management of choice, and it has replaced the use of colostomies in the treatment of civilian patients in most hospitals in the United States, United Kingdom, Europe, and Australia. At present, primary repairs are widely used for such bowel injuries.

Problem

Upper bowel perforation can be described as either free or contained. Free perforation occurs when bowel contents spill freely into the abdominal cavity, causing diffuse peritonitis (eg, duodenal or gastric perforation). Contained perforation occurs when a full-thickness hole is created by an ulcer, but free spillage is prevented because contiguous organs wall off the area (eg, duodenal ulcer penetrating into the pancreas).

Lower bowel perforation (eg, in patients with acute diverticulitis or acute appendicitis) results in free intraperitoneal contamination.

Frequency

In children, small bowel injuries following blunt abdominal trauma are infrequent, with an incidence of 1-7%. Evidence shows that the incidence of these injuries is increasing.

In adults, perforations of peptic ulcer disease were a common cause of morbidity and mortality with acute abdomen until about 30 years ago. The rate has fallen in parallel with the general decline in the prevalence of peptic ulcer disease. Duodenal ulcer perforations are 2-3 times more common than gastric ulcer perforations. About a third of gastric perforations are due to gastric carcinoma.

Approximately 10-15% of patients with acute diverticulitis develop free perforation. Although most episodes of perforated diverticulum are confined to the peridiverticular region or pelvis, patients occasionally present with signs of generalized peritonitis. The overall mortality rate is relatively high (~20-40%), largely because of complications such as septic shock and multiorgan failure.

In elderly patients, acute appendicitis has a mortality rate of 35% and a morbidity rate of 50%. A major contributing factor to morbidity and mortality in these patients is a severe coexisting medical condition(s) that predates the appendicitis.

Endoscopy-associated bowel injuries are not a common cause of perforation. For example, perforations related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) occur in about 1% of patients.

Etiology

• Penetrating injury to the lower chest or abdomen (eg, knife injuries): In cases of penetrating trauma, the small bowel is the most commonly injured intra-abdominal viscus because it is coiled in the abdomen and occupies most of the area of the peritoneal cavity. In addition, the small bowel is attached to a mesentery and is highly mobile.
• Blunt abdominal trauma to the stomach: Such injuries are more common in children than in adults and include vehicle-related trauma, bicycle handlebar injuries, and seatbelt syndrome.
• Ingestion of aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and steroids: Intestinal perforation from such causes is particularly observed in elderly patients. Prescribing NSAIDs to patients with diverticular disease carries an increased risk of colonic perforation.
• Presence of a predisposing condition: Predisposing conditions include peptic ulcer disease, acute appendicitis, acute diverticulitis, and inflamed Meckel diverticulum.
• Acute appendicitis: This condition is still one of the common causes of bowel perforation in elderly patients and is associated with relatively poor outcomes.
• Bowel injuries associated with endoscopy: Injuries can occur with ERCP and colonoscopy.
• Intestinal puncture as a complication of laparoscopy: Factors that may predispose patients to this complication are obesity, pregnancy, acute and chronic bowel inflammation, and bowel obstruction.
• Bacterial infections: Bacterial infections (eg, typhoid fever) may be complicated by intestinal perforation in about 5% of patients. Perforation in these patients may unexpectedly occur after their condition has started to improve.
• Inflammatory bowel disease: Bowel perforation may occur in patients with acute ulcerative colitis, and perforation of the terminal ileum may occur in patients with Crohn disease.
• Perforation secondary to intestinal ischemia (eg, ischemic colitis) can occur.
• Bowel perforation by intra-abdominal malignancy or lymphoma can occur.
• Radiotherapy of cervical carcinoma and other intra-abdominal malignancies may be associated with late complications, including bowel obstruction and bowel perforation.
• Ingestion of caustic substances: Accidental or intentional ingestion of caustic substances may result in acute intestinal perforation and peritonitis. Delayed perforation may occur up to 4 days after acid exposure.
• Foreign bodies (eg, toothpicks) may cause esophagus, stomach, or small intestine perforation with intra-abdominal infection, peritonitis, and sepsis.

Pathophysiology

Normally, the stomach is relatively free from bacteria and other microorganisms because of its high intraluminal acidity. Most persons who experience abdominal trauma have normal gastric functions and are not at risk of bacterial contamination following gastric perforation. However, those who have a preexisting gastric problem are at risk of peritoneal contamination with gastric perforation. Leakage of acidic gastric juice into the peritoneal cavity often results in profound chemical peritonitis. If the leakage is not closed and food particles reach the peritoneal cavity, chemical peritonitis is succeeded by gradual development of bacterial peritonitis. Patients may be free of symptoms for several hours between the initial chemical peritonitis and the later bacterial peritonitis.

The microbiology of the small bowel changes from its proximal to its distal part. Few bacteria populate the proximal part of the small bowel, whereas the distal part of the small bowel (the jejunum and ileum) contains aerobic organisms (eg, Escherichia coli) and a higher percentage of anaerobic organisms (eg, Bacteroides fragilis). Thus, the likelihood of intra-abdominal or wound infection is increased with perforation of the distal bowel.

Presence of bacteria in the peritoneal cavity stimulates an influx of acute inflammatory cells. The omentum and viscera tend to localize the site of inflammation, producing a phlegmon. (This usually occurs in perforation of the large bowel.) The resulting hypoxia in the area facilitates growth of anaerobes and produces impairment of bactericidal activity of granulocytes, which leads to increased phagocytic activity of granulocytes, degradation of cells, hypertonicity of fluid forming the abscess, osmotic effects, shift of more fluids into the abscess area, and enlargement of the abdominal abscess. If untreated, bacteremia, generalized sepsis, multiorgan failure, and shock may occur.

Clinical

History

A careful medical history often suggests the source of the problem, which is subsequently confirmed by clinical examination and radiological study findings. Possible etiologies include the following:

• Penetrating injury or blunt trauma to the lower chest or abdomen
• Aspirin, NSAIDs, or steroid intake, particularly in elderly patients
• Treatment for peptic ulcer disease or ulcerative colitis; perforation due to acute ulcerative colitis (usually identified by the history of the primary disease and the results of past investigations)
• Abdominal pain: Ask patients about the time of onset of pain, duration and location of pain, characteristics of pain, relieving and aggravating factors, and other symptoms associated with abdominal pain. A history of similar attacks may also suggest the etiology.
• • Sharp, severe, sudden-onset epigastric pain that awakens the patient from sleep often suggests perforated peptic ulcer. Differentiate this from conditions such as cholecystitis and pancreatitis. Painless perforation of a peptic ulcer can occur with steroid use. Presence of shoulder pain suggests involvement of the parietal peritoneum of the diaphragm.
  • In elderly patients, consider the possibility of perforated diverticulitis or ruptured acute appendicitis if the pain is located in the lower abdomen. Approximately 30-40% of elderly patients with acute appendicitis present more than 48 hours after the onset of abdominal pain. (Delayed presentation is usually associated with increased risk of perforation.) Elderly patients may have minimal pain.
  • In young adults with pain in the lower abdominal quadrant, consider perforated appendicitis as a possible diagnosis. Acute appendicitis with sudden perforation is usually associated with illness of several hours. The pain is typically localized in the right lower quadrant of the abdomen, unless the disease process has progressed to generalized peritonitis. In young women, also consider ruptured ovarian cyst and ruptured tubo-ovarian abscess in the differential diagnosis.
• Vomiting uncommonly occurs in patients with perforated ulcer but is frequently noted in patients with acute cholecystitis. Pain almost always precedes vomiting by 3-4 hours in patients with appendicitis. The converse is true in gastroenteritis.
• Hiccup is a common late symptom in perforated peptic ulcer.

Physical

• Vital signs: Take vital signs and assess for any hemodynamic changes. (Take pulse and blood pressure measurements with patients lying in bed and sitting, and note any postural changes.)
• Abdominal examination
• • Examine the abdomen for any external signs of injury, abrasion, and/or ecchymosis. Observe patients' breathing patterns and abdominal movements with breathing, and note any abdominal distension or discoloration. (In perforated peptic ulcer disease, patients lie immobile, occasionally with knees flexed, and the abdomen is described as boardlike.)
  • Carefully palpate the entire abdomen, noting any masses or tenderness. Tachycardia, fever, and generalized abdominal tenderness may suggest peritonitis. Abdominal fullness and doughy consistency may indicate intra-abdominal hemorrhage.
  • Tenderness on percussion may suggest peritoneal inflammation.
  • Bowel sounds are usually absent in generalized peritonitis.
• Rectal and bimanual vaginal and pelvic examination: These examinations may help in assessing conditions such as acute appendicitis, ruptured tubo-ovarian abscess, and perforated acute diverticulitis.

Differential diagnosis

• Peptic ulcer disease
• Gastritis
• Acute pancreatitis
• Cholecystitis, biliary colic
• Endometriosis
• Acute gastroenteritis
• Ovarian torsion
• Pelvic inflammatory disease
• Acute salpingitis
• Diverticular disease
• Acute appendicitis
• Meckel diverticulum
• Typhoid fever
• Ischemic colitis
• Crohn disease
• Inflammatory bowel disease
• Colitis
• Constipation

RELEVANT ANATOMY

Section 3 of 10  

• Authors and Editors
• Introduction
• Relevant Anatomy
• Contraindications
• Workup
• Treatment
• Complications
• Outcome and Prognosis
• Future and Controversies
• References

The peritoneal cavity is lined with a single layer of mesothelial cells, connective tissue (including collagen), elastic tissues, macrophages, and fat cells. The parietal peritoneum covers the abdominal cavity (ie, abdominal wall, diaphragm, pelvis); the visceral peritoneum covers all the intra-abdominal viscera, forming a cavity that is completely enclosed except at the open ends of the fallopian tubes.

The peritoneal cavity is divided by the transverse mesocolon. The greater omentum extends from the transverse mesocolon and from the lower pole of the stomach to line the lower peritoneal cavity. Abdominal organs, such as the pancreas, duodenum, and ascending and descending colon, are located in the anterior retroperitoneal space; the kidneys, ureters, and adrenal glands are found in the posterior retroperitoneal space. Other abdominal organs, the liver, stomach, gallbladder, spleen, jejunum, ileum, transverse colon and sigmoid colon, cecum, and appendix are found within the peritoneal cavity.

A small amount of fluid sufficient to allow movement of organs is usually present in the peritoneal space. This fluid is normally serous (protein content of <30 g/L, <300 WBCs/µL). In the presence of infection, the amount of this fluid increases, its protein content climbs to more than 30 g/L, and the WBC count increases to more than 500 WBCs/µL; in other words, the fluid becomes an exudate.

CONTRAINDICATIONS

Section 4 of 10  

• Authors and Editors
• Introduction
• Relevant Anatomy
• Contraindications
• Workup
• Treatment
• Complications
• Outcome and Prognosis
• Future and Controversies
• References

• Surgery is contraindicated in the presence of general contraindications to anesthesia and major surgery such as severe heart failure, respiratory failure, or multiorgan failure.
• Surgery is contraindicated if the patient refuses the operation, and no evidence of generalized peritonitis exists.
• Surgery is contraindicated if a contrast meal confirms spontaneous sealing of the perforation (eg, perforated duodenal ulcer), and the patient prefers a nonsurgical approach.

WORKUP

Section 5 of 10  

• Authors and Editors
• Introduction
• Relevant Anatomy
• Contraindications
• Workup
• Treatment
• Complications
• Outcome and Prognosis
• Future and Controversies
• References

Lab Studies

• CBC count
• • Parameters suggestive of infection (eg, leukocytosis): Leukocytosis may be absent in elderly patients.
  • Elevated packed blood cell volume suggests a shift of intravascular fluid.
• Blood culture for aerobic and anaerobic organisms
• Liver function and renal function tests: Findings may be within reference ranges (or nearly so) if no preexisting disorder is present.

Imaging Studies

• Erect radiographs of the chest are recognized as the most appropriate first-line investigation when a perforated peptic ulcer is considered likely. However, in approximately 30% of patients, no free gas can be identified. Thus, an erect postero-anterior chest radiograph is not sufficiently sensitive to rule out pneumoperitoneum in patients presenting with upper abdominal pain.
• Plain supine and erect radiographs of the abdomen are the most common first steps in the diagnostic imaging evaluation of patients presenting with medical history and/or clinical signs suggestive of bowel perforation. Findings suggestive of perforation include the following:
• • Free air trapped in the subdiaphragmatic locations: If the quantity of free air is great enough, its presence can be visualized on the supine radiograph of the abdomen, allowing clear definition of the inner and outer surface of the wall of the bowel.
  • Visible falciform ligament: The ligament may appear as an oblique structure extending from the right upper quadrant toward the umbilicus, particularly when large quantities of gas are present on either side of the ligament.
  • Air-fluid level: This is indicated by the presence of hydropneumoperitoneum or pyopneumoperitoneum on erect radiographs of the abdomen.
  • • Water-soluble radiological contrast media administered orally or through a nasogastric tube can be used as an adjunct diagnostic tool to detect any intraperitoneal leak.
    • The perforation has sealed at presentation in approximately half of patients. For those who favor a nonoperative approach, contrast radiology is routine in the management of these patients.
• Ultrasonograms of the abdomen
• • Localized gas collection related to bowel perforation may be detectable, particularly if it is associated with other sonographic abnormalities (eg, thickened bowel loop).
  • The site of bowel perforation can be detected by sonography (eg, gastric vs duodenal perforation, perforated appendicitis vs perforated diverticulitis).
  • Ultrasonograms of the abdomen can also provide rapid evaluation of the liver, spleen, pancreas, kidneys, ovaries, adrenals, and uterus.
• CT scans of the abdomen: This modality can be a valuable investigative tool, providing differential morphologic information not obtainable with plain radiography or ultrasonography.
• • CT scans may provide evidence of localized perforation (eg, perforated duodenal ulcer) with leakage in the area of the gallbladder and right flank with or without free air being apparent.
  • CT scans may show inflammatory changes in the pericolonic soft tissues and focal abscess due to diverticulitis (may mimic perforated colonic carcinoma).
  • CT scans may not provide definitive radiographic evidence of perforated Meckel diverticulitis.

Other Tests

• Laparoscopy may significantly improve surgical decision making in patients with acute abdominal pain, particularly when the need for operation is uncertain.

Diagnostic Procedures

• Peritoneal diagnostic tap may be useful in determining the presence of intra-abdominal blood, fluid, and pus.
• Peritoneal lavage is more valuable in the presence of a history of blunt abdominal trauma.
• • The presence of blood or purulent material or the detection of bacteria on Gram stain suggests the need for early surgical exploration.
  • Alkaline phosphatase concentration in the peritoneal lavage is a helpful and sensitive test that may be used to detect occult blunt intestinal injuries. A concentration greater than 10 IU/L has been shown to be a sensitive and reliable test in detection of occult small bowel injuries.
• Fine-catheter peritoneal cytology
• • This procedure involves the insertion of a venous cannula into the peritoneal cavity, through which a fine umbilical catheter is inserted while the patient is under local anesthesia.
  • Peritoneal fluid is aspirated, placed on a slide, and stained for examination under a light microscope for percentage of polymorphonuclear cells.
  • A value greater than 50% suggests a significant underlying inflammatory process.
  • This test, however, provides no clue regarding the exact cause of inflammation.

TREATMENT

Section 6 of 10  

• Authors and Editors
• Introduction
• Relevant Anatomy
• Contraindications
• Workup
• Treatment
• Complications
• Outcome and Prognosis
• Future and Controversies
• References

Medical therapy

The mainstay of treatment for intestinal perforation is surgery. Emergency medical care includes the following steps:

• Establish intravenous access, and initiate crystalloid therapy in patients with clinical signs of dehydration or septicemia.
• Do not give anything by mouth.
• Start intravenous administration of antibiotics to patients with signs of septicemia. Antibiotics should cover aerobic and anaerobic organisms. The goals of antibiotic treatment are to eradicate infection and to minimize related postoperative complications.

However, if symptoms and signs of generalized peritonitis are absent, a nonoperative policy may be used with antibiotic therapy directed against gram-negative and anaerobic bacteria.

DRUG CATEGORY: Antibiotics – Have proven effective in decreasing the rate of postoperative wound infection and in improving outcome in patients with intraperitoneal infection and septicemia.

Surgical therapy

The goals of surgical therapy are as follows:

• To correct the underlying anatomical problem
• To correct the cause of peritonitis
• To remove any foreign material in the peritoneal cavity that might inhibit WBC function and promote bacterial growth (eg, feces, food, bile, gastric or intestinal secretions, blood)

Preoperative details

• Correct any fluid or electrolyte imbalance. Replace extracellular fluid losses by administering Hartmann solution or a similar solution that has an electrolyte composition similar to plasma.
• Central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring is essential in critically ill and/or elderly patients, in whom cardiac impairment may be exacerbated by large fluid loss.
• Administer systemic antibiotics (eg, ampicillin, gentamicin, metronidazole), making a best estimation regarding the likely organisms.
• Nasogastric suction is required to empty the stomach and reduce the risk of further vomiting.
• Urinary catheterization is used to assess urinary flow and fluid replacement.
• Administer analgesics, such as morphine, in small intravenous doses, preferably as a continuous infusion.

Intraoperative details

Operative management depends on the cause of perforation. Perform urgent surgery either on patients not responding to resuscitation or following stabilization and maintenance of adequate urine output. All necrotic material and contaminated fluid should be removed and accompanied by lavage with antibiotics (tetracycline 1 mg/mL). Decompress distended bowel via a nasogastric tube.

Laparoscopic or laparoscopic-assisted (minilaparotomy) surgery is also being increasingly used with outcomes comparable with conventional laparotomy. Experience and the advancement in accessories have enabled endoscopic repair of a significant number of intestinal perforations, such as iatrogenic perforation. Management of such cases needs to be individualized to the patient.

Postoperative details

• Intravenous replacement therapy: The aim of intravenous replacement therapy is to maintain intravascular volume and hydrate the patient. Monitor by CVP measurement and urinary output.
• Nasogastric drainage: Perform nasogastric drainage continuously until drainage becomes minimal. At that stage, the nasogastric tube may be removed.
• Antibiotics: Continue administration of the antibiotics commenced preoperatively unless the results of cultures taken at the time of the operation reveal that the causative organisms are resistant to them.
• • The goal of antibiotic therapy is to achieve levels of antibiotics at the site of infection that exceed the minimum inhibitory concentrations for the pathogens present.
  • In the presence of intra-abdominal infections, gastrointestinal function is often impaired; therefore, oral antibiotics are not efficacious, and intravenous antibiotics are recommended.
  • If no obvious improvement in the patient's condition occurs within 2-3 days, consider the following possibilities:
  • • The initial operative procedure was inadequate.
    • Complications have occurred.
    • A superinfection has occurred at a new site.
    • The dose of antibiotic is inadequate.
    • The antibiotics used do not provide adequate coverage for anaerobes and gram-negative organisms.
• Analgesics: Analgesics, such as intravenous morphine, should be given continuously or in small doses at frequent intervals.

Follow-up

For patients treated with a nonsurgical approach, follow-up care consists of the following:

• If the pain and fever settle within a few days, the patient can go home with a barium enema and sigmoidoscopy to be performed on an outpatient basis a few weeks later.
• Routinely perform colonoscopy if any doubt about the possibility of malignancy exists after barium enema examination.
• If the patient continues to be pyrexial and the pain does not settle or the lower abdominal mass is enlarged, ultrasound scan and a water-soluble contrast enema may be necessary.
• If abscess is visible on ultrasound examination, it may be drained under ultrasound guidance.
• If the infection process fails to settle despite adequate conservative treatment, operation is indicated (primary resection, irrigation, and primary anastomosis).

COMPLICATIONS

Section 7 of 10  

• Authors and Editors
• Introduction
• Relevant Anatomy
• Contraindications
• Workup
• Treatment
• Complications
• Outcome and Prognosis
• Future and Controversies
• References

• Wound infection
• • Wound infection rates correlate with the bacterial load in the bowel, so this complication occurs more often with colonic perforation (eg, perforated diverticulitis).
  • The judicious use of prophylactic antibiotics has been demonstrated to reduce the incidence of wound infection in contaminated and potentially contaminated wounds.
• Wound failure
• • Wound failure (partial or total disruption of any or all layers of the operative wound) may occur early (ie, wound dehiscence) or late (ie, incisional hernia).
  • The following factors are associated with wound failure:
  • • Malnutrition
    • Sepsis
    • Uremia
    • Diabetes mellitus
    • Corticosteroid therapy
    • Obesity
    • Heavy coughing
    • Hematoma (with or without infection)
• Localized abdominal abscess
• Multiorgan failure and septic shock
• • Septicemia is defined as proliferation of bacteria in the bloodstream resulting in systemic manifestations such as rigors, fever, hypothermia (in gram-negative septicemia with endotoxemia), leukocytosis or leukopenia (in profound septicemia), tachycardia, and circulatory collapse.
  • Septic shock is associated with a combination of the following:
  • • Loss of vasomotor tone
    • Increased capillary permeability
    • Myocardial depression
    • Consumption of WBCs and platelets
    • Dissemination of powerful vasoactive substances, such as histamine, serotonin, and prostaglandins, resulting in capillary permeability
    • Complement activation and damage of capillary endothelium
  • Gram-negative infections are associated with a much worse prognosis than gram-positive infections, possibly because of associated endotoxemia.
• Renal failure and fluid, electrolyte, and pH imbalance
• Gastrointestinal mucosal hemorrhage: This complication is usually associated with failure of multiple organ systems and is probably related to a defect in the protective gastric mucosa.
• Mechanical intestinal obstruction: Mechanical obstruction of the intestine is most often caused by postoperative adhesions.
• Postoperative delirium: The following factors may cause a predisposition to postoperative delirium:
• • Advanced age
  • Drug dependency
  • Dementia
  • Metabolic abnormalities
  • Infections
  • Previous history of delirium
  • Hypoxia
  • Intraoperative/postoperative hypotension

OUTCOME AND PROGNOSIS

Section 8 of 10  

• Authors and Editors
• Introduction
• Relevant Anatomy
• Contraindications
• Workup
• Treatment
• Complications
• Outcome and Prognosis
• Future and Controversies
• References

Outcome is improved with early diagnosis and treatment. The following factors increase the risk of death:

• Advanced age
• Presence of preexisting underlying disease
• Malnutrition
• The nature of the primary cause of bowel perforation
• Appearance of complications

FUTURE AND CONTROVERSIES

Section 9 of 10  

• Authors and Editors
• Introduction
• Relevant Anatomy
• Contraindications
• Workup
• Treatment
• Complications
• Outcome and Prognosis
• Future and Controversies
• References

Medicolegal pitfalls include the following:

• Failure to diagnose bowel perforation and to provide appropriate care
• Failure to recognize the need for urgent surgical intervention and delay of surgical treatment for additional tests despite obvious changes in a patient's hemodynamic status and clinical findings

REFERENCES

Section 10 of 10

• Authors and Editors
• Introduction
• Relevant Anatomy
• Contraindications
• Workup
• Treatment
• Complications
• Outcome and Prognosis
• Future and Controversies
• References

• Anderson ML, Pasha TM, Leighton JA. Endoscopic perforation of the colon: lessons from a 10-year study. Am J Gastroenterol. Dec 2000;95(12):3418-22. [Medline].
• Butler J, Martin B. Towards evidence based emergency medicine: best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary. Detection of pneumoperitoneum on erect chest radiograph. Emerg Med J. Jan 2002;19(1):46-7. [Medline].
• Cappendijk VC, Hazebroek FW. The impact of diagnostic delay on the course of acute appendicitis. Arch Dis Child. Jul 2000;83(1):64-6. [Medline].
• Cheung CP, Chiu HS, Chung CH. Small bowel perforation after radiotherapy for cervical carcinoma. Hong Kong Med J. Dec 2003;9(6):461-3. [Medline].
• Crofts TJ, Park KG, Steele RJ. A randomized trial of nonoperative treatment for perforated peptic ulcer. N Engl J Med. Apr 13 1989;320(15):970-3. [Medline].
• Damore LJ 2nd, Rantis PC, Vernava AM 3rd, Longo We. Colonoscopic perforations. Etiology, diagnosis, and management. Dis Colon Rectum. Nov 1996;39(11):1308-14. [Medline].
• De Blaky M. Acute perforated gastroduodenal ulceration; statistical analysis and review of the literature. Surgery. 1940;8:850.
• Donovan AJ, Berne TV, Donovan JA. Perforated duodenal ulcer: an alternative therapeutic plan. Arch Surg. Nov 1998;133(11):1166-71. [Medline].
• Goh H, Bourne R. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and perforated diverticular disease: a case-control study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. Mar 2002;84(2):93-6. [Medline].
• Herrington JL, Jr. Historical aspects of gastric surgery. In: Scott HW, Jr, Sawyers JL, eds. Surgery of the stomach, duodenum and small intestine. Boston: Blackwell Scientific;1992.
• Holland AJ, Cass DT, Glasson MJ, Pitkin J. Small bowel injuries in children. J Paediatr Child Health. Jun 2000;36(3):265-9. [Medline].
• Isaacman DJ, Scarfone RJ, Kost SI, et al. Utility of routine laboratory testing for detecting intra-abdominal injury in the pediatric trauma patient. Pediatrics. Nov 1993;92(5):691-4. [Medline].
• Lau WY, Leow CK. History of perforated duodenal and gastric ulcers. World J Surg. Oct 1997;21(8):890-6. [Medline].
• Lee DH, Lim JH, Ko YT, Yoon Y. Sonographic detection of pneumoperitoneum in patients with acute abdomen. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Jan 1990;154(1):107-9. [Medline].
• Lee JF, Leow CK, Lau WY. Appendicitis in the elderly. Aust N Z J Surg. Aug 2000;70(8):593-6. [Medline].
• Lim JH. Ultrasound examination of gastrointestinal tract diseases. J Korean Med Sci. Aug 2000;15(4):371-9. [Medline].
• Putcha RV, Burdick JS. Management of iatrogenic perforation. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. Dec 2003;32(4):1289-309. [Medline].
• Saxe JM, Cropsey R. Is operative management effective in treatment of perforated typhoid?. Am J Surg. Mar 2005;189(3):342-4. [Medline].
• Scheiman JM. NSAID-induced peptic ulcer disease: a critical review of pathogenesis and management. Dig Dis. Jul-Aug 1994;12(4):210-22. [Medline].
• Schnoll-Sussman F, Kurtz RC. Gastrointestinal emergencies in the critically ill cancer patient. Semin Oncol. Jun 2000;27(3):270-83. [Medline].
• Schwerk WB, Wichtrup B, Ruschoff J, Rothmund M. Acute and perforated appendicitis: current experience with ultrasound- aided diagnosis. World J Surg. Mar-Apr 1990;14(2):271-6. [Medline].
• Stapfer M, Selby RR, Stain SC, et al. Management of duodenal perforation after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy. Ann Surg. Aug 2000;232(2):191-8. [Medline].
• Velitchkov NG, Losanoff JE, Kjossev KT, et al. Delayed small bowel injury as a result of penetrating extraperitoneal high-velocity ballistic trauma to the abdomen. J Trauma. Jan 2000;48(1):169-70. [Medline].

Article Last Updated: Apr 12, 2006