CERTIFICATE

IMPACT FACTOR 2021

Subject Area

  • Life Sciences / Biology
  • Architecture / Building Management
  • Asian Studies
  • Business & Management
  • Chemistry
  • Computer Science
  • Economics & Finance
  • Engineering / Acoustics
  • Environmental Science
  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Pharmaceutical Sciences
  • General Sciences
  • Materials Science
  • Mathematics
  • Medicine
  • Nanotechnology & Nanoscience
  • Nonlinear Science
  • Chaos & Dynamical Systems
  • Physics
  • Social Sciences & Humanities

Why Us? >>

  • Open Access
  • Peer Reviewed
  • Rapid Publication
  • Life time hosting
  • Free promotion service
  • Free indexing service
  • More citations
  • Search engine friendly

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer without drain

Author: 
Dr. Osama Abdullah Abdul Raheem, Dr. Abd-EL-Aal A-Saleem, Dr. Hassan Ahmed Abdallah and Dr. YaserA.Razek
Subject Area: 
Health Sciences
Abstract: 

Perforated duodenal ulcer is a common surgical emergency and the most common cause of peritonitis. Despite antiulcer medication and Helicobacter eradication, Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU), is still the most common indication for emergency gastric surgery and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The outcome might be improved by performing this procedure laparoscopically. Laparoscopic omental patch repair of perforated peptic ulcer carries less morbidity and mortality and early return of patients to their normal dailyroutine. Patient and methods: This study was conducted in Aswan University Hospital on 30 male patients between April 2014 and July 2015 who underwent laparoscopic repair of perforatedpeptic duodenal ulcer. The patients were admitted in urgent setting. A detailed history was taken, all patient past history of gastritis or on medication of NSAID drugs. The patients were examined and showed surgical abdomen with board like rigidity. Main diagnostic procedure we performed was abdominal X-ray in erect position. In 9 cases, additional abdominal ultrasound examination was carried out. A standard work-up was performed. Postoperative data willbe recorded including: Operating time, Amount of postoperative analgesia, Duration of hospital stay, Post operative collection, Time needed for returning to work, Low grade fever, Vomiting and Wound infection. All the above data will be collected and analyzed to obtain statistically relevant results. Results: There were 30 patients who underwent laparoscopic repair of perforatedpeptic duodenal ulcer. No conversion was happened for any of the 30 patient attempted. All patient was male; mean age was 28.5 (range 25–35) years. In all cases close of perforation with omental patch only. Mean duration of the operation was 65 (range 55–80) minutes. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 5 (range 5–7) days. Only one patient (3.3%) developed fever, tachycardia, abdominal pain and leucocytosis, abdominal U/S was done for him, and showed subhepatic collection which was drained by percutaneous drainage. Two patients (6.6%) developed wound infection and treated with local dressing. About eight patients suffered from port site pain post-operative (26%) and treated with single dose of pethidine. All patients return to work within one week after discharge from hospital. Conclusion: Laparoscopic repair of a perforated peptic ulcer is an amenable and feasible technique within the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeon. No need to put drain after lap repair of perforated duodenal ulcer provided good wash, suction and movement of patient up and down to suck fluid.

PDF file: 

CALL FOR PAPERS

 

ONLINE PAYPAL PAYMENT

IJMCE RECOMMENDATION

Advantages of IJCR

  • Rapid Publishing
  • Professional publishing practices
  • Indexing in leading database
  • High level of citation
  • High Qualitiy reader base
  • High level author suport

Plagiarism Detection

IJCR is following an instant policy on rejection those received papers with plagiarism rate of more than 20%. So, All of authors and contributors must check their papers before submission to making assurance of following our anti-plagiarism policies.

 

EDITORIAL BOARD

CHUDE NKIRU PATRICIA
Nigeria
Dr. Swamy KRM
India
Dr. Abdul Hannan A.M.S
Saudi Arabia.
Luai Farhan Zghair
Iraq
Hasan Ali Abed Al-Zu’bi
Jordanian
Fredrick OJIJA
Tanzanian
Firuza M. Tursunkhodjaeva
Uzbekistan
Faraz Ahmed Farooqi
Saudi Arabia
Eric Randy Reyes Politud
Philippines
Elsadig Gasoom FadelAlla Elbashir
Sudan
Eapen, Asha Sarah
United State
Dr.Arun Kumar A
India
Dr. Zafar Iqbal
Pakistan
Dr. SHAHERA S.PATEL
India
Dr. Ruchika Khanna
India
Dr. Recep TAS
Turkey
Dr. Rasha Ali Eldeeb
Egypt
Dr. Pralhad Kanhaiyalal Rahangdale
India
DR. PATRICK D. CERNA
Philippines
Dr. Nicolas Padilla- Raygoza
Mexico
Dr. Mustafa Y. G. Younis
Libiya
Dr. Muhammad shoaib Ahmedani
Saudi Arabia
DR. MUHAMMAD ISMAIL MOHMAND
United State
DR. MAHESH SHIVAJI CHAVAN
India
DR. M. ARUNA
India
Dr. Lim Gee Nee
Malaysia
Dr. Jatinder Pal Singh Chawla
India
DR. IRAM BOKHARI
Pakistan
Dr. FARHAT NAZ RAHMAN
Pakistan
Dr. Devendra kumar Gupta
India
Dr. ASHWANI KUMAR DUBEY
India
Dr. Ali Seidi
Iran
Dr. Achmad Choerudin
Indonesia
Dr Ashok Kumar Verma
India
Thi Mong Diep NGUYEN
France
Dr. Muhammad Akram
Pakistan
Dr. Imran Azad
Oman
Dr. Meenakshi Malik
India
Aseel Hadi Hamzah
Iraq
Anam Bhatti
Malaysia
Md. Amir Hossain
Bangladesh
Ahmet İPEKÇİ
Turkey
Mirzadi Gohari
Iran