ArticleCureus2026
Surgical Management of Perforative Peritonitis Following Gastroduodenal Peptic Perforation: A Prospective Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Peptic ulcer perforation is a life-threatening surgical emergency with significant morbidity and mortality, particularly in resource-limited settings. This study aimed to evaluate the surgical management and outcomes of patients with perforative peritonitis secondary to gastroduodenal perforation, analyzing demographic patterns, clinical presentations, surgical techniques, and postoperative outcomes. Methods A prospective observational study was performed over 18 months at Mata Gujri Memorial Medical College and Lions Seva Kendra Hospital in Kishanganj, Bihar, India. The study enrolled thirty patients who exhibited clinical symptoms and radiological signs consistent with gastroduodenal perforation. Collected data included demographic information, clinical presentation, laboratory results, imaging studies, operative findings, surgical interventions utilized, and postoperative outcomes. The primary surgical methods for repair involved Graham's patch and the modified Graham's patch techniques. Results The study population had a mean age of 50.23 ± 18.45 years with male predominance (21/30, 70%, M:F ratio 2.33:1). Duodenal perforations were more common (20/30, 66.67%) than gastric perforations (10/30, 33.33%). All patients presented with abdominal pain, while 15/30 (50%) had nausea or vomiting. Most perforations were small, less than 0.5 cm, observed in 20/30 (66.67%) cases. Graham's omental patch technique was predominantly used, 16/30 (53.33%) for duodenal and 6/30 (20%) for gastric perforations. Gastric perforations showed higher complication rates, with 2/10 (20%) abscess formation and 1/10 (10%) mortality, compared to duodenal perforations, which had 3/20 (15%) abscess rate and 1/20 (5%) mortality. Conclusion Perforative peritonitis due to peptic ulcer disease remains a significant surgical emergency predominantly affecting middle-aged males. Graham's omental patch repair offers favorable outcomes in majority of cases. Gastric perforations demonstrate higher morbidity and mortality compared to duodenal perforations. Prompt diagnosis, timely surgical intervention, and efficient perioperative care are critical for improving clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.