Simple closure of perforated duodenal ulcer: a prospective evaluation of a conservative management policy.

One hundred and thirteen consecutive patients admitted with a perforated duodenal ulcer over a 5-year period (1978-82) and treated by simple closure have been followed prospectively over a median period of 43 months. Patients were divided into two categories according to their previous history of dyspepsia; group 1 (66 patients) with a chronic history of more than 3 months and group 2 (47 patients) where there was no history of dyspepsia or a history of less than 3 months duration. The follow-up periods were similar (group 1, 44 months; group 2, 43 months). The overall recurrence rate was 42 per cent and to date only 14 per cent of the total group of 113 patients have required a definitive operation. The incidence of ulcer recurrence was higher in group 1 than in group 2 in terms of total recurrence (group 1, 50 per cent; group 2, 32 per cent) and patients requiring further surgery (group 1, n = 14, 21 per cent; group 2, n = 7, 15 per cent). Five of these 21 patients required an emergency procedure for haemorrhage or reperforation (group 1, n = 2; group 2, n = 3). There were no significant differences between the 5-year predictive recurrence rate or the requirement for definitive surgery between the groups. Five of the 27 patients currently on medical treatment have required maintenance treatment while the remaining patients receive active treatment for a mean of 20 per cent of the time since they developed recurrent ulceration. These results support continuation of our 'wait and see' policy following simple closure of perforated duodenal ulcer, even in patients with a history of chronic dyspepsia.

Importance of hypovolaemic shock and endoscopic signs in predicting recurrent haemorrhage from peptic ulceration: a prospective evaluation.

The incidence of rebleeding was studied prospectively in 177 patients with acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage from peptic ulceration with reference to the degree of haemodynamic insult on admission and the presence of endoscopic signs of recent haemorrhage on initial endoscopy. Rebleeding occurred in two (2%) of 114 patients without shock, in seven (18%) of 38 with tachycardia (pulse rate greater than 100 beats/min, systolic blood pressure greater than 100 mm Hg), and in 12 (48%) of 25 with shock (systolic blood pressure less than 100 mm Hg). A similar gradient was noted with the presence of endoscopic signs alone. Rebleeding occurred in four (5%) of 79 patients with no endoscopic signs, in none of 40 with black spot only, in 11 (23%) of 48 with a clot, and in five (50%) of 10 with a visible vessel on endoscopy. When the incidence of rebleeding was assessed in shocked patients, however, it was significantly higher in those with important signs (clot or visible vessel), in 11 (79%) out of 14 patients, than in those with no signs, in one (9%) out of 11 (p less than 0.001). These data suggest that the association of shock with important endoscopic signs is a stronger predictor of rebleeding than either shock or important signs alone. More aggressive treatment may be warranted in this small group of patients.