Graham’s Patch Repair for Peptic Perforation : A Review
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction : Frequently monitored, occurrences of peptic perforation due to a variety of etiologies are still frequently discovered. The surgical Graham Patch Repair technique is still regarded as having a respectable level of accuracy and profitability.
Methods : The PubMed literature search engine's advanced search feature was utilized to find literature review papers for this journal. Selected periodicals from which writing was based were collected.
Result Peptic perforation can occur under a variety of circumstances, and both the Graham technique and the Modified Graham Patch repair are recommended. The benefit of using the best Graham approach is that it promotes quick wound healing while lowering morbidity and mortality.
Conclusion : Peptic perforation can occur in a variety of medical conditions, yet in these cases the Graham technique can still be recommended. Different surgical treatments regularly have unanticipated consequences, necessitating their modification or even combination in order to preserve the patient's life while also reducing prospective problems in the future.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
I. Hermansson, Christer Staël M. Surgical Approach and Prognostic Factors after Peptic Ulcer Perforation. Eur J Surg. 1999;165(6):566-572. doi:10.1080/110241599750006479
II. Elnagib E, Mahadi S, Mohamed E. Perforated peptic ulcer in Khartoum. Khartoum Med J. 2008;1(2):62-64.
III. Rajesh V, Chandra S, Smile S. Risk factors predicting operative mortality in perforated peptic ulcer disease. Trop Gastroenterol. 2003;24(3):148-150. doi:PMID: 14978992
IV. Testini M. Significant factors associated with fatal outcome in emergency open surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. World J Gastroenterol. 2003;9(10):2338. doi:10.3748/wjg.v9.i10.2338
V. Gabriel SE. Risk for Serious Gastrointestinal Complications Related to Use of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs: A Meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1991;115(10):787. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-115-10-787
VI. Kidwai R, Ansari MA. Graham Patch Versus Modified Graham Patch in the Management of Perforated Duodenal Ulcer. J Nepalgunj Med Coll. 2017;13(1):28-31. doi:10.3126/jngmc.v13i1.16409
VII. Omental patch repair of large perforated peptic ulcers ≥25mm is associated with higher leak rate. J Clin Transl Res. Published online 2021. doi:10.18053/jctres.07.202106.014
VIII. Maghsoudi H, Ghaffari A. Generalized peritonitis requiring re-operation after leakage of omental patch repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(2):124. doi:10.4103/1319-3767.77243
IX. Sreelaxmi T, Badrinath T. Clinical Study and Management of Gastric Perforation. 2018;5(2):4.
X. Bharti R, Marwaha D. Immediate definitive surgery in perforated duodenal ulcer: A comparative study, between surgery and simple closure. Indian J Surg. Published online 1996:275-279.
XI. Svanes C, Lie RT, Svanes K, Lie SA, Sørelde O. Adverse Effects of Delayed Treatment for Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Ann Surg. 1994;220(2):168-175. doi:10.1097/00000658-199408000-00008
XII. Hill A. Management of perforated duodenal ulcer in a resource poor environment. East Afr Med J. 2001;78(7):364-368. doi:doi: 10.4314/eamj.v78i7.9005
XIII. Lau W, Leung K, Kwong K, et al. A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated duodenal ulcer using suture or sutureless technique. Ann Surg. 1996;224:131-138. doi:doi: 10.1097/00000658-199608000-00004
XIV. Lau WY, Leung KL, Kwong KH, et al. A Randomized Study Comparing Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer Using Suture or Sutureless Technique: Ann Surg. 1996;224(2):131-138. doi:10.1097/00000658-199608000-00004
XV. Satapathy M, Dash D, Panda C. Modified Grahams′ omentopexy in acute perforation of first part of duodenum; A tertiary level experience in South India. Saudi Surg J. 2013;1(2):33. doi:10.4103/2320-3846.125032
XVI. Kumar K, Pai D, Srinivasan K, Jagdish S, Ananthakrishnan N. Factors contributing to releak after surgical closure of perforated duodenal ulcer by Graham’s Patch. Trop Gastroenterol. 2002;23(4):190-192. doi:PMID: 12833709.
XVII. Fallat M, White M, Richardson J, Flint L. Reassessment of Graham-Steele closure in acute perforated peptic ulcer. South Med J. 1983;76(10):1224-4.
XVIII. Tsugawa K, Koyanagi N, Hashizume M, et al. Tsugawa K, Koyanagi N, Hashizume M, The therapeutic strategies in performing emergency surgery for gastroduodenal ulcer perforation in 130 patients over 70 years of age. Hepatogastroenterology. 2001;48(37):156-162. doi:PMID: 11268955.
XIX. Arora BK, Arora R, Arora A. Modified Graham’s repair for peptic ulcer perforation: reassessment study. Int Surg J. 2017;4(5):1667. doi:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20171618
XX. Shah FH, Mehta SG, Gandhi MD, Saraj. Laparoscopic Peptic Ulcer Perforation Closure: the Preferred Choice. Indian J Surg. 2015;77(S2):403-406. doi:10.1007/s12262-013-0853-0
XXI. Bertleff MJOE, Stegmann T, Liem RSB, et al. Comparison of Closure of Gastric Perforation Ulcers With Biodegradable Lactide-Glycolide-Caprolactone or Omental Patches. JSLS. 2009;13(4):550-554. doi:10.4293/108680809X12589998404362