Veljko Strajina, Sarah B Lund, Rebecca Zhu, Ashish Khandelwal, Daniel Stephens, John M Zietlow, Stephanie F Heller, David Turay, Khalid H Mahmoud, William S Harmsen, Amin Mohamed Ahmed
{"title":"消化性溃疡穿孔修复术后影像学检查的作用和效果。","authors":"Veljko Strajina, Sarah B Lund, Rebecca Zhu, Ashish Khandelwal, Daniel Stephens, John M Zietlow, Stephanie F Heller, David Turay, Khalid H Mahmoud, William S Harmsen, Amin Mohamed Ahmed","doi":"10.1002/wjs.12622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We aimed to determine the performance of postoperative computed tomography (CT) and upper gastrointestinal series (UGI) in patients who underwent surgery for a perforated peptic ulcer and to assess the yield of routine postoperative studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective, single-institution, chart-review study of patients who underwent a repair of a perforated gastric or duodenal ulcer between August 2004 and September 2021 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified a total of 240 patients, 28 (12%) were found to have leaks. When any of the four findings (extraluminal gas or fluid collection adjacent to the repair, worsening pneumoperitoneum, or enteral contrast extravasation) was present on postoperative CT scan (n = 116) it had sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 53%-90%), with a specificity of 90% (95% CI 84%-91%). Upper gastrointestinal series (UGI, n = 150) showed a sensitivity of 57% (95% CI 25%-84%) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 96%-100%). UGI demonstrated higher specificity compared to CT (p < 0.01); there was no significant difference in sensitivity (p = 0.34). The findings from CT scans led to changes in management for a significantly greater number of patients compared to UGI (20% vs. 4%, p < 0.01). The diagnostic yield for leak identification was 3% for routine postoperative CT (n = 63) and 2% for routine UGI studies (n = 141).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Postoperative CT is more likely to change management in patients who underwent repair of a perforated peptic ulcer compared to postoperative upper gastrointestinal series. The yield of routine postoperative studies is low, and their benefit is uncertain.</p>","PeriodicalId":23926,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role and Performance of Postoperative Imaging After Repair of a Perforated Peptic Ulcer.\",\"authors\":\"Veljko Strajina, Sarah B Lund, Rebecca Zhu, Ashish Khandelwal, Daniel Stephens, John M Zietlow, Stephanie F Heller, David Turay, Khalid H Mahmoud, William S Harmsen, Amin Mohamed Ahmed\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/wjs.12622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We aimed to determine the performance of postoperative computed tomography (CT) and upper gastrointestinal series (UGI) in patients who underwent surgery for a perforated peptic ulcer and to assess the yield of routine postoperative studies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective, single-institution, chart-review study of patients who underwent a repair of a perforated gastric or duodenal ulcer between August 2004 and September 2021 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified a total of 240 patients, 28 (12%) were found to have leaks. When any of the four findings (extraluminal gas or fluid collection adjacent to the repair, worsening pneumoperitoneum, or enteral contrast extravasation) was present on postoperative CT scan (n = 116) it had sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 53%-90%), with a specificity of 90% (95% CI 84%-91%). Upper gastrointestinal series (UGI, n = 150) showed a sensitivity of 57% (95% CI 25%-84%) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 96%-100%). UGI demonstrated higher specificity compared to CT (p < 0.01); there was no significant difference in sensitivity (p = 0.34). The findings from CT scans led to changes in management for a significantly greater number of patients compared to UGI (20% vs. 4%, p < 0.01). The diagnostic yield for leak identification was 3% for routine postoperative CT (n = 63) and 2% for routine UGI studies (n = 141).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Postoperative CT is more likely to change management in patients who underwent repair of a perforated peptic ulcer compared to postoperative upper gastrointestinal series. The yield of routine postoperative studies is low, and their benefit is uncertain.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23926,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12622\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12622","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:我们的目的是确定术后计算机断层扫描(CT)和上消化道系列(UGI)在穿孔性消化性溃疡手术患者中的表现,并评估常规术后研究的成果。方法:回顾性、单机构、图表回顾研究2004年8月至2021年9月在明尼苏达州罗切斯特市梅奥诊所接受胃或十二指肠溃疡穿孔修复的患者。结果:我们共确定了240例患者,其中28例(12%)发现有泄漏。当术后CT扫描(n = 116)出现以下四种表现中的任何一种(修复附近腔外气体或液体收集、气腹恶化或肠内造影剂外渗)时,其敏感性为76% (95% CI 53%-90%),特异性为90% (95% CI 84%-91%)。上胃肠道系列(UGI, n = 150)的敏感性为57% (95% CI 25%-84%),特异性为99% (95% CI 96%-100%)。与CT相比,UGI显示出更高的特异性(p)。结论:与术后上胃肠道系列相比,术后CT更有可能改变消化性溃疡穿孔修复患者的治疗方法。术后常规检查的成功率很低,其益处也不确定。
The Role and Performance of Postoperative Imaging After Repair of a Perforated Peptic Ulcer.
Background: We aimed to determine the performance of postoperative computed tomography (CT) and upper gastrointestinal series (UGI) in patients who underwent surgery for a perforated peptic ulcer and to assess the yield of routine postoperative studies.
Methods: Retrospective, single-institution, chart-review study of patients who underwent a repair of a perforated gastric or duodenal ulcer between August 2004 and September 2021 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Results: We identified a total of 240 patients, 28 (12%) were found to have leaks. When any of the four findings (extraluminal gas or fluid collection adjacent to the repair, worsening pneumoperitoneum, or enteral contrast extravasation) was present on postoperative CT scan (n = 116) it had sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 53%-90%), with a specificity of 90% (95% CI 84%-91%). Upper gastrointestinal series (UGI, n = 150) showed a sensitivity of 57% (95% CI 25%-84%) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 96%-100%). UGI demonstrated higher specificity compared to CT (p < 0.01); there was no significant difference in sensitivity (p = 0.34). The findings from CT scans led to changes in management for a significantly greater number of patients compared to UGI (20% vs. 4%, p < 0.01). The diagnostic yield for leak identification was 3% for routine postoperative CT (n = 63) and 2% for routine UGI studies (n = 141).
Conclusions: Postoperative CT is more likely to change management in patients who underwent repair of a perforated peptic ulcer compared to postoperative upper gastrointestinal series. The yield of routine postoperative studies is low, and their benefit is uncertain.
期刊介绍:
World Journal of Surgery is the official publication of the International Society of Surgery/Societe Internationale de Chirurgie (iss-sic.com). Under the editorship of Dr. Julie Ann Sosa, World Journal of Surgery provides an in-depth, international forum for the most authoritative information on major clinical problems in the fields of clinical and experimental surgery, surgical education, and socioeconomic aspects of surgical care. Contributions are reviewed and selected by a group of distinguished surgeons from across the world who make up the Editorial Board.