Postoperative Complications of Graham Omentopexy for Duodenal Ulcer Perforation

Authors

  • Muhammad Sohail Department of General Surgery, Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan
  • Abdul Wahab Department of General Surgery, Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i2.2169

Keywords:

Duodenal Ulcer Perforation, Graham’s Omentopexy, Postoperative Complications, Wound Infection, Paralytic Ileus

Abstract

Duodenal ulcer perforation is a life-threatening surgical emergency requiring prompt intervention. Graham’s omentopexy remains a widely practiced and effective surgical technique for closure of perforated duodenal ulcers. However, postoperative complications continue to contribute to morbidity, particularly in resource-limited settings. Objective: To determine the postoperative complications of Graham’s omentopexy in patients with duodenal ulcer perforation at Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar. Methods: This descriptive study was conducted at Lady Reading Hospital–MTI, Peshawar, from May 24, 2024, to November 24, 2024. A total of 100 patients aged 18–65 years, of either gender, presenting with duodenal ulcer perforation were enrolled. Diagnosis was established clinically and confirmed by computed tomography (CT) scan. Patients who were pregnant or lactating, or had a prior history of abdominal surgery or radiation therapy, were excluded. All patients underwent Graham’s omentopexy. Postoperative complications, including wound infection, bile leak, paralytic ileus, intra-abdominal abscess, pneumonia, and septic shock, were assessed. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 27. Complications were reported as frequencies and percentages, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: The mean age of the study population was 44.69 ± 13.47 years, with 63 (63.0%) male patients. Risk factors included Helicobacter pylori infection in 55 (55.0%) patients and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use in 42 (42.0%). The majority of perforations were ≤1 cm in size (75%). Postoperative complications included wound infection in 20 (20.0%) patients, paralytic ileus in 8 (8.0%), pneumonia in 7 (7.0%), intra-abdominal abscess in 6 (6.0%), bile leak in 5 (5.0%), and septic shock in 4 (4.0%). Conclusion: Graham’s omentopexy is a safe and effective surgical procedure for the management of duodenal ulcer perforation. Wound infection was the most common postoperative complication, followed by paralytic ileus and pneumonia. Early diagnosis and timely surgical intervention may further improve clinical outcomes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Almadi MA, Lu Y, Alali AA, Barkun AN. Peptic ulcer disease. Lancet. 2024;404(10447):68-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00155-7

Clinch D, Damaskos D, Di Marzo F, Di Saverio S. Duodenal ulcer perforation: a systematic literature review and narrative description of surgical techniques used to treat large duodenal defects. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021;91(4):748-758. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000003357

Ogbuanya AU, Eni UE, Umezurike DA, Obasi AA, Ikpeze S. Associated factors of leaked repair following omentopexy for perforated peptic ulcer disease: a cross-sectional study. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2023;12(1):e18. https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2169

Dogra P, Kaushik R, Singh S, Bhardwaj S. Risk factors for leak after omentopexy for duodenal ulcer perforations. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2023;49(2):1163-1167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-022-02058-y

Khare KA, Patel PK, Chopra KA, Goyal P, Paliwal A, Baindur JA. Graham’s patch omentopexy versus modified Graham’s patch omentopexy in duodenal perforation: a comparative study. Asian J Med Sci. 2024;15(8):156-161. https://doi.org/10.71152/ajms.v15i8.3419

Demetriou G, Chapman M. Primary closure versus Graham patch omentopexy in perforated peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgeon. 2022;20(3):e61-e67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2021.04.006

Kumar R, Walia JS, Attri A, Singh S, Goyal S. Closure of peptic ulcer perforation by Graham’s patch with omentopexy versus plugging with omentopexy. Int J Surg Med. 2020;6(6):1-5. https://doi.org/10.5455/ijsm.2020-02-07

Waqar HA, Lateef A, Riaz T, Farrukh U, Fatima T, Chaudhry SA. Frequency of surgical site infection (SSI) between laparoscopic Graham’s omentopexy and open Graham’s omentopexy after duodenal ulcer perforation. Prof Med J. 2024;31(09):1313-1317. https://doi.org/10.29309/TPMJ/2024.31.09.8262

Zahid A, Iqbal M, Memon A, Mehboob H, Mehboob A. Clinical presentation, postoperative complications, and risk factors of duodenal leakage after Graham omentopexy for duodenal ulcer perforation. J Surg Pak. 2023;28(1):19-22.

Shah F, Haq A. Frequency of wound infection among patients undergoing Graham’s omentopexy in the management of perforated duodenal ulcer. Pak J Intens Care Med. 2025;5(02):123. https://doi.org/10.54112/pjicm.v5i02.123

Sidra, Khan A, Rahman W, Hassan S, Kausar Z. Post-operative complications of modified Graham patch omentopexy in patients undergoing management of perforated duodenal ulcer. Pak J Intens Care Med. 2025;5(02):195. https://doi.org/10.54112/pjicm.v5i02.195

Abrar M, Farooq MS, Mustafa U, Ahmed A, Inam MW, Raza A. Comparison of modified Graham’s patch repair with and without anchoring suture in patients with duodenal ulcer perforation. JCPSP Postgrad. 2025;1(2):127-131. https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsppg.2025.02.127

Khan MA, Khan WY, Khan MU, Hussain E, Khan S, Usman SZ. Outcome of Graham patch omentopexy in the management of perforated duodenal ulcer. Biol Clin Sci Res J. 2024;2024:1123. https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.1123

Shanahan ER, Shah A, Koloski N, Walker MM, Talley NJ, Morrison M, et al. Influence of cigarette smoking on the human duodenal mucosa-associated microbiota. Microbiome. 2018;6(1):150. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0531-3

Das A, C S, N J, Ravi V, P S. Burden of Helicobacter pylori in duodenal ulcer disease: evidence from a tertiary hospital in Chennai, India. Cureus. 2025;17(8):e90573. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.90573

Jin LX, Fang YP, Xia CM, Cai TW, Li QQ, Wang YY, et al. Helicobacter pylori infection alters the structure and biological functions of the gastric microbiota in patients with gastric or duodenal ulcers. World J Gastroenterol. 2024;30(24):3076-3085. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v30.i24.3076

Tarasconi A, Coccolini F, Biffi WL, Tomasoni M, Ansaloni L, Picetti E, et al. Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines. World J Emerg Surg. 2020;15(1):3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-019-0283-9

Lanas A, Chan FKL. Peptic ulcer disease. Lancet. 2017;390(10094):613-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32404-7

Chaiya PL, Mabula JB, Koy M, Mchenbe MD, Jaka HM, Kabangila R, et al. Clinical profile and outcome of surgical treatment of perforated peptic ulcers in Northwestern Tanzania: a tertiary hospital experience. World J Emerg Surg. 2011;6:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-6-31

Reza S, Rahman MA, Girach Z, Islam ABMM, Tasneem MM, Islam MS. Graham’s patch versus modified Graham’s patch in the management of perforated duodenal ulcer. Cureus. 2025;17(11):e96486. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.96486

Downloads

Published

2025-02-28

How to Cite

Sohail, M. ., & Wahab, A. . (2025). Postoperative Complications of Graham Omentopexy for Duodenal Ulcer Perforation. Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal, 6(2), 219–222. https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i2.2169

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles