PREVALENCE OF H. PYLORI IN DUODENAL ULCER PERFORATION
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND \nDuodenal ulcer perforation is among common surgical emergencies. Recent data suggests that more than 99% of all duodenal \nulcers having infection with H. pylori is associated with use of NSAIDS. There is a necessity to study the association of H. pylori \ninfection with perforated duodenal ulcers. If proved, control of H. pylori may reduce this catastrophe and burden on the society. \nMETHODS \nThis study was conducted at Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital, Bhubaneswar from December 2016 to October 2018. 30 cases \nwere studied thoroughly according to the proforma. All the positive cases were given triple drug regimen (H. pylori kit) for a \nperiod of 14 days and negative cases were given omeprazole therapy for same period. Patients of duodenal ulcer perforation \nwho were undergoing laparotomy for the same were selected. \nRESULTS \nAge wise distribution maximum i.e. 36.66% patients belonged to age group 41-50 yrs. In our study, incidence of H. pylori \ninfection was 53.33-66.66%. Male: Female ratio was found to be 28:2. 15 and 19 out of 28 male patients showed presence of \nH. pylori with RUT & H. pylori antibody test respectively (i.e. incidence was 53.57% and 67.85%) and 1 out of 2 female patients \nshowed positive RUT and H. pylori antibody test. \nCONCLUSIONS \nIncidence of H. pylori infection was 53% (RUT) and 66% (H. pylori antibody card test) in our study population. Maximum \npatients presented with hypovolemic shock, which was major cause of mortality and morbidity in our study group.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- PREVALENCE OF H. PYLORI IN DUODENAL ULCER PERFORATION
- Date Crossref
- 12/07/2019
- Éditeur
- Level Up Business Center
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.