Ileostomy Versus Primary Closure in Typhoid Ileal Perforation in Patients with Two or More Poor Prognostic Factors
Main Article Content
Keywords
Typhoid Perforation, ileostomy, Poor Prognostic Factors, Primary Closure
Abstract
Background: Typhoid ileal perforation is a life-threatening disease affecting the northwestern Nigeria, with high morbidity and mortality, especially in those with multiple poor prognostic factors. The popular surgical approaches are primary closure of the perforation and ileostomy. It is debatable which approach has better outcomes in our environment. This study compared outcomes of the use of ileostomy to primary closure in patients with two or more poor prognostic factors, assessing 30-day mortality, surgical site infection (SSI), and time to oral intake.
Methodology: The study was conducted at Aminu Kano Teaching Hospital, Nigeria over one year, involving 56 patients randomized into two groups: Group A (ileostomy, n=28) and Group B (primary closure, n=28). Exclusions included moribund patients, non-typhoid ileal perforations, and decompensated systemic diseases. Postoperative complications, mortality, and recovery parameters were analyzed using SPSS version 25, with statistical significance set at p<0.05.
Results: Results showed that 64% of patients were aged 12–20 years. SSI was high in both groups (71.9% ileostomy, 82.1% primary closure). Major complications like burst abdomen (32%) and fecal fistula (32%) occurred only in the primary closure group. Patients with ileostomy resumed oral intake earlier (2.30±0.61 days vs. 3.71±0.76 days). Overall mortality was 14.3%, with higher deaths in the primary closure group (21.4% vs. 7.1% in ileostomy).
Conclusions: While SSI and mortality were more frequent in the primary closure group, the difference was not statistically significant. However, ileostomy demonstrated advantages, including fewer severe complications and faster recovery of enteral feeding. The study suggests that individualized surgical approaches, considering patient risk factors, may improve outcomes in typhoid ileal perforation cases. Ileostomy may be preferable in high-risk patients due to its lower complication rates and quicker postoperative recovery.
References
2. Bhutta ZA, Gaffey MF, Crump JA, Steele D, Breiman RF, Mintz ED. Typhoid Fever: Way Forward. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2018;99(3):89-96.
3. Aliyu S, Ud B, Mb T, Ab Z, Ag I, Ag M. Typhoid Perforation: Presentation and Management Outcome North-Eastern Nigeria. Pyrex Journal of Medicine 2017;7(5):20–2
4. Agu K, Nzegwu M, Obi E. Prevalence, morbidity, and mortality patterns of typhoid ileal perforation as seen at the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital Enugu Nigeria: An 8-year review. World J Surg 2015;38(10):2514–8.
5. Ahmad T, Muhammad IK, Hussein N, Siddiqui E, Zia-ul-Islam. Perforation Operation Interval as A Prognostic Factor in Typhoid Ileal Perforation. Journal of Surgery Pakistan 2009; 14 (1). 11-14.
6. Chalya PL, MabulaJB, Koy M, KataraihyaJB, Jaka H, Mshana SE, et al. Typhoid intestinal perforations at a university teaching hospital in Northwestern Tanzania: A surgical experience of 104 cases in a resource-limited setting. World J Emerg Surg 2012;7(1):4.
7. Kumar SS, Kamatala R. Morbidity and mortality of typhoid perforation of small bowel. Scholars Journal of Applied Medical Sciences (SJAMS)2016; 4: 3481–6.
8. Badoe EA, Archapong EQ, Rocha Afodu JT. Principles and Practice of Surgery Including Pathology in The Tropics;
Fifth Edition: published by Ghana Publishing Cooperation, 2015: Page 704-705
9. Siriram BM. Manual of Surgery; Fourth Edition: published by Jaypee Medical Publishers,2013: page 928.
10. Ukwenya AY, Ahmed A, Garba ES. Progress in Management of Typhoid Perforation. Ann Afr Med 2011; 10: 259-65.
11. Edino ST, Yakubu AA, Mohammed AZ, Abubakar IS. Prognostic factors in typhoid ileal perforation: a prospective study of 53 cases. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007 Sep;99(9):1042-5.
12. Ugochukwu AI, Amu OC, Nzegwu MA. Ileal Perforation due to Typhoid Fever-A Review of operative management and outcome in an urban centre in Nigeria. International Journal of Surgery 2013;11(3):218–22.
13. Demography of Kano State. Kano State Ministry of Information (online). 2018; Accessed on 08/04/2020. Available from https://www.kanostate.gov.ng.
14. UNDP, National Human Development Report (10-113). 2018; Accessed on 08/04/2020. Available from https:/www.hdr.undp.org.
15. Adesunkanmi AR, Ajao OG. The prognostic factors in typhoid ileal perforation: a prospective study of 50 patients. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1997; 42(6):395-9.
16. Mehdi A, Hameed F, Dab RH. Evaluation and Determination of Prognostic Factors in Typhoid Ileal Perforation. A.P.M.C 2009; 3 (2): 107–13.
17. Karimollah H. Sample size calculation in epidemiologic studies. Caspian J Intern Meds 2011; 2(4):289-298.
18. Malik AM, Laghari AA, Mallahetal Q. Different Surgical Options and Ileostomy in Typhoid perforation. World Journal of Medical Sciences 2006; 1: 112–116.
19. Na’ayaHU, Eni UE, Chama CM. Typhoid Perforation in Maiduguri. Ann Afr Med 2004; 3(2): 69-72.
20. AtoyebiOA, Adesanya AA, Atimomo CE. Prognostic Factors in Typhoid Perforation in Lagos. Nig Qt J Hosp Med 1999; 9(1):78-83.
21. Batool N. Role of Ileostomy in the Management of Late Cases of Typhoid Intestinal Perforation. Khyber Medical University Journal 2012; 4(3):110–4.
22. M Mishra, Singh P, Tripathy A. Typhoid ileal perforation: comparative study of ileostomy versus primary ileal repair and associated morbidity and mortality. Int Surg J 2018; 5(9): 3129-3133.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access journal and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike License 4.0. This licence allows users to download and share, remix, tweak and build upon the article for non-commercial purposes, so long as the original authorship is acknowledged and the new creations are licensed under identical terms.