<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">SS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Surgical Science</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2157-9407</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ss.2024.151002</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">SS-130502</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  The Evolutionary Profile of Patients Operated for Peptic Ulcer Perforation in Bujumbura
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jean</surname><given-names>Claude Mbonicura</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Prudence</surname><given-names>Bukuru</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Stanislas</surname><given-names>Harakandi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Frank</surname><given-names>Ijeneza</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Révérien</surname><given-names>Ndayirorere</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>François</surname><given-names>Nduwimana</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Astère</surname><given-names>Mbonicura</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5"><sup>5</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>Department of Andro-Urology, Centre Universitaire de Recherche en Santé, Faculty of Medicine, University of Burundi, Bujumbura, Burundi</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Department of General and Gastro-Intestinal Surgery, Centre Universitaire de Recherche en Santé, Faculty of Medicine, University of Burundi, Bujumbura, Burundi</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Anesthesia-Resuscitations, Faculty of Health Sciences, Hope Africa University, Bujumbura, Burundi</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff5"><addr-line>Department of Multi-Purpose Medicine, Easter Grand Hospital Francilien, Meaux, France</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>Department of Anesthesia-Resuscitation, Centre Universitaire de Recherche en Santé, Faculty of Medicine, University of Burundi, Bujumbura, Burundi</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>15</day><month>01</month><year>2024</year></pub-date><volume>15</volume><issue>01</issue><fpage>7</fpage><lpage>18</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>21,</day>	<month>November</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>13,</day>	<month>January</month>	<year>2024</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>16,</day>	<month>January</month>	<year>2024</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  <b>Background</b>
  <b>:</b>
   The evolutionary profile of patients operated for peptic ulcer perforation in Bujumbura
  .
   Perforated peptic ulcer is a serious complication of peptic ulcer with potential ris
  k
   of grave complications. <b>Aim: </b>To study the early morbidity and mortality of surgery for peptic ulcer perforation in Bujumbura City Hall hospitals: Kamenge University Hospital Center (CHUK), Kamenge Military Hospital (HMK) and Prince Louis Rwagasore Clinic (CPLR). <b>Patients and methods:</b> This is a retrospective, descriptive and analytical study carried out in the three hospitals of Bujumbura over a period of three years from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022. It involved 57 cases (n = 57) of peptic ulcer perforation. <b>Results:</b> The frequency of surgery for peptic ulcer perforation was 2.7% with a mean age of 43.6 years +/-
   15.3 years and a male predominance with a sex ratio of 3.7. Eight percent of patients presented with shock, 24.5% were smokers, and 67.9% had taken non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The mean hospital stay was 15.2 days with a standard deviation of 12.1. The morbidity rate was 30.2%, 32% were classified in grade IIIb of the Clavien-Dindo Surgical Complications Scale. There were 9 deaths (17%). Seven patients who underwent surgery and received late consultations died. <b>Conclusion:</b> Surgery for peptic ulcer perforation remains an intervention associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality in Bujumbura. Surgery for peptic ulcer perforation remains a procedure associated with a high morbidity and mortality rate in Bujumbura. The time before consultation was the only factor associated with early morbidity and mortality of Surgery for peptic ulcer’s perforations
  .
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Peritonitis</kwd><kwd> Peptic Ulcer Perforation</kwd><kwd> Complications</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Gastroduodenal perforation is one of the most common complications of ulcer disease. This is a serious medical-surgical emergency because it progresses to peritonitis. Self-medication and misuse of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), “Helicobacter pylori” are the main causes of the occurrence of this complication (perforation) in developing countries [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref1">1</xref>] . Gastroduodenal disease is a cosmopolitan condition; it affects 5% to 10% of individuals in the United States. In Europe, in the study conducted by Lau et al. in 2011 about “Systematic review of the epidemiology of complicated peptic ulcer disease”, the prevalence of complications is estimated at 8% for duodenal ulcer and 2% for gastric ulcer [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref2">2</xref>] . But in Africa as well as in Togo, the data are patchy and variable depending on the series. Lawson-Ananissoh, L. et al. estimated the prevalence of peptic ulcer disease at 15.53% in their study instituted “Epidemiological profile of peptic ulcers at the Lom&#233; Campus Hospital and University Center in Togo” [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref3">3</xref>] .</p><p>The development of peptic ulcer disease can cause complications; one of the most common of which is perforation. The incidence of this perforation is estimated between 4 and 14 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the study conducted by Lau et al. and presented above [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref2">2</xref>] . In sub-Saharan Africa as well as in Benin (Cotonou), the frequency of gastroduodenal perforations is assessed differently. Vignon et al. in 2016 in their study named “Peptic ulcer perforations at the National University Hospital Center (CNHU) in Cotonou (Benin)” estimated 13.8% of acute generalized peritonitis due to peptic ulcer perforation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref4">4</xref>] . For Ngo, N.B. et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref5">5</xref>] in Cameroon in their study on “Etiologies of acute generalized peritonitis at Yaound&#233; University Hospital” and the same study of Dieng in Senegal [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref6">6</xref>] , the first etiology of acute generalized peritonitis was represented respectively in 32% and 52.7% of cases. Their treatment remains burdened by heavy mortality at 10.7% of cases in the study of Chalya, P.L. et al. in Tanzania on “Clinical profile and outcome of surgical treatment of perforated peptic ulcers” [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref7">7</xref>] . In our local situation in Burundi, Mbonicura, J.C. et al. in 2021 in their study named “Non-Traumatic gastro-Intestinal Perforations in Bujumbura about 141 cases” found that peptic ulcer’ s perforations represented 41.13% of non-traumatic digestive perforations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref8">8</xref>] . Referring to the various studies done on the consequences of peptic perforations around the world, we thought it would be appropriate to study the morbidity and mortality associated with surgery for perforated peptic ulcers in three health facilities in Bujumbura, Burundi.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Material and Methods</title><p>This is a retrospective, descriptive and analytical study carried out in three hospitals in Bujumbura (Kamenge University Hospital Center, Kamenge Military Hospital and Prince Louis Rwagasore Clinic) over a period of three years from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022. The aim of this study is to study the factors contributing to morbidity and mortality of surgery for peptic ulcer perforation in three Hospitals of Bujumbura, Burundi.</p><p>We included in our study all patients aged 18 years and older who underwent surgery for peptic perforations.</p><p>We excluded in our study all patients with stomach cancer, including those who were diagnosed during or after surgery. We also excluded patients with incomplete records.</p><p>We have developed a questionnaire of four parameters including demographic data, preoperative data, and surgical data up to the thirtieth postoperative day. The questionnaire has 21 items divided into four parameters (See the questionnaire in the Appendix).</p><p>Data were collected using a pre-established survey sheet. The collection was facilitated by the use of the KoboCollect application downloaded from the play store. The data was collected and analysed from the KoboToolbox server at the end of the study period. The data was extracted in Microsoft Excel. The data analysis was performed by SPSS VERSION 25; in two steps: calculation of descriptive statistics and chi-square test.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>During our study period, we recorded 57 cases of surgery for peptic ulcer’s perforations out of 2122 procedures on the gastrointestinal tract i.e. a frequency of 2.7% (4 cases had incomplete records).</p><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> shows that Kamenge University Hospital Center recorded a high frequency of peptic ulcer operations (3.4%) compared to the other two hospitals.</p><p>According to the gender, Male sex accounted for 79% (42 patients) versus 21% (11 patients) female, with a sex ratio of 3.8.</p><p>We found predominance in the age group between 20 and 49 years old, i.e. 62.4%. The ages of patients in our series ranged from 18 to 75 years, with a mean age of 43.6 years +/− 15.3. All procedures were performed laparotomously with a mean duration of 118.1 minutes with a standard deviation of 36.5.</p><p>The overall complication rate was 47.1% with a morbidity rate of 30.2%. The main postoperative complications observed are fistula (11.3%) and surgical site infections (7.5%). Eight patients were readmitted, a rate of 15.1%, including 6 for gastrointestinal fistula (11.3%) and 2 for surgical site infections, i.e. 3.7%. In our study, the mortality rate was 17.0%, i.e. 9 died patients.</p><p>In light of the data in this <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>, we note that suture repair with epiploplasty was performed in 81.1% of cases and suture repair with pyloplasty was less represented in 1.9% of cases.</p><p>In our study, seven patients who underwent surgery and received late consultations after 72 hours and more were died (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Frequency of peptic ulcer’s perforations surgery compared to digestive and visceral surgery procedures by health facilities</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Health facilities</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >%</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CHUK</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36/1042</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >HMK</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18/778</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CPLR</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3/302</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution of patients according to surgical procedure</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Surgical procedure</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Frequency</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Percentage</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Suture repair without epiploplasty</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Suture repair with epiploplasty</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Pyloroplasty suture repair</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >100</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Distribution of patients according to mortality due to the duration of symptomatology before the first consultation</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"   rowspan="2"  ></th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Did the patient die within the first 30 days after surgery?</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Total</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Yes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >No</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="3"  >Length of time before first consultation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >&lt;48 hours</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >48 - 72 hours</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >72 hours and more</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >26</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Total</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>The data in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> show that risk factors for peptic ulcer disease and mortality were related to sociodemographic factors and patient condition. These factors are patient age, gender, patient history, and patient in shock.</p><p>Regarding age, many complications were found in patients over 60 years of age (6 complications with a percentage of 24%). For gender, males had more complications than females with a rate of 72%.</p><p>In our series, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref> shows the frequency of complications by surgical and disease-related factors. These complications are also part of the morbidity and mortality factors of the peptic ulcers found in our study. It should be noted that many complications have been found in the absence of vagotomy with a rate of 100% of cases. The second complications were found in 90.9% of cases in cases of suture + epiploplasty. Regarding the disease, we noted a lot of complications in case of a perforation diameter of 1 to 2 in 68% of cases.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>During our study period, peptic ulcer perforation involved 57 cases out of 2122 digestive and visceral surgery procedures, or 2.7% of cases. Our results are close</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Frequency of complications by social and demographic factors and patient condition</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Complications (−)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Complications (+)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age &lt;20 20 - 29 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 - 59 60 years and older</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (7.1) 7 (25.0) 5 (17.9) 6 (21.4) 5 (17.9) 3 (10.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1 (4.0) 4 (16.0) 6 (24.0) 5 (20.0) 3 (12.0) 6 (24.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.34</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gender: Female Male</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (14.3) 24 (85.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (28) 18 (72)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >ASA 1 2 3 5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21 (75.0) 7 (25.0) 0 (0) 0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 (52) 10 (40) 1 (4.0) 1 (4.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.067</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Patient’s history Hypertension OCPD Diabetes Epileptic patient 33 weeks pregnant Laparotomy No history</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (3.6) 27 (96.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (12.0) 1 (4.0) 1 (4.0) 1 (4.0) 1 (4.0) 0 (0) 18 (72.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.64</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >State of shock Yes No</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (14.3) 24 (85.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (16.0) 21 (84.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.92</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Frequency of complications by surgical and disease-related factors</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Complications (−)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Complications (+)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P-value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Surgical technique Closing Simple suture Suture + epiploplasty Pyloroplasty suture</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (12.5) 22 (83.3) 1 (4.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (9.1) 21 (90.9) 0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.58</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vagotomy No vagotomy Truncular vagotomy</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27 (95.8) 1 (4.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25 (100) 0 (0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.34</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hours before consultation &lt;48 [48 - 72[ 72 hours and more</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15 (53.6) 3 (10.7) 10 (35.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (16.0) 5 (20.0) 16 (64.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.022</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Location of Ulcer Gastric Pylorus Duodenum</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14 (50.0) 2 (7.0) 12 (43.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (40.0) 10 (40.0) 5 (20.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diameter of the perforation &lt;1 1 to 2 &gt;2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (21.4) 19 (67.9) 3 (10.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (12.0) 17 (68.0) 5 (20.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>to those of Jean Claude Mbonicura et al. in Burundi [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref8">8</xref>] and Camara and al. in Togo [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref6">6</xref>] who found respectively 4.51% and 8.26% of cases.</p><p>In our study, the mean age of our patients was 43.6 years +/− 15.3 years with extremes from 18 to 75 years. Our results are close to those found by Begovic, G. and al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref9">9</xref>] and Camara and al. in Guinea [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref6">6</xref>] who found an average age of 41 and 43.16 years respectively but discordant with those of Lawson, A. in Togo [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref3">3</xref>] and Belhadj, H. and al. in Morocco [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref10">10</xref>] who found 37.2 years and 34.2 years respectively.</p><p>The most represented age group was from 20 to 50 years old with 62.4%. This result shows that peptic ulcer’s perforation is a condition of young adults due to Helicobacter pylori infection. This bacterium colonizes the gastric lumen from early childhood [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref11">11</xref>] .</p><p>We found a male predominance with a rate of 79%. The sex ratio M/F = 3.7 was close to that of Ohene-Yeboah [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref12">12</xref>] which was 3.3.</p><p>This male predominance can be explained by the fact that men are exposed to predisposing factors that promote the occurrence of ulcers (tobacco, alcohol, stress, etc.).</p><p>About frequency of peptic ulcer’s perforations surgery compared to digestive and visceral procedures by health facilities, Kamenge University Hospital Center recorded a high frequency (3.4%) compared to the other two hospitals. These data could be explained by the fact that CHUK has high material and human resources different from these two other hospitals. As a result, patients are transferred to well-equipped health facilities with adequate human resources. A study conducted by Abdihamid, M.A. et al. on Clinical presentation and surgical management of perforated peptic ulcer in a tertiary hospital in Mogadishu, Somalia shows that patients with advanced disease are transferred to hospitals with adequate health care and health education facilities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref13">13</xref>] .</p><p>According to surgical procedure, we note that suture repair with epiploplasty was performed in 81.1% of cases and suture repair with pyloplasty was less represented in 1.9% of cases.</p><p>The surgical technique for peptic ulcer perforation depends on the characteristics of the perforation. Simple suture plus epiploplasty was the most widely used surgical technique in our context (81.1%), which was not the case in the study of Anouar, E.G. in Morocco [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref14">14</xref>] and Siddaye, A. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref15">15</xref>] . The wide use of this surgical method can be explained by the good results it achieves and its ease of execution [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref16">16</xref>] .</p><p>Regarding the distribution of patients according to mortality due to the duration of symptomatology before the first consultation, we have found seven patients who underwent surgery and received late consultations after 72 hours and more were died.</p><p>In our study, we found that patients who consulted more than 72 hours after the onset of abdominal pain had five times the risk of developing complications than those who consulted before 48 hours. In our series, the average consultation time was 62.5 hours. This long delay in our study could be explained by the fact that the majority of our patients were seen late. Self-medication but also diagnostic confusion (acute pancreatitis) would explain the delay in treatment.</p><p>In the literature, the duration varies relatively from one country to another. In Mali, Coulibaly, I. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref17">17</xref>] found 18 h at the Gabriel Tour&#233; University Hospital in 2005. In France, Cougarden, P. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref18">18</xref>] reported an average duration of 13.4 hours.</p><p>The morbidity rate was 30.2% in our series. The mortality rate was 17% in our study. The morbidity rate of our series is superimposed on that of Taş and al. in Turkey [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref19">19</xref>] and that of Kim in Korea [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref20">20</xref>] but different from that of Sivaram, P. and et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref15">15</xref>] and that of Montalvo-Jav&#233; and al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref19">19</xref>] . This could be explained by the presence of many comorbidities in their series than in ours.</p><p>In the literature, overall mortality ranges from 1 to 20% [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref21">21</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref22">22</xref>] . Our rate of 17% is comparable to that found in the literature. In our series, the early postoperative follow-up was simple in 52.9% of cases; and the fistula rate was 11.3%. These results are slightly different from those of the other authors, which could be explained by the delay in management and the use of laparotomy in our context.</p><p>As for the frequency of complications by surgical and disease-related factors. These complications are also part of the morbidity and mortality factors of the peptic ulcers found in our study. It should be noted that many complications have been found in the absence of vagotomy with a rate of 100% of cases. The second complications were found in 90.9% of cases in cases of suture + epiploplasty. Regarding the disease, we noted a lot of complications in case of a perforation diameter of 1 to 2 in 68% of cases.</p><p>In the present study, we sought to identify possible risk factors associated with early morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing surgery for peptic ulcer perforation. The prevalence of complications was high (47.1%) according to global statistics [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref23">23</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref24">24</xref>] . The mortality rate was high (17%) but can be superimposed on the literature [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref19">19</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref25">25</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref26">26</xref>] .</p><p>The severity of complications was assessed using the ClavienDindo (CDC) classification. In our study, 25 cases of postoperative complications were identified, of which 7 were classified as Grade II (28%), 8 cases classified as Grade IIIb (32%), 1 case classified as Grade IV (4%), 9 cases classified as Grade V (36%) by CDC. ASA I and II scores were represented at 40% each in patients who experienced complications. The literature reports that comorbidities, shock on admission, delay in management, perforation size (&gt;0.5 cm), surgical technique are related to high morbidity and mortality in patients with peptic ulcer perforation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref19">19</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref23">23</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref27">27</xref>] .</p><p>In our study, only late consultation was identified as a risk factor for early morbidity and mortality of surgery for peptic ulcer’s perforations [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.130502-ref28">28</xref>] . Our results are different from those of other authors. This could be explained by the fact that our sample size was small. Therefore, our sample did not allow us to conclude on the risk factors for early morbidity and mortality of peptic ulcer’s perforations surgery.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>Our study provides an update on the early morbidity and mortality of surgery for peptic ulcer perforation. At the end of this study, we conclude that peritonitis due to peptic ulcer’s perforations remains a common condition in digestive surgery. Surgery for peptic ulcer perforation remains a procedure associated with a high morbidity and mortality rate at Bujumbura. The time before consultation was the only factor associated with the early morbidity and mortality of surgery for peptic ulcer perforation.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Limitations of the Study</title><p>The study could be extended to several health facilities, but with limited financial resources, the study was conducted in only three health facilities.</p><p>However, we would like to conduct our research on several health facilities in order to be able to compare the results. In addition, some of the objectives of our study may become research topics to be exploited. We were considering doing so if financial conditions permitted, and to this end we encourage further work on the extension of our study.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s8"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Mbonicura, J.C., Bukuru, P., Harakandi, S., Ijeneza, F., Nda- yirorere, R., Nduwimana, F. and Mbonicura, A. (2024) The Evolutionary Profile of Patients Operated for Peptic Ulcer Perforation in Bujumbura. Surgical Science, 15, 7-18. https://doi.org/10.4236/ss.2024.151002</p></sec><sec id="s9"><title>Appendix: Questionnaire</title><p>A. Socio-demographic data</p><p>• Patient ID:</p><p>• Age:</p><p>• Gender: Male ☐ Female ☐</p><p>B. Preoperative data</p><p>• Shock patient in admission: Yes ☐ No ☐</p><p>• Smoking history: Current smoker ☐ Former smoker ☐ Never smoked ☐</p><p>• History of NSAID use: Yes ☐ No ☐</p><p>• Time interval between onset of symptoms and presentation to hospital (hours):...H</p><p>• Comorbidities:</p><p>Diabetes: Yes ☐ No ☐</p><p>Ischaemic heart disease: Yes ☐ No ☐</p><p>Hypertension: Yes ☐ No ☐</p><p>IR: Yes ☐ No ☐</p><p>COPD: Yes ☐ No ☐</p><p>Other comorbidities:.......</p><p>• ASA score: 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐</p><p>C. Surgical data:</p><p>• Time interval between presentation and surgery (hours):...H</p><p>• Approach: ☐</p><p>● Laparoscopic: ☐</p><p>● Laparotomy: ☐</p><p>● Laparoscopic converted to open: ☐</p><p>• Location: ☐</p><p>● Duodenal: ☐</p><p>● Gastric: ☐</p><p>● Pyloric: ☐</p><p>• Perforation diameter (cm): .......cm</p><p>• Surgical technique for closure: Simple suture without epiplasty: ☐</p><p>Suture with epiplasty: ☐</p><p>Other: ........</p><p>• Operating time (minutes):.......min</p><p>D. Surgical data up to the thirtieth postoperative day</p><p>• Hospital stay in days:.......days</p><p>• Did the patient die during the first 30 days after surgery:</p><p>Yes ☐ No ☐</p><p>• Did the patient have any complications during the first 30 days after surgery:</p><p>Yes ☐ No ☐</p><p>• What was the nature of the complication?</p><p>Wound-related ☐ Haemorrhage Fistula ☐ MI ☐</p><p>Stroke ☐ Other:.......</p><p>• Re-operation within 30 days:</p><p>Yes ☐ No ☐</p><p>• Did the patient suffer a symptomatic SARS-Cov-2 (COVID-19) infection after the operation?</p><p>Yes ☐ No ☐</p><p>• What was the Clavien-Dindo grade of this complication?</p><p>0 ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3a ☐ 3b ☐ 4a ☐ 4b ☐ 5 ☐</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.130502-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ongo&amp;#239ba, T. (2020) Perforation Peritonitis of Peptic Ulcer. Thesis in Medicine, University of Science, Technology and Technology of Bamako, Bamako. https://www.bibliosante.ml/handle/123456789/4206</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lau, J.Y., Sung, J., Hill, C., Henderson, C., Howden, C.W. and David, C.M. (2011) Systematic Review of the Epidemiology of Complicated Peptic Ulcer Disease: Incidence, Recurrence, Risk Factors and Mortality. Digestion, 84, 102-113. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21494041</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Lawson-Ananissoh, L., Bouglouga, O., Bagny, A., Yakoubou, R., Kaaga, L. and Redah, D. (2015) Epidemiological Profile of Peptic Ulcers at the Lom&amp;#233 Campus Hospital and University Center (Togo). African Journal of Hepato-Gastroenterology, 3, 99-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12157-015-0597-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Vignon, K.C., Mehinto, D.K., Vignon, K.R., Mbele, R., Natta, N. and Hounkpe, E. (2016) Peptic Ulcer Perforations at the National University Hospital Center (CNHU) in Cotonou (Benin). European Scientific Journal, 12, 117. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.V12n27p117</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ngo Nonga, B., MouafoTambo, F.F., Ngowe Ngowe, M., Takongmo, S. and Sossa, M.A. (2010) Etiologies of Acute Generalized Peritonitis at Yaound&amp;#233 University Hospital. Revue Africaine de Chirurgie et Sp&amp;#233cialit&amp;#233s, 7, 30-32. https://doi.org/10.4314/racs.v4i7.66378</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mamoudou, C., Toumin, C., Aboubacar, D., et al. (2021) Peritonitis by Perforation of Peptic Ulcer in the Department of General Surgery of the Regional Hospital of Kankan (Guinea). SAS Journal of Surgery, 7, 726-729.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Chalya, P.L., Mabula, J.B., Koy, M., Mchembe, M.D., Jaka, H.M., Kabangila, R., et al. (2011) Clinical Profile and Outcome of Surgical Treatment of Perforated Peptic Ulcers in Northwestern Tanzania: A Tertiary Hospital Experience. World Journal of Emergency Surgery, 6, Article No. 31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21871104</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mbonicura, J.C., Baramburiye, C.P., Sibomana, T., Mugisha, J.P., Kazobavamwo, M., Harakandi, S., et al. (2021) Non-Traumatic Gastro-Intestinal Perforations in Bujumbura about 141 Cases. Thesis of Medicine, University of Burundi, Bujumbura.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Begovic, G. and Selmani, R. (2015) Etiological Factors in Urgent Gastroduodenal Ulcer. Prilozi, 36, 203-210. https://doi.org/10.1515/prilozi-2015-0068</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Belhadj, H., Benelkhaiat, R. and Finech, B. (2011) Peritonitis by Ulcer Perforation: A Prospective Study over 1 Year. Thesis, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy-Marrakech, Marrakech.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Foppa, B., Muscari, F. and Duffas, J.P. (2005) Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Laparoscopic Treatment. Journal of Surgery, 142, 165-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-7697(05)80884-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ohene-Yeboah, M. and Togbe, B. (2006) Perforated Gastric and Duodenal Ulcers in an Urban African Population. West African Journal of Medicine, 25, 205-211. https://doi.org/10.4314/wajm.v25i3.28279</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ali, A.M., Mohamed, A.N., Mohamed, Y.G. and Kele&amp;#351o&amp;#287lu, S.&amp;#304. (2022) Clinical Presentation and Surgical Management of Perforated Peptic Ulcer in a Tertiary Hospital in Mogadishu, Somalia: A 5-Year Retrospective Study. World Journal of Emergency Surgery, 17, Article No. 23. https://wjes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13017-022-00428-w</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sacko, O., Diallo, S., Soumar&amp;#233, L., Camara, M., Koumar&amp;#233, S., Sissoko, M., Keita, S., Carol, Dakouo, D., Coulibaly, M., Traor&amp;#233, M., Soumar&amp;#233, G., Traor&amp;#233, A.F., Dicko, H., Dianessi, Y., Traor&amp;#233, B., Koita, A. and Zimogo, S. (2019) Perforations of Gastro-Duodenal Ulcers in the Surgery Department “A” at the University Hospital Point G Bamako. Surgical Science, 10, 265-270. https://doi.org/10.4236/ss.2019.108028</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Siddeye, A. (2009) Peptic Ulcer’s Perforations. Thesis in Medicine, Point-G University Hospital, Bamako.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Issouf, C. (2004) Peptic Ulcer Perforations at the Gabriel Tour&amp;#233 Hospital. Thesis in Medicine, Gabriel Tour&amp;#233 University, Bamako.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Coulibaly, M.M. (2017) Peritonitis by Gastroduodenal Perforation in the General Surgery Department of Sikasso Hospital; USTTB.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Cougard, P, Barrat, C, Gayral, F, Cadi&amp;#1104re, G. B., Meyer, C., Fagniez, L., et al. (2000) Laparoscopic Treatment of Perforated Duodenal Ulcer. Results of a Multicenter Retrospective Study. Annals of Surgery, 125, 726-731. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-3944(00)00267-4</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Montalvo-Jav&amp;#233, E.E., Corres-Sillas, O. and Athi&amp;#233-Guti&amp;#233rrez, C. (2011) Factors Associated with Postoperative Complications and Mortality in Perforated Peptic Ulcer. Cirugia y Cirujanos, 79, 141-148. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21631975</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kim, J.M., Jeong, S.H., Lee, Y.J., Park, S.T., Choi, S.K., Hong, S.C., et al. (2012) Analysis of Risk Factors for Postoperative Morbidity in Perforated Peptic Ulcer. Journal of Gastric Cancer, 12, 26-35. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22500261</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sivaram, P. and Sreekumar, A. (2018) Preoperative Factors Influencing Mortality and Morbidity in Peptic Ulcer Perforation. European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 44, 251-257. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28258286</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Zittel, T.T., Jehle, E.C. and Becker, H. (2000) Surgical Management of Peptic Ulcer Disease Today—Indication, Technique and Outcome. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery, 385, 84-96. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10796046</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wacha, H., Linder, M.M., Feldmann, U., Wesh, G., Steinfensand, R.A. and Gundlach, E. (1987) The Mannheim Peritonitis Index. An Instrument for the Intraoperative Prognosis of Peritonitis. Chirurgie, 58, 84-92. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3568820</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bupicha, J.A., Gebresellassie, H.W. and Alemayehu, A. (2020) Pattern and Outcome of Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Patient in Four Teaching Hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: A Prospective Cohort Multicenter Study. BMC Surgery, 20, Article No. 135.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bas, G., Eryilmaz, R., Okan, I. and Sahin, M. (2008) Risk Factors of Morbidity and Mortality in Patients with Perforated Peptic Ulcer. Acta Chirurgica Belgica, 108, 424-427. https://doi.org/10.1080/00015458.2008.11680254</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ta&amp;#351, L., Ulger, B.V., &amp;#336nder, A., Kapan, M. and Bodzag, Z. (2015) Risk Factors Influencing Morbidity and Mortality in Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease. Turkish Journal of Surgery/Ulusal Cerrahi Dergisi, 31, 20-25.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Noguiera, C., Silva, A.S., Santos, J.N., Silva, A.G., Ferreira, J., Matos, E., et al. (2003) Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Main Factors of Morbidity and Mortality. World Journal of Surgery, 27, 782-787. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14509505</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.130502-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Moller, M.H., Adamsen, S., Thomsen, R.W. and Moller, A.M. (2011) Multicentre Trial of a Perioperative Protocol to Reduce Mortality in Patients with Peptic Ulcer Perforation. British Journal of Surgery, 98, 802-810. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21442610</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>