East Surgical Ward Enteric Perforation Score: A Novel Scoring System for Swift Decision in Enteric Perforation

Malak Asad  Ali; Ahmed Ali  Danish; Muhammad Anwar  Memon; Muhammad  Akbar; Karim  Bux; Ghashia  Khan; Muhammad Siddique  Rajput

doi:10.36283/ziun-pjmd14-4/019

Authors

Malak Asad Ali Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences, Jamshoro. Sindh. Pakistan.
Ahmed Ali Danish Liaquat university of Medical and Health Sciences, Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan
Muhammad Anwar Memon Liaquat university of Medical and Health Sciences Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan
Muhammad Akbar Liaquat university of Medical and Health Sciences Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan
Karim Bux Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences, Jamshoro. Sindh. Pakistan.
Ghashia Khan Ibne Sina University, Mirpurkas, Sindh, Pakistan
Muhammad Siddique Rajput People's University of Medical & Health Sciences, Nawabshah, Pakistan.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36283/ziun-pjmd14-4/019

Keywords:

Intestinal perforation, ESWEP score, Typhoid perforation.

Abstract

Background: For enteric perforation the ESWEP Score is a metric designed to determine whether to perform ileostomy or primary closure. The Objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of primary repair and ileostomy in regard to ESWEP score and effectiveness of ESWEP score in both surgical methods.

Methods: This comparative cross-sectional study was carried out at surgical department of LUMHS, Jamshoro for 06 months from January 2024 to June 2024. 52 individuals fulfilling the criteria were selected and grouped as PR (Primary Repair) and PR+1 (ileostomy). Preoperative ESWEP score was calculated and based on a cut off of 13 the patients with a score of 13 underwent PR and those with a score 13 underwent PR with ileostomy. Per-operative findings observed and outcomes were analysed.

Results: Mean ages of the patients in the PR group were 36 8.14 years and in the PR+I group were 37 9.23 years. The mean pre-operative ESWEP score in the PR group was 5 0.78 and in the PR+I group was 16 1.72. The mean per-operative ESWEP score in the PR group was 6 0.77 and in the PR+I group it was 14 4.17. The mean total ESWEP score in PR group was 11 1.23 and in the PR+I group it was 30 4.06. Surgery related and systemic complications were significantly less in the PR group.

Conclusion: This study concluded that ESWEP score in patients with typhoid perforation was a useful guide for the surgeons for making decisions regarding PR alone or primary repair with ileostomy and PR alone.

Author Biographies

Malak Asad Ali, Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences, Jamshoro. Sindh. Pakistan.

Department of General Surgery
Ahmed Ali Danish, Liaquat university of Medical and Health Sciences, Hyderabad, Sindh, Pakistan

Department of General Surgery
Muhammad Anwar Memon, Liaquat university of Medical and Health Sciences Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan

Department of General Surgery
Muhammad Akbar, Liaquat university of Medical and Health Sciences Jamshoro, Sindh, Pakistan

Department of General Surgery
Karim Bux, Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences, Jamshoro. Sindh. Pakistan.

Department of General Surgery
Ghashia Khan, Ibne Sina University, Mirpurkas, Sindh, Pakistan

Department of General Surgery
Muhammad Siddique Rajput, People's University of Medical & Health Sciences, Nawabshah, Pakistan.

Department of Community Medicine and Associate Professor,

References

1. Koppad SN, Vandakudri AB, Desai M. Analysis of Mannheim peritonitis index scoring in predicting outcome in patients with peritonitis secondary to hollow viscus perforation. Int J Surg. 2016;3(3):1116-20. doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20161436.

2. Mahesh P, Ali SAS, Kaludi ZA, Outcome of various surgical procedures and their outcome following enteric perforation at Dr. Ruth KM Pfau, Civil Hospital, Karachi. Professional Med J. 2019;26(10):1613-17. doi: 10.29309/TPMJ/2019.26.10.1566.

3. Federal Disease Surveillance and Response Unit Field Epidemiology & Disease Surveillance Division National Institute of Health (NIH) Islamabad, 2020;2(02):1-6

4. Hosoglu S, Aldemir M, Akalin S, Geyik MF, Tacyildiz IH, Loeb M, Risk factors for enteric perforation in patients with typhoid fever. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;160(1):46-50. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwh172.

5. Crump JA. Progress in typhoid fever epidemiology. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68(1):4-9. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy846.

6. Gibani MM, Jones E, Barton A, Jin C, Meek J, Camara S, Galal U, Heinz E, Rosenberg-Hasson Y, Obermoser G, Jones C. Investigation of the role of typhoid toxin in acute typhoid fever in a human challenge model. Nat Med. 2019;25(7):1082-8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0505-4.

7. Kim CL, Cruz Espinoza LM, Vannice KS, Tadesse BT, Owusu-Dabo E, Rakotozandrindrainy R, et al. The burden of typhoid fever in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Perspective. Res Rep Trop Med. 2022;7:1-9. doi: 10.2147/RRTM.S282461.

8. Qadri F, Khanam F, Liu X, Theiss-Nyland K, Biswas PK, Bhuiyan AI, et al. Protection by vaccination of children against typhoid fever with a Vi-tetanus toxoid conjugate vaccine in urban Bangladesh: a cluster-randomised trial. Lancet. 2021;398(10301):675-84. doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(21)01124-7.

9. Avilez-Arias JM, Castillo-Ortega G, Cabral-Martínez Á, Almada-Vega R, Martínez-Legorreta U, Sandoval-Hernández EA. ESWEP score global application: a retrospective study. Cirugía paraguaya. 2023;47(2):13-19. doi. 10.18004/sopaci.2023.agosto.13.

10. Abboubakar H, Racke R. Mathematical modeling, forecasting, and optimal control of typhoid fever transmission dynamics. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. 2021;149:111074. doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2021.111074.

11. Najib MA, Mustaffa KM, Ong EB, Selvam K, Khalid MF, Awang MS, et al. Performance of immunodiagnostic tests for typhoid fever: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pathogens. 2021;10(9):1184-90. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10091184

12. Vogel I, Reeves N, Tanis PJ, Bemelman WA, Torkington J, Hompes R, et al. Impact of a defunctioning ileostomy and time to stoma closure on bowel function after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol. 2021;25(7):751-60. doi: 10.1007/s10151-021-02436-5.

13. Takeda M, Takahashi H, Haraguchi N, Miyoshi N, Hata T, Yamamoto H, et al. Factors predictive of high-output ileostomy: a retrospective single-center comparative study. Surg Today. 2019;49(6):482-7. doi: 10.1007/s00595-018-1756-2

14. Ammar AS, Naqi SA, Sattar Z, Inayat F, Liaquat A, Janjua AM. East surgical ward enteric perforation score: new statistically valid scoring criteria for decision between repair or ileostomy in patients with peritonitis due to enteric perforation. Int Surg J. 2021;8(9):2533-38. doi: https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20213194.

15. Federal Disease Surveillance and Response Unit Field Epidemiology & Disease Surveillance Division, National Institute of Health (NIH) Islamabad, 2020;2(52):1-7.

16. Hecker A, Schneck E, Rohrig R, Roller F, Hecker B, Holler J, et al. The impact of early surgical intervention in free intestinal perforation: a time-to-intervention pilot study, World J Emerg Surg, 2015 Nov;10:54. doi 10.1186/s13017-015-0047-0.

17. Belsariya V, Kundan M, Nyekha V, Chandra JN, Enhancing Healing Strategies: Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy and Delayed Primary Closure in Abdominal Wounds Post-emergency Laparotomy for Intestinal Perforation, Cureus, 2024 May 21;16(5):e60738. doi: 10.7759/cureus.60738.

18. Neelma UA, Khan H, Jan Y, Ilyas SM, Salam A. Outcome of primary repair versus ileostomy in patients with typhoid ileal perforation. Radiol Nucl Med. 2020;45(2):406-9.

19. Mengal MA, Muhammad D, Bazai AK, Mengal MA, Mengal H. Comparison of Outcome the Primary Repair Versus Ileostomy in Typhoid Ileal Perforation Patients. J Liaquat Uni Med Health Sci. 2020;19(03):171-176. doi: 10.22442/jlumhs.201930684.

20. Kumar A, Fais MF. To Study the Outcome of Patients of Primary Closure Versus Ileostomy in Ileal Perforation. Trauma. 2019;18(9):55-59. doi.org/10.9790/08531809145559.

21. Mittal S, Singh H, Munghate A, Singh G, Garg A, Sharma J. A comparative study between the outcome of primary repair versus loop ileostomy in ileal perforation. Surg Res Pract. 2014;2014:729018. doi: 10.1155/2014/729018.

22. Farooq T, Rashid MU, Lodhi MF, Ahmad S, Farooq A. Enteric ileal perforation primary repair versus loop ileostomy. Ann Punjab Med Coll. 2011;5(1):15-18. doi.org/10.29054/apmc/2011.526.

23. Nsar AR, Hamid T, Saleem MR. Primary repair versus ileostomy in a single typhoid perforation of ileum. Mortality. 2015;3:997-99.

24. Gul S, Parveen S, Iqbal M, Ahmed T, Khan I, Nawaz A. Typhoid Ileal Perforation: Comparative Study of Ileostomy Versus Primary Repair and associated Morbidity and Mortality. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2023;73(2):374-377. doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v73i2.7025.

25. Pujar KA, Ashok AC, Rudresh HK, Srikantaiah HC, Girish KS, Suhas KR, Mortality in Typhoid Intestinal Perforation–A Declining Trend, 2013;7(9):1946-48. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/6632.3366.

26. de Oliveira1 RAS, Cavalcante ART, Morbidity and Mortality Associated with Loop Ileostomy Closure Procedures in a Reference Service in Coloproctology in Recife, Pernambuco, J Coloproctol 2021;41(2):168–75. doi.org/ 10.1055/s-0041-1730422.