Outcome of perforated XXXX : twenty years experience of one institute.

@entity1 @entity1066 @entity5 @entity356
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of the present paper is to compare the clinicopathologic features of perforated @entity356 and the effect of surgical intervention. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-seven @entity1 with perforated @entity356 underwent surgical intervention in one medical center and were retrospectively reviewed. The clinicopathologic features included age, sex, surgical treatment, @entity1066 , @entity5 stage, and @entity5 characteristics. The end point of the study was compared to the survival of different treatments. @entity1 with @entity356 without perforation were enrolled randomly in a ratio of 1: 4 to compare the clinical features and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: All @entity1 underwent emergency surgical intervention, including gastrectomy in 17 @entity1 , and simple closure of the perforation in 10 cases. There were no significant differences in the @entity1 ' characteristics except @entity5 status and staging (p = 0.008 and p < 0.001, respectively). The surgical mortality was also higher in those @entity1 who underwent simple closure (40% mortality rate, p = 0.047). The clinical features of 16 @entity1 with perforated @entity356 were compared to those of 64 @entity1 with @entity356 without perforation. The survival rate was not significantly different in these 2 groups and the median survival time was 17.3 months (p = 0.184). However, @entity1066 depth was significantly greater in @entity1 with perforation and 10 cases (62.5%) had layer of serosa involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Perforated @entity356 usually represented at advanced stages; but gastrectomy offered a better clinical outcome. The long-term outcome in @entity1 with perforated @entity356 was not inferior compared to those with @entity356 without perforation.
