محفوظ في:
| المؤلفون الرئيسيون: | , |
|---|---|
| التنسيق: | Recurso digital |
| اللغة: | الإنجليزية |
| منشور في: |
Zenodo
2025
|
| الموضوعات: | |
| الوصول للمادة أونلاين: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15547478 |
| الوسوم: |
إضافة وسم
لا توجد وسوم, كن أول من يضع وسما على هذه التسجيلة!
|
جدول المحتويات:
- <p>Perforation peritonitis represents one of the most common abdominal emergencies in India, often caused by peptic ulcers, typhoid, tuberculosis, or traumatic events \[1]. Surgical intervention is the cornerstone of management, yet the timing of surgery remains a point of clinical debate. Traditional teaching advocates immediate surgery to control contamination; however, recent literature suggests that brief resuscitation to optimize physiological status may improve outcomes \[2,3].</p> <p> </p> <p>In India, where patients often present late and in sepsis or shock, the decision between immediate surgery and delayed surgery following initial stabilization can have significant implications on morbidity and mortality \[4]. This meta-analysis synthesizes Indian clinical studies to compare outcomes between immediate and delayed surgery after resuscitation in patients with perforation peritonitis.</p>