Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and peptic ulcer perforation.

Collier, Dean S.; Pain, J. A.

doi:10.1136/gut.26.4.359

Cited by 257 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar observations were made by Nuhu et al from Maiduguri and Lawal et al from Ile-Ife who recorded previous history of PUD in 71 and 47% of their patients respectively. 26,28 This is in contrast to some other African studies where more than 60% of their patients had no past history suggestive of PUD. 7,28 The reason for this difference is not quite apparent.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 50%

Clinical study of open versus laparoscopic management for gastroduodenal perforation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study was organized to compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic and open repair of gastroduodenal perforation, and to provide the impressive surgical method of treatment for gastroduodenal perforation.Methods: The present study was conducted with 174 consecutive patients treated for gastroduodenal perforations. These patients included 121 with perforated gastric ulcers, 53 with perforated duodenal ulcers, Whereas 31 patients were treated laparoscopically, and 143 patients underwent conventional (open) surgery.Results: A total of 174 patients were studied with men and women ratio of 4:1. This observational study revealed 80% male preponderance, with mean age of 48 years. Gastric perforations (n=77, i.e., 84.62%) were more common than duodenal perforations (n=14, i.e., 15.38%). Simple closure with omental patch (n=74, i.e., 81.32%) was the most common surgical method for duodenal perforation. While for gastric perforations were repaired primarily with two layered sutures. The mean operating time of open were 61 min and 86 min for laparoscopic surgery. Wound infection was the commonest post-operative complication which was seen in 31 (17.81%) patients.Conclusions: Laparoscopic gastroduodenal perforation repair is safe and reliable, has good clinical efficacy, the incidence of complications compared with open surgery does not increase, and has less surgical trauma, less bleeding, advantages of fast recovery of gastrointestinal function and short hospitalization time, Thus it has great clinical significance and should be promoted in surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 50%

Clinical study of open versus laparoscopic management for gastroduodenal perforation

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is in contrast to elderly patients, where NSAIDs may play a more significant etiologic role. 19 Use of NSAID is an important cause of perforated peptic ulcer in the West. In our series, NSAID use as an offending cause could be attributable in only 8% patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute peptic perforation: clinical profile and our experience with operative outcome

Shah¹,

Panchal²

2016

Int Surg J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Since NSAIDs are effective treatments for redness, heat, swelling, pain and loss of function, they are the most common drugs used for inflammatory diseases [20]. However, NSAIDs can cause serious gastrointestinal (GI) side effects, ranging from significant blood loss to ulcer perforation [7,32]. To prevent the toxic effects of NSAIDs on the GI, nitric oxide release NSAIDs and cyclooxygenase (COX-2) selective inhibitors have been developed [4,26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gastric anti-ulcerative and anti-inflammatory activity of metyrosine in rats

Albayrak

Polat

Çadırcı

et al. 2010

Pharmacological Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this study, the anti-inflammatory and anti-ulcerative effects of metyrosine, a selective tyrosine hydroxylase enzyme inhibitor, were investigated in rats. For ulcer experiments, indomethacin-induced gastric ulcer tests and ethanol-induced gastric ulcer tests were used. For these experiments, rats were fasted for 24 h. Different doses of metyrosine and 25 mg/kg doses of ranitidine were administered to rats, followed by indomethacin at 25 mg/kg for the indomethacin-induced ulcer test, or 50% ethanol for the ethanolinduced test. Results have shown that at all of the doses used (50, 100 and 200 mg/kg), metyrosine had significant anti-ulcerative effects in both indomethacin and ethanol-induced ulcer tests. Metyrosine doses of 100 and 200 mg/kg (especially the 200 mg/kg dose) also inhibited carrageenan-induced paw inflammation even more effectively than indomethacin. In addition, to characterize the anti-inflammatory mechanism of metyrosine we investigated its effects on cyclooxygenase (COX) activity in inflammatory tissue (rat paw). The results showed that all doses of metyrosine significantly inhibited high COX-2 activity. The degree of COX-2 inhibition correlated with the increase in anti-inflammatory activity. In conclusion, we found that metyrosine has more anti-inflammatory effects than indomethacin and that these effects can be attributed to the selective inhibition of COX-2 enzymes by metyrosine. We also found that adrenalin levels are reduced upon metyrosine treatment, which may be the cause of the observed gastro-protective effects of this compound.

show abstract

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and peptic ulcer perforation.

Cited by 257 publications

References 31 publications

Clinical study of open versus laparoscopic management for gastroduodenal perforation

Clinical study of open versus laparoscopic management for gastroduodenal perforation

Acute peptic perforation: clinical profile and our experience with operative outcome

Gastric anti-ulcerative and anti-inflammatory activity of metyrosine in rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About