Evidence Hub

Duodenal Diverticular Perforation Treated Conservatively: Reassessing Indications for Treatment

Sasaki Y, Nakahodo J, Onishi T, Tachibana A, Minami R, Noma E, Moriguchi Y, Tabata H et al.

Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan), 2023

Abstract

A 59-year-old woman presented with a chief complaint of melena. She had no abdominal findings, such as tenderness or tapping pain. Laboratory tests revealed a white blood cell count of 5,300 cells/μL and C-reactive protein level of 0.07 mg/dL. Inflammation and anemia (hemoglobin 12.4 g/dL) were denied. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) revealed multiple duodenal diverticula and air surrounding a descending duodenal diverticulum. Based on these findings, duodenal diverticular perforation (DDP) was suspected. Oral food intake was stopped, and nasogastric tube feeding and conservative treatment with cefmetazole, lansoprazole, and ulinastatin were begun. On day 8 of hospitalization, follow-up CT revealed the disappearance of the air surrounding the duodenum, and the patient was discharged on day 19 after the resumption of oral feeding.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free