Top

Published in:

26-05-2023 | Peritonitis | Original Article

Jabalpur Prognostic Scoring System: Revisited After 2 Decades

Authors: Uday Somashekar, Mritunjay Kumar Gupta, Arpan Mishra, Rohit Shrivastava, S Bharath, Vikesh Agrawal, Pawan Agarwal, Dhananjaya Sharma

Published in: Indian Journal of Surgery | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Introduction

Jabalpur Prognostic Scoring System (JPSS), a simple scoring system, was developed to prognosticate the outcome for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) in 2003 when there was no dedicated Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) in the authors’ institution. It is based on six easily available parameters, namely patient’s age, perforation-operation interval, mean systolic blood pressure, heart rate, serum creatinine and the presence of comorbid illness. Its accuracy has since been validated by many authors and has been found to be comparable with other prognostic scoring systems. Availability of SICU in the last one decade has prompted us to re-assess the utility and validity of the JPSS in the current age.

Methods

Prospectively collected JPSS data of 214 consecutive patients (prospective group, PG), who underwent Graham’s patch omentopexy closure of a PPU, was compared with the JPSS cohort of 2003 (original group, OG). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated, and accuracy was measured using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.

Results

The PG had 214 patients, while the OG had 140 patients. PG had significantly more women patients, and a shorter hospital stay, otherwise, both groups were comparable. Postoperative mortality and morbidity, both overall and in different JPSS classes were statistically similar. Overall accuracy of JPSS in PG was 77% with a cutoff of 11 as compared to the OG where these values were 92% and 9 respectively.

Conclusion

JPSS continues to be effective and accurate in predicting the outcome of patients with PPU in the current age.

Sharma D (2002) Scoring systems for intra-abdominal sepsis: the science of predicting risks. Indian J Surg 64(2):125–147

Nag DS (2015) Assessing the risk: scoring systems for outcome prediction in emergency laparotomies. Biomedicine (Taipei) 5(4):20. https://doi.org/10.7603/s40681-015-0020-yCrossRefPubMed

Jhobta RS, Attri AK, Kaushik R, Sharma R, Jhobta A (2006) Spectrum of perforation peritonitis in India--review of 504 consecutive cases. World J Emerg Surg 5(1):26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-1-26CrossRef

Bali RS, Verma S, Agarwal PN, Singh R, Talwar N (2014) Perforation peritonitis and the developing world. ISRN Surg 2(2014):105492. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/105492CrossRef

Hameed T, Kumar A, Sahni S, Bhatia R, Vidhyarthy AK (2020) Emerging spectrum of perforation peritonitis in developing world. Front Surg 15(7):50. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2020.00050CrossRef

Bohnen JM, Mustard RA, Oxholm SE, Schouten BD (1988) APACHE II score and abdominal sepsis. Prospective Study. Arch Surg. 123(2):225–229. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1988.01400260113014CrossRefPubMed

Billing A, Fröhlich D, Schildberg FW (1994) Prediction of outcome using the Mannheim peritonitis index in 2003 patients. Peritonitis Study Group. Br J Surg. 81(2):209–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800810217CrossRef

Mishra A, Sharma D, Raina VK (2003) A simplified prognostic scoring system for peptic ulcer perforation in developing countries. Indian J Gastroenterol 22(2):49–53PubMed

Singh S, Sharma S, Hans S, Singh N, Gupta A, Neki NS, Shergill GS (2017) Prognostication of perforation peritonitis cases using Jabalpur peritonitis index. Int J Curr Res Med Sci 3(3):22–29. https://doi.org/10.22192/ijcrms.2017.03.03.004CrossRef

10.

Subangi KG, Aravind N (2018) A comparative study of pulp scoring vs Jabalpur prognostic scoring in predicting outcome in patients with peptic ulcer Perforation. IOSR-JDMS 17(2):45–53. https://doi.org/10.9790/0853-1702144553CrossRef

11.

Sathish KG (2018) Jabalpur Scoring to predict morbidity and mortality in peptic ulcer perforation. Int J Sci Eng Res 9(9):1295–1309

12.

Agarwal N, Gupta A, Jain BK, Saran RN (2018) Omental patch repair for duodenal ulcer perforation- analysis of factors affecting outcome: a prospective study. Gastroenterol Pancreatol Liver Disord 6(2):1–6. https://doi.org/10.15226/2374-815X/6/2/001125CrossRef

13.

Prakash GV, Vijay Kumar Reddy B, Srihari Rao B, Srikanth Reddy C, Raghuram G, Ajay Babu K et al (2019) Comparison of the efficacy of Jabalpur prognostic scoring system with Mannheims peritonitis index in evaluation of prognosis in patients with perforation peritonitis. Int Surg J 6(7):2390–2394. https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20192961CrossRef

14.

Dharmendra BL, Bagalkot VS (2021) Role of Jabalpur score in predicting mortality among patients with peritonitis secondary to peptic ulcer perforation. Trop Gastroenterol 42(3):122–125. https://doi.org/10.7869/tg.638CrossRef

15.

Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE (1985) APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 13(10):818–829CrossRefPubMed

16.

Thorsen K, Søreide JA, Søreide K (2013) Scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 10(21):25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-21-25CrossRef

17.

Koskensalo S, Leppäniemi A (2010) Perforated duodenal ulcer: has anything changed? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 36(2):145–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-010-9128-7CrossRefPubMed

18.

Lee MJ, Coe PO, O'Donoghue R, Peirson M, Saha A (2020) Variation in descriptors of patient characteristics in randomized clinical trials of peptic ulcer repair: a systematic review. Br J Surg 107(12):1570–1579. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11771CrossRefPubMed

19.

Polderman KH, Girbes AR, Thijs LG, Strack van Schijndel RJ (2001) Accuracy and reliability of APACHE II scoring in two intensive care units. Problems and pitfalls in the use of APACHE II and suggestions for improvement. Anaesthesia 56(1):47–50. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.01763.xCrossRefPubMed

20.

Nally DM, Lonergan PE, O'Connell EP, McNamara DA (2022) SURGical Improvement Network (SURGIN). Increasing the use of perioperative risk scoring in emergency laparotomy: nationwide quality improvement programme. BJS Open 6(4):zrac092. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrac092CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Nahm FS (2022 Feb) Receiver operating characteristic curve: overview and practical use for clinicians. Korean J Anesthesiol 75(1):25–36. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.21209CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Boey J, Choi SK, Poon A, Alagaratnam TT (1987) Risk stratification in perforated duodenal ulcers. A prospective validation of predictive factors. Ann Surg 205(1):22–26. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-198701000-00005CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Buck DL, Vester-Andersen M, Møller MH (2013) Danish Clinical Register of Emergency Surgery. Surgical delay is a critical determinant of survival in perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 100(8):1045–1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9175CrossRefPubMed

24.

Boyd-Carson H, Doleman B, Cromwell D, Lockwood S, Williams JP, Tierney GM et al (2020) Delay in source control in perforated peptic ulcer leads to 6% increased risk of death per hour: a nationwide cohort study. World J Surg 44(3):869–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05254-xCrossRefPubMed

25.

Søreide K, Thorsen K, Søreide JA (2014) Strategies to improve the outcome of emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 101(1):e51–e64. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9368CrossRefPubMed

26.

Murray V, Burke JR, Hughes M, Schofield C, Young A (2021) Delay to surgery in acute perforated and ischaemic gastrointestinal pathology: a systematic review. BJS Open 5(5):zrab072. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zrab072CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Møller MH, Engebjerg MC, Adamsen S, Bendix J, Thomsen RW (2012) The Peptic Ulcer Perforation (PULP) score: a predictor of mortality following peptic ulcer perforation A cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 56(5):655–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02609.xCrossRefPubMed

28.

Menekse E, Kocer B, Topcu R, Olmez A, Tez M, Kayaalp C (2015) A practical scoring system to predict mortality in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. World J Emerg Surg 21(10):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-015-0008-7CrossRef

29.

McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC et al (2009) No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet. 374(9695):1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61116-8CrossRefPubMed

30.

Agrawal S, Sharma D, Raina VK (1999) Arterial pH and arterial oxygenation are not essential for risk stratification in perforation peritonitis. Indian J Gastroenterol. 18(1):5–6PubMed

Title: Jabalpur Prognostic Scoring System: Revisited After 2 Decades
Authors: Uday Somashekar
Mritunjay Kumar Gupta
Arpan Mishra
Rohit Shrivastava
S Bharath
Vikesh Agrawal
Pawan Agarwal
Dhananjaya Sharma
Publication date: 26-05-2023
Publisher: Springer India
Keyword: Peritonitis
Published in: Indian Journal of Surgery / Issue 1/2024
Print ISSN: 0972-2068
Electronic ISSN: 0973-9793
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-023-03824-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Jabalpur Prognostic Scoring System: Revisited After 2 Decades

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Epidermoid Cyst of Caecum—An Extremely Rare Event

Risk Factors for Accidental Perioperative Hypothermia in Major Abdominal Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Obstructed Defecation Syndrome and Rectocele Repair Using Transperineal Bioabsorbable Mesh

Giant Pleomorphic Adenoma of Parotid Gland — a Neglected Story

Multifocal Pediatric Tumoral Calcinosis: a Diagnostic Conundrum in a 4-Year-Old Child

The Need for Understanding the Optimal Implementation of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusiveness in Research and Medical Practice