|
|
LETTER TO EDITOR |
|
|
|
| Year : 2007 | Volume
: 12
| Issue : 1 | Page : 59 |
| |
Perforated bowel in omphalocoele
V Raveenthiran
Rajah Muthiah Medical College, Annamalai University, Tamilnadu, India
Correspondence Address:
V Raveenthiran
Rajah Muthiah Medical College, Annamalai University, Tamilnadu
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0971-9261.31099
How to cite this article:
Raveenthiran V. Perforated bowel in omphalocoele. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2007;12:59 |
Sir,
The case reported by Kale et al .[1] was an interesting paper. However, I seriously question the authors' diagnosis. They concluded small bowel perforation because the ileal lumen was communicating to the exterior of the omphalocele sac. The authors' textual description of clean peritoneal cavity without any mention of spillage of perforated material is inconsistent with their claim. Moreover, they are unable to explain how the bowel could have perforated when the omphalocoele itself remains intact.
Judging from the text and figures, it appears to be a case of omphalocoele with patent vitellointestinal duct. There are many such cases reported in the literature.[2]-[5] In Kale et al. case, short length of the duct is probably responsible for the illusion of ileal perforation. Intriguingly, the authors have not even considered this differential diagnosis in their discussion.
 References | |  |
| 1. | Kale R, Handa R, Harjai MM. Perforated small bowel in omphalocele at birth. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2006;11:39-40.  |
| 2. | Rohatgi M, Gorthi SN. Omphalocele with patent omphalomesenteric duct and ileal prolapse. Indian J Pediatr 1984;51:119-23. |
| 3. | Davis RM, Kehm RW. Omphalocele with patent vitellointestinal duct and ileal prolapse. Am J Surg 1967;113:571-3. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| 4. | Gratiot JH. Persistent omphalomesenteric duct with omphalocele. Am J Surg 1953;86:747-50. [PUBMED] |
| 5. | Allen MS, Fitchett CW. Omphalocele with a patent everted omphalomesenteric duct: Report of a case. Surgery 1952;32:715-8. |
|
