Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: the LAMA Trial

Laparoscopic pyloroplasty for perforated peptic ulcer

Peptic ulcer is a common disease affecting millions of people every year. Despite improved understanding and treatment of the disease, the number of patients admitted with duodenal peptic ulcer perforation has not decreased. Deaths from peptic ulcer disease overcome other common emergency situations. Laparoscopic repair of the perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is the gold standard approach for simple perforation. However, in patients with large perforated chronic ulcers laparotomy with pyloroplasty is the standard treatment. It is generally accepted to perform open surgery in PPU emergencies because of the greater knowledge and experience gathered over the past decades and less potential harm for the patient or surgical complications. We present a case of successful laparoscopic pyloroplasty of a perforated duodenal ulcer with stenosis.

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: simple closure versus omentopexy

BACKGROUND

This report presents our experience with laparoscopic repair performed in 118 consecutive patients diagnosed with a perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). We compared the surgical outcome of simple closure with modified Cellan-Jones omentopexy and report the safety and benefit of simple closure.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2014, 118 patients with PPU underwent laparoscopic repair with simple closure (n = 27) or omentopexy (n = 91). Charts were retrospectively reviewed for demographic characteristics and outcome. The data were compared by Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson's chi-square test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test. The results were considered statistically significant if P < 0.05.

RESULTS

No patients died, whereas three incurred leakage. After matching, the simple closure and omentopexy groups had similarity in sex, systolic blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, Boey score, Charlson comorbidity index, Mannheim peritonitis index, and leakage. There were statistically significant differences in age, length of hospital stay, perforated size, and operating time. Comparison of the operating time in the ≤4.0 mm and 5.0-12 mm groups revealed that the simple closure took less time than omentopexy in both groups (≤4.0 mm, 76 versus 133 minutes, P < 0.0001; 5.0-12 mm, 97 versus 139.5 minutes; P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the omentopexy, laparoscopic simple closure is a safe procedure and shortens the operating time.

[Perforated peptic ulcer closure: laparoscopic or open?]

AIM

To compare laparoscopic and open closure of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 153 patients who underwent PPU suturing. 78 patients underwent laparoscopic closure (laparoscopic group) and open suturing via upper midline laparotomy was performed in 75 cases (open group). Surgery time, postoperative pain severity, time of analgesics intake, postoperative complications, hospital-stay and and cosmetic effect were compared.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic PPU closure may be effective and accessible in experienced endoscopic surgeon. It significantly reduces postoperative pain severity, need for analgesics, incidence of postoperative complications and provides excellent cosmetic effect. However, there is greater time of surgery compared with open intervention. There were no significant differences in hspital-stay between groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic PPU suturing can be considered a good alternative to open surgery. Further researches are needed for standardization, assessment of safety, real advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic technique.

Perforated peptic ulcer - an update

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) affects 4 million people worldwide annually. The incidence of PUD has been estimated at around 1.5% to 3%. Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a serious complication of PUD and patients with PPU often present with acute abdomen that carries high risk for morbidity and mortality. The lifetime prevalence of perforation in patients with PUD is about 5%. PPU carries a mortality ranging from 1.3% to 20%. Thirty-day mortality rate reaching 20% and 90-d mortality rate of up to 30% have been reported. In this review we have summarized the current evidence on PPU to update readers. This literature review includes the most updated information such as common causes, clinical features, diagnostic methods, non-operative and operative management, post-operative complications and different scoring systems of PPU. With the advancement of medical technology, PUD can now be treated with medications instead of elective surgery. The classic triad of sudden onset of abdominal pain, tachycardia and abdominal rigidity is the hallmark of PPU. Erect chest radiograph may miss 15% of cases with air under the diaphragm in patients with bowel perforation. Early diagnosis, prompt resuscitation and urgent surgical intervention are essential to improve outcomes. Exploratory laparotomy and omental patch repair remains the gold standard. Laparoscopic surgery should be considered when expertise is available. Gastrectomy is recommended in patients with large or malignant ulcer.

A Systematic Review of Patient-reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Unplanned General Surgery

Unplanned general surgery represents a major workload and requires comprehensive evaluation with appropriate outcomes. This study aimed to summarize current reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in unplanned general surgery. A systematic review identified RCTs reporting PROs in the commonest six areas of unplanned general surgery. Details of the PRO measures were examined using the CONSORT extension for PRO reporting in RCTs. Extracted information about each PRO domain included the reporting of baseline PROs, rationale for PRO selection and whether PRO findings were used in conjunction with clinical outcomes to inform treatment recommendations. The internal validity of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. 12,519 abstracts were screened and 20 RCTs containing data from 2037 patients included. Included studies used 14 separate PRO measures covering 35 different health domains. A visual analogue assessment of pain was most frequently reported (n = 13). Reporting of baseline PRO data was uncommon (11/35 PRO domains). The rationale for PRO data collection and a PRO-specific hypothesis were provided for 9 (25.7 %) and 5 (14.3 %) domains, respectively. Seventeen RCTs (85.0 %) used the PRO data alongside clinical outcomes to inform treatment recommendations. Of the 116 risk of bias assessments, 77 (66.0 %) were judged as high or unclear. There is a lack of well designed, and conducted RCTs in unplanned general surgery that include PROs. Future work to define relevant PROs and methods for optimal assessment are needed to inform health care decision-making.

Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The role of laparoscopic surgery in the repair for peptic ulcer disease is unclear. The present study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and references of identified articles and relevant reviews. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, mortality, and reoperation. Secondary outcomes were operative time, postoperative pain, postoperative hospital stay, nasogastric tube duration, and time to resume diet. Statistical analysis was carried out by Review Manage software.

RESULTS

Five RCTs investigating a total of 549 patients, of whom, 279 received laparoscopic repair and 270 received open repair, were included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences between these two procedures in some primary outcomes including overal postoperative complication rate, mortality, and reoperation rate. Subcategory analysis of postoperative complications showed that laparoscopic repair had also similar rates of repair site leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, pneumonia, and urinary tract infection as open surgery, except of the lower surgical site infection rate (P < 0.05). In addition, there were also no significant differences between these two procedures in some second outcomes including operative time, postoperative hospital stay, and time to resume diet, but laparoscopic repair had shorter nasogastric tube duration (P < 0.05) and less postoperative pain (P < 0.05) than open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery is comparable with open surgery in the setting of repair for perforated peptic ulcer. The obvious advantages of laparoscopic surgery are the lower surgical site infection rate, shorter nasogastric tube duration and less postoperative pain. However, more higher quality studies should be undertaken to further assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repair for peptic ulcer disease.

Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies

This review focuses on the laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal emergencies and its more recent indications. Laparoscopic surgery has a specific place in elective procedures, but that does not apply in emergency situations. In specific emergencies, there is a huge range of indications and different techniques to apply, and not all of them are equally settle. We consider that the most controversial points in minimally invasive procedures are indications in emergency situations due to technical difficulties. Some pathologies, such as oesophageal emergencies, obstruction due to colon cancer, abdominal hernias or incarcerated postsurgical hernias, are nearly always resolved by conventional surgery, that is, an open approach due to limited intraabdominal cavity space or due to the vulnerability of the bowel. These technical problems have been solved in many diseases, such as for perforated peptic ulcer or acute appendectomy for which a laparoscopic approach has become a well-known and globally supported procedure. On the other hand, endoscopic procedures have acquired further indications, relegating surgical solutions to a second place; this happens in cholangitis or pancreatic abscess drainage. This endoluminal approach avoids the need for laparoscopic development in these diseases. Nevertheless, new instruments and new technologies could extend the laparoscopic approach to a broader array of potentials procedures. There remains, however, a long way to go.

Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between laparoscopic and open omental patch repair (LOPR versus OR) in patients with similar presentation of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The secondary aim was to evaluate the outcomes according to the severity of peritonitis. Methods. All patients who underwent omental patch repair at two university-affiliated institutes between January 2010 and December 2014 were reviewed. Matched cohort between LOPR and OR groups was achieved by only including patients that had ulcer perforation <2 cm in size and symptoms occurring <48 hours. Outcome measures were defined in accordance with length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and mortality. Results. 148 patients met the predefined inclusion criteria with LOPR performed in 40 patients. Outcome measures consistently support laparoscopic approach but only length of hospital stay (LOS) achieved statistical significance (LOPR 4 days versus OR 5 days, p < 0.01). In a subgroup analysis of patients with MPI score >21, LOPR is also shown to benefit, particularly resulting in significant shorter LOS (4 days versus 11 days, p < 0.01). Conclusion. LOPR offers improved short-term outcomes in patients who present within 48 hours and with perforation size <2 cm. LOPR also proved to be more beneficial in high MPI cases.

Laparoscopic versus open operation for perforated peptic ulcer in pediatric patients: A 10-year experience

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a relatively uncommon condition in children. We aim to evaluate and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic omental patch repair versus open repair for PPU in pediatric patients.

METHODS

Children who underwent omental patch repair for PPU from 2004 to 2014 in our hospital were reviewed retrospectively. Patient demographics, perioperative as well as intraoperative details and surgical outcomes, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients were identified, and all presented with abdominal pain. The median age of the study group was 14.9years (range 6.3 to 18.4years). Radiological evidence of pneumoperitoneum on erect chest x-ray (CXR) was found only in five patients (38.5%). None of the patients had a known history of peptic ulcer disease. Diagnosis other than PPU was made in five patients preoperatively. Laparoscopic repair was attempted in eight patients with one of them requiring conversion. There was no significant difference in patient demographics when compared with the open repair group. The perforation site was in the duodenum in 11 patients and in the antrum in two patients. The mean size of perforation was larger in the open repair group (p=0.005). Although the operating time was longer in the laparoscopic group (p=0.51), the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (p=0.048). Only two patient diseases were Helicobacter pylori related.

CONCLUSION

Clinical features of perforated peptic ulcer in children are different from adults. Risk factors are less frequently identified. Laparoscopic omental patch repair is a feasible surgical option and is associated with satisfactory outcomes in pediatric practice.

Emergency laparoscopy: Role and implementation

Laparoscopic surgery has emerged over the past two decades as the surgical approach of choice in the treatment of many digestive disorders. Laparoscopy has its place in the management of abdominal surgical emergencies since it provides the same benefits: less postoperative pain and shorter length of hospital stay when compared to laparotomy. However, its role in the management of abdominal emergencies has not yet been fully clarified. In this review, we focus on what has been validated concerning the role of emergency laparoscopy in the management of abdominal diseases.

The selective use of laparoscopic repair is safe in high-risk patients suffering from perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) was shown to be safe and recommended in low-risk patients. However, whether the approach is safe to apply to high-risk patients is uncertain.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective study of all patients with PPU admitted between January 2002 and December 2012. The laparoscopy-first approach (LFA) was adopted as a routine for all patients. The outcomes of LFA for PPU were reviewed and assessed to determine if the approach was safe in high-risk patients.

RESULTS

Three hundred and seventy three patients that suffered from PPU were included into the study and 50.9% received laparoscopic repair. There was a significant increase in the number of operations performed yearly by the LFA (P < 0.001). 25.2% of the patients had a Boey score of ≥2. High-risk patients that received LFA suffered from larger ulcers (P < 0.001) with more severe contamination (P = 0.006) that required conversion (P = 0.002) when compared to the low-risk patients. When compared to open surgery, more high-risk patients in the open group had ASA grade ≥3 (P = 0.007) and suffered from mortality (P = 0.001). The only significant predictor to mortality in high-risk patients was ASA grade ≥3 (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of LFA in patients suffering from PPU was associated with acceptable rates of mortality and morbidity. The approach could also be selectively adopted in patients with Boey score ≥2 provided their ASA grading is low and hemodynamically stable.

An Updated Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer

Laparoscopic repair (LR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) has been introduced since 1990. Although many studies comparing LR with open repair (OR) have been published, controversy remains regarding the clinical utility of laparoscopic techniques for the treatment of PPU. Thus, it is necessary for us to broaden our knowledge on this subject with the newly published articles. Twenty-four nonrandomized controlled studies (NRS) and five randomized controlled trails (RCTs) were included in our meta-analyses, which comprised 5,268 patients (1,890 in the LR group and 3,378 in the OR group). In the analysis of high quality NRS and RCTs, compared with OR, high quality evidence suggested that LR was associated with a lower incidence of overall postoperative complications; moderate evidence showed that the two procedures had the similar reoperation rate; based on the low quality evidence, LR had reduced hospital mortality and similar operative time; Moreover, LR was observed having the advantages of earlier resumption of oral intake, shorter hospital stay and less analgesic use, which were supported by very low evidence. All the evidences suggest that LR is better than OR for PPU, but more high-quality RCTs are still needed for further validation.

Laparoscopic management of intra-abdominal infections: Systematic review of the literature

AIM: To investigate the role of laparoscopy in diagnosis and treatment of intra abdominal infections.

METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed including studies where intra abdominal infections were treated laparoscopically.

RESULTS: Early laparoscopic approaches have become the standard surgical technique for treating acute cholecystitis. The laparoscopic appendectomy has been demonstrated to be superior to open surgery in acute appendicitis. In the event of diverticulitis, laparoscopic resections have proven to be safe and effective procedures for experienced laparoscopic surgeons and may be performed without adversely affecting morbidity and mortality rates. However laparoscopic resection has not been accepted by the medical community as the primary treatment of choice. In high-risk patients, laparoscopic approach may be used for exploration or peritoneal lavage and drainage. The successful laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers for experienced surgeons, is demonstrated to be safe and effective. Regarding small bowel perforations, comparative studies contrasting open and laparoscopic surgeries have not yet been conducted. Successful laparoscopic resections addressing iatrogenic colonic perforation have been reported despite a lack of literature-based evidence supporting such procedures. In post-operative infections, laparoscopic approaches may be useful in preventing diagnostic delay and controlling the source.

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy has a good diagnostic accuracy and enables to better identify the causative pathology; laparoscopy may be recommended for the treatment of many intra-abdominal infections.

The best surgical approach for perforated gastric cancer: one-stage vs. two-stage gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Surgery for perforated gastric cancer has a dual purpose: treating life-threatening peritonitis and curing gastric cancer. An emergent one-stage gastrectomy may place an undue burden on patients with a poor general status and could impair long-term survival even if the gastric malignancy is curable. A two-stage gastrectomy, in which the initial treatment of peritonitis is followed by elective gastrectomy, can accomplish both desired purposes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 514 Japanese cases of perforated gastric cancer. 376 patients underwent a one-stage gastrectomy and 54 patients underwent a two-stage gastrectomy. We evaluated patient characteristics, surgical outcomes, postoperative complications, and survival rates in both groups.

RESULTS

The two-stage gastrectomy group saw a 78.4% rate of curative R0 resection and 1.9% hospital mortality rate, while corresponding rates in the one-stage gastrectomy group were 50 and 11.4%, respectively. Among cases in which curative R0 resection was performed, there was no significant difference in overall survival between 136 one-stage gastrostomies and 40 two-stage gastrostomies. In a multivariate analysis, curative R0 resection [hazard ratio (HR) 2.937, p = 0.001] and depth of tumor invasion (HR 1.179, p = 0.016) were identified as independent prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Regardless of whether patients underwent a one-stage or two-stage gastrectomy, curative R0 resection improved survival in patients with perforated gastric cancer. When curative R0 resection cannot be performed in the initial treatment phase due to diffuse peritonitis, non-curative and palliative gastrectomy should be avoided, and a two-stage gastrectomy should be planned following peritonitis recovery and detailed examinations.

Strict Selection Criteria During Surgical Training Ensures Good Outcomes in Laparoscopic Omental Patch Repair (LOPR) for Perforated Peptic Ulcer (PPU)

Application of minimal access surgery in acute care surgery is limited due to various reasons. Laparoscopic omental patch repair (LOPR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) surgery is safe and feasible but not widely implemented. We report our early experience of LOPR with emphasis on strict selection criteria. This is a descriptive study of all patients operated on for PPU at academic university-affiliated institutes from December 2010 to February 2012. All the patients who were operated on for LOPR were included as the study population and their records were studied. Perioperative outcomes, Boey score, Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), and physiologic and operative severity scores for enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) scores were calculated. All the data were tabulated in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and analyzed using Stata Version 8.x. (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Fourteen patients had LOPR out of a total of 45 patients operated for the PPU. Mean age was 46 years (range 22-87 years). Twelve patients (86%) had a Boey score of 0 and all patients had MPI < 21 (mean MPI = 14). The predicted POSSUM morbidity and mortality were 36% and 7%, respectively. Mean ulcer size was 5 mm (range 2-10 mm), mean operating time was 100 minutes (range 70-123 minutes) and mean length of hospital stay was 4 days (range 3-6 days). There was no morbidity or mortality pertaining to LOPR. LOPR should be offered by acute care surgical teams when local expertise is available. This can optimize patient outcomes when strict selection criteria are applied.

Risk factors associated with conversion of laparoscopic simple closure in perforated duodenal ulcer

BACKGROUND

Precise patient selection criteria are necessary to guide the surgeon in selecting laparoscopic repair for patients with perforated peptic ulcers. The aims of this study are to report surgical outcomes after surgery for perforated duodenal ulcers and identify risk factors for predicting failure of laparoscopic simple closure for perforated duodenal ulcer.

METHODS

In total, 77 patients who underwent laparoscopic simple closure for perforated duodenal ulcers from January 2007 to September 2013 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into totally laparoscopic and conversion groups. The characteristics of patients, intraoperative findings, postoperative complications, conversion rates and suture leakage rates of each group were investigated.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic repair was completed in 69 (89.6%) of 77 patients, while 8 (10.4%) underwent conversion to open repair. Patients in the conversion group had longer perforation time, larger perforation size, more suture leakage, longer hospital stay, and higher 30-day mortality rate than those in the totally laparoscopic group. The size of perforation was the only risk factor for conversion in multivariable analysis. Patients with an ulcer perforation size of ≥9 mm or with perforation duration of ≥12.5 h had a significantly increased risk for conversion and suture leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

Ulcer size of ≥9 mm is a significant risk factor for predicting conversion in laparoscopic simple closure. Suture leakage is associated with ulcer size (9 mm) and duration of perforation (12.5 h).

Laparoscopic Surgery in Luminal Gastrointestinal Emergencies-a Review of Current Status

Laparoscopy has already established itself as the preferred surgical approach in a variety of elective surgical conditions. Along with its usual advantages of less tissue trauma and faster recovery, its diagnostic as well as therapeutic role is making it an attractive option in emergency surgery. In this paper, we have reviewed the current status of laparoscopic surgery in luminal gastrointestinal emergencies. Relevant papers were selected using Medline database from 2007 to the present. These were reviewed, and outcomes were stated under the headings of appendicitis, perforated peptic ulcer, colorectal emergencies and small bowel obstruction. The laparoscopic intervention was found to be of clear benefit in most of the patients with appendicitis. Its role, however, is not absolutely clear in managing perforated peptic ulcers. Laparoscopic lavage and drainage have been recommended in diverticular perforation with limited contamination. Small case series and studies have shown benefits of laparoscopic surgery in iatrogenic colonic perforations, colonic obstruction, emergency colectomy and small bowel obstruction. Laparoscopic surgery can be recommended in appendicitis and low-risk cases of perforated peptic ulcers. Its definitive role in other conditions needs more evidence. The surgeon's experience and careful patient selection are very important to improve the outcome.

Surgical complications after open and laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer in a nationwide cohort

BACKGROUND

Surgery for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is associated with a risk of complications. The frequency and severity of reoperative surgery is poorly described. The aims of the present study were to characterize the frequency, procedure-associated risk and mortality associated with reoperation after surgery for PPU.

METHODS

All patients treated surgically for PPU in Denmark between 2011 and 2013 were included. Baseline and clinical data, including 90-day mortality and detailed information on reoperative surgery, were collected from the Danish Clinical Register of Emergency Surgery. Distribution frequencies of reoperation stratified by type of surgical approach (laparoscopy or open) were reported. The crude and adjusted risk associations between surgical approach and reoperation were assessed by regression analysis and reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95 per cent c.i. Sensitivity analyses were carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 726 patients were included, of whom 238 (32·8 per cent) were treated laparoscopically and 178 (24·5 per cent) had a laparoscopic procedure converted to laparotomy. Overall, 124 (17·1 per cent) of 726 patients underwent reoperation. A persistent leak was the most frequent cause (43 patients, 5·9 per cent), followed by wound dehiscence (34, 4·7 per cent). The crude risk of reoperative surgery was higher in patients who underwent laparotomy and those with procedures converted to open surgery than in patients who had laparoscopic repair: OR 1·98 (95 per cent c.i. 1·19 to 3·27) and 2·36 (1·37 to 4·08) respectively. The difference was confirmed when adjusted for age, surgical delay, co-morbidity and American Society of Anesthesiologists fitness grade. However, the intention-to-treat sensitivity analysis (laparoscopy including conversions) demonstrated no significant difference in risk. The risk of death within 90 days was greater in patients who had reoperation: crude and adjusted OR 1·53 (1·00 to 2·34) and 1·06 (0·65 to 1·72) respectively.

CONCLUSION

Reoperation was necessary in almost one in every five patients operated on for PPU. Laparoscopy was associated with lower risk of reoperation than laparotomy or a converted procedure. However, there was a risk of bias, including confounding by indication.

Conversion of laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer: a single-center study

PURPOSE

A perforated peptic ulcer can be managed laparoscopically in selected patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether conversion of emergency laparoscopy is inferior to primary median laparotomy in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

We analyzed patients who underwent laparoscopic or open surgery for a perforated peptic ulcer at the Department of Surgery, University of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck between January, 1996 and December, 2010. Perforations were graded according to the Boey classification, a preoperative risk-scoring system.

RESULTS

Conversion to laparotomy was necessary in 20 of the 45 patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery (CG); therefore, laparoscopic operations were completed in 25 patients (LG). The third patient cohort comprised 139 patients who underwent primary laparotomy (OG). Overall minor morbidity was significantly lower (p = 0.048) in the LG patients than in the OG patients, whereas no significant differences were found in major morbidity and mortality, particularly between the OG and CG.

CONCLUSION

Patients' suitability for laparoscopic management should be decided on according to Boey's clinical scoring system. Our findings demonstrated that conversion from laparoscopy to laparotomy was not associated with elevated postoperative morbidity or mortality versus initial laparotomy. Therefore, emergency operations may be commenced laparoscopically in selected patients, especially considering the postoperative advantages of this approach.

Laparoscopic closure of perforated gastro-duodenal ulcer: 15 years' experience in our centre

Introduction

The objective of the study is to share the results and development findings on the laparoscopic closure technique applied in our centre during a 15-year period (1998–2012).

Aim

To compare statistically the standard parameters (hospitalization, duration of operation) versus conventional surgery, and at the same time we compared mainly morbidity and mortality.

Material and methods

During the period under review we operated on a total of 259 patients, 115 (44.4%) of them laparoscopically, and 144 (55.6%) of them conventionally. The sample was divided into two groups: patients with ASA physical status classification system 1–3, and patients with ASA 4–5.

Results

The results favour laparoscopy within the group with ASA 1–3 in terms of several parameters, namely: duration of hospitalization – 7.7 days in the case of laparoscopic intervention, vs. 10.6 days for conventional surgery (p < 0.05); and duration of operation – 61 min vs. 85.1 min respectively (p < 0.05). Total morbidity was 27.5% in the case of patients with conventional surgery, vs. 10.9% with laparoscopic intervention (p < 0.05). The sample of patients with ASA 4–5 suffered a high mortality of 82.7%.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic closure of perforated ulcer is a safe therapeutic method, as confirmed by the results of many other studies around the world, which in many aspects favour the laparoscopic technique.

Five year experience in management of perforated peptic ulcer and validation of common mortality risk prediction models - are existing models sufficient? A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Accurate and early risk stratification is important. The primary aim of this study is to validate the various existing MRPMs and secondary aim is to audit our experience of managing PPU.

METHODS

332 patients who underwent emergency surgery for PPU at a single intuition from January 2008 to December 2012 were studied. Clinical and operative details were collected. Four MRPMs: American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score, Boey's score, Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI) and Peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score were validated.

RESULTS

Median age was 54.7 years (range 17-109 years) with male predominance (82.5%). 61.7% presented within 24 h of onset of abdominal pain. Median length of stay was 7 days (range 2-137 days). Intra-abdominal collection, leakage, re-operation and 30-day mortality rates were 8.1%, 2.1%, 1.2% and 7.2% respectively. All the four MRPMs predicted intra-abdominal collection and mortality; however, only MPI predicted leak (p = 0.01) and re-operation (p = 0.02) rates. The area under curve for predicting mortality was 75%, 72%, 77.2% and 75% for ASA score, Boey's score, MPI and PULP score respectively.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Emergency surgery for PPU has low morbidity and mortality in our experience. MPI is the only scoring system which predicts all - intra-abdominal collection, leak, reoperation and mortality. All four MRPMs had a similar and fair accuracy to predict mortality, however due to geographic and demographic diversity and inherent weaknesses of exiting MRPMs, quest for development of an ideal model should continue.

Cost-efficiency and outcomes in the treatment of perforated peptic ulcer disease: laparoscopic versus open approach

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer disease (perfPUD) has demonstrated comparable operative outcomes with an open approach though the cost-efficiency of this method has not been studied.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2007-2010). Patients who underwent operation for perfPUD were divided on the basis of laparoscopic or open approach. The primary outcome measures were hospital duration of stay, mortality, and total charges.

RESULTS

A total of 5,361 patients with perfPUD were identified: 5,219 in the open group and 142 in the laparoscopic group. Patients in the laparoscopic group were younger (50.5 vs 60.0, P < .001) and had a lesser incidence at presentation of sepsis (8.5 vs 14.8%, P = .034) and shock (2.1 vs 7.7%, P = .012). On univariate analysis, the laparoscopic group had decreased duration of stay (7.0 vs 8.0 days, P < .001), lesser rates of mortality (3.5 vs 8.1%, P = .048), and were discharged to home more frequently (79.6 vs 68.1%, P = .025). Mean total charges were less in the laparoscopic group ($44,095 vs $52,055, P = .019). Multivariate analyses failed to show a difference between groups for any of the outcome variables.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic treatment of perfPUD is associated with equivalent costs and outcomes compared with the open technique when we corrected for presentation variables.

Gastrointestinal tract perforation: evaluation of MDCT according to perforation site and elapsed time

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for the prediction of perforation site according to each gastrointestinal (GI) tract site and elapsed time.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-eight patients who underwent MDCT before laparotomy for GI tract perforation were enrolled and allocated to an early or late lapse group based on an elapsed time of 7 h. Two reviewers independently evaluated the perforation site and assessed the following CT findings: free air location, mottled extraluminal air bubbles, focal bowel wall discontinuity, segmental bowel wall thickening, perivisceral fat stranding and localised fluid collection.

RESULTS

The overall diagnostic accuracy was 91.07 % and 91.67 % for reviewers 1 and 2, respectively, with excellent agreement (kappa 0.86). Accuracies (98.97 % and 97.94 %) and agreements (kappa 0.894) for stomach and duodenum perforation were higher than for other perforation sites. Strong predictors of perforation at each site were: focal bowel wall discontinuity for stomach, duodenal bulb and left colon, mottled extraluminal air bubbles for retroperitoneal duodenum and right colon, and segmental bowel wall thickening for small bowel. The diagnostic accuracy was not different between the early- and late-lapse groups.

CONCLUSIONS

MDCT can accurately predict upper GI tract perforation with high reliability. Elapsed time did not affect the accuracy of perforation site prediction.

KEY POINTS

Perforation of the stomach and duodenum can be accurately predicted with MDCT. Knowledge of CT findings predicting perforation site can improve diagnostic accuracy. Elapsed time does not significantly affect accuracy in predicting perforation sites.

The growing role of laparoscopic repair in patients with early diagnosed peptic ulcer perforation

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopy is gaining more importance in emergency abdominal surgery. Peptic ulcer perforation (PUP) constitutes a significant portion of surgical emergencies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methods and results of patients who underwent surgery due to PUP in our department.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients who were admitted to the hospital in the early period and received Graham-patch (GP) repair due to PUP from January 2009 to January 2013 were divided into two groups as laparoscopic (group L) or open (group O) surgery. Demographic data of the patients, duration of the operation, conversion to open surgery, length of hospital stay, secondary interventions, re-admissions, morbidity and mortality rates were retrospectively evaluated. Patients with conversion to open surgery were included in Group O.

RESULTS

Two hundred and nineteen patients were included in the study, 148 of which were in Group O (including the 47 patients with conversion), and 71 in group L. In patients with early admission, the rate of laparoscopically completed GP was 19.6% in the first year of the study, whereas this rate was 61.8% in the fourth year (p<0.001). The rate of conversion to open surgery was 50% in 2009, and 24.4% in 2012 (p=0.028). Length of hospital stay was shorter in group L (p=0.35). The complication rate was 4.2% in patients who had laparoscopic procedures, and was 6.1% in patients who underwent open surgery (p=0.57). Seventy-three percent (n=11) of re-hospitalized patients in the perioperative period (n=15) were treated conservatively. When costs related to secondary interventions and re-hospitalization were included, there was no significant difference between laparoscopic and open surgery groups in terms of cost (p=0.06).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery for PUP is a reliable method and has been used increasingly over the years in our department. The operative time is longer, the length of hospital stay is shorter, the complication rates are less than open surgery, and the conversion rate is significantly reduced. Laparoscopic GP is feasible in early-admitted patients with PUP, due to the above-mentioned advantages. We believe the rate of conversion to open surgery decreases with increasing experience in laparoscopy.

Strategies to improve the outcome of emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a common surgical emergency that carries high mortality and morbidity rates. Globally, one-quarter of a million people die from peptic ulcer disease each year. Strategies to improve outcomes are needed.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for evidence related to the surgical treatment of patients with PPU. The clinical registries of trials were examined for other available or ongoing studies. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and meta-analyses were preferred.

RESULTS

Deaths from peptic ulcer disease eclipse those of several other common emergencies. The reported incidence of PPU is 3.8-14 per 100,000 and the mortality rate is 10-25 per cent. The possibility of non-operative management has been assessed in one small RCT of 83 patients, with success in 29 (73 per cent) of 40, and only in patients aged less than 70 years. Adherence to a perioperative sepsis protocol decreased mortality in a cohort study, with a relative risk (RR) reduction of 0.63 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.41 to 0.97). Based on meta-analysis of three RCTs (315 patients), laparoscopic and open surgery for PPU are equivalent, but patient selection remains a challenge. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori after surgical repair of PPI reduces both the short-term (RR 2.97, 95 per cent c.i. 1.06 to 8.29) and 1-year (RR 1.49, 1.10 to 2.03) risk of ulcer recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Mortality and morbidity from PPU can be reduced by adherence to perioperative strategies.

Systematic review of emergency laparoscopic colorectal resection

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery (LS) has become standard practice for a range of elective general surgical operations. Its role in emergency general surgery is gaining momentum. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of LS compared with open surgery (OS) for colorectal resections in the emergency setting.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of studies reporting outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal resections in the acute or emergency setting in patients aged over 18 years, between January 1966 and January 2013.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included, providing outcomes for 5557 patients: 932 laparoscopic and 4625 open emergency resections. Median (range) operating time was 184 (63-444) min for LS versus 148 (61-231) min for OS. Median (range) length of stay was 10 (3-23) and 15 (6-33) days in the LS and OS groups respectively. The overall median (range) complication rate was 27.8 (0-33.3) and 48.3 (9-72) per cent respectively. There were insufficient data to detect differences in reoperation and readmission rates.

CONCLUSION

Emergency laparoscopic colorectal resection, where technically feasible, has better short-term outcomes than open resection.

Laparoscopic versus open management of duodenal perforation: a comparative study at a District General Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Duodenal perforation is one of the common pathologies in patients presenting in emergency with acute abdominal pain in an emergency ward and requires prompt surgery as life saving and curative intervention. The present study was conducted to determine whether the minimal access approach by laparoscopy was equally feasible as the open method.

AIM

To compare laparoscopic vs. open management duodenal perforation in all aspects.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

INCLUSION CRITERIA

patients presenting to the emergency ward with acute pain in the abdomen with clinical signs of peritonitis and air under the diaphragm on X-ray abdomen standing were selected. Exclusion criteria were: patient age < 15 years and > 70 years, presentation > 2 days, shock with systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg which did not improve after hydration with 2000 ml of Ringer lactate solution, respiratory distress, history of cardiac disorder or respiratory disorders such as ischemic heart disease, arrhythmias, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma, bleeding and clotting disorders, pregnancy in females, previous upper abdominal surgery, and intra-operatively patients having perforation other than duodenal perforation. After excluding patients fitting the above criteria, two groups - test and control - were formed.

RESULTS

We found that complications both early and late were significantly fewer in patients treated by laparoscopy. Thus laparoscopy was both feasible and had comparable mortality and leakage rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic management of perforated duodenal ulcer is feasible, effective and decreases morbidity and overall treatment time and cost if performed in properly selected patients.

Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcer: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers remains a common indication for emergent surgery. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the laparoscopic approach (LA) would be associated with reduced length of stay compared to the open approach.

METHODS

Patients with acute, perforated gastroduodenal ulcer were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, of whom 50 had the LA. One-to-one case/control matching on the basis of age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, gender, and cardiac disease was evaluated for outcome analysis.

RESULTS

After matching, the 2 groups had similar characteristics. The rates of wound complications, organ space infections, prolonged ventilation, postoperative sepsis, return to the operating room, and mortality tended to be lower for the LA, although not significantly. Length of hospital stay was, however, significantly shorter for the LA by an average of 5.4 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The LA appears to be safe in mild to moderately ill patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease and is associated with reduced use of hospital resources.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer

A meta-analysis of four randomized trials comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated ulcer did not demonstrate significant superiority of the laparoscopic or open approach.

Background and Objectives:

Laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) has been introduced as an alternative procedure to open surgery. It has been postulated that the minimally invasive approach involves less operative stress and results in decreased morbidity and mortality.

Methods:

We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials to test this hypothesis. Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Trials databases were searched, with no date or language restrictions.

Results:

Our literature search identified 4 randomized trials, with a cumulative number of 289 patients, that compared the laparoscopic approach with open sutured repair of perforated ulcer. Analysis of outcomes did not favor either approach in terms of morbidity, mortality, and reoperation rate, although odds ratios seemed to consistently support the laparoscopic approach. Results did not determine the comparative efficiency and safety of laparoscopic or open approach for PPU.

Conclusion:

In view of an increased interest in the laparoscopic approach, further randomized trials are considered essential to determine the relative effectiveness of laparoscopic and open repair of PPU.

Laparoscopic repair of a large duodenal perforation secondary to an indwelling nasogastric tube in a tracheotomized adult

Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers is safe and effective in centers with experience and increasingly performed by laparoscopic surgeons. However, the role of laparoscopy for the management of large duodenal perforations (>1 cm) is unclear. To date, no experience has been reported with emergency laparoscopic repair of large perforations for gastroduodenal ulcers. The commonest reason for conversion to open surgery is a perforation size of more than 1 cm. This paper reports a case of a large duodenal perforation due to a nasogastric tube in a 26-year-old male who had undergone a tracheostomy, following a cut-throat injury. This large perforation was successfully diagnosed and repaired laparoscopically. This is probably the first paper in the English literature to report duodenal perforation due to a nasogastric tube in an adult and also the first report of a successful laparoscopic repair of a large duodenal perforation.

Peritonitis from perforated peptic ulcer and immune response

BACKGROUND

Elevated intra-abdominal pressure during the laparoscopy may promote bacteremia, endotoxemia, and systemic inflammatory response. In patients with generalized peritonitis from perforated peptic ulcer (PPU), we sought to compare acute phase response, immunologic status, and bacterial translocation from laparoscopic and open approach.

STUDY DESIGN

From July 2005 to September 2011, 115 consecutive patients underwent peptic ulcer repair for PPU: 58 cases laparoscopic peptic ulcer repair (LR) and 57 cases open peptic ulcer repair (OR). Bacteremia, endotoxemia, white blood cells population, human leukocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR), neutrophil-elastase, interleukin-1 and 6 (IL-1 and IL-6), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were investigated.

RESULTS

Patients characteristics and grade of peritoneal contamination were similar in the two groups. One hour after intervention, bacteremia was significantly higher in the "open" group than in the laparoscopic group (p < .001). A significantly higher concentration of systemic endotoxin was detected intraoperatively in the "open" group of patients in comparison to the laparoscopic group (p < .0001). Laparotomy caused a significant increase in neutrophil concentration, neutrophil-elastase, IL-1 and IL-6, CRP, and decrease of HLA-DR. We recorded six cases (10.3%) of intra-abdominal abscess in the "open" group and one (1.7%) in laparoscopic group (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

OR, in case of peritonitis after PPU, increased the incidence of bacteremia, endotoxemia, and systemic inflammation compared with LR. Early enhanced postoperative systemic inflammation may cause lower transient immunologic defense after laparotomy (decrease of HLA-DR), leading to enhanced sepsis in these patients.

Emergent laparoscopy in treatment of perforated peptic ulcer: a local experience from a tertiary centre in Saudi Arabia

Background/ purpose

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is still an existing disease that occurs frequently in the 21st century despite of the wide availability of antiulcer medication and Helicobacter eradication. The current study aimed to evaluate the hypothesis that its outcome might be improved by using the laparoscopy. The outcome of treatment in terms of complications, mortality and hospital stay with relevant to laparoscopy was analyzed.

Patients and methods

This prospective descriptive study was carried on the period of 3 years from July 2009 till July 2012. All patients with acute abdominal pain that was clinically diagnosed as having perforated peptic ulcer were included. Excluded from this study were those patients with concomitant bleeding from the ulcer and evidence of gastric outlet obstructions. Also excluded were those with evidence of large perforation more than 10 mm and patients with symptoms of more than 36 h durations for fear of septic shock.

Results

Forty seven patients were studied out of a total 53 PPU patients; they were 41 males and 6 females with the male to female ratio of 6.8:1. Their age ranged from 19 to 55 years with the mean age of 39.5 ± 8.6 years. Forty five patients were successfully treated by laparoscopy while only 2 cases that were early presented with signs of hypovolumic shock were converted into laparotomy due to severe bleeding. The mean hospital stay was 75 ± 12.6 h. Post operative complications included death of one patient in the postoperative period at the Intensive care unit (ICU) plus post operative fever in the 2 patients who underwent laparotomy and it was amenable to treatment.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic repair of a perforated peptic ulcer is an amenable and feasible technique within the hands of experienced laparoscopic surgeon when the cases are early and properly diagnosed.

Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer is a common abdominal disease that is treated by surgery. The development of laparoscopic surgery has changed the way to treat such abdominal surgical emergencies. The results of some clinical trials suggest that laparoscopic surgery could be a better strategy than open surgery in the correction of perforated peptic ulcer but the evidence is not strongly in favour for or against this intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the effect of laparoscopic surgical treatment versus open surgical treatment in patients with a diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer in relation to abdominal septic complications, surgical wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, hospital length of stay and direct costs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (2004, Issue 2), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004), EMBASE (1985 to November 2004) and LILACS (1988 to November 2004) as well as the reference lists of relevant articles. Searches in all databases were updated in December 2009 and January 2012. We did not confine our search to English language publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for the repair of perforated peptic ulcer using any mechanical method of closure (suture, omental patch or fibrin sealant).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Primary outcome measures included proportion of septic and other abdominal complications (surgical site infection, suture leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus) and extra-abdominal complications (pulmonary). Secondary outcomes included mortality, time to return to normal diet, time of nasogastric aspiration, hospital length-of-stay and costs. Outcomes were summarized by reporting odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three randomized clinical trials of acceptable quality. We found no statistically significant differences between laparoscopic and open surgery in the proportion of abdominal septic complications (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.47), pulmonary complications (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.12) or number of septic abdominal complications (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.15). Heterogeneity was significant for pulmonary complications and operating time.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that a decrease in septic abdominal complications may exist when laparoscopic surgery is used to correct perforated peptic ulcer. However, it is necessary to perform more randomized controlled trials with a greater number of patients to confirm such an assumption, guaranteeing a long learning curve for participating surgeons. With the information provided it could be said that laparoscopic surgery results are not clinically different from those of open surgery.

Laparoscopic Peptic Ulcer Perforation Closure: the Preferred Choice

Peptic ulcer perforation is a common life-threatening emergency needing immediate intervention. Laparoscopic closure of perforation is now widely practiced over conventional open closure. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic peptic ulcer perforation closure with conventional open closure in terms of operative time, postoperative analgesia, complications, hospital stay, and return to routine activities. This unicentric, nonblinded, prospective, randomized study was carried out in 50 patients with peptic ulcer perforation who were randomly allocated to undergo either laparoscopic closure or open closure surgery with 25 patients in each group. The mean operative time (60 vs 90 min) was less in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.05). Postoperative analgesia requirements (1 vs 6 days) were also less in laparoscopic patients (p < 0.05). Complications (nil vs 6; p < 0.05) and hospital stay (3 vs 8 days) were less in laparoscopic patients (p < 0.05). Patients return to normal activities (5 vs 10 days; p < 0.05) earlier in laparoscopic perforation closure than in open closure. Our study has shown better outcomes and lesser morbidities with laparoscopic approach in terms of shorter operative time, shorter hospital stay, less analgesic requirements, and less wound infections. Patients also return to routine activities earlier with the laparoscopic approach. It is a safe alternative to open surgery and should be a preferred choice when there are no contraindications to laparoscopy.

Epidemiology of perforated peptic ulcer: Age- and gender-adjusted analysis of incidence and mortality

AIM: To investigate the epidemiological trends in incidence and mortality of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) in a well-defined Norwegian population.

METHODS: A retrospective, population-based, single-center, consecutive cohort study of all patients diagnosed with benign perforated peptic ulcer. Included were both gastric and duodenal ulcer patients admitted to Stavanger University Hospital between January 2001 and December 2010. Ulcers with a malignant neoplasia diagnosis, verified by histology after biopsy or resection, were excluded. Patients were identified from the hospitals administrative electronic database using pertinent ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes (K25.1, K25.2, K25.5, K25.6, K26.1, K26.2, K26.5, K26.6). Additional searches using appropriate codes for relevant laparoscopic and open surgical procedures (e.g., JDA 60, JDA 61, JDH 70 and JDH 71) were performed to enable a complete identification of all patients. Patient demographics, presentation patterns and clinical data were retrieved from hospital records and surgical notes. Crude and adjusted incidence and mortality rates were estimated by using national population demographics data.

RESULTS: In the study period, a total of 172 patients with PPU were identified. The adjusted incidence rate for the overall 10-year period was 6.5 per 100 000 per year (95%CI: 5.6-7.6) and the adjusted mortality rate for the overall 10-year period was 1.1 per 100 000 per year (95%CI: 0.7-1.6). A non-significant decline in adjusted incidence rate from 9.7 to 5.6 occurred during the decade. The standardized mortality ratio for the whole study period was 5.7 (95%CI: 3.9-8.2), while the total 30-d mortality was 16.3%. No difference in incidence or mortality was found between genders. However, for patients ≥ 60 years, the incidence increased over 10-fold, and mortality more than 50-fold, compared to younger ages. The admission rates outside office hours were high with almost two out of three (63%) admissions seen at evening/night time shifts and/or during weekends. The observed seasonal variations in admissions were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION: The adjusted incidence rate, seasonal distribution and mortality rate was stable. PPU frequently presents outside regular work-hours. Increase in incidence and mortality occurs with older age.

[A comparison of laparoscopic versus open repair for the surgical treatment of perforated peptic ulcers]

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcers (PPU).

METHODS

All patients undergoing PPU repair between January 2002 and March 2012 were included in the study. Demographic characteristics, operation time, complications, and length of hospital stay were evaluated.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twelve patients (median age, 49 years) were included, 60 in the laparoscopic group and 52 in the open group. Patients operated laparoscopically were significantly younger and had a higher consumption of tobacco, alcohol and cannabis. Median acute symptoms time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6h) compared to the open group (12h; P=.025) Symptoms time was shorter in the laparoscopic group. Median operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (104.5min vs. 76min, P=.025). The percentage of conversion to open repair was 25%. There was no difference in morbidity between 2 groups, but there were 3 deaths in the open group. Median hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients treated laparoscopically when compared with the open group (6 days vs. 8 days; P=.041).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic and open repair are equally safe in the management of PPU. A shorter hospital stay can be achieved in the laparoscopic group.

2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Despite advances in diagnosis, surgery, and antimicrobial therapy, mortality rates associated with complicated intra-abdominal infections remain exceedingly high.The 2013 update of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for the management of intra-abdominal infections contains evidence-based recommendations for management of patients with intra-abdominal infections.

[Use of multidetector computed tomography for locating the site of gastrointestinal tract perforations]

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) for locating the site of gastrointestinal tract perforations and to determine the most predictive signs in this diagnosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 98 patients with pneumoperitoneum on MDCT were retrospectively analysed. Two experienced radiologists reviewed the presence or absence of direct signs (extravasation of oral contrast, focal defect in the bowel wall, focal defect with multiplanar reformations images) and indirect signs (free air in supramesocolic, inframesocolic, supramesocolic and inframesocolic compartments, concentration of extraluminal air bubbles adjacent to the bowel wall, extraluminal fluid, segmental bowel-wall thickening, perivisceral fat stranding, abscess) to identify the site of the perforation. The Kappa index was evaluated between radiologists to determine the site of perforation and for each predictive sign, as well as Kappa index between the site of perforation detected with MDCT and the site proven at surgery. The frequency, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV, respectively) were calculated.

RESULTS

The perforation site was identified correctly in 80.4% of cases. Kappa index between radiologists to identify the site was excellent (0.919), varying between 0.5-1.0 for each radiological sign. The most frequent site of perforation at surgery (33.7%) and in MDCT (40.82%) was the sigmoid colon/rectum. Concentration of extraluminal air bubbles adjacent to the bowel wall was the most sensitive (91%) sign and "segmental bowel-wall thickening" had the highest PPV (90%).

CONCLUSION

MDCT is useful for locating the site of GI perforation, with a high sensitivity (80%) and an excellent agreement between radiologists.

Laparoscopic approach to acute abdomen from the Consensus Development Conference of the Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica e nuove tecnologie (SICE), Associazione Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani (ACOI), Società Italiana di Chirurgia (SIC), Società Italiana di Chirurgia d'Urgenza e del Trauma (SICUT), Società Italiana di Chirurgia nell'Ospedalità Privata (SICOP), and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

BACKGROUND

In January 2010, the SICE (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery), under the auspices of the EAES, decided to revisit the clinical recommendations for the role of laparoscopy in abdominal emergencies in adults, with the primary intent being to update the 2006 EAES indications and supplement the existing guidelines on specific diseases.

METHODS

Other Italian surgical societies were invited into the Consensus to form a panel of 12 expert surgeons. In order to get a multidisciplinary panel, other stakeholders involved in abdominal emergencies were invited along with a patient's association. In November 2010, the panel met in Rome to discuss each chapter according to the Delphi method, producing key statements with a grade of recommendations followed by commentary to explain the rationale and the level of evidence behind the statements. Thereafter, the statements were presented to the Annual Congress of the EAES in June 2011.

RESULTS

A thorough literature review was necessary to assess whether the recommendations issued in 2006 are still current. In many cases new studies allowed us to better clarify some issues (such as for diverticulitis, small bowel obstruction, pancreatitis, hernias, trauma), to confirm the key role of laparoscopy (such as for cholecystitis, gynecological disorders, nonspecific abdominal pain, appendicitis), but occasionally previous strong recommendations have to be challenged after review of recent research (such as for perforated peptic ulcer).

CONCLUSIONS

Every surgeon has to develop his or her own approach, taking into account the clinical situation, her/his proficiency (and the experience of the team) with the various techniques, and the specific organizational setting in which she/he is working. This guideline has been developed bearing in mind that every surgeon could use the data reported to support her/his judgment.

Open versus laparoscopic pyloromyotomy for hypertrophic pyloric stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on major complications

Background

There is an ongoing debate about whether laparoscopic pyloromyotomy (LP) or open pyloromyotomy (OP) is the best option for treating hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (HPS). The aim of this study was to compare the results of both surgical strategies by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature.

Methods

A systematic search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing OP and LP was conducted. Studies were reviewed independently for quality, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and outcomes. Primary outcome was major postoperative complications (i.e., incomplete pyloromyotomy, perforation, and need for reoperation). Secondary outcomes were time to full feed, postoperative hospital stay, and any other postoperative complications.

Results

Four RCTs with a total of 502 patients (OP 255, LP 247) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review. These trials showed an absolute incidence of major postoperative complications of 4.9% in the LP group. Meta-analysis showed that LP did not lead to significantly more major postoperative complications (ARR 3%, 95% CI −3 to 8%) than OP. The mean difference in time to full feed was significant (2.27 h, 95% CI −4.26 to −0.29 h) and the mean difference in postoperative hospital stay tended to be shorter (2.41 h, 95% CI −6.10 to 1.28 h), both in favor of LP.

Conclusion

So far, the major postoperative complication rate after LP for HPS is not substantially higher than after OP. Because time to full feed and postoperative hospital stay are at best a few hours shorter after LP than after OP, the laparoscopic technique might be acknowledged as the standard of care if the major postoperative complication rate is low. Hence, this laparoscopic procedure should preferably be performed in centers with pediatric surgeons with expertise in this procedure.

The accuracy of 64-slice MDCT for determining the perforation site of the gastrointestinal tract: ROC analysis

PURPOSE

This study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 64-slice multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) for preoperatively detecting the perforation site in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) tract perforations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 49 patients with pathologically proven GI tract perforations, who had undergone MDCT were included in this study. The contrast-enhanced axial images (3 mm thick) and multiplanar reformation (MPR) images (3 mm thick) were generated for all the patients. Two radiologists independently reviewed the two sets of MDCT images (axial set: the axial images alone, and combined set: the axial and MPR images) for the detection of the perforation site. The perforation site was considered to be positive according to the direct and indirect findings. The diagnostic accuracy was assessed with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Weighted kappa statistics were used to evaluate the interobserver agreement.

RESULTS

The corresponding values in respect of the first and the second observers for the areas under the ROC curve were 0.984 and 0.966 for the axial set; and 0.998 and 0.973 for the combined set. The differences were not statistically significant between the two data sets for each observer (P > 0.05). Both the observers detected the perforation site in 43 (87.8%) and 40 (81.6%) patients on the axial set, and in 46 (93.9%) and 41 (83.7%) patients on the combined set, respectively. The kappa values between the two observers showed excellent agreement with the two data sets.

CONCLUSION

64-slice MDCT showed a consistently excellent diagnostic performance for preoperatively determining the perforation site in patients with GI tract perforations, irrespective of the availability of the MPR images.

Management of perforated peptic ulcer in a district general hospital

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic surgery has become increasingly popular for elective surgery but it has gained slow transference to emergency surgery. The management of perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) laparoscopically is an accepted strategy yet it still remains infrequently used. The purpose of this study was to analyse the utility and outcomes of laparoscopy versus open repair for PPU in a district general hospital. In addition, we evaluated whether the subspecialty of the on-call consultant affected the method of repair performed and the training opportunities for trainee surgeons.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2009, 53 patients underwent laparoscopic repair, 89 patients underwent open repair and a further 20 patients had laparoscopic repair that was converted to open repair for PPU. The results from a prospectively compiled database were analysed with primary outcome measures including operative time, length of hospital stay and mortality.

RESULTS

The median operating time in the laparoscopic group was 60.0 minutes compared with 50.5 minutes in the open group. Hospital stay in surviving patients was significantly shorter in patients treated completely laparoscopically (5 days) when compared with the open group (6 days) ( p <0.01). There were six deaths in the laparoscopic group (11%) compared with 13 in the open group (15%) and one in the converted group (5%). Trainees performed 53% (47/89) of open repairs and 13% (7/54) of laparoscopic repairs.

CONCLUSIONS

Both laparoscopic and open repair are equally safe in the management of PPU. Our findings support the view that this procedure can be successfully used as a training operation.

Transumbilical single-access laparoscopic perforated gastric ulcer repair

INTRODUCTION

In patients presenting with peritonitis, laparoscopy offers the possibility of diagnosis as well as treatment, with less abdominal trauma, reduced postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stay.

CASE REPORT

A 30-year-old woman, presenting with diffuse abdominal pain and free pneumoperitoneum, was submitted to transumbilical single-access laparoscopy. The procedure was performed using a standard 11-mm reusable trocar in the umbilicus and curved reusable instruments inserted transumbilically without trocars. The cavity exploration showed a perforated gastric ulcer at the anterior surface of the prepyloric area. A gastric suture repair, omentoplasty, and lavage of the cavity were performed.

RESULTS

The umbilical incision was 15 mm and laparoscopy lasted 86 minutes. Use of painkillers was minimal, and the patient was discharged on the fifth postoperative day. After 6 months, the umbilical scar was no visible.

CONCLUSIONS

Transumbilical single-access laparoscopy can be proposed in selected patients presenting perforated gastric ulcer, with the main advantage of improved cosmetic results.

Changes in the localization of perforated peptic ulcer and its relation to gender and age of the patients throughout the last 45 years

Background

Throughout recent decades there has been noticeable change in the incidence of peptic ulcer disease and its complications. The aim of the present study was to determine the character of changes over the last 45 years in the localization of perforation, in patient age, and in patient gender.

Methods

A group of 881 patients admitted to the Second Department of General Surgery in Krakow, Poland, from 1962 to 2006 were included in the study and constituted the material for the analysis. The study was divided into three time periods (1962–1976, 1977–1991, and 1992–2006) to allow statistical analysis of trends.

Results

The general incidence of perforations of peptic ulcer did not show changes; however, the percentage of women with perforated duodenal ulcer markedly increased. Patients with perforated stomach ulcer—regardless of gender—and females suffering from perforated duodenal ulcer were, on the average, about 10 years older than males with perforated duodenal ulcers. The mean age of male and female patients with perforated duodenal ulcer over the last 45 years showed an insignificant upward trend.

Conclusions

(1) The percentage of women with perforated duodenal ulcer continuously and statistically significantly rose. (2) Men with perforated duodenal ulcer were significantly younger than other patients. (3) The mean ages of male and female patients with perforated duodenal ulcer over the last 45 years showed an insignificant upward trend.