Community-based evaluation of laparoscopic versus open simple closure of perforated peptic ulcers

Surgical Management of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Comparative Meta-analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery

BACKGROUND

Despite the widescale success of proton pump inhibitors to reducing the incidence of peptic ulcer disease, perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remains a significant cause of severe complications and death. The implementation of open or surgical repair of PPU should be guided by reliable guidelines which are based on current systematic evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of laparoscopic and open repair of PPU.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on retrospective, prospective cohort studies, and randomized clinical trials. Duration of surgery and postoperative complications and death were collected from eligible studies, and the outcomes were pooled using mean differences (MD) or relative risks (RRs) for numerical and binary outcomes, respectively. The estimated variance was expressed as 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were included (8456 patients, 56.08% underwent open repair, 6 prospective studies, 7 randomized clinical trials, and 32 retrospective studies). Compared with open repair, laparoscopic surgeries were associated with longer operative times (MD=8.36, 95% CI, 0.49-16.22), shorter hospital stay (MD=-2.74, 95% CI, -3.70 to-1.79), a higher risk of suture leakage (RR=1.91, 95% CI, 1.04-3.49) and lower risks of mortality (RR=0.57, 95% CI, 0.47-0.70), septic shock (RR=0.69, 95% CI, 0.49-0.98), renal failure (RR=0.38, 95% CI, 0.18-0.79), and wound infection (RR=0.26, 95% CI, 0.19-0.37).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repair of PPU showed promising safety outcomes; however, future well-designed randomized studies are warranted to reduce the observed performance bias and possible selection bias in individual studies.

Variation in descriptors of patient characteristics in randomized clinical trials of peptic ulcer repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The ability to compare findings across surgical research is important. Inadequate description of participants, interventions or outcomes could lead to bias and inaccurate assessment of findings. The aim of this study was to assess consistency of description of participants using studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of peptic ulcer as an example.

METHODS

This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Searches of MEDLINE and Embase databases were performed to identify studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer in adults, published in the English language. Manuscripts were dual-screened for eligibility. Full texts were retrieved and dual-screened for inclusion. Data extracted from studies included descriptors of participants in studies from tables and text. Descriptors were categorized into conceptual domains by the research team, and coverage of each domain by study was tabulated.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2018 studies. After screening, 37 full texts were retrieved and 23 studies were included in the final synthesis. A total of 76 unique descriptors were identified. These were classified into demographics (11 descriptors), vital signs (9 descriptors), disease-specific characteristics (10 descriptors), presentation and pathway factors (4 descriptors), risk factors (8 descriptors), laboratory tests (14 descriptors) and baseline health (28 descriptors). The number of descriptors in a single study ranged from three to 31. All studies reported at least one demographic descriptor. Laboratory tests was the least frequently described domain.

CONCLUSION

Study participants are described inconsistently in studies of a single example surgical condition.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.