Perforated Peptic Ulcer Repair: Factors Predicting Conversion in Laparoscopy and Postoperative Septic Complications. World J Surg. 2016;40:2186-2193. [PMID: 27119515 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-016-3516-z]

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remain a surgical emergency accounting for 37% of all peptic ulcer-related deaths. Surgery remains the standard of care. The benefits of laparoscopic approach have been well-established even in the elderly. However, because of inconsistent results with specific regard to some technical aspects of such technique surgeons questioned the adoption of laparoscopic approach. This leads to choose the type of approach based on personal experience. The aim of our study was to critically appraise the use of the laparoscopic approach in PPU treatment comparing it with open procedure.

METHODS

A retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients underwent surgical procedure for PPU was performed. Patients undergoing PPU repair were divided into: Laparoscopic approach (LapA) and Open approach (OpenA) groups and clinical-pathological features of patients in the both groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 453 patients underwent PPU simple repair. Among these, a LapA was adopted in 49% (222/453 patients). After propensity score matching, 172 patients were included in each group (the LapA and the OpenA). Analysis demonstrated increased operative times in the OpenA [OpenA: 96.4 ± 37.2 vs LapA 88.47 ± 33 min, p = 0.035], with shorter overall length of stay in the LapA group [OpenA 13 ± 12 vs LapA 10.3 ± 11.4 days p = 0.038]. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality [OpenA 26 (15.1%) vs LapA 18 (10.5%), p = 0.258]. Focusing on morbidity, the overall rate of 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the LapA group [OpenA 67 patients (39.0%) vs LapA 37 patients (21.5%) p = 0.002]. When stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification, the severity of postoperative complications was statistically different only for C-D 1-2.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present study, we can support that laparoscopic suturing of perforated peptic ulcers, apart from being a safe technique, could provide significant advantages in terms of postoperative complications and hospital stay.

Outcomes of laparoscopic modified Cellan-Jones repair versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer at a community hospital

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive or open Graham Patch repair remains the gold standard approach for management of perforated peptic ulcers (PPU). Herein, we report outcomes of laparoscopic technique and compare it with open approach at a community hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study conducted comparing laparoscopic modified Cellan-Jones repair (mCJR) versus the standard open repair of PPU. Patients aged 18-90 years during 2016-2021 were offered either a minimally invasive or open approach depending on surgeon laparoscopic capability, and were compared in terms of demographics, co-morbidities, intra-operative details, and short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients were included (46.9% males, mean age 52.9 years, mean BMI 25.0, ASA ≥ III 75.5%, 75.5% smokers, 26.5% current NSAIDs use, and 71.4% alcohol drinkers). Duodenum was the most common perforation site (57.1%), and majority of ulcers were 1-2 cm (72.9%). Laparoscopic approach was performed in 16 consecutive patients (32.7%) by a single surgeon, with no conversions. Preoperative characteristics were similar for both groups. Compared to open approach, laparoscopic group were taken to operation immediately (< 4 h) (87.5% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001), had lower estimated blood loss (11.8 ml vs. 73.8 ml, p = 0.063), and longer operative time (117.1 min vs. 85.6 min, p = 0.010). Postoperatively, nasogastric tube was removed earlier in laparoscopic group (POD1-2, 87.5% vs. 24.2%, p = 0.001), with earlier resumption of diet (POD1-2, 62.6% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.002), less narcotic usage (< 3 days, 58.3% vs. 6.1%, p < 0.001), earlier return of bowel function (POD1-2, 43.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.003) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (3.7 days vs. 16.1 days, p < 0.001). Both in-house mortality and morbidity rates were lower in the laparoscopic group, but not statistically significant [(0% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.347) and (12.5% vs. 39.4%, p = 0.500), respectively].

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic mCJR is a feasible method for repair of PPU, and it is associated with shorter LOS, and less narcotics usage in comparison to the open repair approach.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open omental patch repair of perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

The mainstay of surgical management of perforated peptic ulcer is omental patch repair. Advances in minimally invasive techniques have shown feasibility of laparoscopic omental patch repair (LOPR). Laparoscopic omental patch repair is limited by learning curve (LC), but there is a lack of reporting of LC in LOPR. This study aims to compare outcomes following LOPR versus open omental patch repair (OOPR) with reporting of LC.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till January 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing LOPR and OOPR in perforated peptic ulcer. Exclusion criteria were primary repair without use of omental patch repair. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, postoperative leak, and LC analysis.

RESULTS

There were a total of 29 studies including 5,311 patients (LOPR, n = 1,687; OOPR, n = 3,624), with 4 RCTs with 238 patients (LOPR, n = 118; OOPR, n = 120). Majority of ulcers were located in the duodenum (57.0%) followed by stomach (30.7%). Mean ulcer size ranged from 5 to 16.2 mm in LOPR and 4.7 to 15.8 mm in OOPR. Laparoscopic omental patch repair was associated with lower 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.92; p = 0.02), overall morbidity (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18-0.53; p < 0.0001), surgical site infection (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.42; p < 0.00001), and length of stay (mean difference, -2.84 days; 95% CI, -3.63 to -2.06; p < 0.00001). Postoperative leakage (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.43-2.61; p = 0.90) was comparable between LOPR and OOPR. Only three studies analyzed the proportion of consultants to trainees; LOPR was performed mainly by consultants (range, 82.4-91.4%), while OOPR was mainly performed by trainees (range, 52.8-96.8%). One study showed that consultants who performed open conversion had shorter operating time compared with chief residents (85 vs. 186.6 minutes, p < 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic omental patch repair has lower mortality, overall morbidity, length of stay, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain compared with OOPR. More prospective studies should be conducted to evaluate LC in LOPR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Level IV.

Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcers: analysis of outcomes and identification of predictive factors of conversion

BACKGROUND

The surgical treatment for perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs) can be safely performed laparoscopically. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients who received different surgical approaches for PPU and to identify the predictive factors for conversion to open surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed patients treated for PPUs from 2002 to 2020. Three groups were identified: a complete laparoscopic surgery group (LG), a conversion to open group (CG), and a primary open group (OG). After univariate comparisons, a multivariate analysis was conducted to identify the predictive factors for conversion.

RESULTS

Of the 175 patients that underwent surgery for PPU, 104 (59.4%) received a laparoscopic-first approach, and 27 (25.9%) required a conversion to open surgery. Patients treated directly with an open approach were older (p < 0.0001), had more comorbidities (p < 0.0001), and more frequently had a previous laparotomy (p = 0.0001). In the OG group, in-hospital mortality and ICU need were significantly higher, while the postoperative stay was longer. Previous abdominal surgery (OR 0.086, 95% CI 0.012-0.626; p = 0.015), ulcer size (OR 0.045, 95% CI 0.010-0.210; p < 0.0001), and a posterior ulcer location (OR 0.015, 95% CI 0.001-0.400; p = 0.012) were predictive factors for conversion to an open approach.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the benefits of the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of PPUs. Previous laparotomies, a greater ulcer size, and a posterior location of the ulcer are risk factors for conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic repair.

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.

Does routine postoperative contrast radiography improve outcomes for patients with perforated peptic ulcer? A multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer is a morbid emergency general surgery condition. Best practices for postoperative care remain undefined. Surgical dogma preaches practices such as peritoneal drain placement, prolonged nil per os, and routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging despite a lack of evidence. We aimed to evaluate the role of postoperative enteral contrast imaging in postoperative perforated peptic ulcer care. Our primary objective was to assess effects of routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging on early detection of clinically significant leaks.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent repair of perforated peptic ulcer between July 2016 and June 2018. We compared outcomes between those who underwent routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging and those who did not.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 95 patients who underwent primary/omental patch repair. The mean age was 60 years, and 54% were male. Thirteen (14%) had a leak. Eighty percent of patients had a drain placed. Nine patients had leaks diagnosed based on bilious drain output without routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging. Use of routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging varied significantly between institutions (30%-87%). Two late leaks after initial normal postoperative enteral contrast imaging were confirmed by imaging after a clinical change triggered the second study. Two patients had contained leaks identified by routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging but remained clinically well. Duration of hospital stay was longer in those who received routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging (12 vs 6 days, median; P = .000).

CONCLUSION

Routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging after perforated peptic ulcer repair likely does not improve the detection of clinically significant leaks and is associated with increased duration of hospital stay.

Potential use of peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score as a conversion index of laparoscopic-perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) repair

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic repair is a well-accepted treatment modality for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). However, intraoperative conversion to laparotomy is still not uncommon. We aimed to identify preoperative factors strongly associated with conversion.

METHODS

A retrospective review of records of all PPU patients treated between January 2011 and July 2019 was performed. Patients were divided into three groups: laparoscopic repair (LR), conversion to laparotomy (CL), and primary laparotomy (PL). Patient demographics, operative findings, and outcomes were compared between the groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed, taking conversion as the outcome.

RESULTS

Of 822 patients, there were 236, 45, and 541 in the LR, CL, and PL groups, respectively. The conversion rate was 16%. Compared with those in the LR group, patients in the CL group were older (p < 0.001), had higher PULP scores (p < 0.001), had higher ASA scores (p < 0.001) and had hypertension (p = 0.003). PULP score was the only independent risk factor for conversion. The area under the curve (AUC) for the PULP score to predict conversion was 75.3%, with a best cut-off value of ≥ 4. The operative time was shorter for PL group patients than for CL group patients with PULP scores ≥ 4. For patients with PULP scores < 4, LR group patients had a shorter length of stay than PL group patients.

CONCLUSION

The PULP score may have utility in predicting and minimizing conversion for laparoscopic PPU repair. Laparoscopic repair is the procedure of choice for PPU patients with PULP scores < 4, while open surgery is recommended for those with PULP scores ≥ 4.

Perforated Peptic Ulcer Surgery: Decreased Length of Stay but No Difference in Mortality with Laparoscopic Repair

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) surgery mortality ranges 1% to 24%. We hypothesized a decrease in length of stay (LOS) with laparoscopic surgical repair (LSR) compared with open surgical repair (OSR).

METHODS

Patients undergoing PPU surgery 2005 to 2015 were identified in NSQIP. LSR was compared with OSR 2005 to 2015. LSR 2005 to 2010 was compared with 2011 to 2015. OSR 2005 to 2010 was compared with 2011 to 2015. The primary outcome was LOS. Secondary outcomes were mortality and morbidity.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2015, LSR had a decreased LOS, was more likely to wean from the ventilator, but had no significant difference in mortality compared with OSR. There was no significant difference in mortality for LSR or OSR over time.

CONCLUSIONS

When patients are appropriately selected, LSR for PPU is a viable alternative to OSR, decreasing LOS and pulmonary complications. This demonstrates significant benefit to patients and hospital throughput.

Over-the-scope-clip applications for perforated peptic ulcer

AIM

To investigate the effectiveness of over-the-scope-clip (OTSC)-based endoscopic closure in patients with perforated peptic ulcer (PPU).

METHODS

One hundred six patients diagnosed with PPU were treated with either OTSC (n = 26) or conservative treatments (n = 80), respectively. The outcome assessments included technical success rate, clinical success rate, post-treatment complications after 1 month, mortality rate, time to resume oral feeding, length of hospital stay, and the administration of antibiotics.

RESULTS

In the OTSC group, technical and clinical success was achieved in 100% of patients without any complications, including death, incomplete closure, duodenal obstruction, and gastrointestinal bleeding, with a median operation time of 10 min. All patients in the OTSC group were discharged, while the mortality rate in the control group was 13.8%. Subsequent surgeries were required in 30% of patients in the control group. The median times to resume oral feeding were 3.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.0-5.25) days in the OTSC group and 7.0 (IQR 5.0-9.0) days in the control group (p < 0.001). One month post-procedure, 30% (24/80) of patients in the control group and 0 (0/26) in the OTSC group required additional operations (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the length of the hospital stay and the administration of antibiotics between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

OTSC-based endoscopic technique, with a high clinical success rate and a shorter time to resume oral feeding, was effective in achieving closure of PPU with a diameter < 15 mm.

Long-term prognosis in patients continuing taking antithrombotics after peptic ulcer bleeding

AIM

To investigate the long-term prognosis in peptic ulcer patients continuing taking antithrombotics after ulcer bleeding, and to determine the risk factors that influence the prognosis.

METHODS

All clinical data of peptic ulcer patients treated from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2014 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Patients were divided into either a continuing group to continue taking antithrombotic drugs after ulcer bleeding or a discontinuing group to discontinue antithrombotic drugs. The primary outcome of follow-up in peptic ulcer bleeding patients was recurrent bleeding, and secondary outcome was death or acute cardiovascular disease occurrence. The final date of follow-up was December 31, 2014. Basic demographic data, complications, and disease classifications were analyzed and compared by t- or χ²-test. The number of patients that achieved various outcomes was counted and analyzed statistically. A survival curve was drawn using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the difference was compared using the log-rank test. COX regression multivariate analysis was applied to analyze risk factors for the prognosis of peptic ulcer patients.

RESULTS

A total of 167 patients were enrolled into this study. As for the baseline information, differences in age, smoking, alcohol abuse, and acute cardiovascular diseases were statistically significant between the continuing and discontinuing groups (70.8 ± 11.4 vs 62.4 ± 12.0, P < 0.001; 8 (8.2%) vs 15 (21.7%), P < 0.05; 65 (66.3%) vs 13 (18.8%), P < 0.001). At the end of the study, 18 patients had recurrent bleeding and three patients died or had acute cardiovascular disease in the continuing group, while four patients had recurrent bleeding and 15 patients died or had acute cardiovascular disease in the discontinuing group. The differences in these results were statistically significant (P = 0.022, P = 0.000). The Kaplan-Meier survival curve indicated that the incidence of recurrent bleeding was higher in patients in the continuing group, and the risk of death and developing acute cardiovascular disease was higher in patients in the discontinuing group (log-rank test, P = 0.000 for both). Furthermore, COX regression multivariate analysis revealed that the hazard ratio (HR) for recurrent bleeding was 2.986 (95%CI: 067-8.356, P = 0.015) in the continuing group, while HR for death or acute cardiovascular disease was 5.216 (95%CI: 1.035-26.278, P = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

After the occurrence of peptic ulcer bleeding, continuing antithrombotics increases the risk of recurrent bleeding events, while discontinuing antithrombotics would increase the risk of death and developing cardiovascular disease. This suggests that clinicians should comprehensively consider the use of antithrombotics after peptic ulcer bleeding.