Impact of Drain Insertion After Perforated Peptic Ulcer Repair in a Japanese Nationwide Database Analysis

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols following emergency intra-abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery improve postoperative outcomes as compared to conventional care.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, WoS, CENTRAL, and Pubmed were searched from inception to December 2022. Articles were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCT) or non-randomized studies comparing ERAS protocols to conventional care for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery. The outcomes included postoperative length of stay (LOS), postoperative morbidity, prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI), and readmission. An inverse variance random effects meta-analysis was performed. A risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane tools. Certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE.

RESULTS

After screening 1018 citations, 20 studies with 1615 patients in ERAS programs and 1933 patients receiving conventional care were included. There was a reduction in postoperative LOS in the ERAS group for patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery (MD3.35, 95% CI 2.52-4.17, p < 0.00001) and lower GI surgery (MD2.80, 95% CI 2.62-2.99, p < 0.00001). There was a reduction in postoperative morbidity in the ERAS group for patients undergoing upper GI surgery (RR0.56, 95% CI 0.30-1.02, p = 0.06) and lower GI surgery (RR 0.66, 95%CI 0.52-0.85, p = 0.001). In the upper and lower GI subgroup, there were nonsignificant reductions in PPOI in the ERAS groups (RR0.59, 95% CI 0.30-1.17, p = 0.13; RR0.49, 95% CI 0.21-1.14, p = 0.10). There was a nonsignificant increased risk of readmission in the ERAS group (RR1.60, 95% CI 0.57-4.50, p = 0.50).

CONCLUSION

There is low-to-very-low certainty evidence supporting the use ERAS protocols for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery. The currently available data are limited by imprecision.

Absence of abdominal drainage after surgery for secondary lower gastrointestinal tract peritonitis is a valid strategy

BACKGROUND

Management of abdominal drainage after surgery for secondary lower gastrointestinal tract peritonitis (LGTP) is not a standardized procedure. A monocentric study was carried out in 2016 in our centre. (PI study) to evaluate the interest of drainage. Our objective was to revaluate, our actual use of abdominal drainage after peritonitis (PII study).

STUDY DESIGN

We examined retrospectively patients who underwent surgery for secondary sub-mesocolic community-acquired peritonitis (January 2016-December 2019). Study exclusion criteria were primary peritonitis, peritoneal dialysis, nosocomial peritonitis, postoperative peritonitis, upper gastrointestinal tract peritonitis, peritonitis due to appendicitis, peritonitis requiring the implementation of Mikulicz's drain, and peritonitis in which the peritoneum was not described in the surgical report (i.e., the same criteria that the PI study which included 141 patients from January 2009 to January 2012). The primary endpoint was the rate of abdominal drainage. The secondary endpoints were the patient rate without a peritoneum description, major complications rate (Clavien ≥III), abscess rate, mortality rate and the length of stay in the non-drain group (D - ) and in the drain group (D + ) in PII study. Primary and secondary endpoints were also compared between PI and PII studies. Risk factors for post-operative abscess were also research.

RESULTS

Of the 150 patients included 33% were drained vs 84% of the 141 patients included in PI study (p < 0.001). In PII study peritoneum was described in 80.3% of patients vs 69% in PI study (NS, p = 0.06). Comparing the two groups D -  and D + , no significant differences were found in major complications (respectively 45% vs 32%, p = 0.1), reoperation rate (respectively 25% vs 22%, p = 0.7), death rate (respectively 25% vs 14%; p = 0.1) and mean length of stay (respectively 12 days vs 13 days, p = 0.9). The abscess rate was significantly lower in the D -  group (10% vs 30%, p = 0.002). Comparing PI and PII studies, there was no difference about major complications (35% vs 35%, p = 0.1), reoperation (16% vs 17.5%, p = 0.5), abscess rate (15% vs 8.5%, p = 0.1) and mortality (14.5% vs 17.5%, p = 0.7). The length of stay was longer in PI study than in P II (14 days vs 9 days, p = 0.03). Drainage (p = 0.005; OR = 4.357; CI [1.559-12.173]) and peritonitis type (p = 0.032; OR = 3.264; CI [1.106-9.630]) were abscess risk factors.

CONCLUSION

This study therefore showed that drainage after surgery for LGTP may not be necessary and that, at least at the local level, surgeons seem to be inclined to discontinue it systematically. It may therefore be worthwhile to conduct a randomised control trial to establish recommendations on drainage after surgery for LGTP.

Risk Factors for Gastrointestinal Leak after Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Operative Repair

BACKGROUND

There are limited studies regarding the impact of post-operative leak on perforated peptic ulcer disease (PPUD) and conflicting results regarding routine drain placement in operative repair of PPUD. This study aims to identify risk factors for gastrointestinal leak after operative repair of PPUD to better guide intra-operative decisions about drain placement.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care center from 2008 to 2019, identifying 175 patients who underwent operative repair of PPUD.

RESULTS

Patients who developed a leak (17%) were compared to patients who did not. Both hypoalbuminemia (albumin < 3.5 g/dL) (P = .03) and duodenal ulcers (P < .01) were identified as significant risk factors for leak. No significant difference was found between leak and no leak groups for AAST disease severity grade, repair technique, or pre-operative use of tobacco, alcohol, or steroids. Post-operative leaks were associated with prolonged hospital stay (29 days compared to 10, P < .01), increased complication rates (77% compared to 48%, P < .01), and increased re-operation rates (73% compared to 26%, <0.01). No difference was identified in patient characteristics or operative leak rates between patients who had drains placed at the index operation and those that did not.

DISCUSSION

Leak after operative PPUD repair is associated with significant post-operative morbidity. Hypoalbuminemia and duodenal perforations are significant risk factors for post-operative leaks.

Outcomes of Nonoperative Treatment for Gastroduodenal Ulcer Perforation: a Nationwide Study of 14,918 Inpatients in Japan

BACKGROUND

Gastroduodenal ulcer perforation is a common abdominal emergency that may be curable without surgical repair in non-elderly patients with localized and stable symptoms. However, the outcomes of nonoperative approaches have rarely been described.

METHODS

Using a Japanese national inpatient database, we identified 14,918 patients with gastroduodenal ulcer perforation who were hospitalized and received nonoperative treatment from July 2010 to March 2017. We categorized these patients into three groups according to age: 18 to 64 years (young group, n=8407), 65 to 74 years (old group, n=2616), and ≥75 years (old-old group, n=3895). We investigated the characteristics, treatments, and outcomes in each group.

RESULTS

Most of the patients were men (71%), and the median patient age was 62 years (interquartile range, 47-75 years). The old and old-old groups had more comorbidities than the young group. Whereas most patients were administered proton pump inhibitors and various antibiotics (96% and 90%, respectively), only 58% of patients underwent gastric tube placement. Surgical repair >3 days after admission was performed in 7.1% of all patients (6.3% vs. 7.9% vs. 5.5%, P<0.001). The old and old-old groups showed higher mortality (1.4% vs. 8.3% vs. 18%, P<0.001) and morbidity (6.6% vs. 15% vs. 17%, P<0.001) than the young group. The median length of stay was almost 2 weeks (13 vs. 17 vs. 20 days, P<0.001).

DISCUSSION

Unlike previous studies, many patients aged >65 years received nonoperative treatment in this nationwide cohort. Our findings provide useful information for clinicians and patients hospitalized for gastric ulcer perforation.