Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis

Improvement of Russian clinical guidelines and reduction of mortality in perforated ulcers

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the results of laparoscopic surgery in patients with perforated ulcers using evidence-based medicine approaches.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We compared the efficacy and effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgeries in patients with perforated ulcers. Meta-analysis of mortality after laparoscopic surgeries (randomized controlled trials) and trial sequential analysis were carried out.

RESULTS

We clarified the differences between the efficacy and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgeries regarding postoperative mortality. In the Russian Federation, mortality after laparoscopic surgery is 9-11 times lower compared to open procedures. According to evidence-based researches (efficacy of laparoscopic interventions in 10 meta-analyses), these differences are less obvious (1.4-3.0 times) and not significant. The diversity-adjusted required information size to draw reasonable conclusions about differences in mortality in trial sequential analysis was 68 181 participants. Meta-analyses of RCTs also demonstrate lower incidence of wound complications (1.8-5.0% after laparoscopic surgery and 6.3-13.3% after laparotomy), shorter hospital-stay (mean difference from -0.13 to -2.84) and less severe pain syndrome (mean difference in VAS score from -2.08 to -2.45) after laparoscopic technologies.

CONCLUSION

The obvious advantage of laparoscopic surgery in patients with perforated ulcers is fast-truck recovery following shorter hospital-stay, mild pain and rarer wound complications. Comparison of postoperative mortality regarding efficacy and effectiveness is difficult due to insufficient introduction of laparoscopic technologies in clinical practice and diversity-adjusted required information size.

A comparative study on laparoscopic and open surgical approaches for perforated peptic ulcer repair: efficacy and outcomes analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open sutures for peptic ulcer perforation (PPU).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies from inception to March 31, 2023. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cl) were also calculated. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. This study was performed using the Stata (V.16.0) software.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies involving 17,228 patients were included in this study. In terms of postoperative outcomes, the laparoscopic group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = -0.29, 95%CI = -0.44 to -0.13, P = 0.00), less blood loss (MD = -0.45, 95%CI = -0.82 to -0.08, P = 0.02), fewer wound infection (OR = 0.20, 95%CI = 0.17 to 0.24, P = 0.00), fewer pneumonia (OR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.41 to 0.87, P = 0.01), fewer respiratory complications (OR = 0.26, 95%CI = 0.13 to 0.55, P = 0.00) and lower postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.51, 95%CI = 0.33 to 0.78, P = 0.00). The laparoscopic group had a lower mortality rate (OR = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.27 to 0.49, P = 0.00) than the open group. We also found that the laparoscopic group had a higher overall complication rate than the open group (OR = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.34 to 0.60, P = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repair was associated with a lower risk of mortality than open repair in patients with PPU. Laparoscopic repair may be a better option in patients with PPU.

Current status of laparoscopic emergency surgery in Korea: multicenter restrospective cohort study

Purpose

Laparoscopic surgery is a choice in several emergency settings. However, there has been no nationwide study or survey that has compared the clinical use of laparoscopic emergency surgery (LES) versus open abdominal emergency surgery (OES) in Korea. Therefore, we examined the state of LES across multiple centers in Korea and further compared this data with the global state based on published reports.

Methods

Data of 2,122 patients who received abdominal emergency surgery between 2014 and 2019 in three hospitals in Korea were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Several clinical factors were investigated and analyzed.

Results

Of the patients, 1,280 (60.3%) were in the OES group and 842 (39.7%) were in the LES group. The most commonly operated organ in OES was the small bowel (25.8%), whereas that for LES was the appendix. In appendectomy and cholecystectomy, 93.7% and 88.0% were in the LES group. In small bowel surgery, gastric surgery, and large bowel surgery, 89.4%, 92.0%, and 79.1% were in the OES group. The severity-related factors of patient status demonstrated statistically significant limiting factors of selection between LES and OES.

Conclusion

Although our study has several limitations, compared to the LES data from other countries, the general LES state was similar in appendectomies, cholecystectomies, and small bowel surgeries. However, in gastric and colorectal surgeries, the LES state was different from those of other countries. This study demonstrated the LES state and limiting factors of selection between LES and OES in various operated organs. Further studies are required to analyze these differences and the various limiting factors.

Predicting in-hospital mortality risk for perforated peptic ulcer surgery: the PPUMS scoring system and the benefit of laparoscopic surgery: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

The major treatment for perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) is surgery. It remains unclear which patient may not get benefit from surgery due to comorbidity. This study aimed to generate a scoring system by predicting mortality for patients with PPU who received non-operative management (NOM) and surgical treatment.

METHOD

We extracted the admission data of adult (≥ 18 years) patients with PPU disease from the NHIRD database. We randomly divided patients into 80% model derivation and 20% validation cohorts. Multivariate analysis with a logistic regression model was applied to generate the scoring system, PPUMS. We then apply the scoring system to the validation group.

RESULT

The PPUMS score ranged from 0 to 8 points, composite with age (< 45: 0 points, 45-65: 1 point, 65-80: 2 points, > 80: 3 points), and five comorbidities (congestive heart failure, severe liver disease, renal disease, history of malignancy, and obesity: 1 point each). The areas under ROC curve were 0.785 and 0.787 in the derivation and validation groups. The in-hospital mortality rates in the derivation group were 0.6% (0 points), 3.4% (1 point), 9.0% (2 points), 19.0% (3 points), 30.2% (4 points), and 45.9% when PPUMS > 4 point. Patients with PPUMS > 4 had a similar in-hospital mortality risk between the surgery group [laparotomy: odds ratio (OR) = 0.729, p = 0.320, laparoscopy: OR = 0.772, p = 0.697] and the non-surgery group. We identified similar results in the validation group.

CONCLUSION

PPUMS scoring system effectively predicts in-hospital mortality for perforated peptic ulcer patients. It factors in age and specific comorbidities is highly predictive and well-calibrated with a reliable AUC of 0.785-0.787. Surgery, no matter laparotomy or laparoscope, significantly reduced mortality for scores <  = 4. However, patients with a score > 4 did not show this difference, calling for tailored approaches to treatment based on risk assessment. Further prospective validation is suggested.

A comparative study of laparoscopic versus laparotomy repair of perforated peptic ulcer: A prospective study

Background

Laparoscopic surgery is still gaining popularity in conditions associated with peritonitis, such as a perforated peptic ulcer.

Aim of the work

This study aimed to compare laparoscopic and laparotomy repair of perforated peptic ulcers regarding intraoperative parameters, postoperative pain, time of the start of oral feeding, postoperative complication, hospital stay, resuming normal activity, and outcomes.

Patients and methods

This is a prospective study of 50 patients (males and females), of any age with perforated peptic ulcer. Those patients will be divided by the random serial number method into two groups: the laparoscopic group and the open (laparotomy) group. In a period from 15th April 2022 to 15th February 2023 data related to patients were recorded and subjected to analysis.

Results

All patients were divided into two groups: Laparoscopic group with 25 patients (23 of them underwent successful laparoscopic repair and two patients were converted to open) and the open (laparotomy) group with 25 patients underwent laparotomy repair (of which 23 patients were living, and two patients died on the third and tenth postoperative days). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between both groups in terms of age, gender, special habits, preoperative risk factors, comorbidities, laboratory, and radiological findings; also both groups showed insignificant differences regarding the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (P=0.83), total Boey’s score (P=0.77), shock on admission (P= 1.00), and the duration of symptoms > 24 hours (P= 0.77). Operative time was significantly increased in the laparoscopic versus open group (P=0.0001). While, first-day pain score (VAS), opioid requirements, time of starting oral feeding, length of hospital stay, and return to normal activity were highly significantly decreased in laparoscopic repair compared with open repair (P= <0.0001 for each). Total postoperative complications showed insignificant difference between the studied groups (P=0.16), but they were more prevalent between the open group (14 patients, 56%) versus the laparoscopic group (9 patients, 36%). Good cosmetic results of wounds were more prevalent in the laparoscopic group [20 patients (80.00%)] than the open group [13 patients (56.52%)], but insignificant, P=0.17.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic repair had an upper hand over open repair regarding less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative pain, requiring less postoperative analgesia, early starting of oral feeding, less postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, early return to normal activity, and good cosmetic results of wounds.

Saline irrigation versus gauze wiping and suction only for peritoneal decontamination during laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease

The aim of current single-center study was to compare the short-term outcome of suction and gauze wiping alone versus the irrigation and suction technique for peritoneal decontamination among patients who underwent laparoscopic repair of PPU. Using data from our institution's prospectively maintained database, 105 patients who underwent laparoscopic repair were enrolled in this study. The participants were further divided into the group who received peritoneal irrigation (irrigation group, n = 67) and group who received gauze wiping and suction only (suction only group, n = 38). The irrigation group had a longer operative time (140 vs. 113 min, p = 0.0001), higher number of drainage tubes (38.8% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001) and a higher incidence of intra-abdominal abscess (10.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.0469) than the suction only group. Peritoneal irrigation may be associated with a prolonged operative time and a higher number of abdominal drains. Meanwhile, gauze wiping and suction may be sufficient for peritoneal decontamination during the laparoscopic repair of PPU as further infectious complications are not observed.

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.

Outcome of Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcers in a Resource-Limited Setting

Background

Perforation of peptic ulcers is a common cause of emergency surgery and has significant morbidity and mortality. The use and range of laparoscopic surgery have greatly increased over the past three decades. Laparoscopic approach is an option for perforated peptic ulcers because of the simple nature of the intervention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic approach for peptic ulcer repair in emergency setting by means of operative time, post-operative pain, mean hospital stay, and post-operative complications.

Methods

In this study, we enrolled patients presenting with perforated peptic ulcers in the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital in Lahore, Pakistan. Approval from the hospital ethical committee and informed consent were taken from all patients. After resuscitation, the patient underwent laparoscopic repair of perforation. Post-operative course of patients was monitored. Duration of surgery, post-operative pain, length of hospital stay, and post-operative complications were noted for all patients.

Results

Between December 2018 and December 2021, 31 patients with perforated peptic ulcers underwent laparoscopic repair at our hospital. Mean age of patients was 37.25 ± 7.80 years. Most of the patients were male (70.76%). The mean operation time was 109.35 ± 17.02 minutes for laparoscopic repair. Mean duration of hospital stay was 5.10 ± 0.87 days. Mean post-operative pain was 3.55 ± 0.85 assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale. There were no mortalities during the 30-day post-operative window.

Conclusion

With proper patient selection, laparoscopic surgery offers better results as compared to open surgery in patients undergoing emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcers.

[Emergency laparoscopy in the treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of endoscopic and open treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 445 patients with perforated gastroduodenal ulcers between 2013 and 2021. Endoscopic suturing of perforation was performed in 172 patients (38.7%), 273 ones underwent open surgery.

RESULTS

Among 172 patients scheduled for endoscopy, 160 (93.6%) ones underwent laparoscopic suturing of perforation. Morbidity rate was 5.0% (n=8), postoperative mortality rate - 1.3% (n=2). Comparison of the outcomes after laparoscopic suturing of ulcers in 160 patients and open surgery in 134 patients showed that laparoscopy was followed by 2.5 times lower incidence of complications and 3 times lower postoperative mortality.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic laparoscopy is advisable in patients with perforated ulcers and no contraindications. In most cases, surgery can be successfully and effectively completed without conversion to laparotomy. Endoscopic closure of ulcerative defect is preferable since this procedure has certain advantages over traditional intervention, contributes to significant reduction in morbidity, mortality and hospital-stay.

Laparoscopy in Emergency: Why Not? Advantages of Laparoscopy in Major Emergency: A Review

A laparoscopic approach is suggested with the highest grade of recommendation for acute cholecystitis, perforated gastroduodenal ulcers, acute appendicitis, gynaecological disorders, and non-specific abdominal pain (NSAP). To date, the main qualities of laparoscopy for these acute surgical scenarios are clearly stated: quicker surgery, faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. For the remaining surgical emergencies, as well as for abdominal trauma, the role of laparoscopy is still a matter of debate. Patients might benefit from a laparoscopic approach only if performed by experienced teams and surgeons which guarantee a high standard of care. More precisely, laparoscopy can limit damage to the tissue and could be effective for the reduction of the overall amount of cell debris, which is a result of the intensity with which the immune system reacts to the injury and the following symptomatology. In fact, these fragments act as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). DAMPs, as well as pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), are recognised by both surface and intracellular receptors of the immune cells and activate the cascade which, in critically ill surgical patients, is responsible for a deranged response. This may result in the development of progressive and multiple organ dysfunctions, manifesting with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), coagulopathy, liver dysfunction and renal failure. In conclusion, none of the emergency surgical scenarios preclude laparoscopy, provided that the surgical tactic could ensure sufficient cleaning of the abdomen in addition to resolving the initial tissue damage caused by the “trauma”.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs Open Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcers: An ACS-NSQIP Study

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a surgical emergency needing swift operative resolution. While laparoscopic and open approaches are viable options, it remains unclear whether laparoscopic repair has significantly improved outcomes. We use a national surgical database to compare perioperative and 30-d postoperative (30POP) outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 2016-2018 ACS-NSQIP database was used to create the patient cohort, using ICD-10 and CPT codes. An unmatched analysis identified factors that likely contributed to the laparoscopic versus open treatment allocation. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to identify outcomes that were not explained by underlying differences in the patient cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 3475 patients were included: 3135 in open group (OG), 340 (~10%) in laparoscopic group (LG). After PSM to control for comorbidities and illness severity that differed between groups on univariate analysis, 288 patients remained in each group. Analysis of the matched cohorts revealed no statistically significant difference in mortality (5.9% OG versus 3.8% LG, P = 0.245). The LG had significantly longer operative times (92 versus 79 min, P = 0.003), shorter hospital stays (8.2 versus 9.4 d, P = 0.044) and higher probability of being discharged home (81% versus 73%, P = 0.017). 30POP outcomes were largely equivalent, except that OG had higher risk for bleeding (14.6% versus 8%, P = 0.012) and pneumonia (8.7% versus 4.5%, P = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

While laparoscopic repairs take longer, they lead to shorter hospital stays and higher likelihood of discharge home. Further study to identify patients that are candidates for this technique is warranted.

Perforation on the superior side of duodenum is a risk factor of laparoscopic primary repair for duodenal ulcer perforation

Purpose

Primary repair is the standard surgical method for treating duodenal ulcer perforations, with very good results usually anticipated because of the simplicity of the associated surgical techniques. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the risk factors that affect laparoscopic primary repair outcomes for duodenal ulcer perforation.

Methods

Between June 2010 and June 2020, 124 patients who underwent laparoscopic primary repair for duodenal ulcer perforations were reviewed. Early surgical outcomes were evaluated and risk factors for postoperative complications were assessed.

Results

All surgeries were performed laparoscopically without open conversion. Multivariate analysis showed that the elderly (over 70 years), and perforations that needed more than 2 stitches for closure were risk factors for overall postoperative complications. Perforations that needed more than 2 stitches and perforations on the superior side of the duodenum were major risk factors for severe postoperative complications. Severe postoperative complications occurred in 6 of the patients, and 1 of them died of multiorgan failure.

Conclusion

Based on our results, we suggest that laparoscopic primary repair can be safely performed in duodenal ulcer perforation. However, more careful surgery and postoperative care are needed to improve the surgical outcomes of patients who need more than 2 stitches to close their perforation or who have perforations on the superior side of the duodenum.

A national propensity score-matched analysis of emergency laparoscopic versus open abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has been widely adopted in elective abdominal surgery but is still sparsely used in emergency settings. The study investigated the effect of laparoscopic emergency surgery using a population database.

METHODS

Data for all patients from December 2013 to November 2018 were retrieved from the NELA national database of emergency laparotomy for England and Wales. Laparoscopically attempted cases were matched 2 : 1 with open cases for propensity score derived from a logistic regression model for surgical approach; included co-variates were age, gender, predicted mortality risk, and diagnostic, procedural and surgeon variables. Groups were compared for mortality. Secondary endpoints were blood loss and duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Of 116 920 patients considered, 17 040 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The most common procedures were colectomy, adhesiolysis, washout and perforated ulcer repair. Of these, 11 753 were matched exactly to 23 506 patients who had open surgery. Laparoscopically attempted surgery was associated with lower mortality (6.0 versus 9.1 per cent, P < 0.001), blood loss (less than 100 ml, 64.4 versus 52.0 per cent, P < 0.001), and duration of hospital stay (median 8 (i.q.r. 5-14) versus 10 (7-18) days, P < 0.001). Similar trends were seen when comparing only successful laparoscopic cases with open surgery, and also when comparing cases converted to open surgery with open surgery.

CONCLUSION

In appropriately selected patients, laparoscopy is associated with superior outcomes compared with open emergency surgery.

An Overview of Gastroduodenal Perforation

Gastroduodenal perforation may be spontaneous or traumatic and the majority of spontaneous perforation is due to peptic ulcer disease. Improved medical management of peptic ulceration has reduced the incidence of perforation, but still remains a common cause of peritonitis. The classic sub-diaphragmatic air on chest x-ray may be absent and computed tomography scan is a more sensitive investigation in the stable patient. The management of perforated peptic ulcer disease is still a subject of debate. The majority of perforated peptic ulcers are caused by Helicobacter pylori, so definitive surgery is not usually required. Perforated peptic ulcer is an indication for operation in nearly all cases except when the patient is asymptomatic or unfit for surgery. However, non-operative management has a significant incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses and sepsis. Primary closure is achievable in traumatic perforation, but the management follows the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) principles.

[Comparison of laparoscopic and open suturing of perforated peptic ulcer complicated by advanced peritonitis]

AIM

To compare the results of open and laparoscopic interventions for PGDU complicated by advanced peritonitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis enrolled 172 patients with PGDU who underwent surgery for the period 2014-2016. The research was performed at the bases of the Department of Faculty-Based Surgery No. 1 of the Medical Faculty of the Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University. Further analysis enrolled 138 patients in accordance with inclusion and exclusion criteria (laparoscopic intervention - 116 patients, open surgery - 22). Propensity score matching (pseudorandomization) was applied after comparative analysis of patients' characteristics and treatment outcomes in order to ensure maximum comparability of both groups.

RESULTS

Length of hospital-stay (7.1 vs. 9.8 days), incidence of extra-abdominal complications (6.3%. vs. 41.2%) and adverse events Clavien-Dindo grade II (6.3% vs. 35.3%) were significantly lower after minimally invasive surgery (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Analysis of comparable groups of patients with PGDU complicated by peritonitis revealed that laparoscopic surgery is accompanied by significantly lower incidence of extra-abdominal postoperative complications and shorter hospital-stay compared with open surgery. Mortality and incidence of intra-abdominal postoperative complications were similar in both groups.

Simple laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer without omental patch

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the outcomes of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers using simple closure only.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 79 patients who underwent laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers from January 2011 to February 2016. They were divided into two groups: repair with an omental patch and repair with simple closure only. All of them underwent peritoneal cavity lavage with several litres of warm normal saline. A closed suction drain system was placed for drainage of intra-abdominal abscess. Patients' age, sex, Boey score, perforation size, operation time, overall complications, and length of hospital stay were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 79 patients diagnosed with perforated peptic ulcers who underwent emergency laparoscopic operations were enrolled in this study. Thirty patients underwent simple closure without an omental patch (group A), and 49 patients underwent simple closure with an omental patch (group B). Between the two groups, there were no statistically significant differences in the patients' age, size of perforation, and Boey score. However, the operation time was significantly different (p < 0.05) between the groups, with the average time being 84.4 min in group A and 106.65 min in group B. There was no statistically significant difference in the complication rate or the average length of hospital stay. No patient underwent reoperation for complications.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repair of a perforated peptic ulcer without an omental patch is a safe option and does not increase the morbidity and mortality rate.

Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer: A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Perforated peptic ulcer disease (PPU) is a condition subject to wide geographical variations in incidence. It remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, even in the era of Helicobacter pylori eradication and proton-pump inhibitor therapy. There is no clear consensus on whether laparoscopic or open approaches are superior, and with most studies in this area originating from Europe and Asia, Australian data addressing this issue are lacking.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent surgery for PPU within a hospital network in Australia. Baseline variables and primary outcomes, including length of hospital stay, chest and abdominal complications, and mortality, were recorded. Secondary outcomes, including reasons for conversion, were also considered.

RESULTS

In total, 109 patients underwent operations for PPU between January 2011 and December 2015. There were no significant differences with regard to baseline comorbidities. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of median length of hospital stay or rates of chest and abdominal complications, but the operative time was 28.5 min longer (P = <0.001) in the laparoscopic group than in the open group.

CONCLUSION

Open operations were faster to perform than laparoscopic operations for repair of PPU. Despite increased experience treating many surgical diseases laparoscopically, this study did not find it to be superior in terms of length of hospital stay or complication rates.

Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair

PURPOSE

Over the last 3 decades, laparoscopic procedures have emerged as the standard treatment for many elective and emergency surgical conditions. Despite the increased use of laparoscopic surgery, the role of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer remains controversial among general surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer.

METHODS

A systemic literature review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Database of all randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared laparoscopic (LR) with open repair (OR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). Data was extracted using a standardised form and subsequently analysed.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis using data from 7 RCT showed that LR for PPU has decreased overall post-operative morbidity (LR = 8.9% vs. OR = 17.0%) (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.79, p < 0.01), wound infections, (LR = 2.2% vs. OR = 6.3%) (OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.5, p < 0.01) and shorter duration of hospital stay (6.6 days vs. 8.2 days, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in length of operation, leakage rate, incidence of intra-abdominal abscess, post-operative sepsis, respiratory complications, re-operation rate or mortality. There was no publication bias and the quality of the studies ranged from poor to good.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate that laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer has a reduced morbidity and total hospital stay compared with open approach. There are no significant differences in mortality, post-operative sepsis, abscess and re-operation rates. LR should be the preferred treatment option for patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease.

Laparoscopic and open repair for perforated duodenal ulcer: single-center experience

Introduction

Perforation is a dangerous complication of peptic ulcer disease and requires emergency surgical treatment. In recent decades laparoscopic repair of duodenal perforation has been widely used in emergency abdominal surgery.

Aim

To analyze laparoscopic and open surgical treatment of 120 consecutive patients with perforated duodenal ulcer.

Material and methods

The study included a group of 120 consecutive patients, operated on for perforated duodenal ulcer in a single institution. Laparoscopic or open repair with or without an omental patch was performed. The value of the Boey score was investigated in predicting the outcomes of treatment in the entire study group.

Results

In 61 (50.8%) cases open repair was performed, in 56 (46.7%) cases laparoscopic repair, and in 3 (2.5%) cases conversion was performed. In the laparoscopy group the mean hospital stay was 5 days (range: 3–14), in the open group 11.7 days (range: 6–63), and in the conversion group 9.3 days (8–10) (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference between characteristics of patients in the laparoscopic groups: in the second period of laparoscopic procedures (2014–2017) the duration of the operation was significantly shorter and the number of postoperative complications was significantly lower than in the initial study group (2010–2013).

Conclusions

The laparoscopic approach is an effective method for treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer in selected cases. A number of 20–25 cases for the surgeon operating with the laparoscopic method is sufficient to achieve an acceptable level of expertise. More prospective randomized studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer.

Surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcers: laparoscopic versus open approach

INTRODUCTION

Perforated peptic ulcers are a surgical emergency that can be repaired using either laparoscopic surgery (LS) or open surgery (OS). No consensus has been reached on the comparative outcomes and safety of each approach.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, we conducted a 12-year retrospective review (2005-2016) and identified 6260 adult patients who underwent either LS (n = 616) or OS (n = 5644) to repair perforated peptic ulcers. To mitigate selection bias and adjust for the inherent heterogeneity between groups, we used propensity-score matching with a case (LS):control (OS) ratio of 1:3. We then compared intraoperative outcomes such as operative time, and 30-day postoperative outcomes including infectious and non-infectious complications, and mortality.

RESULTS

Propensity-score matching created a total of 2462 matched pairs (616 in the LS group, 1846 in the OS group). Univariate analysis demonstrated successful matching of patient characteristics and baseline clinical variables. We found that OS was associated with a shorter operative time (67.0 ± 28.6 min, OS versus 86.9 ± 57.5 min, LS; P < 0.001) but a longer hospital stay (8.6 ± 6.2 days, OS versus 7.8 ± 5.9 days, LS; P = 0.001). LS was associated with a lower rate of superficial surgical site infections (1.5%, LS versus 4.2%, OS; P = 0.032), wound dehiscence (0.3%, LS versus 1.6%, OS; P = 0.030), and mortality (3.2%, LS versus 5.4%, OS; P = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Fewer than 10% of patients with perforated peptic ulcers underwent LS, which was associated with reduced length of stay, lower rate of superficial surgical site infections, wound dehiscence, and mortality. Given our results, a greater emphasis should be provided to a minimally invasive approach for the surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcers.

Laparoscopy in Acute Care Surgery: Repair of Perforated Duodenal Ulcer

INTRODUCTION

The use of laparoscopic management as a first choice for the treatment of duodenal perforation is gaining ground but is not routine in many centers. In this report, we aim to report our experience with laparoscopy as the first approach for the repair of duodenal perforation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective review of patients during our initial experience with the use of laparoscopy for the treatment of duodenal perforation between 2009 and 2013.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients underwent management of duodenal perforation. Laparoscopy was attempted initially in 76 patients (76%) and completed in 64 patients (64%). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (mean 2.6) than in the open group (mean 3.1) (p = 0.008). Complications developed in 14 patients (20%). There was a tendency towards fewer admissions to intensive care, less acute kidney injuries, and less acute respiratory distress syndrome in the laparoscopic group. In patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery, the chances of uneventful recovery were 4.3 times higher than in those patients who underwent open surgery (95% CI 1.3-13.5, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy in the treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer is safe and can be utilized as a routine approach for the treatment of this pathology.

Laparoscopy is an available alternative to open surgery in the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers: a retrospective multicenter study

Background

Perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) remain one of the most frequent causes of death. Their incidence are largely unchanged accounting for 2–4% of peptic ulcers and remain the second most frequent abdominal cause of perforation and of indication for gastric emergency surgery. The minimally invasive approach has been proposed to treat PPU however some concerns on the offered advantages remain.

Methods

Data on 184 consecutive patients undergoing surgery for PPU were collected. Likewise, perioperative data including shock at admission and interval between admission and surgery to evaluate the Boey’s score.

It was recorded the laparoscopic or open treatments, the type of surgical procedure, the length of the operation, the intensive care needed, and the length of hospital stay.

Post-operative morbidity and mortality relation with patient’s age, surgical technique and Boey’s score were evaluated.

Results

The relationship between laparoscopic or open treatment and the Boey’s score was statistically significant (p = 0.000) being the open technique used for the low-mid group in 41.1% and high score group in 100% and laparoscopy in 58.6% and 0%, respectively. Postoperative complications occurred in 9.7% of patients which were related to the patients’ Boey’s score, 4.7% in the low-mid score group and 21.4% in the high risk score group (p = 0.000). In contrast morbidity was not related to the chosen technique being 12.8% in open technique and 5.3% in laparoscopic one (p = 0.092, p > 0.05).

30-day post-operative mortality was 3.8% and occurred in the 0.8% of low-mid Boey’s score group and in the 10.7% of the high Boey’s score group (p = 0.001). In respect to the surgical technique it occurred in 6.4% of open procedures and in any case in the Lap one (p = 0.043). Finally, there was a statistically significant difference in morbidity and mortality between patients < 70 and > 70 years old (p = 0.000; p = 0.002).

Conclusions

Laparoscopy tends to be an alternative method to open surgery in the treatment of perforated peptic ulcer. Morbidity and mortality were essentially related to Boey’s score. In our series laparoscopy was not used in high risk Boey’s score patients and it will be interesting to evaluate its usefulness in high risk patients in large randomized controlled trials.

LAPAROSCOPIC TECHNOLOGIES IN SURGERY OF PERFORATED GASTRODUODENAL ULCERS

.

Impact of laparoscopic approach in emergency major abdominal surgery: single-centre analysis of 748 consecutive cases

Background Acute abdominal pathology requiring emergency laparotomy is a common surgical presentation. Despite its widespread implementation in other surgical procedures, laparoscopy, rather than laparotomy, is sparingly used in major emergency surgery. This study reports outcomes and impact of rising use of laparoscopy for a single high-volume district general hospital. Methods Data were retrieved from the prospective National Emergency Laparotomy Audit database for a 30-month period. Patient, procedural, and in-hospital outcome data were collated. Temporal trends were assessed and regression analysis conducted for clinical outcomes. Results A total of 748 consecutive cases were recorded. There was an increasing use of laparoscopy over the study period, with 49% of cases attempted laparoscopically in the final six-month interval. Patients treated laparoscopically were at reduced risk of mortality (odds ratio 0.114, 95% confidence interval 0.024 to 0.550) and experienced reduced length of intensive care stay (regression coefficient –1.571, 95% confidence interval –2.625 to –0.517) in multivariate adjusted analysis. Conclusions Laparoscopy is safe and feasible in a large proportion of cases. It is associated with improved outcomes versus laparotomy.

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.

Methodological overview of systematic reviews to establish the evidence base for emergency general surgery

BACKGROUND

The evidence for treatment decision-making in emergency general surgery has not been summarized previously. The aim of this overview was to review the quantity and quality of systematic review evidence for the most common emergency surgical conditions.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of the most common conditions requiring unplanned admission and treatment managed by general surgeons were eligible for inclusion. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases were searched to April 2014. The number and type (randomized or non-randomized) of included studies and patients were extracted and summarized. The total number of unique studies was recorded for each condition. The nature of the interventions (surgical, non-surgical invasive or non-invasive) was documented. The quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist.

RESULTS

The 106 included reviews focused mainly on bowel conditions (42), appendicitis (40) and gallstone disease (17). Fifty-one (48·1 per cent) included RCTs alone, 79 (74·5 per cent) included at least one RCT and 25 (23·6 per cent) summarized non-randomized evidence alone. Reviews included 727 unique studies, of which 30·3 per cent were RCTs. Sixty-five reviews compared different types of surgical intervention and 27 summarized trials of surgical versus non-surgical interventions. Fifty-seven reviews (53·8 per cent) were rated as low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

This overview of reviews highlights the need for more and better research in this field.

[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.

Laparoscopic Finney pyloroplasty in the emergency setting: first case report in the literature and technical challenges

Pyloroplasty is currently reserved for emergencies (perforation, bleeding), but may occasionally be performed to treat benign gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Historically, two techniques are available: the Mikulicz pyloroplasty, by which the pylorus is incised longitudinally and sutured vertically, and the Finney pyloroplasty, by which a U-shaped inverted incision is made in the second part of duodenum (D1-D2), followed by a side-to-side gastroduodenostomy. We report our experience in this single case of laparoscopic Finney pyloroplasty (LFP) performed in the emergency setting for a woman with a perforated duodenal ulcer and severe loss of tissue in D1-D2. Due to the presence of severely inflamed perforation edges and the risk of duodenal narrowing with subsequent GOO, Finney technique was favored over direct ulcer repair. The patient achieved a full postoperative recovery free of complications, with a dynamic oral contrast study demonstrating good gastric evacuation. Review of the current literature revealed no similar cases, as LFP has only been performed in the canine model. Although LFP requires a specific surgical skill-set, we believe it can be effective and feasible in cases of duodenal perforation with significant loss of mural substance.

Changing patterns in the surgical treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer - single centre experience

Introduction

Although the surgical treatment of patients with perforated duodenal ulcer is the method of choice, the introduction of effective pharmacotherapy has changed the surgical strategy. Nowadays less extensive procedures are chosen more frequently. The introduction of laparoscopic procedures had a significant impact on treatment results.

Aim

To present our experience in the treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer in two periods, by comparing open radical anti-ulcer procedures with laparoscopic ulcer repair.

Material and methods

The analysis covered patients operated on for perforated duodenal ulcer. Two groups of patients were compared. Group 1 included 245 patients operated on in the period 1980–1994 with a traditional method (pyloroplasty + vagotomy) before introduction of proton pump inhibitors (PPI). Group 2 included 106 patients treated in the period 2000–2014 with the laparoscopic technique supplemented with PPI therapy. Groups were compared in terms of patients’ demographic structure, operative time, complication rate and mortality.

Results

The mean operative time in group 1 was shorter than in group 2 (p < 0.0001). Complications were noted in 57 (23.3%) patients in group 1 and 14 (13.5%) patients in group 2 (p = 0.0312). Reoperation was necessary in 13 (5.3%) cases in group 1 and in 5 cases in group 2 (p = 0.8179). The mortality rate in group 1 was significantly higher than in group 2 (10.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.0192). In group 1, median length of hospital stay was 9 days and differed significantly from group 2 (6 days, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Within the last 30 years, significant changes in treatment of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) have occurred, mainly related to abandoning routine radical anti-ulcer procedures and replacing the open technique with minimally invasive surgery. Thus it was possible to improve treatment results by reducing complication and mortality rates, and shortening the length of hospital stay. Although the laparoscopic operation is longer, it improves outcomes. In the authors’ opinion, in each patient with suspected peptic ulcer perforation, laparoscopy should be the method of choice.

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.

Sutureless onlay omental patch for the laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers

BACKGROUND

Because the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) have been fully recognized, laparoscopic repair of PPU (LPPU) has become a widely accepted procedure. Following closure of a PPU, the rationale to add an omental patch is based on the assumptions that a patch may decrease the possibility of leakage and make the closure more secure. However, one of the often mentioned disadvantages of LPPU is that it requires a significantly longer operating time. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of LPPU with a sutureless onlay omental patch.

METHODS

Over 60 months, 43 patients underwent LPPU with sutureless onlay omental patch, and another 64 patients underwent LPPU with sutured omental patch. Patient demographics, operation parameters, and surgical outcomes were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

All patients in both groups survived to the end of the study. There were no leaks in either group. The operating time and length of stay in the sutureless onlay omental patch group were significantly shorter than in the sutured omental patch group.

CONCLUSIONS

A sutureless onlay omental patch is as safe and effective as a sutured omental patch for the laparoscopic repair of PPU.

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.

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 repair of perforated peptic ulcer: single-center results

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU), the most common indication for emergency gastric surgery, is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Outcomes might be improved by performing this procedure laparoscopically, but no consensus exists on whether the benefits of laparoscopic repair (LR) of PPU outweigh the disadvantages.

METHODS

From January 2002 to December 2012, 111 patients underwent surgery for perforated ulcer. A "laparoscopy-first" policy was attempted and then applied for 56 patients. The exclusion criteria for LR ruled out patients who had shock at admission, severe cardiorespiratory comorbidities, or a history of supramesocolic surgery. The aim of this study was a retrospective analysis of the 56 patients treated laparoscopically.

RESULTS

The patient distribution was 30 men and 26 women, who had a mean age of 59 years (range 19-95 years). The mean ulcer size was 10 mm, and the Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI) was 21. LR was performed for 39 (69.6%) of the 56 patients and included peritoneal lavage, suturing of the perforation, and omental patching. Conversion to laparotomy was necessary in 17 cases (30.4%). The "conversion group" showed significant differences in ulcer size (larger ulcers: 1.9 vs. 0.7 mm; p < 0.01), ulcer-site topography (higher incidence of posterior ulcers: 5 vs. 0; p < 0.01), and MPI score (higher score: 24 vs. 20; p < 0.05). The LR group had a mean operating time of 86 min (range 50-125 min), an in-hospital morbidity rate of 7.6 %, a mortality rate of 2.5%, and a mean hospital stay of 6.7 days (range 5-12 days). None of these patients required reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The results showed that LR for PPU is feasible with acceptable mortality and morbidity rates. Skill in laparoscopic abdominal emergencies is required. Perforations 1.5 cm or larger, posterior duodenal ulcers, and an MPI higher than 25 should be considered the main risk factors for conversion.

Laparoscopic emergency surgery for diverticular disease that failed medical treatment: a valuable option? Results of a retrospective comparative cohort study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has become the standard of treatment for elective management of diverticular disease. However, its use in the acute setting remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with open surgery in the acute management of complicated diverticular disease that failed initial medical treatment.

SETTINGS

This is a single-center comparative retrospective cohort study.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing surgery for complicated diverticular disease after an attempt at medical treatment from 2000 to 2011 were selected.

INTERVENTION

Laparoscopic versus open surgery was compared.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were overall 30-day morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, time to resume diet, and need for a permanent stoma.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were identified by using medical records: 24 laparoscopic surgery and 18 open surgery. Baseline demographics, ASA classification, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores, Hinchey classification, and Charlson Comorbidity Index did not differ between groups. The mean operative time was 36 minutes longer (p = 0.05) and blood loss was 460 mL less (p < 0.001) for laparoscopic surgery. Two patients (8.3%) in the laparoscopic surgery group required conversion to open surgery. There was no mortality. Overall morbidity was lower favoring laparoscopic surgery (16.7% vs 55.6%; p = 0.01). Two patients in the laparoscopic surgery group experienced an anastomotic leak compared with none in the open surgery group. Mean time to resume diet (3 vs 6.5 days; p < 0.01) and length of stay (5 vs 8 days; p = 0.04) were shorter for the laparoscopic surgery group. Rate of permanent stoma at last follow-up (median, 332 days) did not differ significantly between groups.

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited by selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery for patients in whom medical treatment for complicated diverticular disease failed is associated with favorable outcomes, including a reduced rate of morbidity and a shorter length of stay. When applied to selected patients, this approach appears to be a safe procedure with a low rate of conversion.

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.

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.