Laparoscopic treatment of gastroduodenal perforations: comparison with conventional surgery

The Prevalence, Etiology and Treatment of Gastroduodenal Ulcers and Perforation: A Systematic Review

(1) Background: Gastroduodenal perforation (GDP) is a life-threatening condition caused by a spontaneous or traumatic event. Treatment should be based on the mechanism of damage, timing, location, extent of the injury, and the patient's clinical condition. We aimed to examine several etiologic factors associated with gastroduodenal perforation and to search for the best method(s) for its prevention and treatment. (2) Methods: We conducted extensive literature reviews by searching numerous studies obtained from PubMed, Science Direct, and Cochrane for the following keywords: gastroduodenal perforation, Helicobacter pylori, NSAIDs' use, side effects of GDP, laparoscopy, and surgery. The primary outcome was the reported occurrence of GDP. (3) Results: Using keywords, 883 articles were identified. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 53 studies were eligible for the current analyses, with a total number of 34,692 gastroduodenal perforation cases. Even though the risk factors of gastroduodenal perforation are various, the prevalence of H. pylori among patients with perforation is considerably high. As technology develops, the treatment for gastric perforation will also improve, with laparoscopic surgery having a lower mortality and complication rate compared to open surgery for GDP treatment. (4) Conclusions: H. pylori infection plays the most significant role in GDP, more than NSAIDs, surgery, chemotherapy, or transplantation. Treatment of H. pylori infection is essential to decrease the prevalence of GDP and speed up its recovery. However, urgent cases require immediate intervention, such as laparoscopic or open surgery.

A 37-Year-Old Schizophrenic Woman With Abdominal Pain

Introduction

Internal fistula across the posterior wall of stomach and the transverse colon caused by foreign bodies in the alimentary tract presents an extremely rare medical entity.

Presentation of case

We report an aschizophrenia female patient with onset of internal fistula across the posterior wall of stomach and the transverse colon triggered by swallowed magnetic metal beads. The patient was admitted to the emergency room of Northern Jiangsu People's Hospital because of acute right lower abdominal pain. Emergency routine abdominal CT scan revealed acute appendicitis and a set of foreign body in digestive tract.

Discussion

The foreign body in the stomach was removed by open surgery after tentative Endoscopic foreign body removal and laparoscopic appendectomy and exploration. In the process of exploring the gastric wall, it was found that one of magnet beads was embedded in the posterior wall of stomach and adhered to part of the transverse colon. After separation, it was found that an internal fistula was formed across the posterior wall of stomach and the transverse colon. As the patient ate only a small amount of food within 2 days, and the intestines were in good condition, we performed partial transverse colectomy, end-to-side anastomosis and gastric wall repair.

Conclusion

This case shows that for long-term foreign bodies in the digestive tract, we should be beware of the onset of gastrointestinal perforation. Moreover, perforation caused by the force acting on a blunt foreign body often results in atypical imaging findings, and the diagnosis of perforation cannot be clearly determined by imaging findings such as the presence of free gas downstream of the diaphragm. This poses new challenges for clear diagnosis and treatment.

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.

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.

Emergency Laparoscopic Management of Perforative Peritonitis: A Retrospective Study

Background

Peritonitis was previously considered a contraindication for minimally invasive surgery due to the risk of malignant hypercapnia partial pressure of carbon-dioxide (PCO2) and toxic shock syndrome. The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the role of laparoscopic surgery (LS) in selected patients with perforative peritonitis and to study its feasibility, safety, and outcomes.

Patients and methods

This was a retrospective study of 25 patients spanning over five years from 2015 to 2020. This study comprised all patients who were diagnosed with perforative peritonitis on preoperative physical/clinical examination, radiological evaluations, and who were stable enough to withstand pneumoperitoneum. Patients were evaluated for causes, operative time, duration of hospital stay, intra-, and postoperative complications, time taken to resume normal activity, and conversion to open surgery. Data was extracted from the hospital electronic medical records, for the above-mentioned parameters.

Results

Twenty-five patients with perforative peritonitis underwent diagnostic and therapeutic LS in our institute. The mean age was 46 years (35-79 years). Ten patients (40%) were diagnosed with gastro-duodenal perforation. Out of these ten patients, ninepatients (90%) were managed totally laparoscopically, while one patient (10%) required conversion to open surgery. There were 15 patients (60%) with small bowel perforation. Thirteen of the 15 patients were managed laparoscopically, with the remaining two requiring conversion to open surgery. The average time taken for the procedure was 90 minutes. The mean time to initiate the postoperative peroral liquid diet was 3.4 days. The mean postoperative stay was 6.9 days. The time taken to resume normal activity was 10-12 days.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic management is feasible and safe for patients with perforative peritonitis. Careful patient selection and the surgeon’s experience with the procedure are critical determinants of success.

Laparoscopy: A Better Approach for Perforated Duodenal Ulcer

Background

Laparoscopic surgery is becoming the gold standard for most abdominal surgeries in recent times. Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer (PDU), however, is still an area of debate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repair of PDU versus open repair.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, patients were consecutively sampled. Out of 101 patients with clinically diagnosed PDU, 36 patients underwent laparoscopic Graham patch repair and 65 underwent open Graham patch repair in a tertiary care academic hospital. Open repair was via upper midline incision, and laparoscopic repair by the three-port technique. The following stages were calculated: operative time, duration of postoperative analgesia, time taken to mobilize, and patient length of stay after the operation.

Results

The mean operative time was somewhat longer in the laparoscopy group compared to the open repair group (74.01 vs 56.17 minutes, respectively). Mean postoperative analgesia requirement, time taken to mobilize, and hospital stay were significantly shorter after laparoscopy than after open repair (1.21 days, 9.32 hours, and 3.12 days vs 3.83 days, 16.20 hours, and 4.85 days, respectively). Three patients (8%) in the laparoscopy group and 35 (54%) in the open repair group had postoperative complications.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic repair of PDU is a safe approach and better than open repair in terms of operative time with the right level of expertise only, postoperative analgesia requirement, mobilization, duration of hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative respiratory and wound complications.

Outcomes of laparoscopic primary gastrectomy with curative intent for gastric perforation: experience from a single surgeon

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer perforation is rare and difficult to distinguish from gastric ulcer perforation before surgery. Peritonitis caused by gastric perforation requires emergency surgery. The optimal surgical strategy for gastric perforation has not been established.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from 43 patients who underwent primary gastrectomy with curative intent for gastric perforation between June 2010 and November 2019 were reviewed. Patients were classified into gastric ulcer and gastric cancer groups. Early surgical outcomes and overall survival were assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics between the two groups except regarding preoperative shock. Laparoscopic gastrectomy was performed in 35 of 43 patients. There were no conversions to open surgery. The surgical findings demonstrated that the gastric cancer group had larger mass lesions with significantly larger perforations than did the gastric ulcer group. There were no significant differences in early surgical outcomes. Severe postoperative complications occurred in nine patients, five of whom died within one month of surgery. The majority of patients (90%) had stage III or IV gastric cancer. The 5-year survival rate was 19.5%.

CONCLUSION

We found no definitive differences in clinical characteristics distinguishing gastric cancer from ulcers. Considering our surgical outcomes, laparoscopic primary gastrectomy performed by an expert is a useful technique for emergency gastric perforation. However, unless an expert is available, caution should be used when selecting laparoscopic primary gastrectomy with curative intent as a surgical method.

[Endoscopic treatment of gastroduodenal perforations]

A 93-year-old patient underwent endoscopic treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer after previous laparoscopic suturing complicated by failure of sutured defect. A self-expanding nitinol stent with partial polyurethane coating was used. Positive effect of the treatment was noted. Further study of this method and its clinical introduction in case of favorable results can significantly reduce the incidence of complications and mortality in patients with perforated gastroduodenal ulcers.

Single-Port Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Duodenal Ulcers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic single-port surgery has widely been introduced for the treatment of various abdominal conditions. But controversies still exist regarding its potential advantages and risks, especially for emergency surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of a single-port laparoscopic repair using straight laparoscopic instruments for the treatment of perforated duodenal ulcers.

METHODS

A prospective consecutive case series was conducted including all patients with a perforated duodenal ulcer who underwent a laparoscopic single-port repair at a single institution from January 2012 to June 2018. The operation was performed through a single port using conventional straight laparoscopic instruments and intra-corporeal knot tying techniques.

RESULTS

Out of 75 patients, simple closure of the perforation without omental patch was accomplished in 96% of cases. Conversion to an open operation was required in one patient (1.3%) due to a posterior duodenal perforation, and additional trocar placement was needed in another patient (1.3%). The mean incision length was 2.0 ± 0.2 cm. The mean operation time was 63.0 ± 26.6 min. Meantime a nasogastric tube remained in place was 2.9 ± 0.8 days. Mean duration of analgesic use was 2.8 ± 0.8 days. The rate of postoperative complications was 2.7%, including two patients with wound infections. There were no instances of intestinal leak or abscess. The postoperative hospital stay was 5.7 ± 1.2 days.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic single-port repair using conventional straight laparoscopic instruments with intra-corporeal knot tying technique was safe and feasible for patients with perforated duodenal ulcers with low risk factors. This method offers results comparable to those expected with the standard multiport laparoscopic approach with the addition of improved cosmetic outcomes.

LAPAROSCOPIC TECHNOLOGIES IN SURGERY OF PERFORATED GASTRODUODENAL ULCERS

.

[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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Background/ purpose

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

Patients and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Management of perforated peptic ulcer in a district general hospital

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer: first choice? A review of literature

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU), despite antiulcer medication and Helicobacter eradication, is still the most common indication for emergency gastric surgery associated with high morbidity and mortality. Outcome might be improved by performing this procedure laparoscopically, but there is no consensus on whether the benefits of laparoscopic closure of perforated peptic ulcer outweigh the disadvantages such as prolonged surgery time and greater expense.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was done by using PubMed and EMBASE databases. Relevant papers written between January 1989 and May 2009 were selected and scored according to Effective Public Health Practice Project guidelines.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 56 papers, as summarized in Tables 1-7. The overall conversion rate for laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer was 12.4%, with main reason for conversion being the diameter of perforation. Patients presenting with PPU were predominantly men (79%), with an average age of 48 years. One-third had a history of peptic ulcer disease, and one-fifth took nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Only 7% presented with shock at admission. There seems to be no consensus on the perfect setup for surgery and/or operating technique. In the laparoscopic groups, operating time was significant longer and incidence of recurrent leakage at the repair site was higher. Nonetheless there was significant less postoperative pain, lower morbidity, less mortality, and shorter hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

There are good arguments that laparoscopic correction of PPU should be first treatment of choice. A Boey score of 3, age over 70 years, and symptoms persisting longer than 24 h are associated with higher morbidity and mortality and should be considered contraindications for laparoscopic intervention.

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

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has become popular during the last decade, mainly because it is associated with fewer postoperative complications than the conventional open approach. It remains unclear, however, if this benefit is observed after laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic closure of a PPU is as safe as conventional open correction.

METHODS

The study was based on a randomized controlled trial in which nine medical centers from the Netherlands participated. A total of 109 patients with symptoms of PPU and evidence of air under the diaphragm were scheduled to receive a PPU repair. After exclusion of 8 patients during the operation, outcomes were analyzed for laparotomy (n = 49) and for the laparoscopic procedure (n = 52).

RESULTS

Operating time in the laparoscopy group was significantly longer than in the open group (75 min versus 50 min). Differences regarding postoperative dosage of opiates and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain scoring system were in favor of the laparoscopic procedure. The VAS score on postoperative days 1, 3, and 7 was significant lower (P < 0.05) in the laparoscopic group. Complications were equally distributed. Hospital stay was also comparable: 6.5 days in the laparoscopic group versus 8.0 days in the open group (P = 0.235).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic repair of PPU is a safe procedure compared with open repair. The results considering postoperative pain favor the laparoscopic procedure.

Comparison between open and laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease

BACKGROUND

The place of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer followed by peritoneal toilet has been established, although it is not routinely practiced. This prospective study compared laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease. We evaluated whether the early results from laparoscopic repair resulted in improved patient outcome compared with conventional open repair.

METHODS

All patients who underwent repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease during a 12-month period in our unit were included in the study. The primary end points that were evaluated were total operative time, nasogastric tube utilisation, intravenous fluid requirement, total time of urinary catheter and abdominal drainage usage, time taken to return to normal diet, intravenous/intramuscular opiate use, time to full mobilization, and total in-patient hospital stay.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients underwent surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease (19 laparoscopic repairs and 14 open repairs; mean age, 54.2 (range, 32-82) years). There was no increase in total operative time in patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair (mean: 61 minutes laparoscopic versus 57 minutes open). There was significantly less requirement for intravenous/intramuscular opiate analgesia in patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair (mean time to oral analgesia: 1.2 days laparoscopic versus 3.8 days open). In addition there was a significant decrease in the time that the nasogastric tube (mean: 2.1 days laparoscopic versus 3.1 days open), urinary catheter (mean: 2.3 days laparoscopic versus 3.7 days open) and abdominal drain (mean: 2.2 days laparoscopic versus 3.8 days open) were required during the postoperative period. Patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair required less intravenous fluids (mean: 1.4 days laparoscopic versus 3.1 days open) and returned to normal diet (mean: 2.3 days laparoscopic versus 4.8 days open) and full mobilization significantly earlier than those who had undergone open repair (mean: 2.3 days laparoscopic versus 3.3 days open). In addition, patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair required a shorter in-patient hospital stay (mean: 3.1 days laparoscopic versus 4.3 days open).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic repair is a viable and safe surgical option for patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease and should be considered for all patients, providing that the necessary expertise is available.

Laparoscopic repair of peptic ulcer perforation without omental patch versus conventional open repair

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery, a minimally invasive technique, has recently begun to be used on perforated peptic ulcers effectively and frequently. Nevertheless, most studies have shown that the disadvantages of the laparoscopic treatment of peptic ulcers are a long operation time, a high reoperation rate, and a need for an experienced surgeon. Thus, the objective of the current study was to compare the safety and efficacy of optimized laparoscopic surgery without an omental patch for a perforated peptic ulcer within a shorter operational time with conventional open surgery in a 4-year period.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From May 2002 to June 2006, 35 consecutive patients with a clinical diagnosis of a perforated peptic ulcer were prepared prospectively to undergo either an open or optimized laparoscopic surgery.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients with a perforated peptic ulcer underwent simple laparoscopic repair without an omental patch. Three patients (17.6%) who were begun by the laparoscopic approach had to be converted to open surgery. Eighteen patients underwent conventional open surgery. The mean operative time for laparoscopic repair was 42.10 minutes (range, 35-60), which was significantly shorter than the 55.83 minutes for open repair (range, 35-72; P = 0.001). Postoperative parenteral analgesic requirements were lower after laparoscopic repair (75.0 mg) than that after an open repair procedure (101.39 mg; P = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference between the procedures in terms of hospital stay (5 vs. 5.33 days; P = 0.37) and the timing of access to normal daily activity (6.8 vs. 7.1 days) (P = 0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery, when optimized by a simple repair without an omental patch and 10 mm of a large-channel aspirator-irrigator, may be safely and effectively applied to the patients with small duodenal perforated peptic ulcers (<10 mm) and because of its having low risk factors. The procedure may be an alternative treatment to other procedures when in experienced hands.

Gastrotomy closure using bioabsorbable plugs in a canine model

The repair of gastric perforation commonly involves simple suture closure using an open or laparoscopic approach. An endolumenal approach using prosthetic materials may be beneficial. The role of bioprosthetics in this instance has not been thoroughly investigated, thus the authors evaluated the feasibility of gastric perforation repair using a bioabsorbable device and quantified gross and histological changes at the injury site. Twelve canines were anesthetized and underwent open gastrotomy. A 1-cm-diameter perforation was created in the anterior wall of the stomach and plugged with a bioabsorbable device. Intralumenal pH was recorded. Canines were sacrificed at one, four, six, eight, and 12 weeks. The stomach was explanted followed by gross and histological examination. The injury site was examined. The relative ability of the device to seal the perforation was recorded, as were postoperative changes. Tissue samples were analyzed for gross and microscopic tissue growth and compared to normal gastric tissue in the same animal as an internal control. A scoring system of -2 to +2 was used to measure injury site healing (-2= leak, -1= no leak and minimal ingrowth, 0= physiologic healing, +1= mild hypertrophic tissue, +2= severe hypertrophic tissue). In all canines, the bioprosthesis successfully sealed the perforation without leak under ex vivo insufflation. At one week, the device maintained its integrity but there was no tissue ingrowth. Histological healing score was -1. At 4-12 weeks, gross examination revealed a healed injury site in all animals. The lumenal portion of the plug was completely absorbed. The gross and histological healing score ranged from -1 to +1. The application of a bioabsorbable device results in durable closure of gastric perforation with physiologic healing of the injury site. This method of gastrotomy closure may aid in the evolution of advanced endoscopic approaches to perforation closure of hollow viscera.

Emergency laparoscopy--current best practice

Emergency laparoscopic surgery allows both the evaluation of acute abdominal pain and the treatment of many common acute abdominal disorders. This review critically evaluates the current evidence base for the use of laparoscopy, both diagnostic and interventional, in the emergency abdomen, and provides guidance for surgeons as to current best practise. Laparoscopic surgery is firmly established as the best intervention in acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis and most gynaecological emergencies but requires further randomised controlled trials to definitively establish its role in other conditions.