Routine laparoscopic single-stitch omental patch repair for perforated peptic ulcer: experience from 338 cases

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.

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.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer

A meta-analysis of four randomized trials comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated ulcer did not demonstrate significant superiority of the laparoscopic or open approach.

Background and Objectives:

Laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) has been introduced as an alternative procedure to open surgery. It has been postulated that the minimally invasive approach involves less operative stress and results in decreased morbidity and mortality.

Methods:

We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials to test this hypothesis. Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Trials databases were searched, with no date or language restrictions.

Results:

Our literature search identified 4 randomized trials, with a cumulative number of 289 patients, that compared the laparoscopic approach with open sutured repair of perforated ulcer. Analysis of outcomes did not favor either approach in terms of morbidity, mortality, and reoperation rate, although odds ratios seemed to consistently support the laparoscopic approach. Results did not determine the comparative efficiency and safety of laparoscopic or open approach for PPU.

Conclusion:

In view of an increased interest in the laparoscopic approach, further randomized trials are considered essential to determine the relative effectiveness of laparoscopic and open repair of PPU.

Laparoscopic simple closure alone is adequate for low risk patients with perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori (H.P.) eradication has led to a significant decline in peptic ulcer prevalence; however, the number of patients requiring surgical intervention remains relatively unchanged. Laparoscopy suture repair is the most commonly used procedure for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). Whether omental patch adds any benefit than simple closure alone is not answered.

METHODS

From July 2007 to August 2010, patients received emergency surgeries for PPU in our department were enrolled in this study. The demographic data, disease pattern, surgical outcomes were retrospectively collected. Patients who had previous multiple operations, with profound shock, and complicated ulcers were excluded.

RESULTS

Totally 73 patients were enrolled. 26 of them received simple closure and the other 47 received simple closure plus an omental patch. There were no difference in age, gender, ASA, Boey risk score, and incidence of co-morbidities. The Mannheim Peritonitis index, median operation time and length of stay were not different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of leakage rate and surgical outcome, the maneuver to cover an omental patch on the repaired PPU did not show additional advantages compared to simple closure alone. Further prospective randomized study is required to clarify the safety and feasibility of simple closure alone without buttressing an omentum patch.

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.