Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for patients with perforated peptic ulcer

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.

Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies

This review focuses on the laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal emergencies and its more recent indications. Laparoscopic surgery has a specific place in elective procedures, but that does not apply in emergency situations. In specific emergencies, there is a huge range of indications and different techniques to apply, and not all of them are equally settle. We consider that the most controversial points in minimally invasive procedures are indications in emergency situations due to technical difficulties. Some pathologies, such as oesophageal emergencies, obstruction due to colon cancer, abdominal hernias or incarcerated postsurgical hernias, are nearly always resolved by conventional surgery, that is, an open approach due to limited intraabdominal cavity space or due to the vulnerability of the bowel. These technical problems have been solved in many diseases, such as for perforated peptic ulcer or acute appendectomy for which a laparoscopic approach has become a well-known and globally supported procedure. On the other hand, endoscopic procedures have acquired further indications, relegating surgical solutions to a second place; this happens in cholangitis or pancreatic abscess drainage. This endoluminal approach avoids the need for laparoscopic development in these diseases. Nevertheless, new instruments and new technologies could extend the laparoscopic approach to a broader array of potentials procedures. There remains, however, a long way to go.

Perforated peptic ulcer

Perforated peptic ulcer is a common emergency condition worldwide, with associated mortality rates of up to 30%. A scarcity of high-quality studies about the condition limits the knowledge base for clinical decision making, but a few published randomised trials are available. Although Helicobacter pylori and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are common causes, demographic differences in age, sex, perforation location, and underlying causes exist between countries, and mortality rates also vary. Clinical prediction rules are used, but accuracy varies with study population. Early surgery, either by laparoscopic or open repair, and proper sepsis management are essential for good outcome. Selected patients can be managed non-operatively or with novel endoscopic approaches, but validation of such methods in trials is needed. Quality of care, sepsis care bundles, and postoperative monitoring need further assessment. Adequate trials with low risk of bias are urgently needed to provide better evidence. We summarise the evidence for perforated peptic ulcer management and identify directions for future clinical research.

Laparoscopy in the acute abdomen

Laparoscopy has become a routine procedure in the management of acute abdominal disease and can be considered both an excellent therapeutic and additional diagnostic tool in selected cases. However, a high level of expertise in laparoscopic and emergency surgery is required. Hemodynamic instability, huge abdominal distension, fecal peritonitis and perforated cancer are relative contraindications for the laparoscopic approach. In recent years, abdominal emergencies have increasingly been managed successfully by laparoscopy. In acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis and perforated peptic ulcer, randomized controlled trials have proven that the laparoscopic approach is as safe and as effective as open surgery, with fewer complications and a quicker postoperative recovery. Other indications such as blunt and penetrating trauma to the abdomen, small bowel occlusion and perforated diverticular disease are under debate, indicating that more randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery are still necessary.

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.

Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for intra-abdominal emergency conditions

BACKGROUND

Patient benefits from natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) are of interest in acute-care surgery. This review provides an overview of the historical development of NOTES procedures, and addresses their current uses and limitations for intra-abdominal emergency conditions.

METHODS

A PubMed search was carried out for articles describing NOTES approaches for appendicectomy, percutaneous gastrostomy, hollow viscus perforation and pancreatic necrosectomy. Pertinent articles were reviewed and data on available outcomes synthesized.

RESULTS

Emergency conditions in surgery tax the patient's cardiovascular and respiratory systems, and fluid and electrolyte balance. The operative intervention itself leads to an inflammatory response and blood loss, thus adding to the physiological stress. NOTES provides a minimally invasive alternative access to the peritoneal cavity, avoiding abdominal wall incisions. A clear advantage to the patient is evident with the implementation of an endoscopic approach to deal with inadvertently displaced percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes and perforated gastroduodenal ulcer. The NOTES approach appears less invasive for patients with infected pancreatic necrosis, in whom it allows surgical debridement and avoidance of open necrosectomy. Transvaginal appendicectomy is the second most frequently performed NOTES procedure after cholecystectomy. The NOTES concept has provided a change in perspective for intramural and transmural endoscopic approaches to iatrogenic perforations during endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

NOTES approaches have been implemented in clinical practice over the past decade. Selected techniques offer reduced invasiveness for patients with intra-abdominal emergencies, and may improve outcomes. Steady future development and adoption of NOTES are likely to follow as technology improves and surgeons become comfortable with the approaches.

Feasibility of NOTES omental plug repair of perforated peptic ulcers: results from a clinical pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Ulcer perforation carries up to a 30 % 1-year mortality rate. Intervention-related adverse events are among statistically significant predictors of 1-year mortality. A natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgical (NOTES) approach may be less invasive and may decrease procedure-related adverse events by diminishing the so-called second hit, thus leading to decreased morbidity and mortality. We sought to assess the feasibility of an endoscopic transluminal omental plug technique in patients with perforated gastroduodenal ulcers under laparoscopic guidance.

METHODS

Patients with suspected acute gastroduodenal ulcer perforations were offered participation in this prospective pilot study. Closure of the perforation was attempted using the NOTES omental plug technique. Demographic, clinical, endoscopic, and radiographic data were abstracted, as were data for morbidity, mortality, and pilot data regarding quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

From February 2010 through February 2012, a total of 17 patients presented to a tertiary care center with clinically suspected perforated ulcer. Of seven patients (mean age 79 years, range 64-89 years) who consented to the study, three underwent the study procedure. All patients had multiple comorbidities. Two patients presented with 4-6 mm perforated peptic ulcers and underwent successful laparoscopic-assisted NOTES omental and falciform ligament patch closure, respectively. Postoperative radiographic contrast studies showed no leak, and patients were discharged home on postoperative days 3 and 4. The third patient had undergone enterocutaneous fistula repair with herniorrhaphy 6 weeks before. Although a transluminal endoscopic approach was feasible, the omentum was under too much tension to be secured. This procedure was converted to an open omental patch repair. For all but one patient who provided consent, obtaining QOL data was feasible.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial results from a laparoscopic-assisted NOTES approach for closure of perforated peptic ulcers appear promising and enable swift recovery in selected patients. This is especially important in elderly and/or immunocompromised patients. Technical details and patient selection criteria continue to evolve.

Omentum patch substitute for facilitating endoscopic repair of GI perforations: an early laparoscopic pilot study with a foam matrix plug (with video)

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic perforations are surgically repaired by using an omentum patch. Omentum substitutes may have broader applications particularly in certain sites (eg, esophagus).

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate a self-expandable foam matrix plug as a synthetic omentum substitute for repairing iatrogenic gastric perforations in a 4-week survival pig model.

DESIGN

Experimental pilot study.

SETTING

Laboratory.

INTERVENTION

A laparoscopic plug repair of a 1-cm, full-thickness, gastric perforation was carried out by using either a polyurethane foam matrix plug (FMP, 8 animals) or an omentum plug (OP, 6 animals, control group).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Follow-up endoscopy was carried out at 1 and 4 weeks. At necropsy, the perforation site was evaluated for adhesions and histology by using hematoxylin and eosin analysis. A portion of the implant was sent for bacterial and fungal culture.

RESULTS

All procedures were technically simple and successful. Thirteen animals thrived well for 4 weeks. One animal from the FMP group died 3 days postoperatively from diffuse peritonitis because of a misplaced plug. All remaining FMPs were intact at 4 weeks and colonized with mixed bacteria, except one animal presenting with FMP migration after 1 week. Histologically, the FMP group had more prominent inflammation and suppuration as compared with the OP group, all limited to its adjacent tissue.

LIMITATIONS

Animal study.

CONCLUSION

The FMP offered a technically simple and feasible option for repairing iatrogenic gastric perforations. With effective sealing, the clinical outcome is similar to that of an omentum patch repair. Migration and inadequate sealing is a concern, which can lead to peritonitis and sepsis. Further development is needed to improve FMP performance.