Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: single-center results

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.

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.

Laparoscopic appendectomy, stump closure and endoloops: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the main indications for urgent surgery. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has shown advantages in terms of clinical results and cost-effectiveness, even if there is still controversy about different devices to utilize, especially with regards to the endoloop (EL) vs endostapler (ES) when it comes to stump closure.

AIM

To compare safety and cost-effectiveness of EL vs ES.

METHODS

From a prospectively maintained database, data of 996 consecutive patients treated by LA with a 3 years-follow up in the department of Emergency General Surgery - St Orsola University Hospital, Bologna (Italy) were retrieved. A meta-analysis was performed in terms of surgical complications, in comparison to the international literature published from 1995 to 2021.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis showed no evidence regarding wound infections, abdominal abscesses, and total post-operative complications, in terms of superiority of a surgical technique for the stump closure in LA.

CONCLUSION

Even when AA is complicated, the routine use of EL is safe in most patients.

Surgery for Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Is Laparoscopy a New Paradigm?

Introduction

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remains controversial mainly due to its safety and applicability in critically ill patients. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of laparoscopy versus laparotomy in the treatment of PPU.

Methods

Single-institutional, retrospective study of all patients submitted to surgical repair of PPU between 2012 and 2019.

Results

During the study period, 169 patients underwent emergent surgery for PPU. A laparoscopic approach was tried in 60 patients and completely performed in 49 of them (conversion rate 18.3%). The open group was composed of 120 patients (included 11 conversions). Comparing the laparoscopic with the open group, there were significant differences in gender (male/female ratio 7.2/1 versus 2.2/1, respectively; p=0.009) and in the presence of sepsis criteria (12.2% versus 38.3%, respectively; p=0.001), while the Boey score showed no differences between the two groups. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (median 100' versus 80', p=0.01). Laparoscopy was associated with few early postoperative complications (18.4% versus 41.7%, p=0.004), mortality (2.0% versus 14.2%; p=0.02), shorter hospital stay (median 6 versus 7 days, p=0.001), and earlier oral intake (median 3 versus 4 days, p=0.021).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic repair of PPU may be considered the procedure of choice in patients without sepsis criteria if expertise and resources are available. This kind of approach is associated with a shorter length of hospital stay and earlier oral intake. In patients with sepsis criteria, more data are required to access the safety of laparoscopy in the treatment of PPU.

Omental patch versus gastric resection for perforated gastric ulcer: Systematic review and meta-analysis for an unresolved debate

BACKGROUND

Perforated gastric ulcers are surgical emergencies with paucity of data on the preferred treatment modality of resection versus omental patch. We aim to compare outcomes with ulcer repair and gastric resection surgeries in perforated gastric ulcers after systematic review of literature.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed for publications in PubMed Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We included all studies which compared ulcer repair vesus gastric resection surgeries for perforated gastric ulcers. We excluded studies which did not separate outcomes gastric and duodenal ulcer perforations.

RESULTS

The search included nine single-institution retrospective reviews comparing ulcer repair (449 patients) versus gastric resection surgeries (212 patients). Meta-analysis was restricted to perforated gastric ulcers and excluded perforated duodenal ulcers. The majority of these studies did not control for baseline characteristics, and surgical strategies were often chosen in a non-randomized manner. All of the studies included were at high risk of bias. The overall odds ratio of mortality in ulcer repair surgery compared to gastric resection surgery was 1.79, with 95% CI 0.72 to 4.43 and p-value 0.209.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, there was no difference in mortality between the two surgical groups. The overall equivalence of clinical outcomes suggests that gastric resection is a potentially viable alternative to ulcer repair surgery and should not be considered a secondary strategy. We would recommend a multicenter randomized control trial to evaluate the surgical approach that yields superior outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.

Gastroduodenal perforation in the pediatric population: a retrospective analysis of 20 cases

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the pathogenesis, symptoms and individualized surgical management in pediatrics with gastroduodenal perforation (GDP).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with GDP from January 2013 to December 2016 in our hospital were collected and divided into gastric perforation (GP) group and duodenal perforation (DP) group. Demographics, clinical events, etiological factors, symptoms, the time from symptom onset to operation, intraoperative findings and surgical procedures were analyzed. Follow-ups including ulcer, perforations occurrence, and digestive symptoms were carried out by out-patient review or telephones.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients aged from 3 months to 14 years were enrolled in this study. The average age, main clinical presentations, size of perforations and operating time between two groups had no difference. The male to female ratio in DP group was higher than GP (P < 0.05). The high risk factor for DP was the use of dexamethasone, and for GP was HP infection. The most common site of perforation in DP group was duodenal bulb, and in GP group was pylorus area. Simple suture is the main management for both DP and GP, but distal gastrectomy combined with gastrojejunal Roux-en-Y anastomosis may be an alternative procedure for large perforation with diameter > 2 cm. The length of hospital days in GP group is shorter than DP group (P < 0.05). For follow-up, no patients had digestive symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The general condition had no difference between GP and DP patients. But the risk factors and surgical repair differ depending on the patient's fundamental illness and the complexity of the perforation.

Over-the-scope-clip applications for perforated peptic ulcer

AIM

To investigate the effectiveness of over-the-scope-clip (OTSC)-based endoscopic closure in patients with perforated peptic ulcer (PPU).

METHODS

One hundred six patients diagnosed with PPU were treated with either OTSC (n = 26) or conservative treatments (n = 80), respectively. The outcome assessments included technical success rate, clinical success rate, post-treatment complications after 1 month, mortality rate, time to resume oral feeding, length of hospital stay, and the administration of antibiotics.

RESULTS

In the OTSC group, technical and clinical success was achieved in 100% of patients without any complications, including death, incomplete closure, duodenal obstruction, and gastrointestinal bleeding, with a median operation time of 10 min. All patients in the OTSC group were discharged, while the mortality rate in the control group was 13.8%. Subsequent surgeries were required in 30% of patients in the control group. The median times to resume oral feeding were 3.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.0-5.25) days in the OTSC group and 7.0 (IQR 5.0-9.0) days in the control group (p < 0.001). One month post-procedure, 30% (24/80) of patients in the control group and 0 (0/26) in the OTSC group required additional operations (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the length of the hospital stay and the administration of antibiotics between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

OTSC-based endoscopic technique, with a high clinical success rate and a shorter time to resume oral feeding, was effective in achieving closure of PPU with a diameter < 15 mm.

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.

Feasibility of a novel laparoscopic technique with unidirectional knotless barbed sutures for the primary closure of duodenal ulcer perforation

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic primary repair is one of the main procedures used for perforated gastric ulcers, and this technique requires reproducible and secure suturing. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of a novel continuous suture method with barbed sutures during laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcers.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical data from 116 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcers were collected between November 2009 and October 2015. Continuous suturing with 15-cm-long unidirectional absorbable barbed sutures was used for laparoscopic repair in the study group, termed group V (n = 51). Patients who underwent laparoscopic repair with conventional interrupted sutures were defined as group C (n = 65). The complication and operative data were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Although there was no difference between group V and group C in the overall complication rate (15.7% vs. 24.6%; p = 0.259), the complication rate related to suturing was lower (3.9% vs. 15.4%; p = 0.04) in group V. Group V showed rates of 0% for leakage, 2% for intra-abdominal fluid collection, and 2% for stricture; the corresponding rates in group C were 3.1, 7.7, and 4.6%, respectively. Regarding operative data, the total operation time (V vs. C, 87.7 min vs. 131.2 min), total suture time (7.1 min vs. 25.3 min), and suture time per stitch (1.2 min vs. 6.2 min) were significantly shorter in group V than in group C (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of a continuous suture technique with unidirectional barbed sutures is as safe as the conventional suture technique and allows easier and faster suturing in the repair of perforated peptic ulcers.

Perforated Peptic Ulcer Repair: Factors Predicting Conversion in Laparoscopy and Postoperative Septic Complications

OBJECTIVE

The surgical treatment for perforated peptic ulcers can be safely performed laparoscopically. The aim of the study was to define simple predictive factors for conversion and septic complications.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study analyzed patients treated with either laparoscopic surgery or laparotomy for perforated peptic ulcers.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients were analyzed. Laparoscopically operated patients had a shorter hospital stay (13.7 vs. 15.1 days). In an intention-to-treat analysis, patients with conversion to open surgery (analyzed as subgroup from laparoscopic approach group) showed no prolonged hospital stay (15.3 days) compared to patients with a primary open approach. Complication and mortality rates were not different between the groups. The statistical analysis identified four intraoperative risk factors for conversion: Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI) > 21 (p = 0.02), generalized peritonitis (p = 0.04), adhesions, and perforations located in a region other than the duodenal anterior wall. We found seven predictive factors for septic complications: age >70 (p = 0.02), cardiopulmonary disease (p = 0.04), ASA > 3 (p = 0.002), CRP > 100 (p = 0.005), duration of symptoms >24 h (p = 0.02), MPI > 21(p = 0.008), and generalized peritonitis (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that a primary laparoscopic approach has no disadvantages. Factors necessitating conversions emerged during the procedure inhibiting a preoperative selection. Factors suggesting imminent septic complications can be assessed preoperatively. An assessment of the proposed parameters may help optimize the management of possible septic complications.

Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Outcome and Associated Morbidity and Mortality

INTRODUCTION

The mainstay of treatment for perforated peptic ulcer is Omental patch closure. With the advent of laparoscopic surgery, this approach is being used for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopy in Firoozgar general hospital over a period of 18 months. The outcome of the laparoscopic approach and the associated morbidity and mortality, operation time, conversion rate and hospital stay were assessed.

METHODS

A prospective analysis of 29 consecutive patients (mean age 37.5 years; 23 men) with perforated peptic ulcers and who had undergone laparoscopic surgery was carried over a period of 18 months from March 2014 until September 2015. Pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative clinical data were collectively analyzed by SPSS 19 for Windows.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients had a history of cigarette smoking, 11 patients had a history of opium consumption, 19 were chronic NSAID users, 26 had Helicobacter pylori infections, and six had a co-morbid condition. Previous surgical history included laparotomy for pancreatic cancer in two patients, for sigmoid colon cancer in one patient, and for acute appendicitis in four patients. The average operating time for all cases was 47.5 + 20 min. The mean lag time between onset of symptoms and surgery was 20.4 hours. All patients underwent laparoscopic closure of the perforation with Omental patch closure. No morbidity was observed, and none of the patients needed conversion to open surgery. One patient died after 11 months of follow-up due to the progression of underlying pancreatic cancer. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 4.2 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the laparoscopic approach for perforated peptic ulcer were promising, with no conversion to open surgery, no morbidity, and mortality.

Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The role of laparoscopic surgery in the repair for peptic ulcer disease is unclear. The present study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and references of identified articles and relevant reviews. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, mortality, and reoperation. Secondary outcomes were operative time, postoperative pain, postoperative hospital stay, nasogastric tube duration, and time to resume diet. Statistical analysis was carried out by Review Manage software.

RESULTS

Five RCTs investigating a total of 549 patients, of whom, 279 received laparoscopic repair and 270 received open repair, were included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences between these two procedures in some primary outcomes including overal postoperative complication rate, mortality, and reoperation rate. Subcategory analysis of postoperative complications showed that laparoscopic repair had also similar rates of repair site leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, pneumonia, and urinary tract infection as open surgery, except of the lower surgical site infection rate (P < 0.05). In addition, there were also no significant differences between these two procedures in some second outcomes including operative time, postoperative hospital stay, and time to resume diet, but laparoscopic repair had shorter nasogastric tube duration (P < 0.05) and less postoperative pain (P < 0.05) than open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery is comparable with open surgery in the setting of repair for perforated peptic ulcer. The obvious advantages of laparoscopic surgery are the lower surgical site infection rate, shorter nasogastric tube duration and less postoperative pain. However, more higher quality studies should be undertaken to further assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repair for peptic ulcer disease.

The relationship between computed tomography findings and the locations of perforated peptic ulcers: it may provide better information for gastrointestinal surgeons

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) plays an important role in diagnosing gastrointestinal perforation. This study explored the relationship between CT findings and the locations of perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs), which may help further surgical planning.

METHODS

During a 34-month period, 175 patients had CT scans. We categorized those 175 patients into 2 groups: patients with and without a PPU at a difficult ulcer site for a laparoscopic approach. Both clinical data and the CT images were reviewed and analyzed.

RESULTS

Based on the univariate analysis results, we conducted multivariate analyses of 3 factors: age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of 3 or more, and positive lesser sac image findings. The positive lesser sac findings in CT were the only independent factor that was correlated to the PPU site.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive lesser sac CT findings may help to predict PPUs in sites where a laparoscopic approach might be difficult. Our study re-evaluates the additional value of CT scanning in diagnosing PPU, and the results may assist with surgical planning in clinical practice.

Laparoscopic Pyloroduodenal Wrap Utilizing the Lesser Omentum: A Novel Emergency Surgery Technique

BACKGROUND

It has been a long time since Roscoe Graham in 1938 started his technique using the greater omentum patching perforated peptic ulcers. The traditional technique was suitable for the open surgical access but not for the laparoscopic one. The lesser omentum offers a more readily potent tissue flap that is both anatomically and surgically optimistic to the laparoscopic technique.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a preliminary case series pilot study describing a new surgical technique for repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Between February 2013 and April 2014, 27 adult patients were recruited for the study.

RESULTS

All patients were operated by laparoscopy with no case conversion to open. Patient's data and results are scheduled in tables. Neither postoperative complication nor reperforation was recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroduodenal wrap utilizing the lesser omentum is a novel technique based on solid concepts that suits laparoscopic specialty as a separate identity from open surgery.

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).