Conversion of laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer: a single-center study

How to do laparoscopic repair of perforated anterior duodenal ulcers: a 'three arches' falciform patch technique simplifies the approach

Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers has proven superior results to open procedures though uptake has been poor. We describe the 'three arches' technique as a means of reducing technical difficulty and improving operative efficiency. Our case series of patients undergoing this technique for perforated peptic ulcer disease demonstrates comparable results to other methods of repair.

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.

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.

Potential use of peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score as a conversion index of laparoscopic-perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) repair

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic repair is a well-accepted treatment modality for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). However, intraoperative conversion to laparotomy is still not uncommon. We aimed to identify preoperative factors strongly associated with conversion.

METHODS

A retrospective review of records of all PPU patients treated between January 2011 and July 2019 was performed. Patients were divided into three groups: laparoscopic repair (LR), conversion to laparotomy (CL), and primary laparotomy (PL). Patient demographics, operative findings, and outcomes were compared between the groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed, taking conversion as the outcome.

RESULTS

Of 822 patients, there were 236, 45, and 541 in the LR, CL, and PL groups, respectively. The conversion rate was 16%. Compared with those in the LR group, patients in the CL group were older (p < 0.001), had higher PULP scores (p < 0.001), had higher ASA scores (p < 0.001) and had hypertension (p = 0.003). PULP score was the only independent risk factor for conversion. The area under the curve (AUC) for the PULP score to predict conversion was 75.3%, with a best cut-off value of ≥ 4. The operative time was shorter for PL group patients than for CL group patients with PULP scores ≥ 4. For patients with PULP scores < 4, LR group patients had a shorter length of stay than PL group patients.

CONCLUSION

The PULP score may have utility in predicting and minimizing conversion for laparoscopic PPU repair. Laparoscopic repair is the procedure of choice for PPU patients with PULP scores < 4, while open surgery is recommended for those with PULP scores ≥ 4.

Primary laparoscopic approach to repair perforated peptic ulcer. A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer is a serious complication of peptic ulcer disease and carries high risk for morbidity and mortality. Although the incidence of peptic ulcer disease has decreased in recent decades, the percentage of patients with perforated peptic ulcer requiring emergency surgery remains constant. The use of laparoscopic management as a first choice for the treatment of the perforation is growing but is not routine in many centers.

METHODS

Clinical and surgical data on 42 patients underwent surgical treatment for perforated peptic ulcer from January 2012 to December 2016 were collected. Laparoscopic repair of the perforation with a three-port technique was made in all cases. The Boey scoring system was used to predict the prognosis.

RESULTS

All patients underwent suture-closure of the ulcer, and omental patch through laparoscopy without conversion to open surgery. Duodenal leakages occurred in 3 patients (7.1%), then treated with a conservative approach and resolved on the 10^th postoperative day. Two patients (4.7%) had deep space infections in the first week after surgery, therefore subdiaphragmatic and pelvic abscess were drained by ultrasound guidance. Four patients (9.5%) died up to 30-day post-surgery due to progression of multisystem organ failure in absence of leakages or infections. All these patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification >III and Boey Score 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data show that a primary laparoscopic approach in patients with peptic ulcer perforation is associated with postoperative advantages and acceptable rates of morbidity and mortality, essentially related to high Boey Score. Therefore, we suggest that the surgical repair of PPU could be always started laparoscopically.

Perforated Peptic Ulcer Surgery: Decreased Length of Stay but No Difference in Mortality with Laparoscopic Repair

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) surgery mortality ranges 1% to 24%. We hypothesized a decrease in length of stay (LOS) with laparoscopic surgical repair (LSR) compared with open surgical repair (OSR).

METHODS

Patients undergoing PPU surgery 2005 to 2015 were identified in NSQIP. LSR was compared with OSR 2005 to 2015. LSR 2005 to 2010 was compared with 2011 to 2015. OSR 2005 to 2010 was compared with 2011 to 2015. The primary outcome was LOS. Secondary outcomes were mortality and morbidity.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2015, LSR had a decreased LOS, was more likely to wean from the ventilator, but had no significant difference in mortality compared with OSR. There was no significant difference in mortality for LSR or OSR over time.

CONCLUSIONS

When patients are appropriately selected, LSR for PPU is a viable alternative to OSR, decreasing LOS and pulmonary complications. This demonstrates significant benefit to patients and hospital throughput.

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.

Cell sheet technology for the regeneration of gastrointestinal tissue using a novel gastric perforation rat model

PURPOSE

Anastomotic leakage is a major postoperative complication. While cell sheet technology has been gaining popularity in the clinical field, the utility of cell sheets for containing contaminated enteral perforation remains unclear. We established a new gastric perforation rat model and evaluated the efficacy of the myoblast cell sheet to prevent leakage.

METHODS

To establish a suitable rat model, perforations of various sizes were made in the stomach. We then pasted the sheet onto the perforated stomach in our new model. After the operation, the rats were sacrificed and analyzed macroscopically and histologically. Serum levels of C-related protein and hyaluronic acid in the peritoneal cavity washing lavage were also evaluated.

RESULTS

An incision 5 mm in length was found to be the most suitable for evaluation of the cell sheet performance. In the rats where the cell sheet had been pasted onto the perforation site, we noted less adhesion in the abdominal cavity and a significant reduction in the hyaluronic acid levels in the peritoneal cavity washing lavage.

CONCLUSIONS

We evaluated the efficacy of cell sheets for preventing leakage of enteral contents in a gastric perforation rat model. Myoblast cell sheets were able to markedly reduce the degree of both intra-abdominal adhesion and inflammation.