Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs Open Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcers: An ACS-NSQIP Study

Usefulness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation: a single-center retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in patients with colorectal perforation owing to a significant lack of evidence in this field.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed the data of 70 patients who underwent emergency surgery for colorectal perforations between January 2017 and December 2023. The surgical outcomes of the patients who underwent open and laparoscopic surgeries were statistically compared. The primary endpoints were postoperative mortality and complications. The secondary endpoints included blood loss, surgical time, length of hospital stay, and 1-year overall survival.

RESULTS

Overall, 28 patients underwent open surgery and 42 underwent laparoscopic surgery. No significant difference was noted in the postoperative mortality or overall rate of severe complications between the two groups. The incidence of superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection was lower in the laparoscopic surgery group (35.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), while the surgical time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (175.6 ± 92.2 min vs. 290.0 ± 102.3 min, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in blood loss, length of hospital stay, or 1-year overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation markedly reduced superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection, with no substantial difference in mortality or severe complications.

Laparoscopic repair vs open repair for perforated peptic ulcers: Quality of life assessment

PURPOSE

Studies reporting patient-centered outcomes, including quality of life and satisfaction, in perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment are insufficient. This study was designed to assess the relative efficacy of laparoscopic repair (LR) as opposed to open surgical repair (OR) in the treatment of and its impact on quality of life.

METHODS

This investigation performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent treatment for PPU at a secondary care hospital between January 2017 and April 2020. Patients were categorized into 2 separate groups according to the type of surgical procedure received: LR and OR. Comparisons were made based on a variety of factors, such as demographic data, intra- and postoperative metrics, pain control, patient contentment, and quality of life indicators.

RESULTS

In the analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic or clinical characteristics between the LR (n = 35) and OR (n = 62) groups (P > .05). Conversely, the rates of incisional hernia and surgical site infection were significantly greater in the OR group (P < .05). Moreover, the LR exhibited benefits such as a shorter length of hospital stay (P < .05), more rapid resumption of a normal diet, and fewer surgical site infections-factors that contributed to a lower rate of overall postoperative complications. According to the quality-of-life questionnaire, the LR group exhibited significantly greater scores for physical function, role, pain, and general health by the 30th postoperative day (P = .003, P < .001, P = .006, and P = .001, respectively), and by the 1-year follow-up, the LR group showed substantial improvements in physical function, physical role, emotional role, pain and general health (P = .047, P = .004, P = .039, P = .001, and P = .021, respectively), indicating its effectiveness in patient recovery and quality of life enhancement after surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that LR could provide certain benefits in managing PPUs, such as reduced lengths of hospital stay and lower incidences of surgical site infections. Although LR reported promising directions in patient satisfaction and quality of life indicators, the limited duration of postoperative monitoring necessitates caution in broadly applying these results.

Global 30-day morbidity and mortality of surgery for perforated peptic ulcer: GRACE study

BACKGROUND

There is little international data on morbidity and mortality of surgery for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). This study aimed to understand the global 30-day morbidity and mortality of patients undergoing surgery for PPU and to identify variables associated with these.

METHOD

We performed an international study of adults (≥ 18 years) who underwent surgery for PPU from 1st January 2022 to 30th June 2022. Patients who were treated conservatively or had an underlying gastric cancer were excluded. Patients were divided into subgroups according to age (≤ 50 and > 50 years) and time from onset of symptoms to hospital presentation (≤ 24 and > 24 h). Univariate and Multivariate analyses were carried out to identify factors associated with higher 30-day morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

 1874 patients from 159 centres across 52 countries were included. 78.3% (n = 1467) of the patients were males and the median (IQR) age was 49 years (25). Thirty-day morbidity and mortality were 48.5% (n = 910) and 9.3% (n = 174) respectively. Median (IQR) hospital stay was 7 (5) days. Open surgery was performed in 80% (n = 1505) of the cohort. Age > 50 years [(OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2), (OR = 4.7, 95% CI 3.1-7.6)], female gender [(OR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.4-2.3), (OR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.9)], shock on admission [(OR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.7-2.7), (OR = 4.8, 95% CI 3.2-7.1)], and acute kidney injury [(OR = 2.5, 95% CI 1.9-3.2), (OR = 3.9), 95% CI 2.7-5.6)] were associated with both 30-day morbidity and mortality. Delayed presentation was associated with 30-day morbidity [OR = 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6], but not mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that surgery for PPU was associated with high 30-day morbidity and mortality rate. Age, female gender, and signs of shock at presentation were associated with both 30-day morbidity and mortality.

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.

Propensity score matching analysis of laparoscopic surgery vs. open approach in 4 297 adult patients with acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis or gastrointestinal tract perforation: a prospective multicentre study of nationwide outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous studies indicated that laparoscopic surgery could improve postoperative outcomes in acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis, perforated gastroduodenal ulcer, or acute diverticulitis, but some reported opposite results or differences in the magnitude of improvement. A contemporary analysis using propensity score matching that compares outcomes is lacking.

METHODS

Over a 6-month period, 38 centres (5% of all public hospitals) attending emergency general surgery patients on a 24 h, 7 days a week basis, enroled all consecutive adult patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery or open approach.

RESULTS

The study included 2 645 patients with acute appendicitis [32 years (22-51), 44.3% women], 1 182 with acute cholecystitis [65 years (48-76); 46.7% women], and 470 with gastrointestinal tract perforation [65 years (50-76); 34% women]. After propensity score matching, hospital stays decreased in acute appendicitis [open, 2 days (2-4); lap, 2 days (1-4); P <0.001], acute cholecystitis [open, 7 days (4-12); lap, 4 days (3-6); P <0.001], and gastrointestinal tract perforation [open, 11 days (7-17); lap, 6 days (5-8.5); P <0.001]. A decrease in 30-day morbidity was observed in acute appendicitis (open, 15.7%; lap, 9.7%; P <0.001), acute cholecystitis (open, 41%; lap, 21.7%; P <0.001), and gastrointestinal tract perforation (open, 45.2%; lap, 23.5%; P <0.001). A decrease in 30-day mortality was found in acute cholecystitis (open, 8.8%; lap, 2.8%; P =0.013) and gastrointestinal tract perforation (open, 10.4%; lap, 1.7%; P =0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

This clinically based, multicentre study suggests that an initial laparoscopic approach could be considered not only in patients with acute appendicitis or acute cholecystitis but also in patients with a perforation of the gastrointestinal tract.

Laparoscopic Repair Modality of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Less Is More?

Perforation, per se, presents the most serious complication of peptic ulcer disease with a mortality rate that cannot be underestimated. Surgery is the only treatment option, which can be performed laparoscopically or via conventional laparotomy. The present study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopy and laparotomy techniques in the surgical treatment of peptic ulcer perforation. A retrospective study design was structured to compare the perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of 102 patients who had undergone laparoscopic and conventional repair of the perforated peptic ulcer over a six-year interval (January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021). Of these, 44 (43.1%) had undergone laparoscopic repair while 58 (56.9%) had surgical repair via conventional laparotomy. The operative time and length of hospital stay were comparable in both subgroups (p=0.984 and p =0.585). Nevertheless, 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly higher in the open surgery subgroup (75.9% vs. 59.1%, p= 0.032). The risk of relaparotomy was similar in both study subgroups; however, suture dehiscence as a reason for surgical revision was significantly more frequent in the laparoscopic subgroup (13.6% vs 3.4%). Of note, the mortality rate in the laparoscopic group of patients was 13.6%, and in the laparotomy group 41.4%. The laparoscopic approach to peptic ulcer perforation is the procedure of choice for low-risk patients. Conventional surgery seems to be associated with a significantly higher incidence of severe postoperative complications and mortality. However, the higher mortality in these patients is probably related to their worse initial clinical condition.

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.