Cost-efficiency and outcomes in the treatment of perforated peptic ulcer disease: laparoscopic versus open approach

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.

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.

Helicobacter pylori infection treatment in the United States: clinical consequences and costs of eradication treatment failure

INTRODUCTION

Helicobacter pylori (Hp) is causal in benign and malignant gastrointestinal diseases. Accordingly, current guidelines recommend Hp eradication in patients with active infection. Unfortunately, treatment failure is common, exposing patients to complications associated with persistent Hp infection and consequences of repeated treatment, including promotion of antibiotic resistance. In the United States (US), data regarding eradication rates with available therapies are limited. Moreover, the clinical and economic burden of eradication treatment failure have not been thoroughly described.

AREAS COVERED

We aimed to characterize Hp eradication rates and the clinical consequences and associated costs of persistent Hp infection among US adults. We conducted focused literature reviews using initial searches in Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Ovid followed by manual searches to identify relevant publications.

EXPERT OPINION

Hp eradication rates were suboptimal, with most studies reporting rates ≤80% with clarithromycin-based triple therapy and bismuth quadruple therapy. There was direct evidence supporting numerous benefits of successful Hp eradication, including decreased risk of recurrent or complicated peptic disease and non-cardia gastric cancer. Cost benefits of eradication were related to mitigation of conditions associated with persistent Hp infection, (e.g. complicated peptic ulcer disease, and gastric cancer) which altogether exceed US$5.3 billion.

Comparative study of postoperative complications after open and laparoscopic surgery of the perforated peptic ulcer: Advantages of the laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

Despite the acceptance of the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers, its definitive implantation is still a matter of discussion. We performed a comparative study between the open and laparoscopic approach focused on postoperative surgical complications.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study in which patients operated on for perforated peptic ulcus in our center between 2001 and 2017 were analyzed. Only those in whom suture and/or omentoplasty had been performed were selected, either for open or laparoscopic approach. Demographic, clinical, and intraoperative variables, complications, mortality and length of stay were collected. Both groups, open and laparoscopic surgery patients, were compared.

RESULTS

The final study sample was 250 patients, 190 (76%) men and 60 (24%) women, mean age 54 years (SD ± 16.7). In 129 cases (52%), the surgical approach was open, and in 121 (48%) it was laparoscopic. Grades III-V complications of the Clavien-Dindo Classification occurred in 23 cases (9%). Operative mortality was 1.2% (3 patients). Laparoscopically operated patients had significantly fewer complications (p = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, laparoscopic approach (p = 0.025; OR:0.45-95%CI: 0.22-0.91), age (p = 0.003; OR:1.03-95%CI: 1.01-1.06), and Boey score (p = 0.024 - OR:1.71 - CI95%: 1.07-2.72), were independent prognostic factors for postoperative surgical complications.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery should be considered the first-choice approach for patients with perforated peptic ulcer. It is significantly associated with fewer postoperative complications and a shorter hospital stay than the open approach.

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.

Laparoscopic omental patch for perforated peptic ulcer disease reduces length of stay and complications, compared to open surgery: A SWSC multicenter study

RCTs showed benefits in Lap repair of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The SWSC Multi-Center Trials Group sought to evaluate whether Lap omental patch repairs compared to Open improved outcomes in PPU in general practice. Data was collected from 9 SWSC Trial Group centers. Demographics, operative time, 30-day complications, length of stay and mortality were included. 461 PATIENTS: Open in 311(67%) patients, Lap in 132(28%) with 20(5%) patients converted from Lap to Open. Groups were similar at baseline. Significant variability was found between centers in their utilization of Lap (0-67%). Complications at 30 days were lower in Lap (18.5% vs. 27.5%, p < 0.05) as was unplanned re-operation (4.7% vs 14%, p < 0.05). Lap reduced LOS (6 vs 8 days, p < 0.001). Ileus was more in Lap (42% vs 18 p < 0.001) operative time was 14 min higher in Lap(p < 0.01) and admission to OR time was 4 h higher in Lap(<0.05). No significant difference readmission or mortality. Our results suggest Lap should be considered a first-line option in suitable PPU patients requiring omental patch repair in centers that have the capacity and resources 24/7.

Complete Impact of Care Fragmentation on Readmissions Following Urgent Abdominal Operations

BACKGROUND

Urgent abdominal operations commonly occurred in low-volume hospitals with high failure-to-rescue rates. Recent studies have demonstrated a survival benefit associated with readmission to the original hospital after operation, presumably due to improved continuity of care. It is unclear if this survival benefit persists in low-volume hospitals. We seek to evaluate differences in mortality between readmission to the original hospital and a higher-volume hospital after urgent abdominal operations.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study using the National Readmissions Database from 2010 to 2014 was performed. Propensity score-weighted multilevel regression analysis was used to examine the association between readmission destination and mortality after accounting for hospital volume.

RESULTS

A total of 71,551 adult patients who experienced 30-day readmission following urgent abdominal operations were identified, among whom 10,368 (14.5%) were readmitted to a different hospital. Patients with higher baseline comorbidity scores, lower income, less comprehensive insurance coverage, systemic complications, prolonged length of stay, or non-home disposition were more likely to experience readmission to a different hospital. Following stratification by readmission hospital volume and propensity score weighting to adjust for baseline mortality risk differences, readmission to a different hospital is still associated with higher mortality rates than the original hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

The adverse outcomes associated with case fragmentation are present even after adjusting for readmission hospital volume. Patients who received urgent abdominal operations at low-volume hospitals should return to the original hospital for concern of care fragmentation.

Surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcers: laparoscopic versus open approach

INTRODUCTION

Perforated peptic ulcers are a surgical emergency that can be repaired using either laparoscopic surgery (LS) or open surgery (OS). No consensus has been reached on the comparative outcomes and safety of each approach.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, we conducted a 12-year retrospective review (2005-2016) and identified 6260 adult patients who underwent either LS (n = 616) or OS (n = 5644) to repair perforated peptic ulcers. To mitigate selection bias and adjust for the inherent heterogeneity between groups, we used propensity-score matching with a case (LS):control (OS) ratio of 1:3. We then compared intraoperative outcomes such as operative time, and 30-day postoperative outcomes including infectious and non-infectious complications, and mortality.

RESULTS

Propensity-score matching created a total of 2462 matched pairs (616 in the LS group, 1846 in the OS group). Univariate analysis demonstrated successful matching of patient characteristics and baseline clinical variables. We found that OS was associated with a shorter operative time (67.0 ± 28.6 min, OS versus 86.9 ± 57.5 min, LS; P < 0.001) but a longer hospital stay (8.6 ± 6.2 days, OS versus 7.8 ± 5.9 days, LS; P = 0.001). LS was associated with a lower rate of superficial surgical site infections (1.5%, LS versus 4.2%, OS; P = 0.032), wound dehiscence (0.3%, LS versus 1.6%, OS; P = 0.030), and mortality (3.2%, LS versus 5.4%, OS; P = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Fewer than 10% of patients with perforated peptic ulcers underwent LS, which was associated with reduced length of stay, lower rate of superficial surgical site infections, wound dehiscence, and mortality. Given our results, a greater emphasis should be provided to a minimally invasive approach for the surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcers.

Perforated peptic ulcer - an update

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) affects 4 million people worldwide annually. The incidence of PUD has been estimated at around 1.5% to 3%. Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a serious complication of PUD and patients with PPU often present with acute abdomen that carries high risk for morbidity and mortality. The lifetime prevalence of perforation in patients with PUD is about 5%. PPU carries a mortality ranging from 1.3% to 20%. Thirty-day mortality rate reaching 20% and 90-d mortality rate of up to 30% have been reported. In this review we have summarized the current evidence on PPU to update readers. This literature review includes the most updated information such as common causes, clinical features, diagnostic methods, non-operative and operative management, post-operative complications and different scoring systems of PPU. With the advancement of medical technology, PUD can now be treated with medications instead of elective surgery. The classic triad of sudden onset of abdominal pain, tachycardia and abdominal rigidity is the hallmark of PPU. Erect chest radiograph may miss 15% of cases with air under the diaphragm in patients with bowel perforation. Early diagnosis, prompt resuscitation and urgent surgical intervention are essential to improve outcomes. Exploratory laparotomy and omental patch repair remains the gold standard. Laparoscopic surgery should be considered when expertise is available. Gastrectomy is recommended in patients with large or malignant 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.