A prospective randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic repair versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcers

Approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials - study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Perforated peptic ulcers are a life-threatening complication associated with high morbidity and mortality. Several treatment approaches are available. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare surgical and alternative approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers regarding mortality and other patient-relevant outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry and ICTRP will be conducted with predefined search terms.To address the question of the most effective treatment approach, an NMA will be performed for each of the outcomes mentioned above. A closed network of interventions is expected. The standardised mean difference with its 95% CI will be used as the effect measure for the continuous outcomes, and the ORs with 95% CI will be calculated for the binary outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

In accordance with the nature of the data used in this meta-analysis, which involves aggregate information from previously published studies ethical approval is deemed unnecessary. Results will be disseminated directly to decision-makers (eg, surgeons, gastroenterologists) through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023482932.

Improvement of Russian clinical guidelines and reduction of mortality in perforated ulcers

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the results of laparoscopic surgery in patients with perforated ulcers using evidence-based medicine approaches.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We compared the efficacy and effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgeries in patients with perforated ulcers. Meta-analysis of mortality after laparoscopic surgeries (randomized controlled trials) and trial sequential analysis were carried out.

RESULTS

We clarified the differences between the efficacy and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgeries regarding postoperative mortality. In the Russian Federation, mortality after laparoscopic surgery is 9-11 times lower compared to open procedures. According to evidence-based researches (efficacy of laparoscopic interventions in 10 meta-analyses), these differences are less obvious (1.4-3.0 times) and not significant. The diversity-adjusted required information size to draw reasonable conclusions about differences in mortality in trial sequential analysis was 68 181 participants. Meta-analyses of RCTs also demonstrate lower incidence of wound complications (1.8-5.0% after laparoscopic surgery and 6.3-13.3% after laparotomy), shorter hospital-stay (mean difference from -0.13 to -2.84) and less severe pain syndrome (mean difference in VAS score from -2.08 to -2.45) after laparoscopic technologies.

CONCLUSION

The obvious advantage of laparoscopic surgery in patients with perforated ulcers is fast-truck recovery following shorter hospital-stay, mild pain and rarer wound complications. Comparison of postoperative mortality regarding efficacy and effectiveness is difficult due to insufficient introduction of laparoscopic technologies in clinical practice and diversity-adjusted required information size.

A comparative study on laparoscopic and open surgical approaches for perforated peptic ulcer repair: efficacy and outcomes analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open sutures for peptic ulcer perforation (PPU).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies from inception to March 31, 2023. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cl) were also calculated. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. This study was performed using the Stata (V.16.0) software.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies involving 17,228 patients were included in this study. In terms of postoperative outcomes, the laparoscopic group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = -0.29, 95%CI = -0.44 to -0.13, P = 0.00), less blood loss (MD = -0.45, 95%CI = -0.82 to -0.08, P = 0.02), fewer wound infection (OR = 0.20, 95%CI = 0.17 to 0.24, P = 0.00), fewer pneumonia (OR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.41 to 0.87, P = 0.01), fewer respiratory complications (OR = 0.26, 95%CI = 0.13 to 0.55, P = 0.00) and lower postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.51, 95%CI = 0.33 to 0.78, P = 0.00). The laparoscopic group had a lower mortality rate (OR = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.27 to 0.49, P = 0.00) than the open group. We also found that the laparoscopic group had a higher overall complication rate than the open group (OR = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.34 to 0.60, P = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repair was associated with a lower risk of mortality than open repair in patients with PPU. Laparoscopic repair may be a better option in patients with PPU.

A comparative study of laparoscopic versus laparotomy repair of perforated peptic ulcer: A prospective study

Background

Laparoscopic surgery is still gaining popularity in conditions associated with peritonitis, such as a perforated peptic ulcer.

Aim of the work

This study aimed to compare laparoscopic and laparotomy repair of perforated peptic ulcers regarding intraoperative parameters, postoperative pain, time of the start of oral feeding, postoperative complication, hospital stay, resuming normal activity, and outcomes.

Patients and methods

This is a prospective study of 50 patients (males and females), of any age with perforated peptic ulcer. Those patients will be divided by the random serial number method into two groups: the laparoscopic group and the open (laparotomy) group. In a period from 15th April 2022 to 15th February 2023 data related to patients were recorded and subjected to analysis.

Results

All patients were divided into two groups: Laparoscopic group with 25 patients (23 of them underwent successful laparoscopic repair and two patients were converted to open) and the open (laparotomy) group with 25 patients underwent laparotomy repair (of which 23 patients were living, and two patients died on the third and tenth postoperative days). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between both groups in terms of age, gender, special habits, preoperative risk factors, comorbidities, laboratory, and radiological findings; also both groups showed insignificant differences regarding the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (P=0.83), total Boey’s score (P=0.77), shock on admission (P= 1.00), and the duration of symptoms > 24 hours (P= 0.77). Operative time was significantly increased in the laparoscopic versus open group (P=0.0001). While, first-day pain score (VAS), opioid requirements, time of starting oral feeding, length of hospital stay, and return to normal activity were highly significantly decreased in laparoscopic repair compared with open repair (P= <0.0001 for each). Total postoperative complications showed insignificant difference between the studied groups (P=0.16), but they were more prevalent between the open group (14 patients, 56%) versus the laparoscopic group (9 patients, 36%). Good cosmetic results of wounds were more prevalent in the laparoscopic group [20 patients (80.00%)] than the open group [13 patients (56.52%)], but insignificant, P=0.17.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic repair had an upper hand over open repair regarding less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative pain, requiring less postoperative analgesia, early starting of oral feeding, less postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, early return to normal activity, and good cosmetic results of wounds.

Outcomes of laparoscopic modified Cellan-Jones repair versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer at a community hospital

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive or open Graham Patch repair remains the gold standard approach for management of perforated peptic ulcers (PPU). Herein, we report outcomes of laparoscopic technique and compare it with open approach at a community hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study conducted comparing laparoscopic modified Cellan-Jones repair (mCJR) versus the standard open repair of PPU. Patients aged 18-90 years during 2016-2021 were offered either a minimally invasive or open approach depending on surgeon laparoscopic capability, and were compared in terms of demographics, co-morbidities, intra-operative details, and short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients were included (46.9% males, mean age 52.9 years, mean BMI 25.0, ASA ≥ III 75.5%, 75.5% smokers, 26.5% current NSAIDs use, and 71.4% alcohol drinkers). Duodenum was the most common perforation site (57.1%), and majority of ulcers were 1-2 cm (72.9%). Laparoscopic approach was performed in 16 consecutive patients (32.7%) by a single surgeon, with no conversions. Preoperative characteristics were similar for both groups. Compared to open approach, laparoscopic group were taken to operation immediately (< 4 h) (87.5% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001), had lower estimated blood loss (11.8 ml vs. 73.8 ml, p = 0.063), and longer operative time (117.1 min vs. 85.6 min, p = 0.010). Postoperatively, nasogastric tube was removed earlier in laparoscopic group (POD1-2, 87.5% vs. 24.2%, p = 0.001), with earlier resumption of diet (POD1-2, 62.6% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.002), less narcotic usage (< 3 days, 58.3% vs. 6.1%, p < 0.001), earlier return of bowel function (POD1-2, 43.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.003) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (3.7 days vs. 16.1 days, p < 0.001). Both in-house mortality and morbidity rates were lower in the laparoscopic group, but not statistically significant [(0% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.347) and (12.5% vs. 39.4%, p = 0.500), respectively].

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic mCJR is a feasible method for repair of PPU, and it is associated with shorter LOS, and less narcotics usage in comparison to the open repair approach.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open omental patch repair of perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

The mainstay of surgical management of perforated peptic ulcer is omental patch repair. Advances in minimally invasive techniques have shown feasibility of laparoscopic omental patch repair (LOPR). Laparoscopic omental patch repair is limited by learning curve (LC), but there is a lack of reporting of LC in LOPR. This study aims to compare outcomes following LOPR versus open omental patch repair (OOPR) with reporting of LC.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till January 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing LOPR and OOPR in perforated peptic ulcer. Exclusion criteria were primary repair without use of omental patch repair. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, postoperative leak, and LC analysis.

RESULTS

There were a total of 29 studies including 5,311 patients (LOPR, n = 1,687; OOPR, n = 3,624), with 4 RCTs with 238 patients (LOPR, n = 118; OOPR, n = 120). Majority of ulcers were located in the duodenum (57.0%) followed by stomach (30.7%). Mean ulcer size ranged from 5 to 16.2 mm in LOPR and 4.7 to 15.8 mm in OOPR. Laparoscopic omental patch repair was associated with lower 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.92; p = 0.02), overall morbidity (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18-0.53; p < 0.0001), surgical site infection (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.42; p < 0.00001), and length of stay (mean difference, -2.84 days; 95% CI, -3.63 to -2.06; p < 0.00001). Postoperative leakage (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.43-2.61; p = 0.90) was comparable between LOPR and OOPR. Only three studies analyzed the proportion of consultants to trainees; LOPR was performed mainly by consultants (range, 82.4-91.4%), while OOPR was mainly performed by trainees (range, 52.8-96.8%). One study showed that consultants who performed open conversion had shorter operating time compared with chief residents (85 vs. 186.6 minutes, p < 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic omental patch repair has lower mortality, overall morbidity, length of stay, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain compared with OOPR. More prospective studies should be conducted to evaluate LC in LOPR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Level IV.

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.

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a multicenter, propensity score matching analysis

Background

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a common emergency condition requiring surgery using laparoscopy or open repair of the perforated site. The aim of this study was to assess the role of laparoscopic surgery (LS) based on the safety and efficacy for PPU.

Methods

Medical records of the consecutive patients who underwent LS or open surgery (OS) for PPU at five hospitals between January 2009 and December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. After propensity score matching, short-term perioperative outcomes were compared between LS and OS in selected patients.

Results

Among the 598 patients included in the analysis, OS was more frequently performed in patients with worse factors, including older age, a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score, more alcohol use, longer symptom duration, a higher Boey score, a higher serum C-reactive protein level, a lower serum albumin level, and a larger-diameter perforated site. After propensity score matching, 183 patients were included in each group; variables were well-balanced between-groups. Postoperative complications were not different between groups (24.6% LS group vs. 31.7% OS group, p = 0.131). However, postoperative length of hospital stay (10.03 vs. 12.53 days, respectively, p = 0.003) and postoperative time to liquid intake (3.75 vs. 5.26 days, p < 0.001) were shorter in the LS group.

Conclusions

LS resulted in better functional recovery than OS and can be safely performed for treatment of PPU. When performed by experienced surgeons, LS is an alternative option, even for hemodynamically unstable patients.

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.

Evaluating the Evolving Morbidity of Omentoplasty for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease

Mortality for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) surgery ranges from 2-22% with morbidity ranging from 15-45%. Traditionally, these had been repaired with vagotomy and antrectomy or pyloroplasty with smaller perforations repaired with an omentoplasty. Laparoscopic repair has become increasingly prevalent and demonstrated to have shorter length of stay (LOS) and fewer complications. We are evaluating the surgical repair of PPU with omentoplasty to determine trends of utilization and surgical outcomes. We conducted a 13-year (2005-2017) retrospective review, utilizing the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. A total of 6873 patients had open or laparoscopic repair of a PPU, with 2285 patients identified as utilizing omentoplasty. Five hundred eighty-eight omentoplasty patients were further identified as having a laparoscopic technique. We compared patient demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative morbidity and mortality for surgical patients between 2005-2011 and 2012-2017. We trended the perioperative outcomes across the study intervals. Parametric and nonparametric tests were used to evaluate outcomes. Between 2005 and between 2017, laparoscopic surgical repair with omentoplasty has increased from 3.8% to 34.6%. Overall mortality for open operations declined during this interval (12.7%-9.3%) while it remained unchanged for laparoscopic operations (4.6%-4.2%), there was not a significant difference between the laparoscopic and open 30-day mortality. Both open surgery and laparoscopic surgery are being used on an increasingly healthy cohort (increased functional status decreased predicted perioperative morbidity). Relative to the 2005-2011, the laparoscopic surgery 2012-2017 cohort had increases in both serious and overall morbidity, although this was not statistically significant. Compared to the 2005-2011, the 2012-2017 open surgery cohort had increasing serious morbidity (OR 2.03) and overall morbidity (OR 1.91). There was a trend of decreasing LOS and increased return to the operating room for patients with laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic Graham patch repair of peptic ulcers significantly increased, although open repair still constitutes the majority of the cases. Despite Graham patch repair being utilized on a healthier patient population, morbidity and mortality for laparoscopic repair have remained unchanged. Postoperative morbidity and mortality for open surgery have increased. This indicates that laparoscopic repair is more commonly utilized for low- or medium risk patients, leaving an increasingly sick patient population selected to open repair.

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.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Propensity-matched Study of the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare open surgery (OS) with laparoscopic surgery (LS) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) disease using a National dataset BACKGROUND:: PPU disease is typically treated surgically with an omental patch. This can be performed through OS or a LS. Current evidence in OS versus LS suggests equivalence in mortality and postoperative complications, but a decrease in pain and wound infections with LS.

METHODS

A one-to-one propensity score-matched analysis of patients who underwent PPU repair from December 2013 to December 2017 using data from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit was performed. Patients with an initially laparoscopic approach were classed as LS even if converted to OS. The primary end-point was 90-day mortality; secondary endpoints were length of stay (LOS), re-operation, and re-admission to critical care. Multivariable logistic and linear models were created to compare the effect of operative approach on binary and continuous outcomes with log-rank tests for time-to-event data.

RESULTS

A total of 5253 patients underwent surgery in the study period. After propensity-matching, 2 groups of 1158 patients were created. Overall 90-day mortality was 7.5%. There was no difference between the LA and OA for 90-day mortality (7.2% vs 8.5%, OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56-1.15, P = 0.23), median LOS (equivalent at 7 days, P = 0.09), reoperation (3.6% vs 4.0%, P = 0.74), or re-admission to critical care (2.8% vs 2.9%, P = 0.92). Across the 4-year study period LS use increased from 20% to 26% and the conversion rate decreased from 40% to 31%.

CONCLUSIONS

Short outcomes from laparoscopic PPU repair appear equivalent to open repair. There is increasing adoption of LS with decreasing conversion rates. LS for PPU appears to be an acceptable approach in this setting.

Variation in descriptors of patient characteristics in randomized clinical trials of peptic ulcer repair: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The ability to compare findings across surgical research is important. Inadequate description of participants, interventions or outcomes could lead to bias and inaccurate assessment of findings. The aim of this study was to assess consistency of description of participants using studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of peptic ulcer as an example.

METHODS

This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Searches of MEDLINE and Embase databases were performed to identify studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer in adults, published in the English language. Manuscripts were dual-screened for eligibility. Full texts were retrieved and dual-screened for inclusion. Data extracted from studies included descriptors of participants in studies from tables and text. Descriptors were categorized into conceptual domains by the research team, and coverage of each domain by study was tabulated.

RESULTS

Searches identified 2018 studies. After screening, 37 full texts were retrieved and 23 studies were included in the final synthesis. A total of 76 unique descriptors were identified. These were classified into demographics (11 descriptors), vital signs (9 descriptors), disease-specific characteristics (10 descriptors), presentation and pathway factors (4 descriptors), risk factors (8 descriptors), laboratory tests (14 descriptors) and baseline health (28 descriptors). The number of descriptors in a single study ranged from three to 31. All studies reported at least one demographic descriptor. Laboratory tests was the least frequently described domain.

CONCLUSION

Study participants are described inconsistently in studies of a single example surgical condition.

Comparison of laparoscopic surgery versus traditional laparotomy for the treatment of emergency patients

Objective

To investigate the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic gastrointestinal emergency surgery and postoperative complications.

Methods

Data for 604 patients undergoing emergency gastrointestinal surgery between January 2013 and December 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Treatment efficacy and postoperative complications were compared between 300 patients (control group) undergoing traditional laparotomy and 304 patients (observation group) undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Results

Clinical features were significantly better in the observation group than in the control group, including duration of surgery (59.12 ± 10.31 minutes vs. 70.34 ± 12.83 minutes), intraoperative blood loss (41.21 ± 10.45 mL vs. 61.38 ± 9.97 mL), postoperative pain score (1.25 ± 0.25 points. vs. 5.13 ± 0.43 points), length of hospital stay (5.13 ± 0.24 days vs. 7.05 ± 0.13 days), and time to free activity (13 ± 2.96 hours vs. 22 ± 3.02 hours). The total complication incidence in the observation group was 3.9%, compared with 16% in the control group (16%). No significant differences in direct medical costs were recorded between the observation and control groups.

Conclusions

For patients undergoing emergency gastrointestinal surgery, laparoscopic surgery resulted in better clinical outcomes than traditional laparotomy without incurring additional costs. The potential clinical benefits of emergency laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery warrant further study.

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is not prognostic factor for 30-day mortality (a nationwide prospective cohort study)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has become increasingly popular in treating perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). However, currently it is not recognized as a prognostic factor for mortality within this group of patients. The aim of this study was to investigate whether laparoscopic surgery was an independent mortality risk factor in patients treated surgically for perforated peptic ulcer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a Danish nationwide cohort study based on prospectively collected data of 1008 patients treated surgically for PPU between September 2011 and December 2015. A propensity score matching analysis, considering most of the known prognostic factors for mortality and baseline characteristics, was used to adjust mortality estimates in patients treated with open and laparoscopic surgery. The primary outcome was postoperative 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

The study population comprised 1008 patients; 507 were treated laparoscopically and 501 by open surgery. There was significantly higher mean age, and higher ASA scores, as well as other mortality risk factors in the open surgery group. The unadjusted 30-day mortality was significantly lower in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery (HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.36-0.65). After matching and weighting controls, the adjusted difference in mortality was reduced and was not significant (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.59-1.15). The 30-day mortality was 13.1% for laparoscopy and 14.7% for the matched controls in the open surgery group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to open surgery, laparoscopic surgery in patients with PPU does not reduce short term mortality. More well powered randomized clinical trials are needed to investigate the role of laparoscopic surgery in treatment of patients with PPU.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer: A retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Perforated peptic ulcer disease (PPU) is a condition subject to wide geographical variations in incidence. It remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, even in the era of Helicobacter pylori eradication and proton-pump inhibitor therapy. There is no clear consensus on whether laparoscopic or open approaches are superior, and with most studies in this area originating from Europe and Asia, Australian data addressing this issue are lacking.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent surgery for PPU within a hospital network in Australia. Baseline variables and primary outcomes, including length of hospital stay, chest and abdominal complications, and mortality, were recorded. Secondary outcomes, including reasons for conversion, were also considered.

RESULTS

In total, 109 patients underwent operations for PPU between January 2011 and December 2015. There were no significant differences with regard to baseline comorbidities. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of median length of hospital stay or rates of chest and abdominal complications, but the operative time was 28.5 min longer (P = <0.001) in the laparoscopic group than in the open group.

CONCLUSION

Open operations were faster to perform than laparoscopic operations for repair of PPU. Despite increased experience treating many surgical diseases laparoscopically, this study did not find it to be superior in terms of length of hospital stay or complication rates.

Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair

PURPOSE

Over the last 3 decades, laparoscopic procedures have emerged as the standard treatment for many elective and emergency surgical conditions. Despite the increased use of laparoscopic surgery, the role of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer remains controversial among general surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer.

METHODS

A systemic literature review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Database of all randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared laparoscopic (LR) with open repair (OR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). Data was extracted using a standardised form and subsequently analysed.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis using data from 7 RCT showed that LR for PPU has decreased overall post-operative morbidity (LR = 8.9% vs. OR = 17.0%) (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.79, p < 0.01), wound infections, (LR = 2.2% vs. OR = 6.3%) (OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.5, p < 0.01) and shorter duration of hospital stay (6.6 days vs. 8.2 days, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in length of operation, leakage rate, incidence of intra-abdominal abscess, post-operative sepsis, respiratory complications, re-operation rate or mortality. There was no publication bias and the quality of the studies ranged from poor to good.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate that laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer has a reduced morbidity and total hospital stay compared with open approach. There are no significant differences in mortality, post-operative sepsis, abscess and re-operation rates. LR should be the preferred treatment option for patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease.

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.