An Updated Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer

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 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.

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remain a surgical emergency accounting for 37% of all peptic ulcer-related deaths. Surgery remains the standard of care. The benefits of laparoscopic approach have been well-established even in the elderly. However, because of inconsistent results with specific regard to some technical aspects of such technique surgeons questioned the adoption of laparoscopic approach. This leads to choose the type of approach based on personal experience. The aim of our study was to critically appraise the use of the laparoscopic approach in PPU treatment comparing it with open procedure.

METHODS

A retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients underwent surgical procedure for PPU was performed. Patients undergoing PPU repair were divided into: Laparoscopic approach (LapA) and Open approach (OpenA) groups and clinical-pathological features of patients in the both groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 453 patients underwent PPU simple repair. Among these, a LapA was adopted in 49% (222/453 patients). After propensity score matching, 172 patients were included in each group (the LapA and the OpenA). Analysis demonstrated increased operative times in the OpenA [OpenA: 96.4 ± 37.2 vs LapA 88.47 ± 33 min, p = 0.035], with shorter overall length of stay in the LapA group [OpenA 13 ± 12 vs LapA 10.3 ± 11.4 days p = 0.038]. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality [OpenA 26 (15.1%) vs LapA 18 (10.5%), p = 0.258]. Focusing on morbidity, the overall rate of 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the LapA group [OpenA 67 patients (39.0%) vs LapA 37 patients (21.5%) p = 0.002]. When stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification, the severity of postoperative complications was statistically different only for C-D 1-2.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present study, we can support that laparoscopic suturing of perforated peptic ulcers, apart from being a safe technique, could provide significant advantages in terms of postoperative complications and hospital stay.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Outcome of Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcers in a Resource-Limited Setting

Background

Perforation of peptic ulcers is a common cause of emergency surgery and has significant morbidity and mortality. The use and range of laparoscopic surgery have greatly increased over the past three decades. Laparoscopic approach is an option for perforated peptic ulcers because of the simple nature of the intervention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic approach for peptic ulcer repair in emergency setting by means of operative time, post-operative pain, mean hospital stay, and post-operative complications.

Methods

In this study, we enrolled patients presenting with perforated peptic ulcers in the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital in Lahore, Pakistan. Approval from the hospital ethical committee and informed consent were taken from all patients. After resuscitation, the patient underwent laparoscopic repair of perforation. Post-operative course of patients was monitored. Duration of surgery, post-operative pain, length of hospital stay, and post-operative complications were noted for all patients.

Results

Between December 2018 and December 2021, 31 patients with perforated peptic ulcers underwent laparoscopic repair at our hospital. Mean age of patients was 37.25 ± 7.80 years. Most of the patients were male (70.76%). The mean operation time was 109.35 ± 17.02 minutes for laparoscopic repair. Mean duration of hospital stay was 5.10 ± 0.87 days. Mean post-operative pain was 3.55 ± 0.85 assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale. There were no mortalities during the 30-day post-operative window.

Conclusion

With proper patient selection, laparoscopic surgery offers better results as compared to open surgery in patients undergoing emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcers.

Omental patch repair of large perforated peptic ulcers ≥25 mm is associated with higher leak rate

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Omental patch repair is the present gold-standard technique for patients with perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs). Data are lacking regarding the safe ulcer size for omental patch repair leak (OPL). We analyze our experience in managing PPU to identify an ulcer size cut-off for predicting OPL.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone omental patch repair for PPU between Jan 2004 and Apr 2016 were included. Demographic data, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, ulcer size, operative approach, post-operative complications, and length of stay were recorded. OPL, intra-abdominal collection, repeat surgery, and 30-day mortality were recorded. The relationship between ulcer size, pre-operative characteristics, and OPL were investigated with univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis derived the ulcer size cut-off to predict OPL. In addition, we analyzed if ulcer size predicted mortality or malignancy.

RESULTS

Six hundred and ninety patients with a mean age of 55.1 years (range 16-94) were managed for PPU during the study period. Free air on X-ray was evident in 417 (60.4%) patients. Mean ulcer size was 7.8 mm (range 1-50). OPL occurred in 15 patients (2.2%) and 30-day mortality was 7.4% (n=51). Multivariate analysis found ulcer size increase of 10 mm (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.81-6.02, P<0.001) predicted increased risk of OPL. At 25 mm cut-off, sensitivity was 26.7%, specificity was 97.2%, positive likelihood ratio was 9.47, and negative likelihood ratio was 0.76 for OPL.

CONCLUSION

Ulcer size increase in 10 mm increases leak rate by 3.3 times. Ulcer size ≥25 mm predicts OPL.

RELEVANCE FOR PATIENTS

Increased risk of OPL for ≥25 mm warrants need for close post-operative monitoring and lowers threshold for investigations in event of clinical deterioration. Decision for omental patch repair versus gastrectomy however should not be based on ulcer size alone.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a surgical emergency needing swift operative resolution. While laparoscopic and open approaches are viable options, it remains unclear whether laparoscopic repair has significantly improved outcomes. We use a national surgical database to compare perioperative and 30-d postoperative (30POP) outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 2016-2018 ACS-NSQIP database was used to create the patient cohort, using ICD-10 and CPT codes. An unmatched analysis identified factors that likely contributed to the laparoscopic versus open treatment allocation. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to identify outcomes that were not explained by underlying differences in the patient cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 3475 patients were included: 3135 in open group (OG), 340 (~10%) in laparoscopic group (LG). After PSM to control for comorbidities and illness severity that differed between groups on univariate analysis, 288 patients remained in each group. Analysis of the matched cohorts revealed no statistically significant difference in mortality (5.9% OG versus 3.8% LG, P = 0.245). The LG had significantly longer operative times (92 versus 79 min, P = 0.003), shorter hospital stays (8.2 versus 9.4 d, P = 0.044) and higher probability of being discharged home (81% versus 73%, P = 0.017). 30POP outcomes were largely equivalent, except that OG had higher risk for bleeding (14.6% versus 8%, P = 0.012) and pneumonia (8.7% versus 4.5%, P = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

While laparoscopic repairs take longer, they lead to shorter hospital stays and higher likelihood of discharge home. Further study to identify patients that are candidates for this technique is warranted.

Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer in the Elderly: An Interim Analysis of the FRAILESEL Italian Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

The number of elderly patients requiring emergency surgical intervention has increased dramatically. Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) complications, such as perforation, have remained relatively stable and associated morbidity remains between 10% and 20%. Advances in perioperative care have greatly improved the outcomes of laparoscopic emergency surgery, allowing increasing numbers of patients, even the elderly, to undergo safe repair. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and outcome of laparoscopic gastric repair in the elderly using the database of the FRAILESEL (Frailty and Emergency Surgery in the Elderly) study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis carried out on data of the FRAILESEL study. Data on all the elderly patients who underwent emergency abdominal surgery for PPU from January 2017 to December 2017 at 36 Italian surgical departments were analyzed. Patients who underwent PPU repair were further divided into a laparoscopic gastroduodenal repair (LGR) cohort and an open gastroduodenal repair (OGR) cohort, and the clinicopathologic features of the patients in both the groups were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Thirty-three patients (47.8%) underwent LGR. The LGR patients had less blood loss and shorter postoperative stay, even if the difference was not statistically significant. The mean operative time was significantively higher in the OGR (OGR 96.5±27.7 vs. LGR 78.6±16.3 P=0.000). The rate of death after laparoscopic surgery was similar to the rate of the open surgery. Multivariate analysis indicated that only age (P=0.018), admission haemoblogbin (Hb) level (P=0.006), platelet count (P=0.16), lactate level (P=0.47), and Mannheim Peritonitis Index (P=0.18) were independent variables associated with the risk of overall mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

LGR is safe and feasible in elderly patients with PPU and it is associated with better perioperative outcomes. However, patient selection and preoperative frailty evaluation in the elderly population are the key to achieving better outcomes.

[Comparison of laparoscopic and open suturing of perforated peptic ulcer complicated by advanced peritonitis]

AIM

To compare the results of open and laparoscopic interventions for PGDU complicated by advanced peritonitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis enrolled 172 patients with PGDU who underwent surgery for the period 2014-2016. The research was performed at the bases of the Department of Faculty-Based Surgery No. 1 of the Medical Faculty of the Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University. Further analysis enrolled 138 patients in accordance with inclusion and exclusion criteria (laparoscopic intervention - 116 patients, open surgery - 22). Propensity score matching (pseudorandomization) was applied after comparative analysis of patients' characteristics and treatment outcomes in order to ensure maximum comparability of both groups.

RESULTS

Length of hospital-stay (7.1 vs. 9.8 days), incidence of extra-abdominal complications (6.3%. vs. 41.2%) and adverse events Clavien-Dindo grade II (6.3% vs. 35.3%) were significantly lower after minimally invasive surgery (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Analysis of comparable groups of patients with PGDU complicated by peritonitis revealed that laparoscopic surgery is accompanied by significantly lower incidence of extra-abdominal postoperative complications and shorter hospital-stay compared with open surgery. Mortality and incidence of intra-abdominal postoperative complications were similar in both groups.

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.

Meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the treatment of choice for perforated peptic ulcer disease. The aim of the present review was to compare the perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science.

RESULTS

The search included eight RCTs: 615 patients comparing laparoscopic (307 patients) versus open peptic perforated ulcer repair (308 patients). Only few studies reported the Boey score, the Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation score, and the Mannheim Peritonitis Index. In the RCTs, there is a significant heterogeneity about the gastric or duodenal location of peptic ulcer and perforation size. All trials were with high risk of bias. This meta-analysis reported a significant advantage of laparoscopic repair only for postoperative pain in first 24 hours (-2.08; 95% confidence interval, -2.79 to -1.37) and for postoperative wound infection (risk ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.66). An equivalence of the other clinical outcomes (postoperative mortality rate, overall reoperation rate, overall leaks of the suture repair, intra-abdominal abscess rate, operative time of postoperative hospital stay, nasogastric aspiration time, and time to return to oral diet) was reported.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, there were no significant differences in most of the clinical outcomes between the two groups; there was less early postoperative pain and fewer wound infections after laparoscopic repair. The reported equivalence of clinical outcomes is an important finding. These results parallel the results of several other comparisons of open versus laparoscopic general surgery operations-equally efficacious with lower rates of wound infection and improvement in some measures of enhanced speed or comfort in recovery. Notably, the trials included have been published throughout a considerable time span during which several changes have occurred in most health care systems, not least a widespread use of laparoscopy and increase in the laparoscopic skills.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.

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.

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.

Our experience with surgery in situs inversus: Open peptic perforation repair and laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 1 patient and 3 patients respectively

INTRODUCTION

Situs inversus is a rare autosomal recessive condition associated with complete transposition of abdominal+/- thoracic organs. Surgical diagnosis and surgical procedures in patients with situs inversus is tricky because of the mirror image anatomy of intra-abdominal organs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 2152 and 1497 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open peptic perforation repair respectively from June 2014-June 2016 was done. 1 patient and 3 patients with situs inversus underwent open peptic perforation repair and laparoscopic cholecystectomy respectively. A 10mm left para-median port 5cm caudally from xiphoid was used for grasping the infundibulum. Two 5mm ports placed 10cm caudally from costal margin in the mid-clavicular and anterior axillary line were used for dissecting and retracting fundus respectively. A 10mm supra-umbilical camera port was used.

RESULTS

A 40year male with situs inversus totalis underwent open peptic perforation repair. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was done in 3 female patients with situs inversus aged 33-46year (mean 41year). Mean operative time for laparoscopic cholecystectomy was 59min (39-93). There were no intraoperative or post-operative complications. Histopathology revealed chronic inflammation in peptic perforation and cholecystitis.

CONCLUSION

Perforation peritonitis in situs inversus can cause diagnostic confusion with free gas under the left hemi diaphragm. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in situs inversus is ergonomically inconvenient and technically difficult for right handed surgeons. We describe an ergonomically convenient port placement for right handed surgeons in situs inversus.

Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between laparoscopic and open omental patch repair (LOPR versus OR) in patients with similar presentation of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The secondary aim was to evaluate the outcomes according to the severity of peritonitis. Methods. All patients who underwent omental patch repair at two university-affiliated institutes between January 2010 and December 2014 were reviewed. Matched cohort between LOPR and OR groups was achieved by only including patients that had ulcer perforation <2 cm in size and symptoms occurring <48 hours. Outcome measures were defined in accordance with length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and mortality. Results. 148 patients met the predefined inclusion criteria with LOPR performed in 40 patients. Outcome measures consistently support laparoscopic approach but only length of hospital stay (LOS) achieved statistical significance (LOPR 4 days versus OR 5 days, p < 0.01). In a subgroup analysis of patients with MPI score >21, LOPR is also shown to benefit, particularly resulting in significant shorter LOS (4 days versus 11 days, p < 0.01). Conclusion. LOPR offers improved short-term outcomes in patients who present within 48 hours and with perforation size <2 cm. LOPR also proved to be more beneficial in high MPI cases.