A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) in rectal cancer treatment within an expert center

The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment outcomes in patients who underwent the TaTME procedure for cancer of the middle and low rectum in an expert center. Prospective analysis of the outcomes of all consecutive patients treated using the TaTME technique for cancer of the middle and distal rectum at the our medical center between March 1, 2015, and March 31, 2022. A total of 128 patients (34 women, 94 men; mean age 66.01 [38-85] years) with cancer of the middle and distal rectum qualified for TaTME. TaTME procedures were performed in 127/128 (99.22%) patients. Complications of surgery were observed in 22/127 (17.32%) patients. Negative proximal and distal margins were confirmed in all 127 patients. Complete (R0) resection of the mesorectum was confirmed in 125/127 (98.43%) and nearly complete (R1) resection was confirmed in 2/127 (1.57%) patients. The average follow-up period was 795 days (296-1522) days. Local recurrence was detected during the follow-up period in 2/127 (1.57%) patients. This study showed that the TaTME procedure is an effective and safe method for the minimally invasive treatment of middle and low rectal cancers, particularly within an expert center setting.

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.

[Laparoscopic versus laparoscopy-assisted suturing of perforated peptic ulcers (meta-analysis)]

OBJECTIVE

To compare laparoscopic and laparoscopy-assisted repair of perforated peptic ulcer using evidence-based methods.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews.

Data searching was carried out in Russian and English languages using the E-library, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases. We analyzed titles and references in specialized journals and thematic reviews, respectively. Clarifying information was obtained via personal contacts with the heads of surgical hospitals. The RevMan 5.4 software was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

We found no randomized trials devoted to comparison of laparoscopic and laparoscopy-assisted surgeries in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. Meta-analysis was based on non-randomized trials with satisfactory methodological quality according to the I-ROBINS formalized assessment. Overall clinical material included 478 observations: 229 (47.9%) laparoscopic surgeries and 249 (52.1%) laparoscopy-assisted procedures via minimally invasive access. There were no conversions. Incidence of postoperative complications was 4.36 and 8.83% (OR=0.39, 95% CI 0.08, 1.87), postoperative mortality 0.87 and 0.81%, respectively (OR=1.26, 95% CI 0.08, 8.24). Laparoscopic surgeries were shorter (MD= -8 min, 95% CI -9.7, -6.4). Length of hospital-stay was also shorter after laparoscopic surgery (MD= -4.6, 95% CI -9.7, -6.4).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic operations are shorter and accompanied by lower incidence of postoperative complications and less hospital-stay. Large statistical power is required to confirm these differences.

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.

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.

A Review on Treatment of Perforated Peptic Ulcer by Minimally Invasive Techniques

Peptic ulcers are caused by acid peptic damage to the mucosal layer in the gastro-duodenal area of the gut, which results in mucosal erosion that exposes the underlying tissues to the digestive action of gastro-duodenal secretions. This pathology was traditionally related to a hypersecretory acid environment, dietary factors and stress. There are other causes of ulcers such as Helicobacter pylori infection, excessive use of NSAIDs, and smoke and alcohol abuse. Perforation and bleeding are two major complications of the disease. A typical symptom of perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) is a sudden onset of abdominal pain or acute deterioration of the ongoing abdominal pain. Perforated peptic ulcer can be diagnosed by a simple X-ray and CT scan of the abdomen. Laboratory tests are also run to rule out differential diagnosis. Although there are several choices for surgical intervention, minimally invasive techniques have been taking over as a frequent option in feasible cases. Techniques like laparoscopy have been surfacing because of their advantages. But the efficiency of minimally invasive techniques compared to conventional approach is yet to be defined. Hence, the present review of the literature aims to describe and delineate the current perspective on PPU management by minimally invasive and low risk techniques.

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.

Tratamiento laparoscópico de úlcera duodenal perforada mediante parche de Graham en un paciente pediátrico

Introducción. La úlcera duodenal perforada es una entidad de etiología no clara que rara vez ocurre en la población pediátrica. Generalmente se diagnostica de manera intraoperatoria y el tratamiento ideal incluye el uso del parche de epiplón o de ser necesario, la resección quirúrgica. Caso clínico. Se presenta un paciente de 12 años con abdomen agudo y diagnóstico tomográfico prequirúrgico de úlcera duodenal perforada, tratado por vía laparoscópica con drenaje de peritonitis y parche de Graham. La evolución y el seguimiento posterior fueron adecuados. Discusión. La úlcera duodenal perforada es una entidad multifactorial, en la que se ha implicado el Helicobacter pylori. El diagnóstico preoperatorio es un reto y el tratamiento debe ser quirúrgico. Conclusiones. Cuando se logra establecer el diagnóstico preoperatorio, se puede realizar un abordaje laparoscópico y el uso del parche de Graham cuando las úlceras son menores de dos centímetros.

Comparison of Omental Patch Closure Versus Simple Closure for Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer with omental patch versus without omental patch.

METHODS

A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) with and without omental patch were included. Operative time, postoperative complications, re-operation and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters for the meta-analysis. Revman 5.3 was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Four observational studies reporting a total number of 438 patients who underwent laparoscopic repair of PPU with (n = 268) or without (n = 170) omental patch were included. Operative time was significantly shorter in no-omental patch group (NOP) when compared to omental patch group (P = .02). There was no significant difference in the risk of postoperative ileus (Odd ratio (OR) .76, P = .61), leakage (OR 1.17, P = .80), wound infection (OR 1.89, P = .34), intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.17, P = .87), re-operation (OR .00, P = .94) and mortality (OR .55, P = .48). Moreover, length of hospital stay was comparable between the two groups (P = .81).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repair of PPU with or without omental patch have comparable postoperative complications and mortality rate. However, considering the shorter operative time, no-omental patch approach is an attractive and more favourable choice. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate this comparison.

Laparoscopic Exploration Converted to Laparotomy in a Case of Rectal Perforation and Peritonitis After Administration of Enema

Laparoscopy is the preferred surgical approach to several ailments because it permits accurate and efficient diagnosis and treatment. In abdominal conditions, the clinician may accomplish both treatment components - exploration for identification of the causative pathology and the conduction of a proper operation - through laparoscopy. There is an ongoing debate of peritonitis as a contraindication to this approach. Laparoscopy has been widely accepted in many subspecialties over the last decade. Peritonitis is usually treated by a conventional open surgery which has a significantly high morbidity and mortality rate. In the present case, a 24-year-old male presented to the emergency unit of our facility with constipation for the past week, along with the inability to urinate with suprapubic pain and tenderness. The patient developed severe abdominal pain within an hour of receiving an enema injection. The patient was started on broad-spectrum antibiotics due to suspected peritonitis and later sent for imaging studies with urgent surgical consultation. The patient remained in the hospital for a few days and was then discharged after a week of hospital administration. It is worth mentioning that therapeutic laparoscopy may be considered in select cases of abdominal trauma. It offers more advantages over laparotomy, including reduced complication rate, length of stay, and mortality.

[Emergency laparoscopy in the treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of endoscopic and open treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 445 patients with perforated gastroduodenal ulcers between 2013 and 2021. Endoscopic suturing of perforation was performed in 172 patients (38.7%), 273 ones underwent open surgery.

RESULTS

Among 172 patients scheduled for endoscopy, 160 (93.6%) ones underwent laparoscopic suturing of perforation. Morbidity rate was 5.0% (n=8), postoperative mortality rate - 1.3% (n=2). Comparison of the outcomes after laparoscopic suturing of ulcers in 160 patients and open surgery in 134 patients showed that laparoscopy was followed by 2.5 times lower incidence of complications and 3 times lower postoperative mortality.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic laparoscopy is advisable in patients with perforated ulcers and no contraindications. In most cases, surgery can be successfully and effectively completed without conversion to laparotomy. Endoscopic closure of ulcerative defect is preferable since this procedure has certain advantages over traditional intervention, contributes to significant reduction in morbidity, mortality and hospital-stay.

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.

Risk Factors for Gastrointestinal Leak after Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Operative Repair

BACKGROUND

There are limited studies regarding the impact of post-operative leak on perforated peptic ulcer disease (PPUD) and conflicting results regarding routine drain placement in operative repair of PPUD. This study aims to identify risk factors for gastrointestinal leak after operative repair of PPUD to better guide intra-operative decisions about drain placement.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care center from 2008 to 2019, identifying 175 patients who underwent operative repair of PPUD.

RESULTS

Patients who developed a leak (17%) were compared to patients who did not. Both hypoalbuminemia (albumin < 3.5 g/dL) (P = .03) and duodenal ulcers (P < .01) were identified as significant risk factors for leak. No significant difference was found between leak and no leak groups for AAST disease severity grade, repair technique, or pre-operative use of tobacco, alcohol, or steroids. Post-operative leaks were associated with prolonged hospital stay (29 days compared to 10, P < .01), increased complication rates (77% compared to 48%, P < .01), and increased re-operation rates (73% compared to 26%, <0.01). No difference was identified in patient characteristics or operative leak rates between patients who had drains placed at the index operation and those that did not.

DISCUSSION

Leak after operative PPUD repair is associated with significant post-operative morbidity. Hypoalbuminemia and duodenal perforations are significant risk factors for post-operative leaks.

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.

Perforation on the superior side of duodenum is a risk factor of laparoscopic primary repair for duodenal ulcer perforation

Purpose

Primary repair is the standard surgical method for treating duodenal ulcer perforations, with very good results usually anticipated because of the simplicity of the associated surgical techniques. Therefore, this study aimed to analyze the risk factors that affect laparoscopic primary repair outcomes for duodenal ulcer perforation.

Methods

Between June 2010 and June 2020, 124 patients who underwent laparoscopic primary repair for duodenal ulcer perforations were reviewed. Early surgical outcomes were evaluated and risk factors for postoperative complications were assessed.

Results

All surgeries were performed laparoscopically without open conversion. Multivariate analysis showed that the elderly (over 70 years), and perforations that needed more than 2 stitches for closure were risk factors for overall postoperative complications. Perforations that needed more than 2 stitches and perforations on the superior side of the duodenum were major risk factors for severe postoperative complications. Severe postoperative complications occurred in 6 of the patients, and 1 of them died of multiorgan failure.

Conclusion

Based on our results, we suggest that laparoscopic primary repair can be safely performed in duodenal ulcer perforation. However, more careful surgery and postoperative care are needed to improve the surgical outcomes of patients who need more than 2 stitches to close their perforation or who have perforations on the superior side of the duodenum.

The Adjunctive Effect of DuraSeal® vs. 2-Octyl-Cyanoacrylate on Delayed Repair of Gastric Perforation: An Experimental Study

OBJECTIVE

Delayed primary suture closure of gastric perforation is prone to dehiscence hence the repaired area should be buttressed to avoid re-operation. We aimed to investigate whether DuraSeal®(DS) has a potent adjunctive effect on delayed closure of gastric perforation comparing with 2-octly-cyanoacrylate(CYN) in an experimental model.

METHODS

Sixty rats were randomly divided into 6 groups. All subjected to gastric perforation, subsequently perforation areas were repaired by primary suturing, delayed repair was performed 12 h after surgery. According to DS or CYN application on anastomosis, the groups were classified as control(C), delayed control(CD), closure with CYN(CYN), delayed closure with CYN(D-CYN), closure with DS(DS), delayed closure with DS(D-DS).After euthanization on POD 7,anastomotic bursting pressure(ABP) were measured. Tissue samples were taken for histopathological examination and hydroxyproline(TH) assessment.

RESULTS

Delayed condition significantly reduced ABP and TH levels in CD group comparing with all groups(p < 0.01).Either CYN or DS application on delayed repaired area significantly raised the measure of ABP and TH up to the levels of C group(p < 0.05,comparing with CD).Microscopically,either CYN or DS application significantly improved tissue necrosis, submucosal bridging and collagen formation comparing with CD group(p < 0.012).There were no difference regarding ABP, TH and tissue healing between each CYN and DS groups.

CONCLUSION

DuraSeal® application on sutured gastric perforation area yielded a significant adjunctive effect both in normal and delayed conditions. However, DuraSeal® revealed no superior effect to CYN in both condition.Our results demonstrated that the clinical use of DuraSeal® can be considered for reinforcing the sutured line in patients undergoing delayed surgery for gastric perforation.

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.

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.

Laparoscopy: A Better Approach for Perforated Duodenal Ulcer

Background

Laparoscopic surgery is becoming the gold standard for most abdominal surgeries in recent times. Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer (PDU), however, is still an area of debate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repair of PDU versus open repair.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, patients were consecutively sampled. Out of 101 patients with clinically diagnosed PDU, 36 patients underwent laparoscopic Graham patch repair and 65 underwent open Graham patch repair in a tertiary care academic hospital. Open repair was via upper midline incision, and laparoscopic repair by the three-port technique. The following stages were calculated: operative time, duration of postoperative analgesia, time taken to mobilize, and patient length of stay after the operation.

Results

The mean operative time was somewhat longer in the laparoscopy group compared to the open repair group (74.01 vs 56.17 minutes, respectively). Mean postoperative analgesia requirement, time taken to mobilize, and hospital stay were significantly shorter after laparoscopy than after open repair (1.21 days, 9.32 hours, and 3.12 days vs 3.83 days, 16.20 hours, and 4.85 days, respectively). Three patients (8%) in the laparoscopy group and 35 (54%) in the open repair group had postoperative complications.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic repair of PDU is a safe approach and better than open repair in terms of operative time with the right level of expertise only, postoperative analgesia requirement, mobilization, duration of hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative respiratory and wound complications.

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 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.

Simple laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer without omental patch

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the outcomes of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers using simple closure only.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 79 patients who underwent laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers from January 2011 to February 2016. They were divided into two groups: repair with an omental patch and repair with simple closure only. All of them underwent peritoneal cavity lavage with several litres of warm normal saline. A closed suction drain system was placed for drainage of intra-abdominal abscess. Patients' age, sex, Boey score, perforation size, operation time, overall complications, and length of hospital stay were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 79 patients diagnosed with perforated peptic ulcers who underwent emergency laparoscopic operations were enrolled in this study. Thirty patients underwent simple closure without an omental patch (group A), and 49 patients underwent simple closure with an omental patch (group B). Between the two groups, there were no statistically significant differences in the patients' age, size of perforation, and Boey score. However, the operation time was significantly different (p < 0.05) between the groups, with the average time being 84.4 min in group A and 106.65 min in group B. There was no statistically significant difference in the complication rate or the average length of hospital stay. No patient underwent reoperation for complications.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repair of a perforated peptic ulcer without an omental patch is a safe option and does not increase the morbidity and mortality rate.

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.

Diagnosis and management of duodenal perforations: a narrative review

Duodenal perforation is a rare, but potentially life-threatening injury. Multiple etiologies are associated with duodenal perforations such as peptic ulcer disease, iatrogenic causes and trauma. Computed tomography with intravenous and oral contrast is the most valuable imaging technique to identify duodenal perforation. In some cases, surgical exploration may be necessary for diagnosis. Specific treatment depends upon the nature of the disease process that caused the perforation, the timing, location and extent of the injury and the clinical condition of the patient. Conservative management seems to be feasible in stable patients with sealed perforations. Immediate surgery is required for patients presenting with peritonitis and/or intra-abdominal sepsis. Minimally invasive techniques are safe and effective alternatives to conventional open surgery in selected patients with duodenal perforations. Here we review the current literature on duodenal perforations and discuss the outcomes of different treatment strategies.

Autonomous Laparoscopic Robotic Suturing with a Novel Actuated Suturing Tool and 3D Endoscope

Compared to open surgical techniques, laparoscopic surgical methods aim to reduce the collateral tissue damage and hence decrease the patient recovery time. However, constraints imposed by the laparoscopic surgery, i.e. the operation of surgical tools in limited spaces, turn simple surgical tasks such as suturing into time-consuming and inconsistent tasks for surgeons. In this paper, we develop an autonomous laparoscopic robotic suturing system. More specific, we expand our smart tissue anastomosis robot (STAR) by developing i) a new 3D imaging endoscope, ii) a novel actuated laparoscopic suturing tool, and iii) a suture planning strategy for the autonomous suturing. We experimentally test the accuracy and consistency of our developed system and compare it to sutures performed manually by surgeons. Our test results on suture pads indicate that STAR can reach 2.9 times better consistency in suture spacing compared to manual method and also eliminate suture repositioning and adjustments. Moreover, the consistency of suture bite sizes obtained by STAR matches with those obtained by manual suturing.

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.

Is the Platelet to Lymphocyte Ratio a Potential Biomarker for Predicting Mortality in Peptic Ulcer Perforation?

Background: Despite surgical treatment of peptic ulcer perforation (PUP), the high rates of morbidity and mortality have motivated researchers to search for new laboratory markers to predict morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to investigate the relation between pre-operative laboratory values and demographic factors and post-operative mortality in patients undergoing surgery for PUP. Patients and Methods: A retrospective study was made of the clinical findings and laboratory data of patients operated on for a diagnosis of PUP in the general surgery clinic between 2014 and 2018. The patients were separated into two groups according to survival (PUP-S) or mortality (PUP-M) and the differences between the groups were evaluated. Result: In the analysis of the patient data, age (p = 0.014), female gender (p = 0.005), length of stay in hospital (p = 0.009), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR) (p = 0.09), and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (p = 0.010) values were determined to be high and lymphocyte count was low (p = 0.046) in the PUP-M group. A positive correlation was determined between mortality and age, length of stay in hospital, PLR, and NLR (p < 0.05). A substantial negative correlation was determined between mortality and gender and lymphocyte count (p < 0.05). As a result of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, it was determined that a PLR value <322.22 (p = 0.009) and lymphocyte count <0.67 × 10³ microliter (p = 0.035) could have diagnostic value in the prediction of the possibility of mortality in patients operated on because of PUP. Conclusion: This study results suggested that PLR, NLR, and lymphocyte count values could be used as new biomarkers to identify the mortality risk in patients operated on for peptic ulcer perforation.

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.

Laparoscopy in Acute Care Surgery: Repair of Perforated Duodenal Ulcer

INTRODUCTION

The use of laparoscopic management as a first choice for the treatment of duodenal perforation is gaining ground but is not routine in many centers. In this report, we aim to report our experience with laparoscopy as the first approach for the repair of duodenal perforation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective review of patients during our initial experience with the use of laparoscopy for the treatment of duodenal perforation between 2009 and 2013.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients underwent management of duodenal perforation. Laparoscopy was attempted initially in 76 patients (76%) and completed in 64 patients (64%). The length of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (mean 2.6) than in the open group (mean 3.1) (p = 0.008). Complications developed in 14 patients (20%). There was a tendency towards fewer admissions to intensive care, less acute kidney injuries, and less acute respiratory distress syndrome in the laparoscopic group. In patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery, the chances of uneventful recovery were 4.3 times higher than in those patients who underwent open surgery (95% CI 1.3-13.5, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy in the treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer is safe and can be utilized as a routine approach for the treatment of this pathology.

Double Perforated Kissing Ulcers of Duodenum: A Brief Report

Helicobactor pylori infection has been associated with peptic ulcer disease and is currently treated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), which have reduced the complications of the disease. Perforation of either a gastric or duodenal ulcer is rarely treated with surgery. We report the case of double-perforated synchronous duodenal ulcers, which is an extremely infrequent condition. To our knowledge, no English case reports have yet been published. Therefore, awareness of the physician in the field of diagnosis and treatment of this peptic ulcer is required. We report the case of a 46-year-old male patient who presented with acute abdominal pain at the emergency surgical department of our hospital. According to patient history, smoking, alcohol consumption, and frequent postprandial abdominal pain were noted. A physical examination revealed a rigid abdomen and tachycardia, and the temperature was 37.8°C. Laboratory testing showed increased levels of leukocytes, and free subdiaphragmatic air was found in the chest X-ray. Due to rapid deterioration of his clinical condition, the patient underwent urgent surgery. An explorative laparotomy showed 2 perforated kissing ulcers at the first segment of the duodenum, in the anterior and posterior walls. A peripheral gastrectomy was performed. Postoperative follow-up did not result in any complications. In regard to this case we present, simultaneous perforation of two synchronous duodenal ulcers is an uncommon but possible incident of which the clinician should be aware. To our knowledge, this is the first case published in the literature.

Development and Feasibility of a Robotic Laparoscopic Clipping Tool for Wound Closure and Anastomosis

This paper reports the design, development, and initial evaluation of a robotic laparoscopic clipping tool for single manipulator wound closure and anastomosis (tubular reconnection). The tool deploys biodegradable clips and clasps with the goal of (i) integrating grasping and suturing into a single device for single hand or manipulator use, (ii) applying the equivalent of interrupted sutures without the need of managing suture thread, and (iii) allowing for full six degrees-of-freedom (DOFs) laparoscopic control when mounted on a robot arm. The specifications, workflow, and detailed design of the robotic laparoscopic tool and injection molded bio-absorbable T shaped clip and locking clasp are reported. The clipping tool integrates forceps to grab and stabilize tissue and a clip and clasp applier to approximate and fixate the tissue. A curved needle is advanced on a circular needle path and picks up and drags clips through tissue. The clip is then tightened through the tissue and a clasp is clamped around the clip, before the clip is released from the needle. Results of several bench test runs of the tool show: (a) repeatable circular needle drive, (b) successful pick-up and deployment of clips, (c) successful shear of the clip to release the clip from the needle, and (d) closure of clasp on clip with an average of 2.0 N holding force. These data indicate that the robotic laparoscopic clipping tool could be used for laparoscopic wound closure and anastomosis.

Perforated Peptic Ulcer Repair: Factors Predicting Conversion in Laparoscopy and Postoperative Septic Complications

OBJECTIVE

The surgical treatment for perforated peptic ulcers can be safely performed laparoscopically. The aim of the study was to define simple predictive factors for conversion and septic complications.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study analyzed patients treated with either laparoscopic surgery or laparotomy for perforated peptic ulcers.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients were analyzed. Laparoscopically operated patients had a shorter hospital stay (13.7 vs. 15.1 days). In an intention-to-treat analysis, patients with conversion to open surgery (analyzed as subgroup from laparoscopic approach group) showed no prolonged hospital stay (15.3 days) compared to patients with a primary open approach. Complication and mortality rates were not different between the groups. The statistical analysis identified four intraoperative risk factors for conversion: Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI) > 21 (p = 0.02), generalized peritonitis (p = 0.04), adhesions, and perforations located in a region other than the duodenal anterior wall. We found seven predictive factors for septic complications: age >70 (p = 0.02), cardiopulmonary disease (p = 0.04), ASA > 3 (p = 0.002), CRP > 100 (p = 0.005), duration of symptoms >24 h (p = 0.02), MPI > 21(p = 0.008), and generalized peritonitis (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that a primary laparoscopic approach has no disadvantages. Factors necessitating conversions emerged during the procedure inhibiting a preoperative selection. Factors suggesting imminent septic complications can be assessed preoperatively. An assessment of the proposed parameters may help optimize the management of possible septic complications.

Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUNDS

The incidence of patients presenting with perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) has decreased during the last decades. At the same time, a laparoscopic approach to this condition has been adopted by increased number of surgeons. The aim of this study was to evaluate the early postoperative results of the laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer performed in eight Romanian surgical centers with extensive experience in laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2013, 297 patients with perforated peptic ulcer were operated in the eight centers participating in this retrospective study. The patients' charts were reviewed for demographics, surgical procedure, complications and short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Boey score of 0 was found in 122 patients (41.1%), Boey 1 in 169 (56.9%), Boey 3 in 6 (2.0%). For 145 (48.8%) patients, primary suture repair was performed, in 146 (49.2%) primary suture repair with omentopexy. There were 6 (2.0%) conversions to open surgery. The operative time was between 25 and 120 min, with a mean of 68 min. Two (0.7%) deaths were noted. Mean hospital stay was 5.5 days, ranges 3-25 days. Postoperative complications included: 7 (2.4%) superficial surgical site infections, 5 (1.6%) cardiovascular, 3 (1.0%) pulmonary, 2 (0.7%) duodenal leakages, 3 (1.0%) deep space infections and 1 (0.3%) upper digestive hemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the laparoscopic approach for PPU is feasible; the procedure is safe, with no increased risk of duodenal fistulae or residual intraperitoneal abscesses. We now consider the laparoscopic approach for PPU as the "gold standard" in patients with Boey score 0 or 1.

Laparoscopic pyloroplasty for perforated peptic ulcer

Peptic ulcer is a common disease affecting millions of people every year. Despite improved understanding and treatment of the disease, the number of patients admitted with duodenal peptic ulcer perforation has not decreased. Deaths from peptic ulcer disease overcome other common emergency situations. Laparoscopic repair of the perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is the gold standard approach for simple perforation. However, in patients with large perforated chronic ulcers laparotomy with pyloroplasty is the standard treatment. It is generally accepted to perform open surgery in PPU emergencies because of the greater knowledge and experience gathered over the past decades and less potential harm for the patient or surgical complications. We present a case of successful laparoscopic pyloroplasty of a perforated duodenal ulcer with stenosis.

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: simple closure versus omentopexy

BACKGROUND

This report presents our experience with laparoscopic repair performed in 118 consecutive patients diagnosed with a perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). We compared the surgical outcome of simple closure with modified Cellan-Jones omentopexy and report the safety and benefit of simple closure.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2014, 118 patients with PPU underwent laparoscopic repair with simple closure (n = 27) or omentopexy (n = 91). Charts were retrospectively reviewed for demographic characteristics and outcome. The data were compared by Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson's chi-square test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test. The results were considered statistically significant if P < 0.05.

RESULTS

No patients died, whereas three incurred leakage. After matching, the simple closure and omentopexy groups had similarity in sex, systolic blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, Boey score, Charlson comorbidity index, Mannheim peritonitis index, and leakage. There were statistically significant differences in age, length of hospital stay, perforated size, and operating time. Comparison of the operating time in the ≤4.0 mm and 5.0-12 mm groups revealed that the simple closure took less time than omentopexy in both groups (≤4.0 mm, 76 versus 133 minutes, P < 0.0001; 5.0-12 mm, 97 versus 139.5 minutes; P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the omentopexy, laparoscopic simple closure is a safe procedure and shortens the operating time.

[Perforated peptic ulcer closure: laparoscopic or open?]

AIM

To compare laparoscopic and open closure of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 153 patients who underwent PPU suturing. 78 patients underwent laparoscopic closure (laparoscopic group) and open suturing via upper midline laparotomy was performed in 75 cases (open group). Surgery time, postoperative pain severity, time of analgesics intake, postoperative complications, hospital-stay and and cosmetic effect were compared.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic PPU closure may be effective and accessible in experienced endoscopic surgeon. It significantly reduces postoperative pain severity, need for analgesics, incidence of postoperative complications and provides excellent cosmetic effect. However, there is greater time of surgery compared with open intervention. There were no significant differences in hspital-stay between groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic PPU suturing can be considered a good alternative to open surgery. Further researches are needed for standardization, assessment of safety, real advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic technique.

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.