Management of perforated peptic ulcer in a district general hospital

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Level IV.

Surgical Management of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Comparative Meta-analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery

BACKGROUND

Despite the widescale success of proton pump inhibitors to reducing the incidence of peptic ulcer disease, perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remains a significant cause of severe complications and death. The implementation of open or surgical repair of PPU should be guided by reliable guidelines which are based on current systematic evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of laparoscopic and open repair of PPU.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on retrospective, prospective cohort studies, and randomized clinical trials. Duration of surgery and postoperative complications and death were collected from eligible studies, and the outcomes were pooled using mean differences (MD) or relative risks (RRs) for numerical and binary outcomes, respectively. The estimated variance was expressed as 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were included (8456 patients, 56.08% underwent open repair, 6 prospective studies, 7 randomized clinical trials, and 32 retrospective studies). Compared with open repair, laparoscopic surgeries were associated with longer operative times (MD=8.36, 95% CI, 0.49-16.22), shorter hospital stay (MD=-2.74, 95% CI, -3.70 to-1.79), a higher risk of suture leakage (RR=1.91, 95% CI, 1.04-3.49) and lower risks of mortality (RR=0.57, 95% CI, 0.47-0.70), septic shock (RR=0.69, 95% CI, 0.49-0.98), renal failure (RR=0.38, 95% CI, 0.18-0.79), and wound infection (RR=0.26, 95% CI, 0.19-0.37).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repair of PPU showed promising safety outcomes; however, future well-designed randomized studies are warranted to reduce the observed performance bias and possible selection bias in individual studies.

Primary closure versus Graham patch omentopexy in perforated peptic ulcer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are different methods to repair a perforated peptic ulcer, the two most frequently used are the Graham patch omentopexy and the primary closure. Currently there is no high-level evidence to provide guidance of the optimal method of repair. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of the two methods so as to provide improved guidance for surgeons undertaking this repair.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted including any study that compared Graham patch omentopexy with primary closure in adults. Embase, Medline, Cochrane and Google's search engine were searched. The primary outcome was breakdown of the repair resulting in bile leak and the secondary outcomes were mortality, operation time, wound infection and time to start oral intake. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager Software version 5:4. Outcome data were reported as odd ratios and weighted mean differences with their 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Of the 229 studies identified, 6 were suitable for analysis, 4 were retrospective, one was a prospective cohort study and one was a randomized controlled trial. Meta-analysis showed no difference in occurrence of bile leak or mortality between primary closure and Graham patch omentopexy (OR 0.64; 95% (0.26-1.54) & 0.66; 95% (0.25-1.76) respectively). There was no difference in the rates of wound infection OR 0.65; 95% (0.4-1.05). The duration of the operation was shorter in the primary closure group by 5.6 min; 95% (-21 + 10.4).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in the clinical outcomes between the two modes of 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.

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.

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.

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

Laparoscopic repair (LR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) has been introduced since 1990. Although many studies comparing LR with open repair (OR) have been published, controversy remains regarding the clinical utility of laparoscopic techniques for the treatment of PPU. Thus, it is necessary for us to broaden our knowledge on this subject with the newly published articles. Twenty-four nonrandomized controlled studies (NRS) and five randomized controlled trails (RCTs) were included in our meta-analyses, which comprised 5,268 patients (1,890 in the LR group and 3,378 in the OR group). In the analysis of high quality NRS and RCTs, compared with OR, high quality evidence suggested that LR was associated with a lower incidence of overall postoperative complications; moderate evidence showed that the two procedures had the similar reoperation rate; based on the low quality evidence, LR had reduced hospital mortality and similar operative time; Moreover, LR was observed having the advantages of earlier resumption of oral intake, shorter hospital stay and less analgesic use, which were supported by very low evidence. All the evidences suggest that LR is better than OR for PPU, but more high-quality RCTs are still needed for further validation.

Strategies to improve the outcome of emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a common surgical emergency that carries high mortality and morbidity rates. Globally, one-quarter of a million people die from peptic ulcer disease each year. Strategies to improve outcomes are needed.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for evidence related to the surgical treatment of patients with PPU. The clinical registries of trials were examined for other available or ongoing studies. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and meta-analyses were preferred.

RESULTS

Deaths from peptic ulcer disease eclipse those of several other common emergencies. The reported incidence of PPU is 3.8-14 per 100,000 and the mortality rate is 10-25 per cent. The possibility of non-operative management has been assessed in one small RCT of 83 patients, with success in 29 (73 per cent) of 40, and only in patients aged less than 70 years. Adherence to a perioperative sepsis protocol decreased mortality in a cohort study, with a relative risk (RR) reduction of 0.63 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.41 to 0.97). Based on meta-analysis of three RCTs (315 patients), laparoscopic and open surgery for PPU are equivalent, but patient selection remains a challenge. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori after surgical repair of PPI reduces both the short-term (RR 2.97, 95 per cent c.i. 1.06 to 8.29) and 1-year (RR 1.49, 1.10 to 2.03) risk of ulcer recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Mortality and morbidity from PPU can be reduced by adherence to perioperative strategies.

Epidemiology of perforated peptic ulcer: Age- and gender-adjusted analysis of incidence and mortality

AIM: To investigate the epidemiological trends in incidence and mortality of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) in a well-defined Norwegian population.

METHODS: A retrospective, population-based, single-center, consecutive cohort study of all patients diagnosed with benign perforated peptic ulcer. Included were both gastric and duodenal ulcer patients admitted to Stavanger University Hospital between January 2001 and December 2010. Ulcers with a malignant neoplasia diagnosis, verified by histology after biopsy or resection, were excluded. Patients were identified from the hospitals administrative electronic database using pertinent ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes (K25.1, K25.2, K25.5, K25.6, K26.1, K26.2, K26.5, K26.6). Additional searches using appropriate codes for relevant laparoscopic and open surgical procedures (e.g., JDA 60, JDA 61, JDH 70 and JDH 71) were performed to enable a complete identification of all patients. Patient demographics, presentation patterns and clinical data were retrieved from hospital records and surgical notes. Crude and adjusted incidence and mortality rates were estimated by using national population demographics data.

RESULTS: In the study period, a total of 172 patients with PPU were identified. The adjusted incidence rate for the overall 10-year period was 6.5 per 100 000 per year (95%CI: 5.6-7.6) and the adjusted mortality rate for the overall 10-year period was 1.1 per 100 000 per year (95%CI: 0.7-1.6). A non-significant decline in adjusted incidence rate from 9.7 to 5.6 occurred during the decade. The standardized mortality ratio for the whole study period was 5.7 (95%CI: 3.9-8.2), while the total 30-d mortality was 16.3%. No difference in incidence or mortality was found between genders. However, for patients ≥ 60 years, the incidence increased over 10-fold, and mortality more than 50-fold, compared to younger ages. The admission rates outside office hours were high with almost two out of three (63%) admissions seen at evening/night time shifts and/or during weekends. The observed seasonal variations in admissions were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION: The adjusted incidence rate, seasonal distribution and mortality rate was stable. PPU frequently presents outside regular work-hours. Increase in incidence and mortality occurs with older age.

[A comparison of laparoscopic versus open repair for the surgical treatment of perforated peptic ulcers]

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcers (PPU).

METHODS

All patients undergoing PPU repair between January 2002 and March 2012 were included in the study. Demographic characteristics, operation time, complications, and length of hospital stay were evaluated.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twelve patients (median age, 49 years) were included, 60 in the laparoscopic group and 52 in the open group. Patients operated laparoscopically were significantly younger and had a higher consumption of tobacco, alcohol and cannabis. Median acute symptoms time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6h) compared to the open group (12h; P=.025) Symptoms time was shorter in the laparoscopic group. Median operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (104.5min vs. 76min, P=.025). The percentage of conversion to open repair was 25%. There was no difference in morbidity between 2 groups, but there were 3 deaths in the open group. Median hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients treated laparoscopically when compared with the open group (6 days vs. 8 days; P=.041).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic and open repair are equally safe in the management of PPU. A shorter hospital stay can be achieved in the laparoscopic group.