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

Efficacy of pantoprazole plus perforation repair for peptic ulcer and its effect on the stress response

BACKGROUND

Peptic ulcer (PU) is an abnormal phenomenon in which there is rupture of the mucosa of the digestive tract, which not only affects patients' normal life but also causes an economic burden due to its high medical costs.

AIM

To investigate the efficacy of pantoprazole (PPZ) plus perforation repair in patients with PU and its effect on the stress response.

METHODS

The study subjects were 108 PU patients admitted between July 2018 and July 2022, including 58 patients receiving PPZ plus perforation repair [research group (RG)] and 50 patients given simple perforation repair [control group (CG)]. The efficacy, somatostatin (SS) concentration, stress reaction [malondialdehyde (MDA), lipid peroxide (LPO)], inflammatory indices [tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin (IL)-1β], recurrence, and complications (perforation, hemorrhage, and pyloric obstruction) were compared.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was higher in the RG than in the CG. Patients in the RG had markedly elevated SS after treatment, which was higher than that of the CG, while MDA, LPO, TNF-, CRP, and IL-1β were significantly reduced to lower levels than those in the CG. Lower recurrence and complication rates were identified in the RG group.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, PPZ plus perforation repair is conducive to enhancing treatment outcomes in PU patients, reducing oxidative stress injury and excessive inflammatory reactions, and contributing to low recurrence and complication rates.

The feasibility of falciformopexy in the repair of peptic ulcer perforation

BACKGROUND

Modified Graham omentopexy is the most commonly used operative technique in the repair of peptic ulcer perfo-ration (PUP); however, there is little data on falciformopexy in the literature. The aim is to investigate the feasibility of falciformopexy in the repair of PUP, comparing with modified Graham omentopexy.

METHODS

Data of 471 patients who were operated for PUP were retrospectively analyzed. Patients' demographics, pre-operative basic laboratory findings, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, operative findings, and post-operative complications were recorded. The patients were classified into two groups modified Graham omentopexy and falciformopexy, and then compared with each other in terms of clinical characteristics, operative findings, and post-operative complications.

RESULTS

Modified Graham omentopexy and falciformopexy were performed in 425 (90.2%) and 46 (9.8%) patients, respectively. The two groups were similar in terms of basic patient characteristics and pre-operative laboratory findings (P>0.05). ASA physical status was significantly different between the groups (P=0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of complications, except for an anastomotic leak. Anastomotic leak was observed more frequently in patients who underwent falciformopexy than in patients with modified Graham omentopexy (P=0.017).

CONCLUSION

Although falciformopexy technique has a higher rate of leak compared to the modified Graham omentopexy method, it should be kept in mind as an alternative method for repair of PUP, especially in cases where omentopexy cannot be applied for various reasons such as the presence of unavailable or unsuitable omentum.