Laparoscopic versus open management of duodenal perforation: a comparative study at a District General Hospital

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Changing patterns in the surgical treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer - single centre experience

Introduction

Although the surgical treatment of patients with perforated duodenal ulcer is the method of choice, the introduction of effective pharmacotherapy has changed the surgical strategy. Nowadays less extensive procedures are chosen more frequently. The introduction of laparoscopic procedures had a significant impact on treatment results.

Aim

To present our experience in the treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer in two periods, by comparing open radical anti-ulcer procedures with laparoscopic ulcer repair.

Material and methods

The analysis covered patients operated on for perforated duodenal ulcer. Two groups of patients were compared. Group 1 included 245 patients operated on in the period 1980–1994 with a traditional method (pyloroplasty + vagotomy) before introduction of proton pump inhibitors (PPI). Group 2 included 106 patients treated in the period 2000–2014 with the laparoscopic technique supplemented with PPI therapy. Groups were compared in terms of patients’ demographic structure, operative time, complication rate and mortality.

Results

The mean operative time in group 1 was shorter than in group 2 (p < 0.0001). Complications were noted in 57 (23.3%) patients in group 1 and 14 (13.5%) patients in group 2 (p = 0.0312). Reoperation was necessary in 13 (5.3%) cases in group 1 and in 5 cases in group 2 (p = 0.8179). The mortality rate in group 1 was significantly higher than in group 2 (10.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.0192). In group 1, median length of hospital stay was 9 days and differed significantly from group 2 (6 days, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Within the last 30 years, significant changes in treatment of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) have occurred, mainly related to abandoning routine radical anti-ulcer procedures and replacing the open technique with minimally invasive surgery. Thus it was possible to improve treatment results by reducing complication and mortality rates, and shortening the length of hospital stay. Although the laparoscopic operation is longer, it improves outcomes. In the authors’ opinion, in each patient with suspected peptic ulcer perforation, laparoscopy should be the method of choice.