LAPAROSCOPIC REPAIR OF PERFORATED DUODENAL ULCER PATCH VERSUS CONVENTIONAL SURGERY

Abstract

Introduction: For many surgeries for duodenal ulcer Laparoscopic repair has become gold standard for many elective procedures such as ant reflux procedures, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and in colorectal surgery. Although in the emergency setting such as in the management of perforated duodenal ulcer Laparoscopic repair has been slow and limited. Since 1990, for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcer Laparoscopic repair has been used which has been widely accepted as an effective method. Duodenal ulcer is defined as a peptic ulcer which develops in the first part of the small intestine called duodenum and usually present as a perforation of acute abdomen. In perforated duodenal symptoms as severe and sudden onset abdominal pain that is worse in right upper quadrant and epigastrium and usually followed by nausea and vomiting. In this situation there is rapid generalization of pain and in examination shows peritonitis with lack of bowel sounds. Aim: The main objective of this study is to evaluate outcome of laparoscopic surgery in comparison with conventional surgery. Material and methods: All the patients with clinically diagnosed with perforated duodenal ulcers presenting within 24 hours of symptoms and undergoing surgery were included during the study period. Total 50 patients were included with age group 15-65 years. All the patients with perforated duodenal ulcers were included which go through either conventional open or laparoscopic without omental patch repair. Result: Total 50 patients were included in these studies which were divided into two group with 25 patients in each group as laparoscopic duodenal perforation repair group and conventional open repair group. Mean duration of operation (in minutes) was 105.4±10.4 in laparoscopic duodenal perforation repair group whereas mean duration of operation (in minutes) was 67.3±8.6 in conventional open repair group. Mean duration of number of doses of analgesics required in laparoscopic group and conventional open group as 9.5±1.7 and 17.2± 3.1 respectively. Out of 25 patients in each group of laparoscopic duodenal perforation repair group and the conventional open repair group the outcome were noted with their post operative complication as shown in table no 5 below. In Post-operative complications 21(84%) patients in laparoscopic duodenal perforation repair group and 14(56%) patients in conventional open repair group had no complications. 4 (16%) patients in the laparoscopic duodenal perforation repair group and 2(8%) patients in conventional open repair group showed Post-operative complications as chest infection. In the conventional open repair group patients present with wound dehiscence and wound infection and Wound dehiscence and chest infection were 4(16%) and 5(20%) respectively whereas nil in Laparoscopic duodenal perforation repair group. Conclusion: Duodenal ulcer perforation is a life-threatening emergency which required urgent management for the patients. Due to the advance in duodenal ulcer perforation closure by laparoscopy it becomes popular and favorite choice. With certain criteria, laparoscopic closure of perforated duodenal ulcer is safe and effective though it was associated with longer operating time and had no impact on the outcome. Hence laparoscopic closure was better in comparison to open repair for the earlier returns to normal daily activities.
 Keywords: Duodenal ulcer, Laparoscopic repair, Post-operative analgesia, conventional surgery