Repair Of Perforated Peptic Ulcer Research Articles

Laparoscopic repair vs open repair for perforated peptic ulcers: Quality of life assessment

PurposeStudies reporting patient-centered outcomes, including quality of life and satisfaction, in perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment are insufficient. This study was designed to assess the relative efficacy of laparoscopic repair (LR) as opposed to open surgical repair (OR) in the treatment of and its impact on quality of life. MethodsThis investigation performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent treatment for PPU at a secondary care hospital between January 2017 and April 2020. Patients were categorized into 2 separate groups according to the type of surgical procedure received: LR and OR. Comparisons were made based on a variety of factors, such as demographic data, intra- and postoperative metrics, pain control, patient contentment, and quality of life indicators. ResultsIn the analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic or clinical characteristics between the LR (n = 35) and OR (n = 62) groups (P > .05). Conversely, the rates of incisional hernia and surgical site infection were significantly greater in the OR group (P < .05). Moreover, the LR exhibited benefits such as a shorter length of hospital stay (P < .05), more rapid resumption of a normal diet, and fewer surgical site infections—factors that contributed to a lower rate of overall postoperative complications. According to the quality-of-life questionnaire, the LR group exhibited significantly greater scores for physical function, role, pain, and general health by the 30th postoperative day (P = .003, P < .001, P = .006, and P = .001, respectively), and by the 1-year follow-up, the LR group showed substantial improvements in physical function, physical role, emotional role, pain and general health (P = .047, P = .004, P = .039, P = .001, and P = .021, respectively), indicating its effectiveness in patient recovery and quality of life enhancement after surgery. ConclusionThis study showed that LR could provide certain benefits in managing PPUs, such as reduced lengths of hospital stay and lower incidences of surgical site infections. Although LR reported promising directions in patient satisfaction and quality of life indicators, the limited duration of postoperative monitoring necessitates caution in broadly applying these results.

No drains versus drains after perforated peptic ulcer repair: A randomized controlled trail.

The study aimed to evaluate safety of omitting the intraabdominal drains after perforated peptic ulcer repairs. We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial from January 2022 to January 2024 at the Emergency surgery department. Patients with perforated peptic ulcers were evaluated for eligibility. They were randomly assigned into two groups. In group A: two intraabdominal drains (pelvic and hepatorenal). in group B: no intraabdominal drains. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS), and the secondary outcomes included parameters of recovery and 30-day morbidities. The data were analyzed using SPSS 16 ®. Thirty five patients were in the no drain group, while 36 patients were in the drain group. Patients in the no drains group had significantly earlier bowel motion (21.6 vs 28.69 hours; p = 0.004), fluid diet (73.54 vs 86.78 hours; p 0.001), and solid intake (84.4 vs. 98 hours; p 0.001), less pain severity (p = 0.0001) and shorter hospital stay (4.74 vs 5.75days; p 0.001). A significant less morbidity, including surgical site infection (p = 0.01), and respiratory complications (p 0.0001), were in the no drain group. There was no difference of fever duration nor wound dehiscence. Omitting the intraabdominal drains is safe after peptic ulcer perforation repair. It can improve outcomes. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06084741.

Demystifying the association of center-level operative trauma volume and outcomes of emergency general surgery

BackgroundRecent studies have demonstrated a positive volume-outcome relationship in emergency general surgery. Some have advocated for the sub-specialization of emergency general surgery independent from trauma. We hypothesized inferior clinical outcomes of emergency general surgery with increasing center-level operative trauma volume, potentially attributable to overall hospital quality. MethodsAdults (≥18 years) undergoing complex emergency general surgery operations (large and small bowel resection, repair of perforated peptic ulcer, lysis of adhesions, laparotomy) were identified in the 2016 to 2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Multivariable risk-adjusted models were developed to evaluate the association of treatment at a high-volume trauma center (reference: low-volume trauma center) with clinical and financial outcomes after emergency general surgery. To evaluate hospital quality, mortality among adult hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction was assessed by hospital trauma volume. ResultsOf an estimated 785,793 patients undergoing a complex emergency general surgery operation, 223,116 (28.4%) were treated at a high-volume trauma center. Treatment at a high-volume trauma center was linked to 1.19 odds of in-hospital mortality (95% confidence interval 1.12–1.27). Although emergency general surgery volume was associated with decreasing predicted risk of mortality, increasing trauma volume was linked to an incremental rise in the odds of mortality after emergency general surgery. Secondary analysis revealed increased mortality for admissions for acute myocardial infarction with greater trauma volume. ConclusionWe note increased mortality for emergency general surgery and acute myocardial infarction in patients receiving treatment at high-volume trauma centers, signifying underlying structural factors to broadly affect quality. Thus, decoupling trauma and emergency general surgery services may not meaningfully improve outcomes for emergency general surgery patients. Our findings have implications for the evolving specialty of emergency general surgery, especially for the safety and continued growth of the acute care surgery model.

Antifungal Use in Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Western Australian Perspective.

Background Perforated peptic ulcer disease has a high mortality rate, and there is consensus regarding the use of antifungals in the management of immunocompromised patients; however, there is variability in the utilization of antifungals in the non-immunocompromised cohort. This study aims to describe the current practice related to the use of antifungals in perforated peptic ulcer disease in Western Australia and to determine the peri-operative morbidity and mortality in the immunocompromised and non-immunocompromised cohort receiving antifungals. Methods Medical records of patients who underwent surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcer in all Western Australian tertiary hospitals between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were reviewed retrospectively. Data regarding pre-operative patient factors such as age, gender, and comorbidities, post-operative outcomes such as intra-abdominal sepsis/bleeding, peri-operative antifungal prescription, and abundance of fungal growth on intra-operative samples were collected. Results The study included 359 patients. The antifungal prescription was variable. An American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of 3 or more, presence of pre-operative shock and acidosis, and level of abundance of fungal growth on intra-operative samples were associated with antifungal prescription. Amongst the non-immunocompromised cohort, receiving antifungals was associated with higher morbidity. Conclusion The use of antifungals for patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease was variable. An ASA score of 3 or greater and pre-operative shock and acidosis are pre-operative factors predisposing patients to receiving antifungals. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality amongst immunocompromised patients regardless of antifungal prescription or non-prescription. However, in the non-immunocompromised cohort, those who received antifungals had a higher morbidity compared to those who did not.

Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: A single-center analysis

Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: A single-center analysis

Retrospective comparison of outcomes of patients undergoing omental patch versus falciform patch repair of perforated peptic ulcers.

The omental patch repair is the gold standard for the repair of perforated peptic ulcers. This can be performed open or laparoscopically. However, in the event of non-viable or inadequate omentum available at the time of surgery the falciform ligament has been reportedly used to as an alternative. Nonetheless, evidence for its safety is scant. This study aims to determine differences in patient outcomes when comparing the two repair techniques. Following ethics approval, patients who underwent surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcers using omental or falciform patch repair, between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017, across all three Western Australian tertiary hospital services and at least 18 years of age were included. Data were collected by reviewing medical records of included patients. Three hundred twenty-nine patients who underwent either open or laparoscopic repairs were included. Thirty-seven patients had falciform repairs and were mostly ASA of 2 compared to 292 patients receiving omental patch repair who were mostly ASA 3. Falciform patch repairs were more commonly used in duodenal ulcer perforations. There were no statistically significant differences in patient outcomes between the omental patch and falciform ligament groups. This included post-operative intra-abdominal sepsis, return to theatre, post-operative ICU admission, inpatient mortality, 30-day readmission and ulcer healing on follow-up gastroscopy. This study demonstrates safety, efficacy and similar outcomes for patients receiving the falciform ligament patch repair compared with omental patch repair.

A simple and effective technique for laparoscopic gastrorrhaphy: modified Graham’s patch with barbed suture

IntroductionPeptic ulcers are caused by unbalanced acid production, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in recent decades have helped to treat peptic ulcers effectively. Meanwhile, the incidence of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) persists and has a high mortality rate if there is no adequate management. Primary closure with a modified Graham’s patch was well performed in early detected PPU with a small size < 2 cm. A laparoscopic approach for PPU was prescribed for decades with proven feasibility and safety. We introduced an effective technique combined with barbed suture and modified Graham’s patch, which can significantly reduce the surgical time without significantly increasing morbidity and mortality compared with traditional interrupted suture.Patients and methodWe retrospectively collected data from January 2014 to December 2020 in Keelung Change Gung Memorial Hospital, and a total of 154 patients receiving laparoscopic repair of PPU were included. There were 59 patients in the V-loc group (V group) and 95 patients in the laparoscopic primary repair group (P group).ResultsThe V group had a significantly shorter operation time than the P group (96.93 ± 22.14 min vs. 123.97 ± 42.14, P < 0.001). Ten patients suffered from morbidity greater than the Clavien‒Dindo classification 4 (5 from V group, and 5 from P group). Three patients with leakage were reported. Two patients were in the V group, and one patient was in the P group (p = 0.432).ConclusionLaparoscopic repair with barbed suture and modified Graham’s patch provides a simple and effective technique in the management of acute abdomen. This technique can be easily performed by experienced surgeons and trainees in minimally invasive surgery without affecting patient safety.

Outcome of laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcers in low-risk patients

Background Peptic ulcer perforation (PPU) represents the main indication for emergent surgical intervention for peptic ulcer disease. The study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic repair (PPU) in comparison with open repair in low-risk patients. Methods A retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary medical institution that included 98 patients diagnosed with PPU in line with the inclusion criteria. An analysis was performed to compare patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery (LS) (n=31) and patients submitted to open surgery (OS) of PPU (n=67). Characterization of LS and OS was achieved in terms of patients’ demographics, Bœy’s score, PULP score, and intraoperative and postoperative data. Results The patient’s mean age in the LS and OS groups were 48.8 and 51.1 years, respectively. Most patients in both groups were men (87.1% and 86.5%, respectively). The mean time for resumption of oral intake after surgery was 2.93 ±1.06 (1–7) days in the laparoscopy group compared with 3.79±0.8 (2–7) days in the laparotomy group (P&lt;0.0001). The average length of hospital stay was 5.77± 1.8 (4–13) days in the LS group and 7.22±1.6 (5–12) days in the OS group (P=0.0001). Early complications (&lt;30 days) were found in 12 patients (12.2%); 3 (9.6%) in the LS group and 9 (13.4%) in the OS group (P=0.5). Conclusion Repair of PPU by laparoscopy is a better alternative to the open approach regarding reduction of postoperative hospital stay and fast return to daily activity with less postoperative ileus and wound complications.

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 &gt; 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= &lt;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.

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach.

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remain a surgical emergency accounting for 37% of all peptic ulcer-related deaths. Surgery remains the standard of care. The benefits of laparoscopic approach have been well-established even in the elderly. However, because of inconsistent results with specific regard to some technical aspects of such technique surgeons questioned the adoption of laparoscopic approach. This leads to choose the type of approach based on personal experience. The aim of our study was to critically appraise the use of the laparoscopic approach in PPU treatment comparing it with open procedure. A retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients underwent surgical procedure for PPU was performed. Patients undergoing PPU repair were divided into: Laparoscopic approach (LapA) and Open approach (OpenA) groups and clinical-pathological features of patients in the both groups were compared. A total of 453 patients underwent PPU simple repair. Among these, a LapA was adopted in 49% (222/453 patients). After propensity score matching, 172 patients were included in each group (the LapA and the OpenA). Analysis demonstrated increased operative times in the OpenA [OpenA: 96.4 ± 37.2 vs LapA 88.47 ± 33min, p = 0.035], with shorter overall length of stay in the LapA group [OpenA 13 ± 12 vs LapA 10.3 ± 11.4days p = 0.038]. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality [OpenA 26 (15.1%) vs LapA 18 (10.5%), p = 0.258]. Focusing on morbidity, the overall rate of 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the LapA group [OpenA 67 patients (39.0%) vs LapA 37 patients (21.5%) p = 0.002]. When stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification, the severity of postoperative complications was statistically different only for C-D 1-2. Based on the present study, we can support that laparoscopic suturing of perforated peptic ulcers, apart from being a safe technique, could provide significant advantages in terms of postoperative complications and hospital stay.

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

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

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

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. 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. 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). 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. 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

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionThis 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.

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

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

ENHANCED RECOVERY AFTER SURGERY(ERAS)PROTOCOLS VS. STANDARD CARE IN PATIENTS WITH PEPTIC ULCER PERFORATION

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of Enhanced recovery after surgery(ERAS) protocol vs standard care in patients with perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). Materials and Methods: This single-center, retrospective, cross-sectional study was carried out from January 2021 to January 2022. Patients with PPU undergoing Grahams repair were divided into standard care and ERAS group. Primary outcome was the duration of stay. Secondary outcomes were functional recovery parameters and morbidity. Results: A total of 120 cases of PPU were admitted in our hospital, among which 60 patients each were included in standard care and ERAS group, respectively. Patients in ERAS group had a significantly early functional recovery for the time to first flatus (1.41 vs 2.38 p &lt; 0.001), first stool (2.65 vs 3.78 p &lt; 0.001), first fluid diet (2.75 vs 6.1 p &lt; 0.001), and solid diet (4.08 vs 7.11 p &lt; 0.001). Duration of stay in ERAS group was significantly shorter (6.2 vs 8.53 p &lt; 0.001). There was a significant reduction in postoperative morbidity such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.43, p value = 0.005), superficial SSI (RR 0.4, p = 0.005) and pulmonary complications (RR 0.45, p = 0.002). Result : ERAS group showed better primary and secondary outcomes. Conclusion: In conclusion, ERAS protocols, are feasible and safe for application in selected patients undergoing Grahams repair of perforated peptic ulcer without an increase in the rate of complications.

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer - routine procedure or targeted patient selection?

Peptic ulcer is one of the most common diseases of the proximal gastrointestinal tract. Its complications are relatively common, the most serious one being peptic ulcer perforation with the incidence of about 10 cases per 100,000 population per year and the mortality rate of 10-40%. Surgical suture via laparoscopy or laparotomy is the only treatment option. The aim of the study was to compare the short-term results of laparoscopic and open repair of acute peptic ulcer perforation and evaluate the accuracy of the Boey scoring system in the Czech population. Retrospective study conducted at the surgical department of the University Hospital Ostrava. The patients underwent laparoscopic or open repair of perforated peptic ulcer in 2017-2021. The study included 60 patients; laparoscopic repair was performed in 43.3% of the patients, and open repair in 56.7%. Postoperative morbidity was 70.0%, mild complications were reported in 23.3% of the patients, and severe complications in 16.7%. Patients undergoing the laparoscopic repair showed a higher incidence of mild as well as severe complications (26.9% vs 20.6% and 19.2% vs 14.7%) but also a higher incidence of an uncomplicated postoperative course. Overall postoperative mortality was 30.0% (laparoscopy 15.4%, laparotomy 41.2%). The study results confirmed the estimated baseline risk of mortality based on the Boey score. Laparoscopic repair may be the procedure of choice for patients with no or low risk factors. Patients undergoing laparoscopy showed a higher incidence of mild and severe complications. The higher mortality of patients after open repair is related to their worse initial clinical condition. Preoperative determination of mortality risk using the Boey score is accurate and appropriate in terms of choosing the surgical approach.

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a multicenter, propensity score matching analysis

BackgroundPerforated 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.MethodsMedical 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.ResultsAmong 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.ConclusionsLS 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.

Comparison of Clinical Outcome of Laparoscopic with Open Repair Surgery for Duodenal Ulcer Perforation

Objective: To determine the clinical outcome of laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Study Design: Comparative analytical study Place and Duration of Study: Department of Surgery Ward-2, Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre Karachi from 1st March 2021 to 28th February 2022. Methodology: Fifty patients with duodenal ulcer perforation were divided into two equal groups and open surgery or laparoscopic was performed after clinical examination. Boeys score, Mannheim Peritonitis Index preoperatively and VAS scoring as post-operative was done. Results: There were more males than females within both groups with a mean age of 51.3±16.5 years in group I and 55.7±14.9 years in group II. The perforation size of group I was greater as 16.3±6.4 mm than group II patients which were 15.9±5.7 mm. The post-operative complications showed a high frequency of respiratory cardiovascular and surgical site complications with greater mortality rate in Group II A major decrease in pain score was recorded in laparoscopic group such as group I in comparison with open repair such as group II. Conclusion: Shorter hospitalization and less post-operative pain was observed in laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer as compared to open-repair surgery. Keywords: Peptic ulcer, Laparoscopy, Advantages, Disease management

The surgical management of complicated peptic ulcer disease: An EAST video presentation.

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD), once primary a surgical problem, is now medically managed in the majority of patients. The surgical treatment of PUD is now strictly reserved for life-threatening complications. Free perforation, refractory bleeding and gastric outlet obstruction, although rare in the age of medical management of PUD, are several of the indications for surgical intervention. The acute care surgeon caring for patients with PUD should be facile in techniques required for bleeding control, bypass of peptic strictures, and vagotomy with resection and reconstruction. This video procedures and techniques article demonstrates these infrequently encountered, but critical operations. A combination of anatomic representations and videos of step-by-step instructions on perfused cadavers will demonstrate the key steps in the following critical operations. Graham patch repair of perforated peptic ulcer is demonstrated in both open and laparoscopic fashion. The choice to perform open versus laparoscopic repair is based on individual surgeon comfort. Oversewing of a bleeding duodenal ulcer via duodenotomy and ligation of the gastroduodenal artery is infrequent in the age of advanced endoscopy and interventional radiology techniques, yet this once familiar procedure can be lifesaving. Repair of giant duodenal or gastric ulcers can present a challenging operative dilemma on how to best repair or exclude the defect. Vagotomy and antrectomy, perhaps the least common of all the aforementioned surgical interventions, may require more complex reconstruction than other techniques making it challenging for inexperienced surgeons. A brief demonstration on reconstruction options will be shown, and it includes Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy. Surgical management of PUD is reserved today for life-threatening complications for which the acute care surgeon must be prepared. This presentation provides demonstration of key surgical principles in management of bleeding and free perforation, as well as gastric resection, vagotomy and reconstruction. Video procedure and technique, not applicable.

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

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