Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Peptic Perforation Repair
Authors/Creators
- 1. Associate Professor, Department of General Surgery, P.D.U Medical College Rajkot, Gujarat, India
- 2. First Year Resident, Department of General Surgery, P.D.U Medical College Rajkot, Gujarat, India
Description
Background and Aim: Peptic perforation refers to a duodenal ulcer perforation or a gastric ulcer perforation. Graham’s omental patch repair is required to correct peptic perforations. This surgical intervention can be performed either laparoscopically or openly. The study’s aims were to investigate various complications of open laparotomy peptic perforation repair and laparoscopic peptic perforation repair, and then to reduce post-operative complications by customising a suitable procedure in a specific person. Material and Methods: This was a descriptive study. This one-year study was carried out at a tertiary care centre in Gujarat. These patients were split into two groups. Perforated peptic ulcers were fixed laparoscopically in group A (n=30) participants. Perforated peptic ulcers were fixed openly (laparotomy) in group B (n=30) individuals. In terms of intraoperative time, post-operative hospital stay, and post-operative complications such as surgical site wound infection and post-operative pain, the author compared two groups. Results: Important factors in our study include intraoperative time, post-operative discomfort, surgical site infection, and hospital stay among patients in groups A and B. Group B patients required postoperative analgesics for a longer period of time than group A patients. Group B patients had a higher risk of surgical site infection than group A patients. Group B patients spend longer time in the hospital after surgery. Conclusion: The shift in disease pattern favours a straightforward repair approach in perforated peptic ulcers. In patients with perforated peptic ulcers, laparoscopic surgery has no additional disadvantages over open repair, but it has the advantage of reducing post-operative time, surgical site infection, and length of hospital stay. Laparoscopic perforated peptic ulcer repair is therefore recommended whenever possible.
Abstract (English)
Background and Aim: Peptic perforation refers to a duodenal ulcer perforation or a gastric ulcer perforation. Graham’s omental patch repair is required to correct peptic perforations. This surgical intervention can be performed either laparoscopically or openly. The study’s aims were to investigate various complications of open laparotomy peptic perforation repair and laparoscopic peptic perforation repair, and then to reduce post-operative complications by customising a suitable procedure in a specific person. Material and Methods: This was a descriptive study. This one-year study was carried out at a tertiary care centre in Gujarat. These patients were split into two groups. Perforated peptic ulcers were fixed laparoscopically in group A (n=30) participants. Perforated peptic ulcers were fixed openly (laparotomy) in group B (n=30) individuals. In terms of intraoperative time, post-operative hospital stay, and post-operative complications such as surgical site wound infection and post-operative pain, the author compared two groups. Results: Important factors in our study include intraoperative time, post-operative discomfort, surgical site infection, and hospital stay among patients in groups A and B. Group B patients required postoperative analgesics for a longer period of time than group A patients. Group B patients had a higher risk of surgical site infection than group A patients. Group B patients spend longer time in the hospital after surgery. Conclusion: The shift in disease pattern favours a straightforward repair approach in perforated peptic ulcers. In patients with perforated peptic ulcers, laparoscopic surgery has no additional disadvantages over open repair, but it has the advantage of reducing post-operative time, surgical site infection, and length of hospital stay. Laparoscopic perforated peptic ulcer repair is therefore recommended whenever possible.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue10,Article114.pdf
Files
(317.8 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:e6ffc667cfb8dbae0752d45756b070d5
|
317.8 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-09-30
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue10,Article114.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Yuan Y., Ford A.C. and Khan K.J.: Optimum duration of regimens for Helicobacter pylori eradication. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 2013; 12: Cd008337. 2. Cao F., Li J., Li A., Fang Y., Wang Y.J. and Li F.: Nonoperative management for perforated peptic ulcer: Who can benefit? Asian J. Surg., 2014; 37 (3): 148-53. 3. Hung-Chieh L., Shih-Chi W., Hung-Chang H., Chun-Chieh Y., Jui-Chien H. And Chi-Hsun H.: Laparoscopic Simple Closure Alone is Adequate for Low-Risk Patients with Perforated Peptic Ulcer. World J. Surg., 2011; 35: 1873-8. 4. Mouret J., Francois Y., Vignal J., Barth X. And Lombard R.: Laparoscopic treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer. Br. J. Surg., 1990; 77: 1006. 5. Nathanson L.K., Easter D.W. And Cuschieri A.: Laparoscopic repair peritoneal toilette of perforated duodenal ulcer. Surg. Endosc., 1990; 4: 232-3.6. Al-Wadaani H.: Emergent laparoscopy in treatment of perforated peptic ulcer: A local experience from a tertiary centre in Saudi Arabia. World Journal of Emergency Surgery, 2013; 8: 10. 7. Behrman SW. Management of complicated peptic ulcer disease. Arch Surg. 2005; 140: 201-8. 8. Svanes C. Trends in perforated peptic ulcer: incidence, etiology, treatment and prognosis. World J Surg. 2000; 24:277-83. 9. Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M. Risk factors influencing the early outcome results after laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer and their predictive value. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2005; 390:413-20. 10. Lau H. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2004; 18:1013-21. 11. Chu KM, Kwok KF, Law SY, Tuen HH, Tung PH, Branicki FJ, et al. Helicobacter pylori status and endoscopy follow-up of patients having a history of perforated duodenal ulcer. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999; 50(1):58-62. 12. Ng EK, Lam YH, Sung JJ, Yung MY, To KF, Chan AC, et al. Eradication of Helicobacter pylori prevents recurrence of ulcer after simple closure of duodenal ulcer perforation: randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2000; 231(2):153-8. 13. Tokunaga Y, Hata K, Ryo J, Kitaoka A, Tokuka A, Ohsumi K. Density of Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with peptic ulcer perforation. J Am Coll Surg. 1998; 186(6):659-63. 14. Critchley AC, Phillips AW, Bawa SM, Gallagher PV. Management of perforated peptic ulcer in a district general hospital. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2011; 93(8):615-9. 15. Bertleff MJ, Stegmann T, Liem RS, Kors G, Robinson PH, Nicolai JP, et al. Comparison of closure of gastric perforation ulcers with biodegradable lactide-glycolide-caprolactone or omental patches. JSLS. 2009; 13(4):550-4. 16. Bhogal RH, Athwal R, Durkin D, Deakin M, Cheruvu CN. Comparison between open and laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease. World J Surg. 2008; 32(11):2371-4. 17. Arnaud JP, Tuech JJ, Bergamaschi R, Pessaux P, Regenet N. Laparoscopic suture closure of perforated duodenal peptic ulcer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2002; 12:145- 7. 18. Khoursheed M, Fuad M, Safar H, Dashti H, Behbehani A. Laparscopic closure of perforated duodenal ulcer. Surg Endosc. 2000; 14:56-8. 19. Ates M, Sevli S, Bakircioglu E, Colak C. Laparoscopic repair of peptic ulcer perforation without omental patch versus conventional open repair. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2007; A17:615-9. 20. Lau H. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2004; 18(7):1013-21. 21. Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M. Systematic review comparing laparoscopic and open repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 2005; 92:1195-207. 22. Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer. JSLS. 2013; 17(1):15-22. 23. Siu W.T., Chau C.H., Law B.K.B., Tang C.N., Ha P.Y. And Li M.K.W.: Routine use of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Br. J. Surg., 2004;91: 481-4. 24. Stavros Antoniou, George A., Oliver O., Rudolph P., Frank A. and GRANDERATH: Meta-analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer. J.S.L.S., 2013; 17: 15-22. 25. Wilhelmsen M., Møller M.H. And Rosenstock S.: Surgical complications after open and laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer in a nationwide cohort. Br. J. Surg., 2015; 102 (4): 382-7. 26. Golash V. Ten-Year Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic Repair versus Open Closure of Perforated. Oman Med J. 2008; 23(4):241-6. 27. Siu WT, Leong HT, Law BK, Chau CH, Li AC, Fung KH, et al. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2002;235(3):313-9. 28. Siu WT, Leong HT, Law BK, Chau CH, Li AC, Fung KH, et al. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2002;235(3):313-9. 29. Ge B, Wu M, Chen Q, Chen Q, Lin R, Liu L, Huang Q. A prospective randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic repair versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcers. Surgery. 2016; 159(2):451-8. 30. Lau WY, Leung KL, Kwong KH, Davey IC, Robertson C, Dawson JJ, et al. A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique. Ann Surg. 1996; 224(2): 131-8. 31. Bertleff MJ, Halm JA, Bemelman WA, van der Ham AC, van der Harst E, Oei HI, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: the LAMA Trial. World J Surg. 2009; 33(7):1368-73. 32. Lau H. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2004; 18:1013-21.33. Lau WY, Leung KL, Kwong KH, Davey IC, Robertson C, Dawson JJ, et al. A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique. Ann Surg. 1996; 224(2):131-8. 34. Kirshtein B, Bayme M, Mayer T, Lantsberg L, Avinoach E, Mizrahi S. Laparoscopic treatment of gastroduodenal perforations: comparison with conventional surgery. Surg Endosc. 2005; 19(11):1487-90. 35. Siu WT, Leong HT, Law BK, Chau CH, Li AC, Fung KH, et al. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2002; 235(3):313-9. 36. Bertleff M.J., Stegmann T., Liem R.S., Kors G., Robinson P.H., Nicolai J.P., et al.: Comparison of closure of gastric perforation ulcers with biodegradable lactide-glycolidecaprolactone or omental patches. J.S.L. S., 2009; 13(4): 550-43. 37. Vishwanath Golash: Ten-Year Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic Repair versus Open Closure of Perforated Peptic Ulcer. Oman Medical Journal, 2008;(23)4: 241-6. 38. Sanabria A.E., Morales C.H. and Villegas M.I.: Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev., 2013;(4): CD004778. 39. 39. Zhou C, Wang W, Wang J, Zhang X, Zhang Q, Li B, et al. An updated meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:13976.