A Comparative Study of Laparoscopic vs Open Surgery for the Management of Duodenal Ulcer Perforation

Sreeramulu, P N; Ts, Venkatachalapathy; Supreet, CS; Prathima, S

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10033-1173

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also open approach makes the wound vulnerable to be infected by intra-abdominal contents during exploration or during wash, not like laparoscopic approach where the trocars usually save the wound from infection.Biscione et al 26 demonstrated in a cohort study that laparoscopy is associated with a reduction in the risk of surgical site infection by 60%-80% as compared with open diagnostic exploration of the abdominal cavity. Many other studies showed same results 17,27,28 . Leakage in our study has occurred in a single case of those who were managed by laparoscopic approach.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer

Alluaibi¹,

Al-Wajeeh²,

Mohammed³

2017

Basrah Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peptic ulcer is the most common GIT disorder with a prevalence of 2%, peaking around the age of 70 years. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer began to evolve and replace the ordinary upper laparotomy. We studied 47 patients suffering from perforated duodenal or gastric ulcer in Al-Mawanee General Hospital in Basrah in the period 2014-2017, the patients were categorized into 2 groups: 1st group(24 patients) managed laparoscopically and the 2nd group (23 patients) managed by open approach. Perforation found to occur more with duodenal ulcer (29 pt. 61.70%) and more in male patients (26 pt. 55.33%). The peak perforation seen in age group >60 years and the commonest risk factors was the NSAIDs usage. Operative time was insignificantly longer in laparoscopic approach. However, the laparoscopic approach has less post operative pain and less overall complications (4 pt. 16.6% vs. 8 pt. 34.7%). In conclusion, laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a feasible operation and considered promising with less postoperative pain, less postoperative complications and better cosmetic results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer

Alluaibi¹,

Al-Wajeeh²,

Mohammed³

2017

Basrah Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Included studies were published between 1996 and 2019. Five were RCTs [14][15][16][17][18] , three were prospective cohort studies [19][20][21] , and the other 15 studies used retrospective cohort or case-control designs [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] ( Table 1). All compared outcomes of laparoscopic versus open peptic ulcer repair.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in descriptors of patient characteristics in randomized clinical trials of peptic ulcer repair: a systematic review

Lee

Coe

O'Donoghue³

et al. 2020

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The ability to compare findings across surgical research is important. Inadequate description of participants, interventions or outcomes could lead to bias and inaccurate assessment of findings. The aim of this study was to assess consistency of description of participants using studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of peptic ulcer as an example. Methods: This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Searches of MEDLINE and Embase databases were performed to identify studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer in adults, published in the English language. Manuscripts were dual-screened for eligibility. Full texts were retrieved and dual-screened for inclusion. Data extracted from studies included descriptors of participants in studies from tables and text. Descriptors were categorized into conceptual domains by the research team, and coverage of each domain by study was tabulated. Results: Searches identified 2018 studies. After screening, 37 full texts were retrieved and 23 studies were included in the final synthesis. A total of 76 unique descriptors were identified. These were classified into demographics (11 descriptors), vital signs (9 descriptors), disease-specific characteristics (10 descriptors), presentation and pathway factors (4 descriptors), risk factors (8 descriptors), laboratory tests (14 descriptors) and baseline health (28 descriptors). The number of descriptors in a single study ranged from three to 31. All studies reported at least one demographic descriptor. Laboratory tests was the least frequently described domain. Conclusion: Study participants are described inconsistently in studies of a single example surgical condition.

show abstract

“…In a non-randomized prospective trial of 61 cases, Sreeramulu and his colleagues observed a nearly same conversion rate (9.6%), owing to significant perforation (> 2 cm) and dense adhesion. 12 In this study, the surgical time for the laparoscopic groups was significantly longer. In comparison to the open group (104.9 min), the laparoscopic group's mean surgical time was (144.2 min).…”

Section: Groupmentioning

confidence: 59%