Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: Patch versus simple closure

Ellatif, Mohamed E. Abd; Salama, Ahmed E.; Elezaby, A.F.; Elkaffas, Haitham; Hassan, Ammar Y; Magdy, Alaa; Abdallah, Emad; El-Morsy, Gamal Z.

doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.06.014

Cited by 29 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparison of the operating time in the 4.0-and 5.0-12mm groups reported that the simple closure took less time than omentopexy for perforations smaller than 12 mm. Abd Ellatif and colleagues [55] enrolled 179 consecutive patients with PPU who were treated by laparoscopic repair; 108 patients with the omental patch technique and 71 with laparoscopic simple repair. Operative time was significantly shorter in the non-patch group and no patient was converted to laparotomy.…”

Section: Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Peptic ulcer disease is common with a lifetime prevalence in the general population of 5-10% and an incidence of 0.1-0.3% per year. Despite a sharp reduction in incidence and rates of hospital admission and mortality over the past 30 years, complications are still encountered in 10-20% of these patients. Peptic ulcer disease remains a significant healthcare problem, which can consume considerable financial resources. Management may involve various subspecialties including surgeons, gastroenterologists, and radiologists. Successful management of patients with complicated peptic ulcer (CPU) involves prompt recognition, resuscitation when required, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and timely surgical/radiological treatment. Methods: The present guidelines have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. To create these guidelines, a panel of experts was designed and charged by the board of the WSES to perform a systematic review of the available literature and to provide evidence-based statements with immediate practical application. All the statements were presented and discussed during the 5th WSES Congress, and for each statement, a consensus among the WSES panel of experts was reached. Conclusions: The population considered in these guidelines is adult patients with suspected complicated peptic ulcer disease. These guidelines present evidence-based international consensus statements on the management of complicated peptic ulcer from a collaboration of a panel of experts and are intended to improve the knowledge and the awareness of physicians around the world on this specific topic. We divided our work into the two main topics, bleeding and perforated peptic ulcer, and structured it into six main topics that cover the entire management process of patients with complicated peptic ulcer, from diagnosis at ED arrival to post-discharge antimicrobial therapy, to provide an up-to-date, easy-to-use tool that can help physicians and surgeons during the decision-making process.

show abstract

Section: Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%

Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sutureless techniques have also been developed using a gelatin sponge and fibrin glue to seal off the perforation [55]. There seem to be no significant differences in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality rates when comparing primary closure, omentopexy or tegmentation (without closure) [55][56][57]. Surgical repair can be performed either with conventional open surgery or with laparoscopy.…”

Section: Simple Surgical Repairmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis and management of duodenal perforations: a narrative review

Ansari

Torén

Lindberg

et al. 2019

Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Duodenal perforation is a rare, but potentially life-threatening injury. Multiple etiologies are associated with duodenal perforations such as peptic ulcer disease, iatrogenic causes and trauma. Computed tomography with intravenous and oral contrast is the most valuable imaging technique to identify duodenal perforation. In some cases, surgical exploration may be necessary for diagnosis. Specific treatment depends upon the nature of the disease process that caused the perforation, the timing, location and extent of the injury and the clinical condition of the patient. Conservative management seems to be feasible in stable patients with sealed perforations. Immediate surgery is required for patients presenting with peritonitis and/or intra-abdominal sepsis. Minimally invasive techniques are safe and effective alternatives to conventional open surgery in selected patients with duodenal perforations. Here we review the current literature on duodenal perforations and discuss the outcomes of different treatment strategies. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…In the present study, the mean operation time was 66.7±19.6 minutes, which is comparable to previously reported results for laparoscopic simple closure techniques without omental patch. 16,17 Open conversion rates have been reported to range from 0% to 28.5%, and the most common causes of conversion are large perforation size (usually >10 mm), inadequate ulcer location, and difficult suturing due to friable ulcer edge. 13 In the present study, large (>10 mm) duodenal wall defects as visualized on perioperative CT scan were treated by open surgery and excluded from the study, so it is impossible to determine whether larger duodenal ulcer perforations can be safely managed us-ing our surgical technique.…”

Section: (3~8)mentioning

confidence: 99%