Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer: A retrospective cohort study

Smith, Rohan Stuart; Sundaramurthy, Senthilkumar R.; Croagh, Daniel

doi:10.1111/ases.12600

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[1] In another study comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for peptic ulcer perforation, although it was not statistically significant, hospital stay was one day less in laparoscopic surgery group. [17] In the present study, the results were similar with present literature. There were two cases with postoperative wound infection in open surgery group, while no in laparoscopic surgery group.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Although laparoscopic surgery has great advantages such as short hospital stay, less level of pain, better cosmetic results, it requires a certain learning curve and experiences to gain afformentioned advantages. [7,15,16,17] Many studies have been performed regarding minimally invasive treatment for peptic ulcer perforation since the first report of laparoscopic approach by Mouret et al [9] in which better results regarding wound infections and postoperative peritoneal adhesions were reported. [1,8,17,18] Operation time is a featuring parameter in the studies comparing laparoscopic and open surgery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Management of Peptic Ulcer Perforations; Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Procedures.

Birol¹

2019

Laparosc Endosc Surg Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Peptic ulcer perforation requires urgent surgical intervention, but there is no consensus on a preference for open or laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic and open methods of surgery for patients with a peptic ulcer perforation. Materials and Methods: The data of 52 patients who underwent surgery for peptic ulcer perforation at 4 hospitals were investigated retrospectively. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the surgical technique applied: open surgery or laparoscopic. Both techniques used an omental patch to repair the perforation. Patient age, gender, preoperative blood white blood cell count, blood amylase level, duration of symptoms before admission to the hospital, length of operation, number of drains, quantity of intra-abdominal free fluid observed during the operation, quantity of fluid used for irrigation, patient abdominal operation history, and complications were noted and analyzed. Results: Thirty-seven of the patients underwent open surgery and 15 underwent laparoscopic surgery (mean age: 37.73±16.85 years; female/male 3/49). There was no significant difference in the parameters between the groups. No mortality was observed in any of the patients. Wound infection developed in 2 patients who were operated on using the open technique. Only 1 case of laparoscopic surgery (6.66%) was converted to open surgery. Conclusion: Laparoscopic repair of a peptic ulcer perforation demonstrated results that were similar to open surgery and helps to reduce complications such as wound infection. It may be especially valuable in earlyonset cases and younger patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of Peptic Ulcer Perforations; Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Procedures.

Birol¹

2019

Laparosc Endosc Surg Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present study, the mean operating time was longer in the LG, which was consistent with many studies and metaanalyses [8,13,20,[25][26][27]. In a prospective controlled study by Siu et al [28], the mean operation time was significantly shorter in the LG.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Comparison of laparoscopic and conventional graham’s omentopexy in peptic ulcer perforation: A single center experience

Sürek¹,

Ferahman²,

Gemici³

et al. 2021

Journal of Surgery and Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aim: In recent years, laparoscopic repair has become common in the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation (PUP). In this study, we aimed to compare the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic and conventional graham omentopexy in the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation (PUP). Methods: The files of the patients who underwent laparoscopic and conventional graham omentopexy were reviewed in this retrospective cohort study. The two groups were compared in terms of age, gender, comorbidities, ASA scores, location and diameter of perforation, Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), operation times, VAS scores (4 th and 24 th hour), oral intake, flatus, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, morbidity, and mortality. Results: A total of 192 cases were included in the study, with 123 patients in the Laparoscopy Group and 69 patients in the Conventional Group. In the Laparoscopy Group, earlier oral intake, earlier bowel movements, less pain, shorter length of hospitalization, less pulmonary and total complications, and fewer secondary interventions were observed (P=0.001, P=0.001, P=0.001, P=0.037, P=0.009, P=0.039, respectively). In the Conventional Group, the mean operation time was significantly shorter (P=0.002). Other findings were similar. Conclusion:We observed many advantages of laparoscopic repair in the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation. Longer operation time was the only disadvantage. Based on our results, we believe that laparoscopic approach is safe and superior to conventional surgery in the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation.

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

Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer: A retrospective cohort study

Abstract: Open operations were faster to perform than laparoscopic operations for repair of PPU. Despite increased experience treating many surgical diseases laparoscopically, this study did not find it to be superior in terms of length of hospital stay or complication rates.

Cited by 20 publications

References 27 publications

Management of Peptic Ulcer Perforations; Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Procedures.

Management of Peptic Ulcer Perforations; Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Procedures.

Comparison of laparoscopic and conventional graham’s omentopexy in peptic ulcer perforation: A single center experience

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About