Management of perforated peptic ulcer in a district general hospital

Critchley, AC; Phillips, Alexander W; Bawa, SM; Gallagher, P.

doi:10.1308/003588411x13165261994030

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most vulnerable age group in this study was 51 to 60 years (23.33%). Similar observations were also reported in the study conducted by Critchley et al 6 In the study conducted by Karydakis et al, the mean age of the patient was 46 years. 7 Male to female ratio in our study was of 1:0.1.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Open versus laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a comparative study

Deshmukh

Parikh

2020

Int Surg J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Surgery is the mainstay of the treatment for perforated duodenal ulcer by closing the perforation with or without omental patch. There are no controversies in the surgical treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer but the best approach to surgery is still debatable. Advances in minimal access surgery has made it possible to close the perforated duodenal ulcer laparoscopically. The present study was conducted to compare the results of open and laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer in terms of operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, and post-operative complications etc.Methods: The study was conducted in Dr. V. M. Government Medical College and Hospital located in Solapur (Maharashtra) from December 2008 to December 2010. It was a prospective comparative study. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups alternately where group A and B were operated by conventional and laparoscopic techniques respectively and their outcomes were compared.Results: Most commonly affected age in this study was 51 to 60 years with male preponderance. Post-operative pain, analgesic requirement, wound infection, hospital stay, was significantly less in laparoscopic group as compared to open group (p<0.05).Conclusions: Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer is safe and feasible in properly selected patients and has superior results as compared to open surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Open versus laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a comparative study

Deshmukh

Parikh

2020

Int Surg J

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

“…Specialist society guidelines suggest that a laparoscopic approach is warranted in selected patients. Laparoscopic repair of PPU has also been done by trainee surgeons, with acceptable results, probably because of the increased exposure to laparoscopy by current young surgical trainees. Guidelines on which patients with PPU are best suited to a laparoscopic approach have not yet been established, but shock on admission (blood pressure below 90 mmHg), delayed presentation (over 24 h) after perforation, age over 70 years, ASA fitness grade III–IV and a high Boey score should be considered adverse risk factors, and should guide towards laparotomy rather than laparoscopy.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies to improve the outcome of emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer

Søreide

Thorsen

Søreide

2014

Journal of British Surgery

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Management of perforated peptic ulcer in a district general hospital

Abstract: Both laparoscopic and open repair are equally safe in the management of PPU. Our findings support the view that this procedure can be successfully used as a training operation.

Cited by 17 publications

References 34 publications

Open versus laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a comparative study

Open versus laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a comparative study

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

Strategies to improve the outcome of emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About