Tratamiento quirúrgico de la úlcera péptica perforada: comparación entre los abordajes laparoscópico y abierto

Domínguez-Vega, Gerardo; Pera, Manuel; Ramón, José́; Puig, Sònia; Membrilla, Estela; Sancho, J. Sánchez de Toledo; Grande, Luís

doi:10.1016/j.ciresp.2012.10.016

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The electronic search strategy identified 304 articles that mentioned laparoscopic and open repair for PPU. After screening the titles, abstracts, full texts, or a combination of these, we selected NRS 6 8 11 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 and 5 RCTs 42 43 44 45 46 ( Table 3 ) based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Figure 1 shows a flow diagram that details the selection process.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Updated Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer

Zhou

Wang

et al. 2015

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laparoscopic repair (LR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) has been introduced since 1990. Although many studies comparing LR with open repair (OR) have been published, controversy remains regarding the clinical utility of laparoscopic techniques for the treatment of PPU. Thus, it is necessary for us to broaden our knowledge on this subject with the newly published articles. Twenty-four nonrandomized controlled studies (NRS) and five randomized controlled trails (RCTs) were included in our meta-analyses, which comprised 5,268 patients (1,890 in the LR group and 3,378 in the OR group). In the analysis of high quality NRS and RCTs, compared with OR, high quality evidence suggested that LR was associated with a lower incidence of overall postoperative complications; moderate evidence showed that the two procedures had the similar reoperation rate; based on the low quality evidence, LR had reduced hospital mortality and similar operative time; Moreover, LR was observed having the advantages of earlier resumption of oral intake, shorter hospital stay and less analgesic use, which were supported by very low evidence. All the evidences suggest that LR is better than OR for PPU, but more high-quality RCTs are still needed for further validation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Updated Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer

Zhou

Wang

et al. 2015

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All subjects had either previously diagnosed T2DM, impaired glucose regulation, or T2DM diagnosed during an oral 75 g glucose tolerance test (OGTT) at the start of the study. Participants with impaired glucose regulation were those with either impaired fasting glycaemia (IFG, 5.6–6.9 mmol/L) or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT, 2-hour glucose: 7.8–11.0 mmol/L) [ 30 ]. Participants with preexisting diabetes treated with diet, oral agents, GLP-1 analogues, or insulin were included.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Plasma Levels of N-Arachidonoyl Ethanolamine and N-Palmitoylethanolamine following Bariatric Surgery in Morbidly Obese Females with Impaired Glucose Homeostasis

Mallipedhi

Prior

Dunseath

et al. 2015

Journal of Diabetes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim. We examined endocannabinoids (ECs) in relation to bariatric surgery and the association between plasma ECs and markers of insulin resistance. Methods. A study of 20 participants undergoing bariatric surgery. Fasting and 2-hour plasma glucose, lipids, insulin, and C-peptide were recorded preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively with plasma ECs (AEA, 2-AG) and endocannabinoid-related lipids (PEA, OEA). Results. Gender-specific analysis showed differences in AEA, OEA, and PEA preoperatively with reductions in AEA and PEA in females postoperatively. Preoperatively, AEA was correlated with 2-hour glucose (r = 0.55, P = 0.01), HOMA-IR (r = 0.61, P = 0.009), and HOMA %S (r = −0.71, P = 0.002). OEA was correlated with weight (r = 0.49, P = 0.03), waist circumference (r = 0.52, P = 0.02), fasting insulin (r = 0.49, P = 0.04), and HOMA-IR (r = 0.48, P = 0.05). PEA was correlated with fasting insulin (r = 0.49, P = 0.04). 2-AG had a negative correlation with fasting glucose (r = −0.59, P = 0.04). Conclusion. Gender differences exist in circulating ECs in obese subjects. Females show changes in AEA and PEA after bariatric surgery. Specific correlations exist between different ECs and markers of obesity and insulin and glucose homeostasis.

show abstract

“…[9] In another study conducted by Shah KD et al, Pain, Vomiting, Distension of abdomen, Fever and Constipation were seen in 100%, 76%, 72%, 56% and 64% of the patients respectively. [10] Chalya PL et al, in their study on patients with Peptic ulcer perforation, reported that the commonest presenting symptoms were sudden onset of Severe epigastric pain in 82 (97.6%), Abdominal distension in 64 (76.2%) and Vomiting in 31 (36.9%) patients. [11] Bhamre S et al, in their study on patients with Tuberculosis perforation, reported that Fever, Pain abdomen, Vomiting, Abdominal distension, Constipation and Diarrhoea were seen in 100%, 100%, 66.67%, 62.2%, 11.1% and 4.44 % of the patients respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Audit on Gastrointestinal Perforation in a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital Based in Northern Part of India: A Study of 100 Cases

Chanania¹,

Goyal²,

Gupta³

et al. 2022

AIMDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A prospective study was conducted on 100 patients of perforation peritonitis: To find out the incidence of gastro intestinal perforation in various age groups, sex, riral or urban, socio economic status, To find out the various causes and sites of gastra intestinal perforartions, To determine various types of procedures being done to treat gastro intestinal perforations.Methods:The study population consisted of 100 patients of perforation peritonitis admitted at surgical wards of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. Patients underwent necessary investigations such as Blood counts, biochemical analysis and urine analysis. X-ray Abdomen and chest / USG Abdomen/Pelvis CT-Abdomen (as and when required). All diagnosed patients were subjected to surgery. In all cases, operative findings and postoperative course were followed up for three months. Final outcome was evaluated on the basis of clinical, operative and radiological findings. In pre-pyloric and duodenal perforation, GRAHAM’S PATCH REPAIR carried out. In Ileal and Jejunal perforations, primary closure or exteriorization done depending upon the condition of the gut and duration of the symptoms. The patient outcome was assessed by duration of hospital stay, wound infection, wound dehiscence, leakage/entero-cutaneous fistula, intra-abdominal collection/abscess, ileostomy related complications and reoperation. Wound infection was graded as per SSI grading.Results:Most common age group for perforation was 21-40 years (50%) followed by 41-60 (33%) years in present study. Mean age of the patients is 37.91 + 13.15 years with male predominance (78%) in our study. 4% of the patients were of upper socio-economic status while 32% of the patients were of middle and 64% of the patients were of lower socio-economic status.Abdominal pain was seen in 100% of the patients while abdominal distension was present in 69% of the patients. Nausea/Vomiting was seen in 61% of the patients while Fever and Constipation was seen in 53% and 86% of the patients respectively. Diarrhoea was seen in 3% of the patients. Tenderness, guarding & rigidity, distension, obliteration of liver dullness and evidence of free fluid were present in 100% of the patients. Bowel sounds were not detected in all the patients. Most common perforations were Duodena(37%), Ileal (25%), Gastric (25%) followed by Appendicular (9%), Jejunal (4%) and Colonic perforation (2%). The most common etiology of gastrointestinal perforations was Peptic ulcer followed by Typhoid, Appendicitis, Tuberculosis, Trauma, Malignancy and non-specific infection.In Gastric perforations, Peptic ulcer was the most common cause of perforation followed by Trauma. In Ileal perforations, Typhoid was the most common cause of perforation followed by Tuberculosis and non-specific infection. In Appendicular perforations, most common cause was Appendicitis. In Jejunal perforations, most common cause was Trauma. In Colonic perforations, most common cause was Malignancy.Conclusions:The incidence of gastrointestinal perforations was common in 21-40 years age group followed by 41-60 years age group with male preponderance in our study. The most common site of perforations was Gastro-duodenal followed by Ileal perforations and the most common cause for these perforations was peptic ulcer followed by typhoid. The most common procedure done to treat gastrointestinal perforations was primary closure, resection and anastomosis, appendectomy and stoma formation. However, small sample size and short follow up period were the limitations of the present study.

show abstract

Tratamiento quirúrgico de la úlcera péptica perforada: comparación entre los abordajes laparoscópico y abierto

Cited by 7 publications

References 26 publications

An Updated Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer

An Updated Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer

Changes in Plasma Levels of N-Arachidonoyl Ethanolamine and N-Palmitoylethanolamine following Bariatric Surgery in Morbidly Obese Females with Impaired Glucose Homeostasis

An Audit on Gastrointestinal Perforation in a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital Based in Northern Part of India: A Study of 100 Cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About