Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer

Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer is a common abdominal disease that is treated by surgery. The development of laparoscopic surgery has changed the way to treat such abdominal surgical emergencies. The results of some clinical trials suggest that laparoscopic surgery could be a better strategy than open surgery in the correction of perforated peptic ulcer but the evidence is not strongly in favour for or against this intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the effect of laparoscopic surgical treatment versus open surgical treatment in patients with a diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer in relation to abdominal septic complications, surgical wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, hospital length of stay and direct costs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (2004, Issue 2), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004), EMBASE (1985 to November 2004) and LILACS (1988 to November 2004) as well as the reference lists of relevant articles. Searches in all databases were updated in December 2009 and January 2012. We did not confine our search to English language publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for the repair of perforated peptic ulcer using any mechanical method of closure (suture, omental patch or fibrin sealant).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Primary outcome measures included proportion of septic and other abdominal complications (surgical site infection, suture leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus) and extra-abdominal complications (pulmonary). Secondary outcomes included mortality, time to return to normal diet, time of nasogastric aspiration, hospital length-of-stay and costs. Outcomes were summarized by reporting odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three randomized clinical trials of acceptable quality. We found no statistically significant differences between laparoscopic and open surgery in the proportion of abdominal septic complications (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.47), pulmonary complications (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.17 to 1.12) or number of septic abdominal complications (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.15). Heterogeneity was significant for pulmonary complications and operating time.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that a decrease in septic abdominal complications may exist when laparoscopic surgery is used to correct perforated peptic ulcer. However, it is necessary to perform more randomized controlled trials with a greater number of patients to confirm such an assumption, guaranteeing a long learning curve for participating surgeons. With the information provided it could be said that laparoscopic surgery results are not clinically different from those of open surgery.

64-Slice multidetector computed tomography evaluation of gastrointestinal tract perforation site: detectability of direct findings in upper and lower GI tract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate wall discontinuity, as observed using 64-slice multidetector-row computed tomography (64-MDCT), as a direct finding (DF) indicating the perforation site in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) tract perforations.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 41 consecutive patients presenting with acute abdomen and exhibiting extraluminal air (EA) on 64-MDCT. Three readers evaluated the distribution of EA, extraluminal faeces, dirty mass, dirty fat sign, extraluminal fluid collection and bowel wall thickening (i.e. conventional findings, CFs) as well as DFs.

RESULTS

Twenty-two cases were surgically or endoscopically confirmed to have upper GI tract perforations, and 19 had lower GI tract perforations. The DFs correctly identified the sites of perforation in 80.5% of patients when 2-mm-thick imaging slices were used. For the detection of upper GI tract perforations, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 95.5%, 94.7% and 95.1% for the DFs and 50.0%, 100% and 73.2% for the CFs, respectively. Significant differences in sensitivity (p < 0.001) and diagnostic accuracy (p < 0.05) were observed between the DFs and CFs for upper GI perforations but not for lower GI tract perforations.

CONCLUSION

DFs of the perforation site by using 64-MDCT were more sensitive and accurate than CFs for the detection of upper GI tract perforations.

Management strategies, early results, benefits, and risk factors of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer

The primary goal of this study was to describe epidemiology and management strategies of the perforated duodenal ulcer, as well as the most common methods of laparoscopic perforated duodenal ulcer repair. The secondary goal was to demonstrate the value of prospective and retrospective studies regarding the early results of surgery and the risk factors. The tertiary goal was to emphasize the benefits of this operation, and the fourth goal was to clarify the possible risk factors associated with laparoscopic repair of the duodenal ulcer. The Medline/Pubmed database was used. Review was done after evaluation of 96 retrieved full-text articles. Thirteen prospective and twelve retrospective studies were selected, grouped, and summarized. The spectrum of the retrospective studies' results are as follows: median overall morbidity rate 10.5 %, median conversion rate 7%, median hospital stay 7 days, and median postoperative mortality rate 0%. The following is the spectrum of results of the prospective studies: median overall morbidity rate was slightly less (6%); the median conversion rate was higher (15%); the median hospital stay was shorter (5 days) and the postoperative mortality was higher (3%). The risk factors identified were the same. Shock, delayed presentation (> 24 hours), confounding medical condition, age > 70 years, poor laparoscopic expertise, ASA III-IV, and Boey score should be considered preoperative laparoscopic repair risk factors. Each of these factors independently should qualify as a criterion for open repair due to higher intraoperative risks as well as postoperative morbidity. Inadequate ulcer localization, large perforation size (defined by some as > 6 mm diameter, and by others as > 10 mm), and ulcers with friable edges are also considered as conversion risk factors.

Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer is a common abdominal disease that is treated by surgery. The development of laparoscopic surgery has changed the way to treat such abdominal surgical emergencies. The results of some clinical trials suggest that laparoscopic surgery could be a better strategy than open surgery in the correction of perforated peptic ulcer but the evidence is not strongly in favour or against this intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To measure the effect of laparoscopic surgical treatment versus open surgical treatment in patients with a diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer in relation to abdominal septic complications, surgical wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, hospital length of stay and direct costs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2004), PubMed/MEDLINE (1966 to July 2004), EMBASE (1985 to November 2004) and LILACS (1988 to November 2004) as well as reference lists of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for the repair of perforated peptic ulcer using any mechanical method of closure (suture, omental patch or fibrin sealant).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Primary outcome measures included proportion of septic and other abdominal complications (surgical site infection, suture leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus) and extra-abdominal complications (pulmonary). Secondary outcomes included mortality, time to return to normal diet, time of nasogastric aspiration, hospital length of stay and costs. Outcomes were summarized by reporting odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals, using the fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two randomised clinical trials, which were of acceptable quality. We found no statistically significant differences between laparoscopic and open surgery in the proportion of abdominal septic complications (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.47), pulmonary complications (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.31) or actual number of septic abdominal complications (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.58). Heterogeneity was significant only for pulmonary complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that a decrease in septic abdominal complications may exist when laparoscopic surgery is used to correct perforated peptic ulcer. However, it is necessary to develop more randomised controlled trials that include a greater number of patients to confirm such an assumption, guaranteeing a long learning curve for participating surgeons. With the information provided by the available clinical trials it could be said that laparoscopic surgery results are not clinically different from those of open surgery.

Risk factors related to operative mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing emergency gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Emergency gastric resection for complicated peptic ulcer and gastric cancer is a major challenge for general surgeons. This study aimed to evaluate the results of emergency gastrectomy and to examine the factors that predict the operative outcome.

METHODS

A total of 82 consecutive patients who underwent emergency gastrectomy were studied. The following variables were assessed: pathology, mortality rate, morbidity, reasons for reoperation and factors related to the outcome.

RESULTS

There were 64 men and 18 women with a median age of 62 (range 30-90) years. The indications were bleeding and perforated gastric or duodenal ulcers in 45 and 20 patients respectively, and bleeding and perforated gastric tumours in seven and ten patients respectively. The overall mortality rate was 17 per cent (n = 14). The complication rate was 63 per cent and 11 patients (13 per cent) required reoperation. By multivariate analysis, age greater than 65 years and blood haemoglobin level less than 10 g/dl on admission were predictive of complications after emergency gastrectomy. Postoperative pulmonary and cardiac complications and hypotension on admission were independent risk factors associated with operative death.

CONCLUSION

Age more than 65 years, haemoglobin level less than 10 g/dl and hypotension on admission were associated with a poor outcome after emergency gastrectomy. The operative result was not affected by the underlying gastric pathology.

A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique

OBJECTIVE

This study compares laparoscopic versus open repair and suture versus sutureless repair of perforated duodenal and juxtapyloric ulcers.

BACKGROUND DATA

The place of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer followed by peritoneal toilet of the peritoneal cavity has been established. Whether repair of the perforated peptic ulcer by the laparoscopic approach is better than conventional open repair and whether sutured repair is better than sutureless repair are both undetermined.

METHODS

One hundred three patients were randomly allocated to laparoscopic suture repair, laparoscopic sutureless repair, open suture repair, and open sutureless repair.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer (groups 1 and 2) took significantly longer than open repair (groups 3 and 4; 94.3 +/ 40.3 vs. 53.7 +/ 42.6 minutes: Student's test, p < 0.001), but the amount of analgesic required after laparoscopic repair was significantly less than in open surgery (median 1 dose vs. 3 doses) (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the four groups of patients in terms of duration of nasogastric aspiration, duration of intravenous drip, total hospital stay, time to resume normal diet, visual analogue scale score for pain in the first 24 hours after surgery, morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a viable option. Sutureless repair is as safe as suture repair and it takes less time to perform.

Laparoscopic suture closure of perforated peptic ulcer. A nonrandomized comparison with open surgery

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic vs open suture in the surgical treatment of perforated peptic ulcer were compared in a retrospective study.

METHODS

The outcome of 10 patients having the laparoscopic procedure was compared with the outcome of 17 patients treated with suture via laparotomy during the same time period.

RESULTS

The mortality rate and the complication rate were comparable. The laparoscopic procedure was more time consuming; hospital stay did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that surgery for perforated peptic ulcer can be performed with the laparoscopic technique with an outcome comparable to open surgery. No obvious advantages to the patient were noted with the laparoscopic method.

Minimal access gastroduodenal surgery

Considerable advances are occurring in the application of laparoscopic techniques to gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary disorders. Following studies in experimental animals, surgeons with an interest in gastroduodenal disease have now introduced laparoscopic techniques into current surgical practice. Elective intervention for peptic ulcer disease is currently being established, particularly in patients with proven negative Helicobacter pylori (HP) status, or when eradication has proved unsuccessful with various drug regimens. In addition, emergency laparoscopic intervention for perforation is gaining acceptance, with or without a definitive anti-ulcer procedure. Therapeutic endoscopy for bleeding peptic ulcer may well be followed by anti-ulcer laparoscopic surgery in selected patients. Laparoscopic techniques have been utilized for the treatment of Mallory Weiss tear, congenital hypertrophic pyloric stenosis, Dieulafoy's lesion, gastric trauma or volvulus and benign gastric tumours. More ergonomic instruments are required before laparoscopic gastric resection becomes more widely acceptable. It is essential that objective evaluation of variations on vagotomy themes be undertaken in prospective clinical trials and that the safety and efficacy of gastric resection procedures be substantiated if this renaissance is to revolutionize gastroduodenal surgical practice.

Laparoscopic Billroth II gastrectomy: a review

The operation of Billroth II gastrectomy has not changed substantially in concept or technique since it was first performed in 1885 by Theodor Billroth. The advent of stapling has made the procedure faster for the surgeon but the operation has remained as painful and as traumatic for the patient. The totally intra-abdominal laparoscopic Billroth II gastrectomy offers a minimally invasive option that is remarkably less traumatic and more 'patient friendly'. Initial experience in this operation around the world has largely concentrated on resection for benign gastric ulcer but the possibility of resection for cancer is not inconceivable. Experience with a small experimental series of eight cases showed that this operation has many advantages over open surgery in terms of postoperative pain, quicker mobilization, fewer wound problems, better cosmesis and quicker discharge. No anastomotic leak, chest or wound complications were encountered. The main problem remains the cost of disposable stapling devices.