A comparison of short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open emergent repair of perforated peptic ulcers

A comparative study on laparoscopic and open surgical approaches for perforated peptic ulcer repair: efficacy and outcomes analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open sutures for peptic ulcer perforation (PPU).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for eligible studies from inception to March 31, 2023. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (Cl) were also calculated. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. This study was performed using the Stata (V.16.0) software.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies involving 17,228 patients were included in this study. In terms of postoperative outcomes, the laparoscopic group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = -0.29, 95%CI = -0.44 to -0.13, P = 0.00), less blood loss (MD = -0.45, 95%CI = -0.82 to -0.08, P = 0.02), fewer wound infection (OR = 0.20, 95%CI = 0.17 to 0.24, P = 0.00), fewer pneumonia (OR = 0.59, 95%CI = 0.41 to 0.87, P = 0.01), fewer respiratory complications (OR = 0.26, 95%CI = 0.13 to 0.55, P = 0.00) and lower postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.51, 95%CI = 0.33 to 0.78, P = 0.00). The laparoscopic group had a lower mortality rate (OR = 0.36, 95%CI = 0.27 to 0.49, P = 0.00) than the open group. We also found that the laparoscopic group had a higher overall complication rate than the open group (OR = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.34 to 0.60, P = 0.00).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repair was associated with a lower risk of mortality than open repair in patients with PPU. Laparoscopic repair may be a better option in patients with PPU.

Propensity score matching analysis of laparoscopic surgery vs. open approach in 4 297 adult patients with acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis or gastrointestinal tract perforation: a prospective multicentre study of nationwide outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous studies indicated that laparoscopic surgery could improve postoperative outcomes in acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis, perforated gastroduodenal ulcer, or acute diverticulitis, but some reported opposite results or differences in the magnitude of improvement. A contemporary analysis using propensity score matching that compares outcomes is lacking.

METHODS

Over a 6-month period, 38 centres (5% of all public hospitals) attending emergency general surgery patients on a 24 h, 7 days a week basis, enroled all consecutive adult patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery or open approach.

RESULTS

The study included 2 645 patients with acute appendicitis [32 years (22-51), 44.3% women], 1 182 with acute cholecystitis [65 years (48-76); 46.7% women], and 470 with gastrointestinal tract perforation [65 years (50-76); 34% women]. After propensity score matching, hospital stays decreased in acute appendicitis [open, 2 days (2-4); lap, 2 days (1-4); P <0.001], acute cholecystitis [open, 7 days (4-12); lap, 4 days (3-6); P <0.001], and gastrointestinal tract perforation [open, 11 days (7-17); lap, 6 days (5-8.5); P <0.001]. A decrease in 30-day morbidity was observed in acute appendicitis (open, 15.7%; lap, 9.7%; P <0.001), acute cholecystitis (open, 41%; lap, 21.7%; P <0.001), and gastrointestinal tract perforation (open, 45.2%; lap, 23.5%; P <0.001). A decrease in 30-day mortality was found in acute cholecystitis (open, 8.8%; lap, 2.8%; P =0.013) and gastrointestinal tract perforation (open, 10.4%; lap, 1.7%; P =0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

This clinically based, multicentre study suggests that an initial laparoscopic approach could be considered not only in patients with acute appendicitis or acute cholecystitis but also in patients with a perforation of the gastrointestinal tract.

Outcomes of laparoscopic modified Cellan-Jones repair versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer at a community hospital

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive or open Graham Patch repair remains the gold standard approach for management of perforated peptic ulcers (PPU). Herein, we report outcomes of laparoscopic technique and compare it with open approach at a community hospital.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study conducted comparing laparoscopic modified Cellan-Jones repair (mCJR) versus the standard open repair of PPU. Patients aged 18-90 years during 2016-2021 were offered either a minimally invasive or open approach depending on surgeon laparoscopic capability, and were compared in terms of demographics, co-morbidities, intra-operative details, and short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients were included (46.9% males, mean age 52.9 years, mean BMI 25.0, ASA ≥ III 75.5%, 75.5% smokers, 26.5% current NSAIDs use, and 71.4% alcohol drinkers). Duodenum was the most common perforation site (57.1%), and majority of ulcers were 1-2 cm (72.9%). Laparoscopic approach was performed in 16 consecutive patients (32.7%) by a single surgeon, with no conversions. Preoperative characteristics were similar for both groups. Compared to open approach, laparoscopic group were taken to operation immediately (< 4 h) (87.5% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001), had lower estimated blood loss (11.8 ml vs. 73.8 ml, p = 0.063), and longer operative time (117.1 min vs. 85.6 min, p = 0.010). Postoperatively, nasogastric tube was removed earlier in laparoscopic group (POD1-2, 87.5% vs. 24.2%, p = 0.001), with earlier resumption of diet (POD1-2, 62.6% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.002), less narcotic usage (< 3 days, 58.3% vs. 6.1%, p < 0.001), earlier return of bowel function (POD1-2, 43.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.003) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (3.7 days vs. 16.1 days, p < 0.001). Both in-house mortality and morbidity rates were lower in the laparoscopic group, but not statistically significant [(0% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.347) and (12.5% vs. 39.4%, p = 0.500), respectively].

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic mCJR is a feasible method for repair of PPU, and it is associated with shorter LOS, and less narcotics usage in comparison to the open repair approach.

Laparoscopic Repair Modality of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Less Is More?

Perforation, per se, presents the most serious complication of peptic ulcer disease with a mortality rate that cannot be underestimated. Surgery is the only treatment option, which can be performed laparoscopically or via conventional laparotomy. The present study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopy and laparotomy techniques in the surgical treatment of peptic ulcer perforation. A retrospective study design was structured to compare the perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of 102 patients who had undergone laparoscopic and conventional repair of the perforated peptic ulcer over a six-year interval (January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021). Of these, 44 (43.1%) had undergone laparoscopic repair while 58 (56.9%) had surgical repair via conventional laparotomy. The operative time and length of hospital stay were comparable in both subgroups (p=0.984 and p =0.585). Nevertheless, 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly higher in the open surgery subgroup (75.9% vs. 59.1%, p= 0.032). The risk of relaparotomy was similar in both study subgroups; however, suture dehiscence as a reason for surgical revision was significantly more frequent in the laparoscopic subgroup (13.6% vs 3.4%). Of note, the mortality rate in the laparoscopic group of patients was 13.6%, and in the laparotomy group 41.4%. The laparoscopic approach to peptic ulcer perforation is the procedure of choice for low-risk patients. Conventional surgery seems to be associated with a significantly higher incidence of severe postoperative complications and mortality. However, the higher mortality in these patients is probably related to their worse initial clinical condition.

Surgical Management of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Comparative Meta-analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery

BACKGROUND

Despite the widescale success of proton pump inhibitors to reducing the incidence of peptic ulcer disease, perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remains a significant cause of severe complications and death. The implementation of open or surgical repair of PPU should be guided by reliable guidelines which are based on current systematic evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of laparoscopic and open repair of PPU.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on retrospective, prospective cohort studies, and randomized clinical trials. Duration of surgery and postoperative complications and death were collected from eligible studies, and the outcomes were pooled using mean differences (MD) or relative risks (RRs) for numerical and binary outcomes, respectively. The estimated variance was expressed as 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

Forty-five studies were included (8456 patients, 56.08% underwent open repair, 6 prospective studies, 7 randomized clinical trials, and 32 retrospective studies). Compared with open repair, laparoscopic surgeries were associated with longer operative times (MD=8.36, 95% CI, 0.49-16.22), shorter hospital stay (MD=-2.74, 95% CI, -3.70 to-1.79), a higher risk of suture leakage (RR=1.91, 95% CI, 1.04-3.49) and lower risks of mortality (RR=0.57, 95% CI, 0.47-0.70), septic shock (RR=0.69, 95% CI, 0.49-0.98), renal failure (RR=0.38, 95% CI, 0.18-0.79), and wound infection (RR=0.26, 95% CI, 0.19-0.37).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repair of PPU showed promising safety outcomes; however, future well-designed randomized studies are warranted to reduce the observed performance bias and possible selection bias in individual studies.

Risk Factors of Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With Chronic Duodenal Ulcers

Background

We aimed to identify risk factors of mortality in patients hospitalized with duodenal ulcers (DUs).

Methods

A National Inpatient Sample–based retrospective cohort study from 2005 to 2014 was conducted on patients undergoing emergency admission for chronic DUs. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were collected. Multivariable logistic regression model was applied to find the risk factors of mortality.

Results

70 641 patients were included in this study, of which 30 525 (43%) were non-elderly (< 65 years) and 40 116 (57%) were elderly (65+ years) patients. 72% of non-elderly and 57% of elderly patients were males. Mortality rate of men vs women was similar in non-elderly group (1.9% vs 2%, respectively), whereas it significantly differed in elderly patients (4.5% vs 5.3%, respectively, P<.0001). Time to operation was 1.15 (1.83) days in survived vs 1.55 (3.86) days in deceased non-elderly patients ( P < .001). Time to operation was .85 (1.73) days in survived vs 1.79 (7.28) days in deceased elderly patients ( P < .001). In patients with operation, age, delayed operation, frailty, and presence of perforation were the main risk factors of mortality in both elderly and non-elderly patients. Invasive diagnostic procedure was shown as a protective factor in elderly patients. In the final model for patients with no operation, age, hospital length of stay, and frailty were the main risk factors of mortality in both elderly and non-elderly patients. Invasive diagnostic procedure was revealed as a protective factor in all patients as well.

Conclusion

Early operation in patients with DU requiring surgical intervention is essential to improve the outcomes.

Comparative study of postoperative complications after open and laparoscopic surgery of the perforated peptic ulcer: Advantages of the laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

Despite the acceptance of the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers, its definitive implantation is still a matter of discussion. We performed a comparative study between the open and laparoscopic approach focused on postoperative surgical complications.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study in which patients operated on for perforated peptic ulcus in our center between 2001 and 2017 were analyzed. Only those in whom suture and/or omentoplasty had been performed were selected, either for open or laparoscopic approach. Demographic, clinical, and intraoperative variables, complications, mortality and length of stay were collected. Both groups, open and laparoscopic surgery patients, were compared.

RESULTS

The final study sample was 250 patients, 190 (76%) men and 60 (24%) women, mean age 54 years (SD ± 16.7). In 129 cases (52%), the surgical approach was open, and in 121 (48%) it was laparoscopic. Grades III-V complications of the Clavien-Dindo Classification occurred in 23 cases (9%). Operative mortality was 1.2% (3 patients). Laparoscopically operated patients had significantly fewer complications (p = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, laparoscopic approach (p = 0.025; OR:0.45-95%CI: 0.22-0.91), age (p = 0.003; OR:1.03-95%CI: 1.01-1.06), and Boey score (p = 0.024 - OR:1.71 - CI95%: 1.07-2.72), were independent prognostic factors for postoperative surgical complications.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery should be considered the first-choice approach for patients with perforated peptic ulcer. It is significantly associated with fewer postoperative complications and a shorter hospital stay than the open approach.

Effects of laparoscopic vs open abdominal surgery on costs and hospital readmission rate and its effect modification by surgeons' case volume

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy provides a minimally invasive alternative to open abdominal surgery. Current data describing its association with hospital readmission and costs in relation to surgeon laparoscopic case volume is limited to smaller databases and subsets of operations.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of 23,285 adult abdominal operations from 2007 to 2015 compares 30-day readmission rate and costs between laparoscopic and open abdominal operations and examines effect modification by surgeon laparoscopic case volume. Outcomes were all-cause hospital readmission within 30 days after discharge and index hospital admission cost.

RESULTS

All-cause hospital readmission rates were significantly lower after laparoscopic abdominal operations compared with open operations (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.69, p < 0.001) with a difference in readmission risk attributable to laparoscopic approach of - 4.0% (95% CI - 5.4 to - 2.6%) in complete-case analysis. Among surgeons with a high laparoscopic case volume, the estimated difference in readmission risk through laparoscopy was magnified (- 5.8%, 95% CI - 7.5 to - 4.1%) compared to low surgeon laparoscopic case volume (- 2.9%, 95% CI - 4.8 to -1.1%, p for interaction = 0.005). The estimated difference in costs of the index hospital admission attributable to laparoscopic approach was - $3869 (95% CI - $4200 to - $3538; adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.75-0.79, p < 0.001). Laparoscopy was followed by significantly lower rates of readmissions related to gastrointestinal (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.85, p = 0.001), wound complications (infection: aOR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.47, p < 0.001; non-infectious: aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.74, p = 0.001), and malignancy (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.85, p < 0.001). The findings remain robust after multiple imputation and sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy versus open abdominal surgery is associated with reduced hospital readmissions related to malignancy, gastrointestinal, and wound complications. Effect modification by higher laparoscopy case volume argues for continued proliferation of laparoscopy in abdominal surgeries.

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

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.