Stent treatment or surgical closure for perforated duodenal ulcers: a prospective randomized study

Analysis of the characteristics and management of perforated peptic ulcer from 2011 to 2022: A multicenter and retrospective descriptive study

Aim

Although perforated peptic ulcer is common in Japan, few large-scale studies have assessed its management, including surgical procedures and outcomes. This study aimed to survey the characteristics, management, and outcomes of perforated peptic ulcer.

Methods

A multicenter retrospective descriptive analysis was conducted across seven centers in Japan between 2011 and 2022. Perforated peptic ulcer was defined as gastric or duodenal ulcer perforation, excluding malignant or iatrogenic perforation.

Results

We enrolled 703 patients with perforated peptic ulcer. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 35/703 (5.0%). Conservative treatment was performed as an initial treatment in 217/703 (30.9%) patients, among whom 52 (24.0%) eventually underwent surgery. The median age (interquartile range) of patients who successfully completed the conservative treatment was 60 (46-71) years. A total of 538/703 (76.5%) patients underwent surgery. The gastrectomy percentage increased with the perforation diameter. The anastomotic leakage rate for gastrectomy was high in 10/66 (15.2%) patients. Laparoscopy was performed in 115/538 (21.4%) patients, among whom 23 (20.0%) were converted to open surgery. Patients who underwent laparoscopy had a perforation diameter ≤ 20 mm. The use of laparoscopy varied among facilities, ranging from 1.8% to 61.2%.

Conclusion

The in-hospital mortality rate for perforated peptic ulcer in this study was 5.0%, and conservative treatment was safely performed even in elderly patients. As the perforation diameter increased, the rate of gastrectomy tended to rise, and the rate of anastomotic leakage in those patients was high. UMIN Clinical Trials Registry; UMIN000054391.

Alternative treatments to treat perforated peptic ulcer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) represent a critical surgical emergency. Despite the historical predominance of open surgical repair, laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches have shown promise in reducing morbidity and hospital stay. This study aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, and endoscopic interventions for PPU repair.

METHODS

A systematic search of Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) databases identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing these approaches. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and morbidity.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs including 657 patients were analyzed. Endoscopic interventions were associated with fewer respiratory complications and shorter hospital stays, while the laparoscopic approach demonstrated fewer surgical site infections and less postoperative pain compared to open repair. Other outcomes demonstrated non-significant differences across interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Prompt resuscitation and surgical repair, either laparoscopic or open, remains the gold standard for PPU. Endoscopic techniques are viable alternatives for small perforations and in selected cases where general anesthesia is contraindicated.

Stapfer I and II duodenal perforations after endoscopic procedures: how surgical delay impacts outcomes

BACKGROUND

Post-endoscopic duodenal perforation is a severe adverse event with high morbidity and mortality rates. Managing this rare event is challenging owing to limited clear guidelines. This retrospective study aimed to examine the relationship between time-to-treatment and morbidity among patients with post-endoscopic duodenal perforations.

METHODS

Over 20 years, 78 consecutive patients with post-endoscopic duodenal perforations were analyzed. Among these, most patients underwent endoscopic procedures at the Paoli-Calmettes Institute, whereas some were referred from other centers after a diagnosis of perforation. We described the characteristics of patients who underwent medical treatment alone or interventional procedures. Among patients who underwent interventional management, we compared the outcomes following early or delayed procedures (later than 24 h post-duodenal perforation diagnosis).

RESULTS

Overall, 78 patients with post-endoscopic duodenal perforation were identified between September 2003 and September 2022. Of these, 17 (22%) patients underwent non-operative management, and 61 (78%) with peritonitis or adverse clinical features were treated with endoscopic or surgical procedures. Additionally, among these patients, 40 (65%) underwent immediate invasive procedures, surgically (n = 20) or endoscopically (n = 20). Patients with delayed procedures experienced more major Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications and had an increase by 21 of the median comprehensive complication index. Overall, mortality occurred in 7 (8.9%) patients in the entire cohort and in 3 (14.3%) with delayed invasive procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed decision-making is a key factor complicating post-endoscopic duodenal perforation. Therefore, invasive procedures should be performed promptly in cases of adverse conditions requiring additional procedures, ideally within the first 24 h of perforation diagnosis.

Perforated peptic ulcer

Worldwide perforated peptic ulcer disease is the leading cause of mortality after abdominal emergency surgery Rapid clinical assessment, proper diagnostics, and timely decision-making are vital in handling patients with suspected or identified perforated peptic ulcer CT has high diagnostic sensitivity, whereas perforation is only evident on three-quarters of plain abdominal X-rays Delay in surgical intervention increases mortality risk Simple closure of the perforated ulcer is still the preferred method of surgery Laparoscopic surgery is the preferred approach in experienced hands

Approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials - study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Perforated peptic ulcers are a life-threatening complication associated with high morbidity and mortality. Several treatment approaches are available. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare surgical and alternative approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers regarding mortality and other patient-relevant outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry and ICTRP will be conducted with predefined search terms.To address the question of the most effective treatment approach, an NMA will be performed for each of the outcomes mentioned above. A closed network of interventions is expected. The standardised mean difference with its 95% CI will be used as the effect measure for the continuous outcomes, and the ORs with 95% CI will be calculated for the binary outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

In accordance with the nature of the data used in this meta-analysis, which involves aggregate information from previously published studies ethical approval is deemed unnecessary. Results will be disseminated directly to decision-makers (eg, surgeons, gastroenterologists) through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023482932.

Evaluación de factores de riesgo de fuga después de la reparación de una úlcera péptica perforada con parche de epiplón. Estudio retrospectivo

Introducción. La úlcera péptica perforada es una de las afecciones abdominales críticas que requiere una intervención quirúrgica temprana. La fuga después de la reparación con parche de epiplón representa una de las complicaciones más devastadoras, que aumentan la morbilidad y la mortalidad. Nuestro estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar los factores de riesgo y los predictores tempranos de fugas. Métodos. Análisis retrospectivo de los datos de los pacientes sometidos a reparación con parche de epiplón por úlcera péptica perforada, en el período comprendido entre enero de 2019 y enero de 2022, en el Hospital Universitario de Mansoura, Egipto. Se recogieron y analizaron estadísticamente variables pre, intra y postoperatorias. Los factores de riesgo asociados a la incidencia de fugas se analizaron mediante análisis univariado y multivariado. Resultados. Este estudio incluyó 123 pacientes que cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión. Se detectó fuga en siete (5,7 %) pacientes. Aunque las comorbilidades asociadas (p=0,01), el ingreso postoperatorio a la unidad de cuidados intensivos (p=0,03) y la hipotensión postoperatoria (p=0,02) fueron factores de riesgo en el análisis univariado, el shock séptico (p=0,001), el retraso en la intervención (p=0,04), la hipoalbuminemia preoperatoria (p=0,017) y el tamaño de la perforación mayor de 5 mm (p=0,04) se encontraron como factores de riesgo de fuga independientes en el análisis multivariado. Conclusión. Se detectaron como factores de riesgo independientes de fuga la presentación tardía en shock séptico, la hipoalbuminemia preoperatoria, la perforación prolongada, el intervalo operatorio y el tamaño de la perforación mayor de 5 mm. La taquipnea posoperatoria y la taquicardia con niveles elevados de proteína C reactiva y recuento leucocitario total son signos de alarma sobre la presencia de fuga.

Experience of management of pediatric upper gastrointestinal perforations: a series of 30 cases

Background

This study aimed to explore the characteristics of pediatric upper gastrointestinal (UGI) perforations, focusing on their diagnosis and management.

Methods

Between January 2013 and December 2021, 30 children with confirmed UGI perforations were enrolled, and their clinical data were analyzed. Two groups were compared according to management options, including open surgical repair (OSR) and laparoscopic/gastroscopic repair (LR).

Results

A total of 30 patients with a median age of 36.0 months (1 day-17 years) were included in the study. There were 19 and 11 patients in the LR and OSR groups, respectively. In the LR group, two patients were treated via exploratory laparoscopy and OSR, and the other patients were managed via gastroscopic repair. Ten and three patients presented the duration from symptom onset to diagnosis within 24 h (p = 0.177) and the number of patients with hemodynamically unstable perforations was 4 and 3 in the LR and OSR groups, respectively. Simple suture or clip closure was performed in 27 patients, and laparoscopically pedicled omental patch repair was performed in two patients. There was no significant difference in operative time and length of hospital stay between the LR and OSR groups. Treatment failed in two patients because of severe sepsis and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, including one with fungal peritonitis.

Conclusion

Surgery for pediatric UGI perforations should be selected according to the general status of the patient, age of the patient, duration from symptom onset, inflammation, and perforation site and size. Antibiotic administration and surgical closure remain the main strategies for pediatric UGI perforations.

A case of retroperitoneal abscess secondary to duodenal perforation

The development of a retroperitoneal abscess in the setting of duodenal perforation is a rare occurrence. There are various causes of duodenal perforation such as trauma, iatrogenic injury and, most commonly, peptic ulcer disease [1]. Urgent surgical intervention is required when a patient presents with a perforated duodenal ulcer and signs of peritonitis. Generally, closure is performed with an omental pedicle or Graham patch [2]. In cases of large perforations, surgical resection, gastric partition with diverting gastrojejunostomy or T-drain placement may be required [2]. In this case, we present a patient with duodenal ulcer perforation complicated by retroperitoneal abscess formation. Treatment involved interventional radiological (IR) drainage of the abscess, followed by laparotomy for persistence of fluid. The surgery comprised of a right-side hemicolectomy, Braun jejunojejunostomy, pyloric exclusion, intraoperative retroperitoneal abscess drainage and Graham patch repair of retroperitoneal duodenal perforation.

Experience in diagnosis and treatment of duodenal ulcer perforation in children

BACKGROUND

This study aims to summarize our experience in diagnosis and treatment of pediatric duodenal ulcer perforation in a National Center for Children's Health.

METHODS

Fifty-two children with duodenal perforation hospitalized in Beijing Children's Hospital Affiliated to Capital Medical University from January 2007 to December 2021 were retrospectively collected. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, patients with duodenal ulcer perforation were included in the group. They were divided into the surgery group and the conservative group according to whether they received surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 45 cases (35 males and 10 females) were included, with a median age of 13.0 (0.3-15.4) years. Forty cases (40/45, 88.9%) were over 6 years old, and 31 (31/45, 68.9%) were over 12 years old. Among the 45 cases, 32 cases (32/45, 71.1%) were examined for Helicobacter pylori (HP), and 25 (25/32, 78.1%) were positive. There were 13 cases in the surgery group and 32 cases in the conservative group, without a significant difference in age between the two groups (P = 0.625). All cases in the surgery group and the conservative group started with abdominal pain. The proportion of history time within 24 h in the two groups was 6/13 and 12/32 (P = 0.739), and the proportion of fever was 11/13 and 21/32 (P = 0.362). The proportion of pneumoperitoneum in the surgery group was higher than that in the conservative group (12/13 vs. 15/32, P = 0.013). The fasting days in the surgery group were shorter than those in the conservative group (7.7 ± 2.92 vs. 10.3 ± 2.78 days, P = 0.014). There was no significant difference in the total hospital stay (13.6 ± 5.60 vs14.8 ± 4.60 days, P = 0.531). The operation methods used in the surgery group were all simple sutures through laparotomy (9 cases) or laparoscopy (4 cases). All patients recovered smoothly after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Duodenal ulcer perforation in children is more common in adolescents, and HP infection is the main cause. Conservative treatment is safe and feasible, but the fasting time is longer than the surgery group. A simple suture is the main management for the surgery group.

Operative versus non-operative management for perforated peptic ulcer disease

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment guidelines are still up for discussion. Due to the morbidity and mortality linked to each, the use of both operative and non-operative management, including conservative and endoscopic treatment, is still debatable. A standardized protocol has been used to write a best evidence topic. The discussion focused on whether operative management for PPU is preferable to non-operational management or vice versa.

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and the Web of Science were the databases used to conduct an electronic search of the pertinent literature.

We found 56 articles, out of these only 5 studies were found to be appropriate to answer the question. The outcome assessed was failure of management. The best evidence showed that both operative and non-operative management can be used with similar outcomes depending on the patient selection for each category.

•

Operative versus non-operative management of perforated peptic ulcer disease.

•Non-operative management is reserved for selective patients for perforated peptic ulcer.

•Endoscopic treatment and interventional radiology can serve as a bridge between conservative and surgical management