Vol. 7 (07) pp. 914-919 DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/9442

LAPAROSCOPY AS A SUITABLE AND SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO OPEN SURGERY IN MANAGEMENT OF PERFORATED PEPTIC ULCER: A COMPARATIVE STUDY.

  • General Surgery department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University.
7 Downloads 79 Views
Crossref

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic surgeries become the gold standard procedure of management of many elective surgical problems, but its role in acute emergent surgical problems as in perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) management has been still controversial and needs further evaluation. The aim of the present study was to compare between laparoscopic repair and open repair for the surgical management of PPU to give an evidence-based clue for selecting most appropriate surgical management technique. Patients and Methods: in the current studywe included 30 patients which were divided into 2 groups; group 1 included 15 patients where we managed them by laparoscopic simple closure of the perforation with an omental patchand group 2 included 15 patients where we performed simple closure of the perforation with an omental patch through open surgery. Results: There is statistically significant association between both groups regarding duration of hospital stay (days), presence of surgical site infection, postoperative morbidity (p<0.001), postoperative mortality (p= 0.009) (more in the open group), clinical cure without complication (less in the open group) (p=0.002). Conclusions: Our study clarified the benefits of laparoscopic repair of PPU than open surgical repair of PPU regarding less postoperative pain, infection, morbidities, mortality and shorter duration of hospitalization in comparison with open repair.

Keywords

How to Cite This Article

Waleed A. Abd-Elhady and Loay M. Gertallah. (2019); LAPAROSCOPY AS A SUITABLE AND SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO OPEN SURGERY IN MANAGEMENT OF PERFORATED PEPTIC ULCER: A COMPARATIVE STUDY., International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR), 7 (07), 914-919, ISSN 2320-5407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/9442

Corresponding Author

Waleed A. Abd-Elhady
General Surgery department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University.

Article Analytics

References

  1. Quah GS, Eslick GD, Cox MR. Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery (2019) 23:618?625
  2. Siow SL, Mahendran HA, Wong CM, Hardin M, Luk TL. Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer: Improving outcomes utilizing a standardized technique Asian Journal of Surgery (2018) 41, 136e142
  3. Mouret P, Francois Y, Vignal J, Barth X, Lombard-Platet R. Laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 1990; 77(9):1006.
  4. Sanabria A, Villegas MI, Morales Uribe CH. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2013; 2:CD004778.
  5. Zhou C, Wang W, Wang J, Zhang X, Zhang Q, Li B, et al. An Updated Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:13976.
  6. Winslet MC. Stomach and duodenum. In: Kirk RM, ed. General surgical operations. London: Churchill Livingston; 2007:174e177.
  7. Cellan-Jones CJ. A rapid method of treatment in perforated duodenal ulcer. Br Med J. 1929;1:1076e1077.
  8. Jimenez Rodriguez RM, Segura-Sampedro JJ, Flores-Cortes M, Lopez-Bernal F, Martin C, Diaz VP, et al. Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies.World J Gastroenterol. 2016; 22(9): 2701?10.
  9. Coccolini F, Catena F, Pisano M, Gheza F, Fagiuoli S, Di Saverio S, et al. Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2015; 18:196?204.
  10. Mandrioli M, Inaba K, Piccinini A, Biscardi A, Sartelli M, Agresta F, et al. Advances in laparoscopy for acute care surgery and trauma. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(2):668?80.
  11. Navez B, Navez J. Laparoscopy in the acute abdomen. Best Pract Res ClinGastroenterol. 2014;28(1):3?17.
  12. Bertleff MJ, Lange JF. Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer: first choice? A review of literature. SurgEndosc. 2010; 24(6): 1231?9.
  13. Ukai T, Shikata S, Takeda H, Dawes L, Noguchi Y, Nakayama T, et al. Evidence of surgical outcomes fluctuates over time: results from a cumulative meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016; 16: 37.
  14. Mirabella A, Fiorentini T, Tutino R, Falco N, Fontana T, Marco PD, Et al., Laparoscopy is an available alternative to open surgery in the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers: a retrospective multicenter study Mirabella et al. BMC Surgery (2018) 18:78
  15. Zhou C, Wang W, Wang J, Zhang X, Zhang Q, Li B, Xu Z. An Updated Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Scientific Reports 2015
  16. Domı?nguez-Vega G, Pera M, Ramo? n JM, Puig S, Membrilla E, Sancho J, Grande L. Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for the Surgical Treatment of Perforated Peptic Ulcers Ciresp 2 0 1 3 ; 9 1 ( 6 ) : 3 7 2 ? 3 7.
  17. Lagoo S, McMahon RL, Kakihara M, Pappas TN, Eubanks S. The sixth decision regarding perforated duodenal ulcer. JSLS. 2002; 6:359e368.
  18. Lau H. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis. SurgEndosc. 2004; 18:1013e1021.
  19. Biscione FM, Couto RC, Pedrosa TM, Neto MC. Factors influencing the risk of surgical site infection following diagnostic exploration of the abdominal cavity. J Infect. 2007; 55:317e323.
  20. Jamal MH, Karam A. Alsharqawi N, Buhamra A, AlBader I, Al-Abbad, Dashti M, Abulhasan YB, Almahmeed H, AlSabah S, Laparoscopy in Acute Care Surgery: Repair of Perforated Duodenal Ulcer Med PrincPract 2019.
 

Similar Articles