Perforated peptic ulcer operative therapy: results Mortality: 0-8% Morbidity: 13-23% Parameters: ASA-, Boey scores In general: results correlated with duration of symptoms, ulcer diameter, age
1: World J Surg. 2005 Oct;29(10):1299-310. Related Articles, Related Articles, Links Management strategies, early results, benefits, and risk factors of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M. Lunevicius RMorkevicius M World J Surg 2005; 29: 1299-310 2nd Department of Abdominal Surgery, Clinic of General and Plastic Surgery, Orthopaedics, and Traumatology, Vilnius University Emergency Hospital, Vilnius University, Siltnamiu Street 29, LT- 04130 Vilnius, Lithuania. firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
Systematic review comparing laparoscopic and open repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M. Lunevicius RMorkevicius M Br J Surg 2005; 92: 1195-207 Clinic of General and Plastic surgery, Orthopaedics and Trauma surgery, General Surgery Centre, Vilnius University Emergency Hospital, 29 Siltnamiu Street, LT-04130, Vilnius, Lithuania. email@example.com BACKGROUND: The advantages of laparoscopic over open repair for perforated peptic ulcer are not as obvious as they may seem. This paper summarizes the published trials comparing the two approaches. METHODS: Two randomized prospective, five non-randomized prospective and eight retrospective studies were included in the analysis. Relevant trials were identified from the Medline/Pubmed database and the reference lists of the retrieved papers were then analysed. The outcome measures used were operating time, postoperative analgesic requirements, length of hospital stay, return to normal diet and usual activities, and complication and mortality rates. Published data were tested for heterogeneity by means of a chi2 test. Meta-analysis methods were used to measure the pooled estimate of the effect size. In total, 1113 patients are represented from 15 selected studies, of whom 535 were treated by laparoscopic repair and 578 by open repair; 102 patients (19.1 per cent) underwent conversion to open repair. RESULTS: Statistically significant findings in favour of laparoscopic repair were less analgesic use, shorter hospital stay, less wound infection and lower mortality rate. Shorter operating time and less suture-site leakage were advantages of open repair. Three variables (hospital stay, operating time and analgesic use) were significantly heterogeneous in the papers analysed. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic repair seems better than open repair for low-risk patients. However, limited knowledge about its benefits and risks compared with open repair suggests that the latter, more familiar, approach may be more appropriate in high-risk patients. Further studies are needed.
Perforated peptic ulcer open closure in the morbid obese