胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔414例治疗体会

该文作者总结了1969至1988年收治胃、十二指腑溃疡穿孔414例的治疗体会.提出了对胃、十二指腑溃疡穿孔病人手术疗法和非手术疗法的选择、单纯缝合和彻底性手术的选择,彻底性手术的术式选择及对几种特殊类型溃疡穿孔,如:接吻性溃疡穿孔、鞍形溃疡穿孔和药物致溃疡穿孔的处理方法.     

腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术36例的体会

目的总结腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的手术经验。方法对2006年4月。2008年12月我科36例急性消化性溃疡穿孔患者采用腹腔镜修补进行回顾性分析。结果36例中十二指肠球部溃疡穿孔30例,胃窦部溃疡穿孔6例,穿孔直径0．5—1．1cm,手术时间30～185min,平均75min,手术均在腹腔镜下完成。1例术后发现穿孔闭合不良,经保守治疗治愈。其余35例术后恢复顺利,住院时间6－9d,术后无切口感染、腹腔脓肿、肠粘连等并发症。结论腹腔镜手术治疗消化性溃疡穿孔．只要具备成熟技术,与开腹手术同样安全有效。     

腹腔镜下胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔体会

目的观察比较腹腔镜下胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔的临床价值。方法将胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者78例随机分为观察组(39例)和对照组(39例)。对照组患者予以传统开腹修补手术,观察组患者予以腹腔镜下胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术治疗。观察记录两组患者手术时间、住院时间、术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间以及术后并发症的发生情况。结果观察组的平均手术时间较对照组有明显增长,但其平均住院时间、术中出血量、术后肛门排气时间均优于对照组。观察组患者术后并发症的发生率明显小于对照组。两者比较,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论腹腔镜下胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔安全有效,值得在临床上推广应用。     

腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术后炎性细胞因子的变化(附82例报告)

目的 观察腹腔镜和开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术前术后病人全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)的变化,比较两种不同手术方式对病人的创伤程度.方法 2007年2月至2011年2月间将82例胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔病人分成开腹手术组(OP组,n=40)和腹腔镜手术组(LP组,n=42),检测术前术后病人SIRS发生率、术后持续时间,采用酶联免疫吸附法(ELISA)连续检测血清肿瘤坏死因-子(TNF-α)、白细胞介素IL-6及IL-10水平.结果 与OP组比较,LP组病人血清TNF-a和IL-6水平明显降低,IL-10水平升高,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).LP组SIRS发生率为35.7％,低于OP组的60.0％ (P＜0.01),SIRS持续时间短于OP组(P＜0.05).结论 腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术后病人SIRS发生率和程度较开腹手术低,对机体创伤较小.     

腹腔镜溃疡穿孔修补术联合药物治疗胃、十二指肠溃疡穿孔的体会

目的总结对胃、十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者实施腹腔镜穿孔修补术联合术后药物治疗的体会。方法对32例胃、十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者实施穿孔修补术联合术后规范药物治疗。回顾性分析患者的临床资料。结果本组32例患者均成功完成手术,无中转开腹病例。术中及术后经病理学检查结果均排除恶性溃疡穿孔。术中出血量为(59.20±13.18)mL,手术时间为(82.75±30.40)min,术后胃肠功能恢复时间为(31.26±5.22)h,住院时间为(7.30±2.10)d。术后出现2例戳孔感染,1例皮下气肿,均经对症干预后痊愈。未发生出血等其他并发症。术后随访6个月,其间均未发生肠粘连性肠梗阻。末次随访,复查胃镜,溃疡全部愈合。结论腹腔镜胃、十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术创伤小、并发症发生率低、恢复时间短。术后规范药物治疗并保持良好生活习惯,对巩固手术效果、促进溃疡愈合具有重要意义。     

腹腔镜治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔26例报告

目的:探讨腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的应用价值。方法:回顾分析2004年3月至2008年11月我院为26例胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者行腹腔镜穿孔修补术的临床资料。结果:25例成功完成腹腔镜手术,1例中转开腹。手术时间75～100min,平均(79.2±18.3)min,术后住院5～9d,平均6.8d,无术后并发症及死亡病例。结论:腹腔镜治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔具有患者创伤小,康复快,并发症少,住院时间短等优点,值得在临床工作中推广应用。     

急诊胃大部切除术治疗胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔

目的 探讨适用于基层医院的胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔的手术治疗方法。方法 对l99l～2001年收治的胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔行急诊胃大部切除术的84例患者临床资料及随访结果进行回顾性分析。结果 84例急诊胃大部切除术的病人术后恢复顺利，痊愈出院，无死亡病例。通过l～5年的随访，患者一般在术后3～4个月生活，体质恢复到正常水平，能胜任日常工作。l例(1．2％)在2年后出现吻合口溃疡。结论 胃大部切除术去除了溃疡病灶和泌酸环境，达到了根治的目的，且手术安全性高。因此，在基层医院，在患者条件许可时，对胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔应尽可能行胃大部切除术治疗。     

腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的对比研究

目的:比较腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的疗效。方法:回顾分析我院确诊为胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔52例患者的临床资料,其中28例行腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术(腹腔镜组),24例行开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术(开腹组),比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、并发症发生率、术后肠道功能恢复时间、术后体温及住院时间。结果:腹腔镜组与开腹组手术时间分别为(78.75±25.178)min和(97.50±26.029)m in(P<0.05),术中出血量分别为(43.21±12.488)ml和(77.50±21.518)m l(P<0.001),并发症分别为3例和8例(P<0.05),术后体温>38℃分别为5例、11例,术后肠蠕动恢复时间分别为(2.33±0.816)d和(3.75±1.035)d(P<0.001),术后住院分别为(6.83±1.169)h和(10.00±1.309)h(P<0.001)。结论:胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者行腹腔镜手术与开腹手术一样安全,且具有创伤小、康复快、住院时间短等优点。     

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis

Background Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer has been gaining popularity in recent years, but few data exist to support the superiority of the laparoscopic approach over open repair. The objective of the current study was to compare the safety and efficacy of open and laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer in an evidence-based approach using meta-analytical techniques.Methods A search of electronic databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, was conducted to identify relevant articles published between January 1990 and December 2002. Only studies in the English language comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer were recruited. All reports were critically appraised with respect to their methodology and outcome. Data from all included studies were extracted using standardized data extraction forms developed a priori. Both qualitative and quantitative statistical analyses were performed. The effect size of outcome parameters was estimated by odds ratio where feasible and appropriate.Results A total of 13 publications comprising 658 patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall success rate of laparoscopic repair was 84.7% (n = 249). Postoperative pain was lower after laparoscopic repair than after open repair, supported by a significant reduction in postoperative analgesic requirement after laparoscopic repair. Meta-analyses demonstrated a significant reduction in the wound infection rate after laparoscopic repair, as compared with open repair, but a significantly higher reoperation rate was observed after laparoscopic repair.Conclusions Evidence suggests that laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer confers superior short-term benefits in terms of postoperative pain and wound morbidity. This approach is as safe and effective as open repair. Laparoscopic Graham–Steele patch repair of perforated duodenal or justapyloric ulcer is beneficial for patients without Boeys risk factors.     

Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer

Background: A series of 100 consecutive patients with perforated peptic ulcer were prospectively evaluated in a multicenter study. The feasibility of the laparoscopic repair was evaluated. Methods: All patients had peritonitis, 20% were in septic shock, and 57% had delayed perforation. Conversion to laparotomy was necessary in eight patients. The morbidity rate was 9% and mortality rate 5%. Results: The mean delay of postoperative gastric aspiration (mean 3.4 days) and resumed food intake (mean 4.4 days) as well as the mean postoperative hospital stay (mean 9.3 days) were comparable to conventional surgery, but postoperative comfort was subjectively increased by laparoscopy and noticed by all laparoscopic surgeons participating in this study. Conclusions: Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer proves to be technically feasable and carries an acceptable morbidity and mortality rate, compared with conventional surgery. Received: 16 August 1996/Accepted: 1 April 1997     

腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术28例报告

目的:探讨腹腔镜手术在胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术中的应用价值。方法:2003年1月~2006年8月我院为28例胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者行腹腔镜穿孔修补术。结果:27例成功完成腹腔镜手术,1例中转开腹。手术时间30~100m in,平均45m in,术后住院时间5~10d,平均7.8d,术后并发症少,无一例死亡。结论:腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术具有痛苦小,恢复快,并发症少,住院时间短等优点,疗效确切,操作简单易行,值得在临床工作中推广应用。     

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: single-center results

Background

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU), the most common indication for emergency gastric surgery, is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Outcomes might be improved by performing this procedure laparoscopically, but no consensus exists on whether the benefits of laparoscopic repair (LR) of PPU outweigh the disadvantages.

Methods

From January 2002 to December 2012, 111 patients underwent surgery for perforated ulcer. A “laparoscopy-first” policy was attempted and then applied for 56 patients. The exclusion criteria for LR ruled out patients who had shock at admission, severe cardiorespiratory comorbidities, or a history of supramesocolic surgery. The aim of this study was a retrospective analysis of the 56 patients treated laparoscopically.

Results

The patient distribution was 30 men and 26 women, who had a mean age of 59 years (range 19–95 years). The mean ulcer size was 10 mm, and the Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI) was 21. LR was performed for 39 (69.6 %) of the 56 patients and included peritoneal lavage, suturing of the perforation, and omental patching. Conversion to laparotomy was necessary in 17 cases (30.4 %). The “conversion group” showed significant differences in ulcer size (larger ulcers: 1.9 vs 0.7 mm; p < 0.01), ulcer-site topography (higher incidence of posterior ulcers: 5 vs 0; p < 0.01), and MPI score (higher score: 24 vs 20; p < 0.05). The LR group had a mean operating time of 86 min (range 50–125 min), an in-hospital morbidity rate of 7.6 %, a mortality rate of 2.5 %, and a mean hospital stay of 6.7 days (range 5–12 days). None of these patients required reintervention.

Conclusions

The results showed that LR for PPU is feasible with acceptable mortality and morbidity rates. Skill in laparoscopic abdominal emergencies is required. Perforations 1.5 cm or larger, posterior duodenal ulcers, and an MPI higher than 25 should be considered the main risk factors for conversion.     

Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of open versus laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcers. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Omental patch repair with peritoneal lavage is the mainstay of treatment for perforated peptic ulcers in many institutions. Laparoscopic repair has been used to treat perforated peptic ulcers since 1990, but few randomized studies have been carried out to compare open versus laparoscopic procedures. METHODS: From January 1994 to June 1997, 130 patients with a clinical diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer were randomly assigned to undergo either open or laparoscopic omental patch repair. Patients were excluded for a history of upper abdominal surgery, concomitant evidence of bleeding from the ulcer, or gastric outlet obstruction. Patients with clinically sealed-off perforations without signs of peritonitis or sepsis were treated without surgery. Laparoscopic repair would be converted to an open procedure for technical difficulties, nonjuxtapyloric gastric ulcers, or perforations larger than 10 mm. A Gastrografin meal was performed 48 to 72 hours after surgery to document sealing of the perforation. The primary end-point was perioperative parenteral analgesic requirement. Secondary endpoints were operative time, postoperative pain score, length of postoperative hospital stay, complications and deaths, and the date of return to normal daily activities. RESULTS: Nine patients with a surgical diagnosis other than perforated peptic ulcer were excluded; 121 patients entered the final analysis. There were 98 male and 23 female patients recruited, ages 16 to 89 years. The two groups were comparable in age, sex, site and size of perforations, and American Society of Anesthesiology classification. There were nine conversions in the laparoscopic group. After surgery, patients in the laparoscopic group required significantly less parenteral analgesics than those who underwent open repair, and the visual analog pain scores in days 1 and 3 after surgery were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group as well. Laparoscopic repair required significantly less time to complete than open repair. The median postoperative stay was 6 days in the laparoscopic group versus 7 days in the open group. There were fewer chest infections in the laparoscopic group. There were two intraabdominal collections in the laparoscopic group. One patient in the laparoscopic group and three patients in the open group died after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a safe and reliable procedure. It was associated with a shorter operating time, less postoperative pain, reduced chest complications, a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and earlier return to normal daily activities than the conventional open repair.     

Laparoscopic repair of a perforated duodenal ulcer in two patients

(Received for publication on Dec. 20, 1996; accepted on July 8, 1997)     

Laparoscopic repair of iatrogenic endoscopic perforated peptic ulcer

Iatrogenic perforation is an uncommon but inevitable complication of endoscopy. Laparotomy has been the standard treatment for pyloroduodenal perforations caused by endoscopy. Laparoscopic repair is a well-documented treatment modality for spontaneously perforated peptic ulcer. We report our successful laparoscopic suture repair of perforations sustained during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in two high-risk elderly patients.