Surgical management of peptic ulcer disease today – indication, technique and outcome

Aims: The current surgical management of peptic ulcer disease and its outcome have been reviewed. Results: Today, surgery for peptic ulcer disease is largely restricted to the treatment of complications. In peptic ulcer perforation, a conservative treatment trial can be given in selected cases. If laparotomy is necessary, simple closure is sufficient in the large majority of cases, and definitive ulcer surgery to reduce gastric acid secretion is no longer justified in these patients. Laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer has failed to prove to be a significant advantage over open surgery. In bleeding peptic ulcers, definitive hemostasis can be achieved by endoscopic treatment in more than 90% of cases. In 1–2% of cases, immediate emergency surgery is necessary. Some ulcers have a high risk of re-bleeding, and early elective surgery might be advisable. Surgical bleeding control can be achieved by direct suture and extraluminal ligation of the gastroduodenal artery or by gastric resection. Benign gastric outlet obstruction can be controlled by endoscopic balloon dilatation in 70% of cases, but gastrojejunostomy or gastric resection are necessary in about 30% of cases. Conclusions: Elective surgery for peptic ulcer disease has been largely abandoned, and bleeding or obstructing ulcers can be managed safely by endoscopic treatment in most cases. However, surgeons will continue to encounter patients with peptic ulcer disease for emergency surgery. Currently, laparoscopic surgery has no proven advantage in peptic ulcer surgery. Received: 11 January 2000 Accepted: 12 January 2000     

How evidence-based are current guidelines for managing patients with peptic ulcer bleeding?

Current guidelines for managing ulcer bleeding state that patients with major stigmata should be managed by dual endoscopic therapy (injection with epinephrine plus a thermal or mechanical modality) followed by a high dose intravenous infusion of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). This paper aims to review and critically evaluate evidence supporting the purported superiority of a continuous infusion over less intensive regimens of PPIs administration and the need for adding a second hemostatic endoscopic procedure to epinephrine injection. Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were performed. There is strong evidence for an incremental benefit of PPIs over H2-receptor antagonists or placebo for the outcome of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding following endoscopic hemostasis. However, the benefit of PPIs is unrelated to either the dosage (intensive vs standard regimen) or the route of administration (intravenous vs oral). There is significant heterogeneity among the 15 studies that compared epinephrine with epinephrine plus a second modality, which might preclude the validity of reported summary estimates. Studies without second look endoscopy plus re-treatment of re-bleeding lesions showed a significant benefit of adding a second endoscopic modality for hemostasis, while studies with second-look and re-treatment showed equal efficacy between endoscopic mono and dual therapy. Inconclusive experimental evidence supports the current recommendation of the use of dual endoscopic hemostatic means and infusion of high-dose PPIs as standard therapy for patients with bleeding peptic ulcers. Presently, the combination of epinephrine monotherapy with standard doses of PPIs constitutes an appropriate treatment for the majority of patients.     

A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial evaluating a new hemostatic agent for spinal surgery

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized trial comparing Proceed, a gelatin-based hemostatic sealant (treatment), with Gelfoam-thrombin (control) in stopping intraoperative bleeding during spinal surgery. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of Proceed. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Proceed has been tested in animal models to determine its safety and effectiveness as a hemostatic agent. The current study was conducted under a Food and Drug Administration-approved Investigational Device Exemption to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Proceed in humans. METHODS: For this study, 127 patients undergoing spinal surgery were randomized into either the treatment or control group after standard surgical means to control bleeding had failed. The bleeding site was evaluated at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 10 minutes after the hemostatic agent was applied. The application was considered successful if the bleeding stopped within 10 minutes. Follow-up evaluation was performed at 12 to 36 hours, then at 6 to 8 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Proceed stopped bleeding in 98% of the patients (first bleeding site only) within 10 minutes, as compared with 90% of the control patients (P = 0.001). At 3 minutes, successful hemostasis had been achieved in 97% of the Proceed group, as compared with 71% of the control group (P = 0.0001). There was no difference in the adverse event profile between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly larger number of bleeding sites had achieved hemostasis with Proceed than with Gelfoam-thrombin at 1, 2, and 3 minutes after application. Proceed was as safe as Gelfoam-thrombin when used for hemostasis during spinal surgery procedures.     

Hemostatic Step-by-Step Procedure to Control Presacral Bleeding During Laparoscopic Total Mesorectal Excision

Background  A new procedure of hemostasis during laparoscopic total mesorectal excision is described. Methods  In our surgical department, from January 2004 to December 2007, 128 patients underwent laparoscopic total mesorectal excision. Among them, 47 patients underwent laparoscopic anterior resection after preoperative radiotherapy, 68 patients underwent laparoscopic anterior resection without preoperative radiotherapy, and 13 patients underwent laparoscopic abdominal perineal amputation. Results  In seven laparoscopic rectal surgery cases, we encountered unstoppable presacral bleeding, not amenable by conventional hemostatic solutions. In these cases we applied a simple staging hemostatic procedure. We first performed local compression: tamponing with a small gauze or absorbable fabric hemostat. If bleeding did not stop, we localized an epiploic or omental scrap and excised it by using bipolar forceps and use it as a plug on the tip of a grasping forceps. This plug is then put on the bleeding source and monopolar coagulation is applied by electrified dissecting forceps through the interposed grasping forceps. If bleeding did not stop, we used a little scrap of bovine pericardium graft and tacked it to the bleeding site using endoscopic helicoidal protack. Conclusions  Our experience suggests that this hemostatic step-by-step procedure is a valid option to control persistent presacral hemorrhages.     

Changes in surgical strategies for peptic ulcers before and after the introduction of H2-receptor antagonists and endoscopic hemostasis

A total of 902 surgical patients with peptic ulcer disease were evaluated to clarify the effects of H₂-receptor antagonists and endoscopic hemostasis on surgical treatment. Following the introduction of these treatments to our institute in 1982, the number of operations performed annually decreased by 40%, or 36 cases per year. However, a remarkable increase in the frequency of surgical emergency intervention since 1982 was concurrently observed, with the ratio of emergency procedures to the total number of operated cases increasing to 72.5% in the last 5 years of the study. Moreover, intractability as an indication for surgery decreased to 34.1%, compared with an increase in the number of patients with bleeding and perforated ulcers requiring operation. There were 13 postoperative deaths recorded (1.4%). All of the deaths were in patients who had undergone emergency surgery in poor health. Of these 13 patients, 10 had bleeding ulcers. A study of bleeding ulcers for which endoscopic hemostasis had been unsuccessful revealed that shock on admission and a concomitant medical condition had been evident in all the patients who died, and in 52.2% and 30.4% of the survivors, respectively. The current study suggests that the frequency of high-risk patients requiring surgery is increasing since the introduction of H₂-receptor antagonists and endoscopic hemostasis, and thus, prompt surgical treatment and intensive management for such patients is essential.     

Comparison of hemostasis using bipolar hemostatic forceps with hemostasis by endoscopic hemoclipping for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a prospective non-randomized trial

Background

We previously reported on the safety and efficacy of bipolar hemostatic forceps for treating nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding. However, no prospective or randomized studies have evaluated the efficacy of bipolar hemostatic forceps. The aim of this study was to evaluate the hemostatic efficacy of using bipolar hemostatic forceps compared with the hemostatic efficacy of the commonly used method of endoscopic hemoclipping for treating nonvariceal UGI bleeding.

Methods

A total of 50 patients who required endoscopic hemostasis for UGI bleeding were divided into two groups: those who underwent endoscopic hemostasis using bipolar hemostatic forceps (Group I) and those who underwent endoscopic hemostasis by endoscopic hemoclipping (Group II). We compared the two groups in terms of hemostasis success rate and time required to achieve hemostasis and stop recurrent bleeding.

Results

All (100 %) of 27 patients in Group I and 18 (78.2 %) of 23 patients in Group II were successfully treated using bipolar hemostatic forceps or by endoscopic hemoclipping alone, respectively, indicating a significantly higher success rate for Group I than for Group II (p < 0.05). The time required to achieve hemostasis was 6.8 ± 13.4 min for Group I and 15.4 ± 17.0 min for Group II. One patient in Group I (3.7 %) and four patients in Group II (22.2 %) experienced recurrent bleeding.

Conclusion

Bipolar hemostatic forceps was more effective than endoscopic hemoclipping for treating nonvariceal UGI bleeding.     

Endoscopic interventional management of bleeding duodenal and gastric ulcers.

Bleeding duodenal and gastric ulcers continue to be a common and serious problem. Definition of the precise appearance and location of the ulcer by endoscopy gives important information about the source of bleeding and additional information about the risk of rebleeding and the indications for surgery. Several endoscopic hemostatic methods are available. The nonerosive contact probes (heater and BICAP) are preferred. Injection therapy with vasoconstrictors or sclerosing agents can also be recommended as a safe, efficacious, and economical means of treatment. Several hemostatic modalities should be available for use depending on the anatomic location and type of bleeding ulcers. The collaboration of skilled interventional endoscopists with their traditional surgical colleagues offers the patient with bleeding peptic ulcer disease the optimum probability of a successful outcome, with minimum treatment-associated morbidity.     

Potential of endoscopic hemostasis in patients with gastroduodenal bleedings

The authors have analyzed their experiences with treatment of 61 patients using the method of endoscopic clipping: 24 of them had the source of bleeding in chronic ulcers of the duodenal bulb, 6 had chronic gastric ulcers, 15 had acute gastric ulcers, 2 had acute ulcers of the duodenal bulb, Mallory-Weiss syndrome was found in 2 patients, Dieulafoy syndrome in 10 patients and one patient had peptic ulcer of the gastro-entero-anastomosis. The endoscopic clipping was made in 11 patients, in 31 patients injections of adrenaline and coagulation were added, in 9 patients--coagulation only, in 2 patients--irrigation with caproferon, in 8--adrenaline injections. In 57 out of 61 patients reliable hemostasis was achieved.     

Can endoscopic injection of epinephrine prevent surgery in gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding? An analysis of 107 cases

BACKGROUND: Gastroduodenal ulcers are still a common cause of severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopy has gained popularity worldwide over conventional open surgery for the treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. This study aims to assess the efficacy of endoscopic injection of epinephrine in the treatment of gastroduodenal ulcer bleeding. METHODS: This study was conducted between March 2000 and March 2003. We analyzed 107 consecutive patients admitted to our department of trauma and emergency surgery with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopy was performed on all 107 patients and bleeding ulcers were treated with injection of diluted epinephrine. RESULTS: Recurrent bleeding was seen in 21 patients (19.6%), all of whom underwent a second endoscopy. Four patients (3.7%) required a third endoscopy session and nine patients (8.5%) needed surgery after endoscopy failed. There were two mortalities (1.9%). The nine patients who required surgery and the two patients who died were all in the Forrest Ia and Ib groups of acute UGI hemorrhage. DISCUSSION: Endoscopic injection therapy with epinephrine reduces operation rates and can be used safely in adequate hemostasis of gastroduodenal ulcers.     

不同内镜止血方法治疗老年消化性溃疡出血的效果比较

目的：评价不同内镜止血方法治疗老年消化性溃疡出血的效果。方法回顾性分析2008年1月～2013年12月在北京大学首钢医院住院并接受内镜治疗的80例老年消化性溃疡出血患者的临床及内镜检查资料,病变出血征象采用Forrest分级。内镜止血治疗方法包括内镜下肾上腺素注射（54例）和金属钛夹治疗（26例）。结果进行内镜治疗的病变均为Forrest Ⅰa～Ⅱb级。与内镜下肾上腺素注射组相比,金属钛夹治疗组的内镜治疗成功率更高（96.2％与87.0％）,再出血发生率更低（7.7％与14.8％）,临床症状消失时间更短[（2.3±0.6）d与（3.4±1.1）d],住院天数更短[（7.8±0.9）d与（11.5±2.4）d],差异均有统计学意义。结论内镜下金属钛夹止血治疗老年消化性溃疡出血的有效性和安全性均优于肾上腺素注射治疗。     

消化性溃疡出血的治疗现状

消化性溃疡出血是一个常见且潜在生命危险的临床症状。治疗上主要以药物治疗、内镜治疗和手术治疗为主。由于有效的内镜止血方法及抑酸药物的出现，消化性溃疡出血的治疗在过去20年里发生了很大的变化，药物联合内镜的治疗方法对消化性溃疡出血有很好的疗效，在很多医疗单位内镜治疗已被广泛采用作为一线治疗方案。而手术治疗，作为控制出血的最彻底的方法，多在上述治疗方法失败后采用。选择手术治疗或是重复内镜治疗可基于病人的并发症和溃疡的性质决定。     

Controlled clinical trial of a novel hemostatic agent in cardiac surgery. The Fusion Matrix Study Group

BACKGROUND: We performed a prospective randomized trial to compare FloSeal Matrix (Fusion Medical Technologies, Inc, Mountain View, CA), a gelatin-based hemostatic sealant, with Gelfoam-Thrombin (Gelfoam, Pharmacia and Upjohn, Kalamazoo, MI; Thrombin, Gentrac Inc, Middeton, WI) (control group) to control perioperative bleeding. METHODS: A total of 93 patients undergoing cardiac operations were randomized into the FloSeal or control group after standard surgical means to control bleeding had failed. The bleeding site was evaluated at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 10 minutes after applying the hemostatic agent. If bleeding stopped within 10 minutes, the application was considered to be successful. In the case of a failure, the surgeon could use any means preferred (except FloSeal) to achieve hemostasis. All bleeding sites in a patient were treated with the hemostatic agent to which the patient was randomized. Follow-up evaluation was performed at 12 to 36 hours and 6 to 8 weeks after operation. RESULTS: FloSeal stopped bleeding in 94% of the patients (first bleeding site only) within 10 minutes, compared to 60% in the control group (p = 0.001). At 3 minutes, successful hemostasis was achieved in 72% of the FloSeal group compared with 23% in the control group (p = 0.0001). There was no difference in the adverse event profile between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: FloSeal Matrix demonstrated efficacy superior to that of Gelfoam-Thrombin and had a safety profile similar to that of Gelfoam-Thrombin when used as a topical hemostatic agent during cardiac surgery procedures.     

Bleeding gastric and duodenal ulcers: endoscopic therapy versus surgery.

From a retrospective review of 156 patients with actively bleeding peptic ulcers, 61 patients had gastric ulcers and 95 patients had duodenal ulcers. Patients presented with hematemesis or melena or a combination of the two. Forty patients with gastric ulcers and 53 patients with duodenal ulcers were in shock. Twenty-five patients with gastric ulcers underwent surgery. Bleeding was controlled in all patients, but in the postoperative period five patients died of myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism or septic multisystem organ failure. Of 36 patients who underwent endoscopic epinephrine sclerosis of the bleeding gastric ulcer, hemorrhage was controlled in 34. Two patients required reoperation for bleeding after surgery; both survived. Fifty patients with duodenal ulcers had surgery. Bleeding was controlled in all patients, but in the postoperative period 10 died of myocardial infarction and multisystem organ failure. Of 45 patients who underwent endoscopic sclerosis, bleeding was controlled in 40. Five patients required reoperation for bleeding after surgery; all survived. The authors conclude that endoscopic sclerosis should be the initial treatment for actively bleeding gastric and duodenal ulcers. If bleeding continues or recurs then surgery should be carried out.     

Surgical therapy for peptic ulcer and nonvariceal bleeding

Wider use of endoscopic hemostasis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) has reduced significantly the need for operation. Nevertheless, surgery still plays a pivotal role. Failure to control bleeding endoscopically should not delay surgery when necessary, and a close cooperation between endoscopists and surgeons is essential. Initial endoscopy stops the bleeding in approximately 94% of patients and helps to identify those patients with a high or low risk of rebleeding. High-risk patients should be examined for rebleeding by clinical and endoscopic assessment within at least the first 2-3 days. Large ulcers are the most likely to rebleed, and in elderly patients with severe comorbidity showing little or no healing tendency, they benefit from repeated fibrin glue treatment. In cases of rebleeding despite initial endoscopic hemostasis and conservative treatment, another attempt to stop the hemorrhage endoscopically is justified in most patients. A subgroup of patients who are old, suffering from hypotension due to rebleeding, with large ulcers and several other illnesses should undergo surgery immediately because endoscopic intervention often fails, and these patients deteriorate quickly. The surgical procedure should be limited to safe hemostasis.     

透明帽用于消化内镜止血治疗的护理配合

目的探讨透明帽在消化内镜止血治疗中的作用及护理配合方法。方法对86例消化道出血患者实施内镜止血治疗,均于内镜下找到出血点后安装透明帽,其中32例消化道溃疡底部动脉或Dieulafoy病出血者选用带侧孔的透明帽电凝止血,21例贲门黏膜撕裂综合征出血者选用不带侧孔的透明帽以金属夹止血,33例食管胃静脉曲张者选用带侧孔的透明帽注射硬化剂止血,同时加强术前准备、术中配合及术后观察护理。结果 86例均顺利完成内镜治疗并取得较好的止血效果,无相关并发症发生;术后3~6个月内镜复查,出血部位瘢痕形成,2例食管胃静脉曲张患者再出血,第2次给予硬化剂注射联合套扎治疗止血成功;余84例无复发出血。结论透明帽用于消化内镜止血治疗效果好,并发症少,护理人员熟练掌握其性能和操作,能缩短操作时间,提高治疗效果。     

Endoscopic management of bleeding peptic ulcers in Singapore: a multimodality approach.

Endoscopic haemostasis is becoming increasingly important in the management of bleeding peptic ulcers. In this study, rather than being confined to one modality of treatment, the endoscopist was allowed to customize the treatment according to the configuration of the ulcer, accessibility, and rate of bleeding in any particular patient. Fifty patients with actively bleeding peptic ulcers or stigmata of recent haemorrhage were treated endoscopically. Initial haemostasis was achieved in 48 (96%) patients. Eleven patients rebled of whom eight underwent repeat endoscopic treatment. Of these eight patients, three rebled of whom two required surgery. Permanent haemostasis was achieved in 43 of 50 patients (86%). The rate of surgery in the endoscopically treated group was 10%. There was one death due to causes not related to bleeding. The multimodality approach is a useful method of treatment in bleeding peptic ulcers, giving flexibility to the endoscopist in deciding on the best way to deal with the problem.     

Peptic ulcer hemorrhage: Local injection of fibrin sealant—Experimental and clinical data

This study was undertaken to assess the role of fibrin sealant in achieving early hemostasis and wound healing following endoscopic injection in peptic ulcer hemorrhage. In an experimental study in Wistar-rats we looked at the healing rate and histological changes of laser-induced acute gastric ulcers and acetic acid-induced chronic gastric ulcers following injection of standard sclerosants as well as fibrin sealant. A statistically favourable result was observed in the fibrin treated group. We also treated 127 patients suffering from bleeding peptic ulcers with local injection of fibrin sealant (33 Forrest stage la, 40 Forrest lb, 54 Forrest Ila) in a prospective clinical trial during the period of 1. February 1988 to 31. January 1991. A primary recurrence was noticed in 19 (14.9%) patients. With a 2. injection the hemostasis was definite in 116 of 127 patients (91.3%). Only 11 patients (8.6%) needed surgery for hemostasis. The mortality was 6.3% (8 patients).     

Transcatheter embolization as the new reference standard for endoscopically unmanageable upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding(UGIB) is a major medical emergency problem associated with significant morbidity and mortality.Endoscopy is considered the first method of choice to detect and treat UGIB.Endoscopic therapy usually achieves primary hemostasis,but 10%-30% of these patients have repeat bleeding.In patients in whom hemostasis is not achieved with endoscopic techniques,treatment with transcatheter angiographic embolization(TAE) or surgery is needed.Surgical intervention is usually an expeditious and gratifying endeavor,but it can be associated with high operative mortality rates.A large number of studies support the use of TAE as salvage therapy as an alternative to surgery.However,few studies have compared the results of TAE with that of emergency surgery in terms of efficiency,the frequency of repeat bleeding,and complications.Recently,Ang et al retrospectively compared the outcome of TAE and surgery as salvage therapy of UGIB after failed endoscopic treatment.There were no significant differences in 30 d mortality,complication rates and length of stay although higher rebleeding rates were observed after TAE compared with surgery.In this commentary,we discuss the advantages and drawbacks of these two therapeutic strategies for UGIB.We also attempt to define the exact role of TAE for acute nonvariceal UGIB.     

Endoscopic Hemostasis Using Fibrin Adhesive to Treat Hemorrhage in the Upper Digestive System

Purpose There are several methods of achieving endoscopic hemostasis of hemorrhage in the upper digestive system. We compared the therapeutic results and advantages of using a local injection of fibrin adhesive for endoscopic hemostasis, which we have found more effective than other hemostatic methods.Methods Between October 2000 and April 2002, 16 patients with hemorrhage in the upper digestive system underwent endoscopic hemostasis using fibrin adhesive. The hemorrhage was caused by a hemorrhagic tendency from liver disease, anticoagulant therapy, or failed hemostasis with clipping or local ethanol injection. The fibrin adhesive was injected through a standard 21-gauge endoscopic needle using the so-called sandwich method.Results Hemostasis was successfully achieved by a single local injection of fibrin adhesive, in all except one patient who had been on anticoagulant therapy for a long time and needed an additional local injection of fibrin adhesive.Conclusion Fibrin adhesive does not cause any tissue injury, and a sufficient amount can be injected endoscopically even in patients with liver dysfunction and those on anticoagulant therapy. Thus, we think that endoscopic hemostasis with fibrin adhesive is safe and effective.