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 peptic ulcer perforation without omental patch versus conventional open repair

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery, a minimally invasive technique, has recently begun to be used on perforated peptic ulcers effectively and frequently. Nevertheless, most studies have shown that the disadvantages of the laparoscopic treatment of peptic ulcers are a long operation time, a high reoperation rate, and a need for an experienced surgeon. Thus, the objective of the current study was to compare the safety and efficacy of optimized laparoscopic surgery without an omental patch for a perforated peptic ulcer within a shorter operational time with conventional open surgery in a 4-year period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From May 2002 to June 2006, 35 consecutive patients with a clinical diagnosis of a perforated peptic ulcer were prepared prospectively to undergo either an open or optimized laparoscopic surgery. RESULTS: Seventeen patients with a perforated peptic ulcer underwent simple laparoscopic repair without an omental patch. Three patients (17.6%) who were begun by the laparoscopic approach had to be converted to open surgery. Eighteen patients underwent conventional open surgery. The mean operative time for laparoscopic repair was 42.10 minutes (range, 35-60), which was significantly shorter than the 55.83 minutes for open repair (range, 35-72; P = 0.001). Postoperative parenteral analgesic requirements were lower after laparoscopic repair (75.0 mg) than that after an open repair procedure (101.39 mg; P = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference between the procedures in terms of hospital stay (5 vs. 5.33 days; P = 0.37) and the timing of access to normal daily activity (6.8 vs. 7.1 days) (P = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery, when optimized by a simple repair without an omental patch and 10 mm of a large-channel aspirator-irrigator, may be safely and effectively applied to the patients with small duodenal perforated peptic ulcers (<10 mm) and because of its having low risk factors. The procedure may be an alternative treatment to other procedures when in experienced hands.     

腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡修补术治疗急性胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔

目的:总结腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡修补术治疗急性胃、十二指肠溃疡穿孔的临床经验。方法:1997年6月至2007年12月35例急性胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者施行腹腔镜消化性溃疡穿孔修补术。结果:35例中十二指肠球部溃疡穿孔28例,胃窦部溃疡穿孔7例,穿孔直径0.5～0.8cm,手术时间80～180min,手术均获成功,术后患者疼痛轻微,均未使用止痛剂。术后康复顺利,术后住院5～10d,平均6.5d,切口均甲级愈合,痊愈出院。出院后予以内科根除幽门螺杆菌、口服H2受体拮抗剂治疗。结论:腹腔镜手术治疗急性胃、十二指肠溃疡穿孔,与开腹手术同样安全有效。胃溃疡穿孔患者术中需快速病理检查,若为恶性病变应中转开腹。     

Comparison between laparoscopic and conventional omental patch repair for perforated duodenal ulcer

Background: The aim of the study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic omental patch repair. Method: This is a retrospective review of 53 consecutive patients with omental patch repair for perforated duodenal ulcer; 38 underwent conventional open approach and 15 underwent laparoscopic patch repair. The only selection criterion was availability of expertise for laparoscopic repair on the day of admission. By chance, the open group had poorer ASA scores. There were four deaths and five postoperative complications in the open group. Results: Laparoscopic repair was successful in 14 cases with one postoperative complication. Operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (80 vs 65 min in open group, p= 0.02). Patients required less postoperative analgesics in the laparoscopic group (median amount of pethidine was 75 mg vs 175 mg in the open group, p= 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of hospital stay and return to normal activities between the two procedures. Follow-up Visick scores were comparable in both groups. Conclusions: Laparoscopic omental patch repair offers a safe alternative to the conventional method and causes less postoperative pain. Received: 29 December 1995/Accepted: 3 May 1996     

腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术13例临床体会

目的 腹腔镜急性胃、十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的临床经验.方法 2003年6月～2007年12月,对13例急性胃、十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者施行腹腔镜溃疡穿孔修补术.结果 13例中十二指肠球部溃疡穿孔5例,幽门管溃疡1例,胃窦部溃疡穿孔7例,穿孔直径为0.3～0.7 cm,腹腔内积液600～1200 mL.手术时间80～180 min,除1例病检胃癌,改开放手术外,其余12例手术均获成功,术后恢复顺利,切口甲级愈合10例,乙级愈合2例.住院天数7～10 d.随访1年,胃镜检查溃疡均愈合,无再穿孔、腹腔感染、肠粘连、肠梗阻等并发症发生.结论 腹腔镜手术治疗急性胃、十二指肠溃疡穿孔,与开腹手术同样安全且有效.胃溃疡穿孔患者术中需快速病理检查,若为恶性病变应中转开腹.     

A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique.

OBJECTIVE: This study compares laparoscopic versus open repair and suture versus sutureless repair of perforated duodenal and juxtapyloric ulcers. BACKGROUND DATA: The place of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer followed by peritoneal toilet of the peritoneal cavity has been established. Whether repair of the perforated peptic ulcer by the laparoscopic approach is better than conventional open repair and whether sutured repair is better than sutureless repair are both undetermined. METHODS: One hundred three patients were randomly allocated to laparoscopic suture repair, laparoscopic sutureless repair, open suture repair, and open sutureless repair. RESULTS: Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer (groups 1 and 2) took significantly longer than open repair (groups 3 and 4; 94.3 +/ 40.3 vs. 53.7 +/ 42.6 minutes: Student's test, p < 0.001), but the amount of analgesic required after laparoscopic repair was significantly less than in open surgery (median 1 dose vs. 3 doses) (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the four groups of patients in terms of duration of nasogastric aspiration, duration of intravenous drip, total hospital stay, time to resume normal diet, visual analogue scale score for pain in the first 24 hours after surgery, morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a viable option. Sutureless repair is as safe as suture repair and it takes less time to perform.     

Routine use of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer was reported in 1990 but has not gained wide acceptance. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This was a prospective analysis of 172 patients who underwent laparoscopic repair of a perforated peptic ulcer between July 1997 and June 2003. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-two patients of mean age 54 (range 14-93) years had perforated peptic ulcer diagnosed by laparoscopy. There were 172 duodenal ulcers, 22 prepyloric and 13 non-juxtapyloric gastric ulcers. One hundred and sixty-five patients underwent omental patch closure of perforations; there were six Pólya gastrectomies and one ulcerectomy. Thirty-seven patients (21.5 per cent) required conversion to laparotomy. The mean operating time was 64.8 (range 14-180) min. The median postoperative requirement for intramuscular pethidine was one dose. The median postoperative hospital stay was 6 days. Complications occurred in 28 patients (16.3 per cent) resulting in three reoperations. Six patients with intra-abdominal collections were managed by percutaneous drainage. Two patients who underwent conversion developed a wound infection. Fourteen patients (8.1 per cent) died, 11 of whom were American Society of Anesthesiologists grade III and IV. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a safe emergency procedure in routine clinical practice for patients with perforated pyloroduodenal ulcer.     

腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的前瞻性随机对照研究

目的：探讨腹腔镜与开腹行胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的优缺点。方法2011年4月-2013年6月,将133例胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔患者采用抽取信封法随机分为腹腔镜组（68例）和开腹组（65例）,2组年龄、性别、穿孔大小、部位和麻醉学评分等方面无显著差异（P＞0．05）。对比2组手术时间、术中出血量、术后肠鸣音恢复时间、术后第1天及第3天疼痛评分及镇痛次数、术后并发症发生率和术后住院时间等指标。结果与开腹组相比,腹腔镜组术中出血少[（10．2±2．2）ml vs．（23．7±4．6）ml,t＝-21．742,P＝0．000],术后肠鸣音恢复早[（26．2±6．1）h vs．（39．4±8．5）h,t＝-10．324,P＝0．000],术后疼痛轻[第1天疼痛评分（4．1±1．1）vs．（7．6±1．7）,t＝-14．159,P＝0．000,第3天疼痛评分（1．7±0．9）vs．（3.6±1．2）,t＝-10．360,P＝0．000],镇痛次数少[中位数1（0-9） vs．3（0-12）,Z＝-7．208,P＝0．000],术后切口感染发生率低[0（0％） vs．6（9．2％）,P＝0．012],术后住院时间短[（6．3±1．3）d vs．（8．2±2．7）d,t＝-5．206,P＝0．000]。2组手术时间差异无显著性（ P＞0.05）。随访3-6个月,2组均无再次穿孔及死亡。结论腹腔镜手术修补胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔安全可靠,具有疼痛轻、切口感染少、康复快、术后住院时间短等优点,是治疗良性胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔的理想术式。     

Single-Port Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Duodenal Ulcers

Background

Laparoscopic single-port surgery has widely been introduced for the treatment of various abdominal conditions. But controversies still exist regarding its potential advantages and risks, especially for emergency surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of a single-port laparoscopic repair using straight laparoscopic instruments for the treatment of perforated duodenal ulcers.

Methods

A prospective consecutive case series was conducted including all patients with a perforated duodenal ulcer who underwent a laparoscopic single-port repair at a single institution from January 2012 to June 2018. The operation was performed through a single port using conventional straight laparoscopic instruments and intra-corporeal knot tying techniques.

Results

Out of 75 patients, simple closure of the perforation without omental patch was accomplished in 96% of cases. Conversion to an open operation was required in one patient (1.3%) due to a posterior duodenal perforation, and additional trocar placement was needed in another patient (1.3%). The mean incision length was 2.0 ± 0.2 cm. The mean operation time was 63.0 ± 26.6 min. Meantime a nasogastric tube remained in place was 2.9 ± 0.8 days. Mean duration of analgesic use was 2.8 ± 0.8 days. The rate of postoperative complications was 2.7%, including two patients with wound infections. There were no instances of intestinal leak or abscess. The postoperative hospital stay was 5.7 ± 1.2 days.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic single-port repair using conventional straight laparoscopic instruments with intra-corporeal knot tying technique was safe and feasible for patients with perforated duodenal ulcers with low risk factors. This method offers results comparable to those expected with the standard multiport laparoscopic approach with the addition of improved cosmetic outcomes.

     

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。     

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated duodenal ulcers

Background There is great controversy regarding the choice of procedure for perforated duodenal ulcer patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the early outcome results of laparoscopic and open repair and to propose which risk factors influence the outcome. Methods Between October 1996 and May 2004, 60 patients underwent laparoscopic and 162 patients underwent open repair of perforated peptic ulcers in a tertiary care academic center. The results were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome measures included operative time, duration of hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. Results The operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopy group compared to the open repair group (76.2 ± 35.3 vs 57.3 ± 26.1 min, respectively). The hospital stay in surviving patients appeared to be significantly shorter after laparoscopy than after open repair (7.8 ± 5.3 vs 10.3 ± 10.6 days, respectively). Eight patients (13%) in the laparoscopic group and 41 patients (25%) in the open repair group had morbidity in the postoperative period. Suture leakage was confirmed in four patients (7%) following laparoscopic repair and in three patients (2%) in the open repair group. There were 20 deaths (9%), all in the open repair group. Conclusions Independent Boey risk factors, patient age, and large perforation size have a negative impact on patient recovery. Both laparoscopic and open repair are equally safe and effective in perforated duodenal ulcer patients with a Boey score of 0 or 1. Paper presented at the sixth European Bridging Meeting in Gastroenterology, Kaunas, Lithuania, November 26–27, 2004; and at the 15th European Students’ Conference for Future Doctors and Young Scientists, Berlin, Germany, October 19–23, 2004.     

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:探讨腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的可行性及安全性.方法:回顾分析2008年1月至2010年5月收治的30例腹腔镜和38例开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补患者的临床资料.结果:腹腔镜组与开腹组平均手术时间分别为(58.64±10.6)min和(76.42±15.4)min(P＜0.05);术中出血量分别为(35.84±...     

Risk factors influencing the early outcome results after laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer and their predictive value

Background and aims Clear patient selection criteria and indications for laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers are necessary. The aims of our study are to report the early outcome results after operation and to define the predictive values of risk factors influencing conversion rate and genesis of suture leakage.Patients/methods Sixty nonrandomly selected patients operated on laparoscopically in a tertiary care academic center between October 1996 and May 2004 for perforated duodenal ulcers were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome measures included the duration of symptoms, shock, underlying medical illness, ulcer size, age, Boey score, and the collective predictive value of these variables for conversion and suture leakage rates.Results Laparoscopic repair was completed in 46 patients (76.7%). Fourteen patients (23.3%) underwent conversion to open repair. Eight patients (13.3%) had postoperative complications. Suture leakage was confirmed in four patients (6.7%). Hospital stay was 7.8±5.3 days. There was no mortality. Patients with an ulcer perforation size of >8 mm had a significantly increased risk for conversion to open repair (p<0.05): positive predictive value (PPV) 75%, sensitivity 27%, specificity 98%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 85%. The significance of ulcer perforation size was confirmed by a stepwise logistic regression test (p=0.0201). All patients who developed suture leakage had acute symptoms for >9 h preoperatively (p<0.001): PPV 31%, specificity 84%, sensitivity 100%, and NPV 100%. Conversions happened with surgeons whose previous experience involved 1.8±2.3 cases compared to 3.9±2.9 cases in successful laparoscopic repair (p=0.039, t test).Conclusions Ulcer perforation size of >8 mm is a significant risk factor influencing the conversion rate. An increase in the suture leakage rate is predicted by delayed presentation of >9 h.     

Laparoscopic vs open inguinal hernia repair

Background: The role of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is controversial. The aim of this study was to find out whether it is justified to switch from the predominantly modified Bassini repair which the authors had been using to laparoscopic repair. Methods: Randomized controlled trial in 120 eligible patients admitted for elective hernia repair in a university hospital. Results: Sixty patients underwent laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal mesh repair; the other 60 patients had an open repair, mostly with the modified Bassini technique. Operative time for laparoscopic repair was significantly longer, mean (s.d.) 95 (28) min vs 67 (27) min (p < 0.001). The mean analogue pain score during the first 24 h after surgery was 36.2 (20.2) in the laparoscopic group and 49.3 (24.9) in the open group (p= 0.006). The requirement for narcotic injections and postoperative disability in walking 10 m and getting out of bed were also significantly less following laparoscopic repair. The postoperative hospital stay was not significantly different, mean 2.6 (1.2) days for laparoscopic repair and 3.0 (1.5) days for open repair (p= 0.1). Patients were able to perform light activities without pain or discomfort sooner after laparoscopic repair, median interquartile range 8 (5–14) days vs 14 (8–19) days (p= 0.013). Patients also resumed heavy activities sooner, but not significantly, after laparoscopic repair, median 28 (17–60) days vs 35 (20–56) days (p= 0.25). The return to work was not significantly different, median 14 (8–25) days after laparoscopic repair and 15 (11–21) days after open repair (p= 0.14). After a mean follow-up of 32 months one patient developed a recurrent hernia 3 months after a laparoscopic repair. Laparoscopic repair was more costly than open repair by approximately $400. Conclusions. Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was associated with less early postoperative pain and disability and earlier return to full activities than open repair, but there were no benefits regarding postoperative hospital stay and return to work; laparoscopic repair was also more costly. Received: 23 May 1997/Accepted: 1 August 1997     

腹腔镜与开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术后并发症的对比研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的安全性、可行性及术后并发症的处理措施.方法:回顾分析2005年9月至2010年9月收治的142例胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者的临床资料.其中78例行腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术(腔镜组),64例行开腹胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术(对照组),对比分析两组患者术后并发症,包括切口感染、切口裂开、胃十二指肠瘘、肠间隙脓肿、盆腔脓肿及粘连性肠梗阻等.结果:腔镜组术后并发症发生率均低于对照组,住院时间缩短,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论:与开腹手术相比,腹腔镜胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术在减少术后并发症方面具有明显优势,手术安全可靠,适于基层医院开展.     

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.     

Clinical outcomes compared between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy

Background Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic disease has gained increasing popularity. A laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is technically simple and has been adopted as the preferred method in many centers. However, there is limited information on the outcomes of the laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and to evaluate its efficacy compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Methods From February 1995 to March 2006, 31 patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and 167 patients underwent open distal pancreatectomy at Seoul National University Hospital and Bundang Seoul National University Hospital. A case–control design was used with 2:1 matching to compare laparoscopic surgery with open surgery. Among 167 patients who underwent open distal pancreatectomy, 62 patients whose age, gender, and pathology were similar to those of patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery were selected for this study. The operation time, intraoperative transfusion requirements, duration of postoperative hospitalization, complications, mortality, recurrence, and hospital charges were analyzed. Results There were no significant differences in operation time, rate of intraoperative transfusions, complications, recurrence, or mortality between the two groups. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with a statistically significant shorter hospital stay (11.5 days vs 13.5 days; p = 0.049), but with more expensive hospital charges than open distal pancreatectomy (p < 0.01). Conclusion Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a clinically safe and effective procedure for benign and borderline pancreatic tumors.     

Laparoscopic repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcer by running suture

Background and aims Perforated gastroduodenal ulcer represents an emergency situation that requires immediate surgical intervention. Laparoscopic ulcer repair is a feasible and safe procedure, especially in cases of a short duration of ulcer perforation and good clinical condition. However, to be well accepted as a treatment modality, an endoscopic procedure should be as simple as possible. We describe a technique that does not require intra-corporal or extra-corporal knotting.Patients and methods Over a 4-year period, we performed 786 diagnostic laparoscopies for various, acute abdominal conditions. We identified 20 gastroduodenal perforations. All ulcers were closed with a one-row running suture (Lahodny) and controlled radiologically on the third postoperative day.Results Three different surgeons performed the surgeries. There were no conversions to open surgery. Median operating time was 50 min, and median hospital stay was 9 days. We observed no insufficiency, no wound infection, and no stenosis or persisting peritonitis.Conclusion The closure of perforated gastric ulcers with the Lahodny suture is safe and simple to perform.     

腹腔镜胃十二肠溃疡穿孔修补辅助H2受体拮抗剂治疗急性胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔

目的:总结腹腔镜下胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的临床经验。方法:回顾分析采用腹腔镜行胃十二指肠溃疡穿孔修补术的33例临床资料。结果:除1例十二指肠溃疡穿孔时间较长中转手术外,29例十二指肠球部穿孔和3例胃穿孔患者腹腔镜手术均获得成功,无并发症发生;术后辅助H2受体拮抗剂治疗,胃镜复查无复发。结论:腹腔镜修补并H2受体阻断剂口服治疗胃十二指肠溃疡急性穿孔的效果是肯定的,值得临床应用推广。     

A Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Appendectomy

Background and Objectives:

To compare laparoscopic appendectomy with traditional open appendectomy.

Methods:

Seventy-one patients requiring operative intervention for suspected acute appendicitis were prospectively compared. Thirty-seven patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, and 34 had open appendectomy through a right lower quadrant incision. Length of surgery, postoperative morbidity and length of postoperative stay (LOS) were recorded. Both groups were similar with regard to age, gender, height, weight, fever, leukocytosis, and incidence of normal vs. gangrenous or perforated appendix.

Results:

Mean LOS was significantly shorter for patients with acute suppurative appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (2.5 days vs. 4.0 days, p<0.01). Mean LOS was no different when patients classified as having gangrenous or perforated appendicitis were included in the analysis (3.7 days vs. 4.1 days, P=0.11). The laparoscopy group had significantly longer surgery times (72 min vs. 58 min, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative morbidity.

Conclusions:

Laparoscopic appendectomy reduces LOS as compared with the traditional open technique in patients with acute suppurative appendicitis. The longer operative time for the laparoscopic approach in our study is likely related to the learning curve associated with the procedure and did not increase morbidity.