Laparoscopic suture closure of perforated peptic ulcer

Background: Laparoscopic vs open suture in the surgical treatment of perforated peptic ulcer were compared in a retrospective study. Methods: The outcome of 10 patients having the laparoscopic procedure was compared with the outcome of 17 patients treated with suture via laparotomy during the same time period. Results: The mortality rate and the complication rate were comparable. The laparoscopic procedure was more time consuming; hospital stay did not differ. Conclusions: The results indicate that surgery for perforated peptic ulcer can be performed with the laparoscopic technique with an outcome comparable to open surgery. No obvious advantages to the patient were noted with the laparoscopic method.This study has been presented as an abstract at the EAES meeting in Madrid, September 1994     

Laparoscopic closure of perforated duodenal ulcer

Background: Medical treatment of peptic ulcer is highly successful, and the eradication of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) reduces ulcer recurrence. However, the incidence of perforated duodenal ulcer and its associated mortality have not been reduced by modern methods of therapy. Laparoscopic simple closure and omental plug by suturing, fibrin glue, and stapler have been successful. Methods: Over a 1-year period (1996–97), 21 patients with perforated duodenal ulcer were operated on in our hospital by laparoscopic simple closure and omental patch. The mean age was 36.4 ± 11.8 years (range, 18–61). Twenty patients were male (93.7%). The mean duration of pain was 9.1 ± 11.7 hs (range, 2–48). Three patients had a previous history of duodenal ulcer (14.3%), and another three (14.3%) patients had a history of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) intake. Erect chest radiograph showed that 19 patients had air under the diaphragm (90.5%). Sixteen patients (76.2%) had frank pus in the abdomen, and five patients had a minimal peritoneal reaction (23.8%). Results: The mean operative time was 71.6 ± 24.6 mins (range, 40–120), and the mean hospital stay was 5.2 ± 1.6 days (range, 3–9). The mean time to resume oral fluids was 3.1 ± 0.8 days (range, 2–4). Only one patient was reoperated due to leakage identified by gastrographin swallow. Conclusions: This procedure is safe and efficient; however, further study of its long-term effectiveness and comparability to existing therapy is still needed. Received: 28 May 1998/Accepted: 17 November 1998     

Laparoscopic suture or open suture in perforated duodenal ulcer

Between Nov. 1994-Jan. 2001 we performed laparoscopic suture with omentoplasty of perforated duodenal ulcer (PDU) in 51 patients out of 56 it was intended (this constituted the laparoscopic group--LG). The selection criteria were young patients, age < 40 years, no associated diseases, onset of the operation under 12 hours from the occurrence of the perforation, absence of clear ulcer history. In the same period, we performed an open suture based on the same criteria in 105 patients (open group--OP). The results showed a difference between needed analgesia (2.8 days for LG vs. 5.2 days for OG) and a hospital stay of 6.1 days in LG vs. 7.7 days in OG. The incidence of postoperative complications was 5.88% in the LG and 7.61% in the OG with 1.96% and respective 1.90% reoperation rate. In conclusion laparoscopic suture of PDU with associated postoperative modern therapy of ulcer disease could be the treatment of choice in young patients.     

Laparoscopic and conventional closure of perforated peptic ulcer

Surgical Endoscopy -     

Laparoscopic and conventional closure of perforated peptic ulcer

Background: After the first successful laparoscopic closure of a perforated peptic ulcer in 1990, 18 patients with laparoscopic closure were compared to 16 patients with conventional surgery. Methods: The endpoint adverse events (complications), pain intensity, operation time, fever, leucocytosis, and duration of hospital stay showed no clinically relevant differences. Results: Consumption of analgesics was lower in the laparoscopic group. Conclusions: Laparoscopic closure of perforated peptic ulcer is technically feasible. The safety of the method and the benefit for the patient need proof by means of a randomized controlled trial.     

Laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Contribution to evaluation of the place of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of perforated peptic ulcer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between January 1992 and November 1997. 17 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic suture of a perforated peptic ulcer, with or without omentoplasty. RESULTS: Treatment was performed entirely by laparoscopy in 13 cases (76%). The median operating time was 105 min (50-220 min). The median number of doses of analgesia administered to each patient was 8 (3-20 doses). The medium hospital stay was 6 days (2-23 days). Two patients (12%) died. In 11 cases, gastroscopy was performed between 1 and 4 months after the operation, revealing healing of the ulcer in 10 cases and persistence of the ulcer in one case. None of the patients were readmitted to hospital for ulcer complications, with a median follow-up of 35 months (1-63 months). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic treatment of perforated duodenal is a technically simple and effective procedure, intermediate between conventional surgical treatment and Taylor's method. Laparoscopic surgery may therefore have a real place in the treatment of perforated peptic ulcer.     

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     

Laparoscopic surgery of perforated duodenal ulcer]

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities have been increased by videolaparoscopy. The method enables an immediate reliable diagnosis to be made, associated with possible surgical treatment. METHODS: The authors report their laparoscopic experience relating to the treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer from 1972 to 1995 in 8 patients divided into two groups. Jacob Palmer's laparoscopic operator was used in the first group together with Menghini's needle for the aspiration of peritoneal effusion; the operation was performed under local anesthesia with nitrogen monoxide insufflation using Taylor's technique number I. The second group underwent ulcorrhaphy with omentopexy, again using a laparoscopic route, together with abundant lavage and accurate aspiration of fibrin. RESULTS: The patients in the first group made a prompt recovery in terms of their general conditions following the remission of fever, pain, diminished leukocytes and an early renewal of canalisation; cicatrisation of the ulcer was confirmed by the endoscopic control on day 15. Patients in the second group showed early deambulation approximately 4 hours after surgery; canalisation occurred after about 6 hours and all patients were discharged on day 3. The eradication of Helicobacter pylori led to complete resolution, as was confirmed by subsequent follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy was found to be extremely useful both in the immediate diagnosis of acute abdomen following perforated ulcer and in its surgical treatment as a result of the introduction of operating laparoscopes and in particular videolaparoscopes, together with surgical instruments that allow careful abdominal cleansing and ulcorrhaphy. In the authors' opinion, the latter procedure is the most suitable for managing this pathology.     

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.     

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 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.     

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.