Open versus laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a comparative study

Background: Surgery is the mainstay of the treatment for perforated duodenal ulcer by closing the perforation with or without omental patch. There are no controversies in the surgical treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer but the best approach to surgery is still debatable. Advances in minimal access surgery has made it possible to close the perforated duodenal ulcer laparoscopically. The present study was conducted to compare the results of open and laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer in terms of operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, and post-operative complications etc.Methods: The study was conducted in Dr. V. M. Government Medical College and Hospital located in Solapur (Maharashtra) from December 2008 to December 2010. It was a prospective comparative study. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups alternately where group A and B were operated by conventional and laparoscopic techniques respectively and their outcomes were compared.Results: Most commonly affected age in this study was 51 to 60 years with male preponderance. Post-operative pain, analgesic requirement, wound infection, hospital stay, was significantly less in laparoscopic group as compared to open group (p<0.05).Conclusions: Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer is safe and feasible in properly selected patients and has superior results as compared to open surgery.

Laparoscopic Repair with Omental Patch for Perforated Duodenal Ulcer / 대한내시경복강경외과학회지

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic surgery is now being applied to most abdominal surgeries. We evaluated the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic primary repair with an omental patch for treating perforated duodenal ulcer as compared to that of open surgery. METHODS: A total of 124 consecutive patients who underwent repair of perforated peptic ulcer from January 2000 to February 2009 were included in the study. The surgical outcomes that were evaluated were the operation time, the use of intravenous/intramuscular analgesics, the complication rate, the hospital stay and the postoperative endoscopic findings. RESULTS: 124 patients underwent surgical repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease (81 open repairs and 43 laparoscopic repairs). The mean age was 43.7+/-16.6 in the laparoscopic group and 45.7+/-18.3 in the open group, respectively (p=0.55). Laparoscopic repair had a similar operation time as open repair (110.4+/-37.5 minutes vs 101.2+/-30.8 minutes p=0.149, respectively). There were statistical differences for the hospital stay (7.8+/-3.0 days laparoscopy vs 9.9+/-4.0 days open; p=0.004) and the need for analgesics (range; 0~17 open vs 0~16 laparoscopic; p=0.026). But the complication rate was not significant different in both group (2.3% open vs 12.3% laparoscopic; p=0.062). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic repair is a feasible and safe surgical option for patients with perforated peptic ulcer and it is an excellent alternative to open procedure when performed by experienced hands.

Clinical Study of Perforated Duodenal Ulcer

PURPOSE: There has been considerable controversy about whether acid reduction surgery is a definitive surgical treatment for perforated duodenal ulcer with numerous methods having been described. The controversy has increased with the development of the Proton Pump inhibitor and the discovery of Helicobacter Pylori (HP), because the recurrence and morbidity have been shown to decrease with simple closure followed by a good medical therapy against HP and the ulcer. This study is an evaluation of simple closure as an alternative treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed the records of 288 patients with surgically-treated ulcer perforation. After 62 patients were excluded, 128 patients treated with simple closure were compared with 98 patients treated with definitive surgery. In the simple closure group, we compared 50 patients treated with Proton Pump inhibitor and 78 patients treated with H2 blocker. Also, the influence of various factors such as age, delayed operation, size of ulcer perforation, operative methods, associated diseases, and complications were analyzed to evaluate recurrence, morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: After mean follow up for 53.7 months, 56.6% of patients treated with simple closure had fewer post operative complications and a lower recurrence rate compared with definitive surgery. The infection rate by HP of 81.6% in our study was similar to that of other studies. Some factors as age (>60), duration of symptoms (>24 hours), size of ulcer perforation (>10 mm), associated disease and operative time showed an influence on the mortality. CONCLUSION: Recent advances in the treatment of perforated peptic ulcer such as the development of the Proton Pump inhibitor and the discovery of HP have shown that after simple closure, an adequate medical treatment of ulcer can effectively decrease the recurrence rate, morbidity and mortality.

Prognostic Factors in Duodenal Ulcer Perforation

PURPOSE: There has been controversy over an adequate operative method for peptic ulcer perforation, but currently there is general agreement in the surgical literature that perforated duodenal ulcers in patients who constitute excessive surgical risk should be managed by the simplest possible procedure and in the absence of surgical risk, definitive operations are advocated. However, an accurate description of the degree of severity of concurrent medical disease and surgical risk factor is not available and the question as to whether the postoperative mortality is influenced by the magnitude of the procedure or determined only by the patient's risk remains unanswered. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed the case histories of all patients who underwent operations for perforated duodenal ulcer at Gil Medical Center from January 1993 through 1998 and evaluates the influences of prognostic factors, APACHE II, SAPS, age, duration of peritonitis, concurrent major medical disease and ulcer size, and operative procedures on postoperative mortality in high risk and low risk groups. RESULTS: Large APACHE II score (> or =15) and SPSS (> or =10), delayed operation, large ulcer (> or =2 cm), age (> or =60), and major medical illness that severely compromised cardiorespiratory, hepatic, renal, and immunologic function were associated significantly with mortality in patients with a perforated peptic ulcer. CONCLUSION: Age, duration of peritonitis, major medical disease, APACHE II score, and ulcer size should be pre-sumed to be important prognostic factors. Although further study is necessary in a larger number of patients, it appears that operative procedures have no influence on postoperative mortality.