Advertisement

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 618–625 | Cite as

Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair

  • Gaik S. Quah
  • Guy D. Eslick
  • Michael R. CoxEmail author
Review Article
  • 244 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Over the last 3 decades, laparoscopic procedures have emerged as the standard treatment for many elective and emergency surgical conditions. Despite the increased use of laparoscopic surgery, the role of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer remains controversial among general surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer.

Methods

A systemic literature review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Database of all randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared laparoscopic (LR) with open repair (OR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). Data was extracted using a standardised form and subsequently analysed.

Results

The meta-analysis using data from 7 RCT showed that LR for PPU has decreased overall post-operative morbidity (LR = 8.9% vs. OR = 17.0%) (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.79, p < 0.01), wound infections, (LR = 2.2% vs. OR = 6.3%) (OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.5, p < 0.01) and shorter duration of hospital stay (6.6 days vs. 8.2 days, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in length of operation, leakage rate, incidence of intra-abdominal abscess, post-operative sepsis, respiratory complications, re-operation rate or mortality. There was no publication bias and the quality of the studies ranged from poor to good.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate that laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer has a reduced morbidity and total hospital stay compared with open approach. There are no significant differences in mortality, post-operative sepsis, abscess and re-operation rates. LR should be the preferred treatment option for patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease.

Keywords

Perforated ulcer Laparoscopic repair Open repair 

Notes

Author Contributions

G. S. Q.: Study design, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation and manuscript preparation. G. D. E.: Data analysis, manuscript preparation and manuscript approval. M. R. C.: Study design, data interpretation, manuscript preparation and approval.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Svanes C. Trends in perforated peptic ulcer: incidence, etiology, treatment, and prognosis. World J Surg. 2000;24(3):277–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bertleff MJ, Lange JF. Perforated peptic ulcer disease: a review of history and treatment. Dig Surg. 2010;27(3):161–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mouret P, Francois Y, Vignal J, Barth X, Lombard-Platet R. Laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 1990;77(9):1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer. JSLS. 2013;17(1):15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhou C, Wang W, Wang J, Zhang X, Zhang Q, Li B, et al. An Updated Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lau H. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2004;18(7):1013–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tan S, Wu G, Zhuang Q, Xi Q, Meng Q, Jiang Y, et al. Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2016;33 Pt A:124–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sanabria A, Villegas MI, Morales Uribe CH. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(2):CD004778.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    F Y. Contingency tables involving small numbers and the x2 test. J R Stat Soc. 1934;1(2):217–235Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haviland MG. Yates’s correction for continuity and the analysis of 2 x 2 contingency tables. Stat Med. 1990;9(4):363–7; discussion 9–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lau WY, Leung KL, Kwong KH, Davey IC, Robertson C, Dawson JJ, et al. A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique. Ann Surg. 1996;224(2):131–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lau JY, Lo SY, Ng EK, Lee DW, Lam YH, Chung SC. A randomized comparison of acute phase response and endotoxemia in patients with perforated peptic ulcers receiving laparoscopic or open patch repair. Am J Surg. 1998;175(4):325–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Siu WT, Leong HT, Law BK, Chau CH, Li AC, Fung KH, et al. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2002;235(3):313–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schietroma M, Piccione F, Carlei F, Sista F, Cecilia EM, Amicucci G. Peritonitis from perforated peptic ulcer and immune response. J Invest Surg. 2013;26(5):294–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shah FH, Mehta SG, Gandhi MD, Saraj. Laparoscopic Peptic Ulcer Perforation Closure: the Preferred Choice. Indian J Surg. 2015;77(Suppl 2):403–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ge B, Wu M, Chen Q, Chen Q, Lin R, Liu L, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic repair versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcers. Surgery. 2016;159(2):451–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bertleff MJ, Halm JA, Bemelman WA, van der Ham AC, van der Harst E, Oei HI, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: the LAMA Trial. World J Surg. 2009;33(7):1368–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jimenez Rodriguez RM, Segura-Sampedro JJ, Flores-Cortes M, Lopez-Bernal F, Martin C, Diaz VP, et al. Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(9):2701–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Arimoto Y, Nishiguchi Y, Maeda K, Hirakawa K. Meta-analysis of the results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic and open surgery for acute appendicitis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(10):1929–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coccolini F, Catena F, Pisano M, Gheza F, Fagiuoli S, Di Saverio S, et al. Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2015;18:196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Navez B, Navez J. Laparoscopy in the acute abdomen. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;28(1):3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mandrioli M, Inaba K, Piccinini A, Biscardi A, Sartelli M, Agresta F, et al. Advances in laparoscopy for acute care surgery and trauma. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(2):668–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Navez B, Tassetti V, Scohy JJ, Mutter D, Guiot P, Evrard S, et al. Laparoscopic management of acute peritonitis. Br J Surg. 1998;85(1):32–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Navez B, Delgadillo X, Cambier E, Richir C, Guiot P. Laparoscopic approach for acute appendicular peritonitis: efficacy and safety: a report of 96 consecutive cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2001;11(5):313–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cox MR, Gunn IF, Eastman MC, Hunt RF, Heinz AW. Open cholecystectomy: a control group for comparison with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Aust N Z J Surg. 1992;62(10):795–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ephgrave KS, Kleiman-Wexler R, Pfaller M, Booth B, Werkmeister L, Young S. Postoperative pneumonia: a prospective study of risk factors and morbidity. Surgery. 1993;114(4):815–9; discussion 9–21.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee C-Z, Kao L-T, Lin H-C, Wei P-L. Comparison of clinical outcome between laparoscopic and open right hemicolectomy: a nationwide study. World J Surg Oncol. 2015;13(250).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M. Systematic review comparing laparoscopic and open repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 2005;92(10):1195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bertleff MJ, Lange JF. Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer: first choice? A review of literature. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(6):1231–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Riviere D, Gurusamy KS, Kooby DA, Vollmer CM, Besselink MG, Davidson BR, et al. Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4:CD011391.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Xiong H, Wang J, Jia Y, Ye C, Lu Y, Chen C, et al. Laparoscopic surgery versus open resection in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg. 2017;214(3):538–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Celentano V, Giglio MC, Bucci L. Laparoscopic versus open Hartmann’s reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015;30(12):1603–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ukai T, Shikata S, Takeda H, Dawes L, Noguchi Y, Nakayama T, et al. Evidence of surgical outcomes fluctuates over time: results from a cumulative meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016;16:37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Krisher SL, Browne A, Dibbins A, Tkacz N, Curci M. Intra-abdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis. Arch Surg. 2001;136(4):438–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paik PS, Towson JA, Anthone GJ, Ortega AE, Simons AJ, Beart RW, Jr. Intra-abdominal abscesses following laparoscopic and open appendectomies. J Gastrointest Surg. 1997;1(2):188–92; discussion 92–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dai L, Shuai J. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults and children: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. United European Gastroenterol J. 2017;5(4):542–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Quah GS EG, Cox MR. . Laparoscopic vs. Open Surgery for Complicated Appendicitis: A Meta-analysis. Aust N Z J Surg 2018;88(S1):55–6.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Cox MR, Wilson TG, Luck AJ, Jeans PL, Padbury RT, Toouli J. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute inflammation of the gallbladder. Ann Surg. 1993;218(5):630–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Genc V, Sulaimanov M, Cipe G, Basceken SI, Erverdi N, Gurel M, et al. What necessitates the conversion to open cholecystectomy? A retrospective analysis of 5164 consecutive laparoscopic operations. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66(3):417–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sakpal SV, Bindra SS, Chamberlain RS. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy conversion rates two decades later. JSLS. 2010;14(4):476–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Moller MH, Larsson HJ, Rosenstock S, Jorgensen H, Johnsen SP, Madsen AH, et al. Quality-of-care initiative in patients treated surgically for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 2013;100(4):543–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kujath P, Schwandner O, Bruch HP. Morbidity and mortality of perforated peptic gastroduodenal ulcer following emergency surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2002;387(7–8):298–302.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bae S, Shim KN, Kim N, Kang JM, Kim DS, Kim KM, et al. Incidence and short-term mortality from perforated peptic ulcer in Korea: a population-based study. J Epidemiol. 2012;22(6):508–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Thorsen K, Glomsaker TB, von Meer A, Soreide K, Soreide JA. Trends in diagnosis and surgical management of patients with perforated peptic ulcer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15(8):1329–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lohsiriwat V, Prapasrivorakul S, Lohsiriwat D. Perforated peptic ulcer: clinical presentation, surgical outcomes, and the accuracy of the Boey scoring system in predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality. World J Surg. 2009;33(1):80–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Irvin TT. Abdominal pain: a surgical audit of 1190 emergency admissions. Br J Surg. 1989;76(11):1121–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Thorsen K, Soreide JA, Soreide K. What is the best predictor of mortality in perforated peptic ulcer disease? A population-based, multivariable regression analysis including three clinical scoring systems. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(7):1261–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Whiteley-Martin Research Centre, Discipline of Surgery, Nepean HospitalThe University of SydneyPenrithAustralia

Personalised recommendations