Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair
- 244 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsPerforated ulcer Laparoscopic repair Open repair
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.
- 8.Sanabria A, Villegas MI, Morales Uribe CH. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(2):CD004778.Google Scholar
- 10.F Y. Contingency tables involving small numbers and the x2 test. J R Stat Soc. 1934;1(2):217–235Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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