Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic treatment of gastroduodenal perforations: comparison with conventional surgery

  • Original article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Laparoscopic techniques have been proposed as an alternative to open surgery for the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation. This study compared the outcome of laparoscopic and open approaches for the repair of gastroduodenal perforations.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted with 134 consecutive patients treated for gastroduodenal perforations. These patients included 122 with perforated duodenal ulcers, 10 with perforated gastric ulcers, and 2 with iatrogenic duodenal perforations. Whereas 68 patients were treated laparoscopically, 66 patients underwent conventional (open) surgery.

Results

Laparoscopic repair was successful in 65 cases (96 %). The mean operating time was shorter with the laparoscopic technique (68 vs 59 min), but the difference was not significant. The duration of postoperative nasogastric aspiration and time to resumed oral intake were shorter in the laparoscopic group (2.6 vs 4.1 days and 4.4 vs. 5.2 days, respectively; p = 0.043). The postoperative analgetic requirements, and overall complications rate were significantly lower after laparoscopic surgery (p = 0.03 and p = 0.004, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in hospital stay (5.1 vs 6.1 days) or mortality rate between the two procedures.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic repair of gastroduodenal perforations is a safe alternative treatment offering certain significant short-term advantages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bergamaschi R, Marvik R, Johnsen G, Thoresen JE, Ystgaard B, Myrvold HE (1999) Open vs laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Surg Endosc 13: 679–682

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bloechle C, Emmermann A, Strate, Scheurlen UJ, Schneider C, Achilles E, Wolf M, Mack D, Zornig C, Broelsch CE (1998) Laparoscopic vs open repair of gastric perforation and abdominal lavage of associated peritonitis in pigs. Surg Endosc 12: 212–218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Christensen A, Bousfield R, Christiansen J (1988) Incidence of perforated and bleeding peptic ulcers before and after the introduction of H2-receptor antagonists. Ann Surg 207: 4–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Costalat G, Dravet F, Noel P, Alquier Y, Vernhet J (1991) Coelioscopic treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcer using the ligamentum teres hepatis. Surg Endosc 5: 154–155

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Crofts TJ, Park KG, Steele RJ, Chung SS, Li AK (1989) A randomized trial of nonoperative treatment for perforated peptic ulcer. N Engl J Med 320: 970–973

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Darzi A, Cheshire NJ, Somers SS, Super PA, Guillou PJ, Monson JR (1993) Laparoscopic omental patch repair of perforated duodenal ulcer with an automated stapler. Br J Surg 80: 1552

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Druart ML, Van Hee R, Etienne J, Cadiere GB, Gigot JF, Legrand M, Limbosch JM, Navez B, Tugilimana M, Van Vyre E, Vereecken L, Wibin E, Yvergneaux JP (1997) Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Surg Endosc 11: 1017–1020

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Johansson B, Hallerback B, Glise H, Johnsson E (1996) Laparoscopic suture closure of perforated peptic ulcer: a nonrandomized comparison with open surgery. Surg Endosc 10: 656–658

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Katkhouda N, Mavor E, Mason RJ, Campos GM, Soroushyari A, Berne TV (1999) Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers: outcome and efficacy in 30 consecutive patients. Arch Surg 134: 845–848, discussion 849–850

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kirshtein B, Roy-Shapira A, Lantsberg L, Mandel S, Avinoach E, Mizrahi S (2003) The use of laparoscopy in abdominal emergencies. Surg Endosc 17: 1118–1124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kok KY, Mathew VV, Yapp SK (1999) Laparoscopic omental patch repair for perforated duodenal ulcer. Am Surg 65: 27–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Koninger J, Bottinger P, Redecke J, Butters M (2004) Laparoscopic repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcer by running suture. Langenbecks Arch Surg 389: 11–16

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lau WY, Leung KL, Kwong KH, Davey IC, Robertson C, Dawson JJ, Chung SC, Li AK (1996) A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique. Ann Surg 224: 131–138

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lau JY, Lo SY, Ng EK, Lee DW, Lam YH, Chung SC (1998) A randomized comparison of acute phase response and endotoxemia in patients with perforated peptic ulcers receiving laparoscopic or open patch repair. Am J Surg 175: 325–327

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee FY, Leung KL, Lai PB, Lau JW (2001) Selection of patients for laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 88: 133–136

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mouret P, Francois Y, Vignal J, Barth X, Lombard-Platet R (1990) Laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 77: 1006

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Naesgaard JM, Edwin B, Reiertsen O, Trondsen E, Faerden AE, Rosseland AR (1999) Laparoscopic and open operation in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. Eur J Surg 165: 209–214

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Nathanson LK, Easter DW, Cuschieri A (1990) Laparoscopic repair/peritoneal toilet of perforated duodenal ulcer. Surg Endosc 4: 232–233

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pescatore P, Halkic N, Calmes JM, Blum A, Gillet M (1998) Combined laparoscopic–endoscopic method using an omental plug for therapy of gastroduodenal ulcer perforation. Gastrointest Endosc 48: 411–414

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Pross M, Mantke R, Kunz D, Reinheckel T, Halangk W, Lippert H, Schulz HU (2002) Reduced neutrophil sequestration in lung tissue after laparoscopic lavage in a rat peritonitis model. World J Surg 26: 49–53

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sebastian M, Chandran VP, Elashaal YI, Sim AJ (1995) Helicobacter pylori infection in perforated peptic ulcer disease. Br J Surg 82: 360–362

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Siu WT, Leong HT, Law BK, Chau CH, Li AC, Fung KH, Tai YP, Li MK (2002) Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 235: 313–319

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. So JB, Kum CK, Fernandes ML, Goh P (1996) Comparison between laparoscopic and conventional omental patch repair for perforated duodenal ulcer. Surg Endosc 10: 1060–1063

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tokunaga Y, Hata K, Ryo J, Kitaoka A, Tokuka A, Oshumi K (1998) Density of Helicobacter pylori infection in patients with peptic ulcer perforation. J Am Coll Surg 186: 659–663

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ulmer HJ, Beckerling A, Gatz G (2003) Recent use of proton pump inhibitor–abased triple therapies for the eradication of H. pylori: a broad data review. Helicobacter 8: 95–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery “A”, Soroka University Hospital, 151, Beer Sheva, 84101, Israel

    B. Kirshtein, M. Bayme, T. Mayer, L. Lantsberg, E. Avinoach & S. Mizrahi

Authors
  1. B. Kirshtein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Bayme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Mayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. Lantsberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. Avinoach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Mizrahi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Kirshtein.

Additional information

The preliminary results were presented at the 1st European Endoscopic Surgery Week, 15–18 June 2003, Glasgow, Scotland

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kirshtein, B., Bayme, M., Mayer, T. et al. Laparoscopic treatment of gastroduodenal perforations: comparison with conventional surgery. Surg Endosc 19, 1487–1490 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-2237-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-004-2237-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation