Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer: an English national population-based cohort study

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Randomized controlled trials have shown that laparoscopic approach to surgery for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is associated with improved short-term outcomes; however, there is limited evidence concerning national practice. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the effect of laparoscopic approach to PPU surgery upon mortality and morbidity in England.

Methods

Patients with a primary diagnosis of PPU, admitted as an emergency to a hospital in England, and receiving surgical intervention, between 2005 and 2012 were identified from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. Outcomes analyzed included 30-day and 90-day mortality, 30-day complications, and length of hospital stay. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify patient, hospital, and treatment-related factors associated with use of laparoscopy and mortality.

Results

The study included 13,022 patients who underwent emergency surgery for PPU in England over an 8-year period. From 2005 to 2012, the utilization of laparoscopic surgery for PPU increased from 0 to 13% and was more commonly used in high volume emergency centers. Laparoscopic surgery was associated with significant reductions in 30-day (7% vs. 15.7%; P < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (8.9% vs. 19.6%; P < 0.001), pneumonia (6% vs. 10.1%; P < 0.001), ischemic cardiac events (1% vs. 2.4%; P = 0.007), as well as length of hospital stay (median 5 vs. 7 days; P < 0.001). Factors associated with a reduced utilization of laparoscopic surgery included age ≥ 70 years (Odds ratio (OR) = 0.58 (95% CI) 0.49–0.68) and Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥ 2 (OR = 0.73; 95% CI 0.57–0.94).

Conclusion

The rate of laparoscopic repair of PPU is increasing at a national level and more common in high volume emergency centers. It is associated with reduced rates of mortality; pneumonia and shorter length of hospital stay, highlighting the need for strategies to improve dissemination of laparoscopic techniques necessary for PPU repair.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Svanes C (2000) Trends in perforated peptic ulcer: incidence, etiology, treatment and prognosis. World J Surg 24:277–283

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Soreide K, Thorsen K, Harrison EM, Bingener J, Moller MH, Ohene-Yeboah M, Soreide JA (2015) Perforated peptic ulcer. Lancet 386:1288–1298

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M (2005) Management strategies, early results, benefits and risk factors of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers. World J Surg 29:1299–1310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee FY, Leung KL, Lai BS, Ng SS, Dexter S, Lau WY (2001) Predicting mortality and morbidity of patients operated on for perforated peptic ulcers. Arch Surg 136:90–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bertleff MJ, Halm JA, Bemelman WA, van der Ham AC, van der Harst E, Oei HI, Smulders JF, Steyerberg EW, Langer JF (2009) Randomised clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: the LAMA trial. World J Surg 33:1368–1373

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Bertleff MJ, Lange JF (2010) Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer: first choice? A review of literature. Surg Endosc 24:1231–1239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lau H (2004) Laparoscopic repair of perorated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 18:1013–1021

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Welcome to HESonline. http://www.hscic.gov.uk/hes. Accessed 8 Jan 2017

  12. Mackenzie H, Markar SR, Askari A, Ni M, Faiz O, Hanna GB (2016) National proficiency-gain curves for minimally invasive gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 103:88–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P, Faiz O, Hanna GB (2012) Short-term outcomes following open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in England: a population-based national study. Ann Surg 255:197–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Markar SR, Mackenzie H, Wiggins T, Askari A, Ni M, Faiz O, Hanna GB (2015) Management and outcomes of esophageal perforation: a national study of 2,564 patients in England. Am J Gastroenterol 110:1559–1566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Markar SR, Mackenzie H, Huddy JR, Jamel S, Askari A, Faiz O, Hanna GB, Zaninotto G (2016) Practice patterns and outcomes after hospital admission with acute para-esophageal hernia in England. Ann Surg 264:854–861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Markar SR, Mackenzie H, Wiggins T, Askari A, Karthikesalingam A, Faiz O, Griffin SM, Birkmeyer JD, Hanna GB (2017). Influence of national centralization of esophago-gastric cancer upon management and clinical outcome from emergency upper gastro-intestinal conditions. Br J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10640

  17. Grailey K, Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Aboud R, Ziprin P, Faiz O (2013) Laparoscopic versus open colorectal resection in the elderly population. Surg Endosc 27:19–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Southgate E, Vousden N, Karthikesalingam A, Markar SR, Black S, Zaidi A (2012) Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy in older patients. Arch Surg 147:557–562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ates M, Sevil S, Bakircioglu E, Colak C (2007) Laparoscopic repair of peptic ulcer perforation without omental patch versus conventional open repair. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Techn 17:615–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Sheraz R. Markar is funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Astrid Leusink, Sheraz R. Markar, Tom Wiggins, Hugh Mackenzie, Omar Faiz & George B. Hanna

  2. St Mark’s Hospital and Academic Institute, Harrow, UK

    Omar Faiz

  3. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary’s Hospital, 10th Floor, QEQM Building, South Wharf Road, London, W2 1NY, UK

    George B. Hanna

Authors
  1. Astrid Leusink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sheraz R. Markar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tom Wiggins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hugh Mackenzie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Omar Faiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. George B. Hanna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George B. Hanna.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Dr Astrid Leusink, Dr Sheraz R. Markar, Dr Tom Wiggins, Dr Hugh Mackenzie, Dr Omar Faiz, Professor George B. Hanna have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leusink, A., Markar, S.R., Wiggins, T. et al. Laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer: an English national population-based cohort study. Surg Endosc 32, 3783–3788 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6058-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6058-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation