Comparison of laparoscopic and conventional graham’s omentopexy in peptic ulcer perforation: A single center experience

Ahmet Sürek; Sina Ferahman; Eyüp Gemici; Mehmet Abdussamet Bozkurt; Ahmet Cem Dural; Turgut Dönmez; Mehmet Karabulut; Halil Alış

doi:10.28982/josam.917335

Authors

Ahmet Sürek https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5950-1067
Sina Ferahman https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1160-9156
Eyüp Gemici https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6769-3305
Mehmet Abdussamet Bozkurt https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3222-9363
Ahmet Cem Dural https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3479-725X
Turgut Dönmez https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3095-2195
Mehmet Karabulut https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1889-5637
Halil Alış https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0907-6047

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.28982/josam.917335

Keywords:

Laparoscopy, peptic ulcer perforation, Graham’s omentopexy, postoperative complications, minimally invasive surgery

Abstract

Background/Aim: In recent years, laparoscopic repair has become common in the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation (PUP). In this study, we aimed to compare the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic and conventional graham omentopexy in the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation (PUP). Methods: The files of the patients who underwent laparoscopic and conventional graham omentopexy were reviewed in this retrospective cohort study. The two groups were compared in terms of age, gender, comorbidities, ASA scores, location and diameter of perforation, Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), operation times, VAS scores (4th and 24th hour), oral intake, flatus, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, morbidity, and mortality. Results: A total of 192 cases were included in the study, with 123 patients in the Laparoscopy Group and 69 patients in the Conventional Group. In the Laparoscopy Group, earlier oral intake, earlier bowel movements, less pain, shorter length of hospitalization, less pulmonary and total complications, and fewer secondary interventions were observed (P=0.001, P=0.001, P=0.001, P=0.037, P=0.009, P=0.039, respectively). In the Conventional Group, the mean operation time was significantly shorter (P=0.002). Other findings were similar. Conclusion: We observed many advantages of laparoscopic repair in the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation. Longer operation time was the only disadvantage. Based on our results, we believe that laparoscopic approach is safe and superior to conventional surgery in the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Sung JJY, Kuipers EJ, El-Serag HB. Systematic review: the global incidence and prevalence of peptic ulcer disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29:938–46.

Søreide K, Thorsen K, Harrison EM, Bingener J, Møller MH, Ohene-Yeboah M, et al. Perforated peptic ulcer. Lancet. 2015;386:1288–98.

Karagöz H, Karaman A . Helicobacter pylori incidence of patients with gastritis in endoscopic biopsies. J Surg Med. 2020;4(5):359-62.

Lau JYW, Barkun A, Fan DL, Ernst J Kuipers, Yun-sheng Yang, Francis K L Chan. Challenges in the management of acute peptic ulcer bleeding. Lancet. 2013;381:2033–43.

Byrge N, Barton RG, Enniss TM, Nirula R. Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcer: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program analysis. Am J Surg. 2013;206:957–62.

Svanes C. Trends in perforated peptic ulcer: incidence, etiology, treatment, and prognosis. World J Surg. 2000;24:277–83.

Guadagni S, Cengeli I, Galatioto C, Furbetta N, Piero VL, Zoccoet G, et al. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: single-center results. Surg Endosc. 2014; 28(8): 2302–8.

Bertleff MJ, Lange JF. Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer: first choice? a review of literature. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1231-9.

Lin BC, Liao CH, Wang SY, Hwang TL. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: simple closure versus omentopexy. J Surg Res. 2017;220:341–34

Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M. Systematic review comparing laparoscopic and open repair for perforated peptic ulcers. Br J Surg. 2005;92:1195-207.

Palanivelu C, Jani K, Senthilnathan P. Laparoscopic management of duodenal ulcer perforation: is it advantageous? Indian J Gastroenterol. 2007;26:64-6.

Bhogal, RH, Athwal R, Durkin D, Deakin M, Cheruvu CNV. Comparison Between Open and Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease. World J Surg. 2008;32(11):2371-4.

Saleh AA, Esquivel EC, Lung JT, Eaton BC, Bruns BR, Barmparas G, et al. Laparoscopic Omental Patch for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Reduces Length of Stay and Complications, Compared to Open Surgery: a

SWSC Multicenter Study. Am J Surg.. 2019;228:1060-4.

Chou NH, Mok KT, Chang HT, Liu SI, Tsai CC, Wang BW, et al. Risk factors of mortality in perforated peptic ulcer. Eur J Surg. 2000 Feb;166(2):149-53. doi: 10.1080/110241500750009500. PMID: 10724493.

Karydakis P, Semenov DL, Kyriakidis VA, Osmanov ZK, Perysinakis I, Did-Zurabova, et al. Laparoscopic Management of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Simple Closure or Something More? Open Journal of Gastroenterology. 2016;6:311-8.

Agresta F, Mazzarolo G, Ciardo LF, Bedin N. The laparoscopic approach in abdominal emergencies: has the attitude changed? A single-center review of a 15-year experience. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1255-62.

Lee FYJ, Leung KL, Lai PBS, Lau JWY. Selection of patients for laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 2001;88(1):133–6.

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. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:1-13

Abd Ellatif ME, Salama AF, Elezaby AF, El-Kaffas HF, Hassan A, Magdy A, et al. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: Patch versus simple closure. Int J Surg. 2013;11(9):948–51.

Vakayil V, Bauman B, Joppru K, Mallick R, Tignanelli C, Connett J, et al. Surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcers: laparoscopic versus open approach. Surg Endosc. 2018;33(3):1-12

Arora KB, Arora R, Arora A. Modified Graham’s repair for peptic ulcer perforation: reassessment study. Int Surg J. 2017;4(5):1667-71.

Siow SL, Mahendran HA, Wong CM, Hardin M, Loong LT. Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer: Improving outcomes utilizing a standardized technique. Asian J Surg. 2016;41(2):136–42.

Wang YC, Hsieh CH, Su TL. Sutureless Onlay Omental Patch for the Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcers. World J Surg 2014;38(8):1917–21.

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.

Kumar P, Kumar S, Verma RK, Agarwal A, Kumari R. Laparoscopic versus open repair of duodenal perforation: a comparative study in tertiary care hospital in Uttarakhand, India. Int Surg J. 2016;3(4):1975-8.

Smith RS, Sundaramurthy SR, Croagh D. Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer: A retrospective cohort study. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2019;12(2):139-44.

Lee DJK, Ye M, Sun KH, Shelat VG, Koura A. Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study. Surgery Research and Practice. 2016;1:1–7.

Siu WT, Leong HT, Law BKB, Chau CH, Li AC, Fung KH. Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer. Ann Surg. 2002;235(3):313–9.

Alluaibi AB, Al-Wajeeh AY, Mohammed MA. Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Bas J Surg. 2017;23(2):53-61.

Lau WY, Leung KL, Kwong KH, Davey IC, Robertson C, Dawson JJC, 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.

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):451–58.

Tan S, Wu G, Zhuang Q, Qiulei Xi, Meng Q, Jiang Y, et al. Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: A metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2016;33:124–32.

Gabriel V, Grigorian A, Schubl SD, Pejcinovska M, Won E, Lekawa M, et al. Perforated Peptic Ulcer Surgery: Decreased Length of Stay but No Difference in Mortality with Laparoscopic Repair. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2018;28(6):410-5.

Seelig MH, Seelig SK, Behr C, Schoenleben K. Comparison Between Open and Laparoscopic Technique in the Management of Perforated Gastroduodenal Ulcers. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. 2003;37(3):226–9.

Agaba EA, Klair T, Ikedilo O, Vemulapalli P. A 10-Year Review of Surgical Management of Complicated Peptic Ulcer Disease From a Single Center. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26(5):385–90.

Varcus F, Paun I , Duta C , Dobrescu A, Frandes M, Tarta C. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Minerva Chir. 2018;73(2):188-93.