Laparoscopic Management of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Simple Closure or Something More?

Karydakis, P.; Семенов, Д. Ю.; Kyriakidis, A; Osmanov, Z. Kh.; Perysinakis, Iraklis; Did-Zurabova, Elena Sergeevna; Chekmasov, Yuriy S.; Karydakis, Lyssandros; Kyriakidis, Vladimiros

doi:10.4236/ojgas.2016.611034

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar observations were also reported in the study conducted by Critchley et al 6 In the study conducted by Karydakis et al, the mean age of the patient was 46 years. 7 Male to female ratio in our study was of 1:0.1. Thus, males clearly outnumbered the females.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 41%

Open versus laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a comparative study

Deshmukh

Parikh

2020

Int Surg J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Surgery is the mainstay of the treatment for perforated duodenal ulcer by closing the perforation with or without omental patch. There are no controversies in the surgical treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer but the best approach to surgery is still debatable. Advances in minimal access surgery has made it possible to close the perforated duodenal ulcer laparoscopically. The present study was conducted to compare the results of open and laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer in terms of operative time, postoperative pain, hospital stay, and post-operative complications etc.Methods: The study was conducted in Dr. V. M. Government Medical College and Hospital located in Solapur (Maharashtra) from December 2008 to December 2010. It was a prospective comparative study. Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups alternately where group A and B were operated by conventional and laparoscopic techniques respectively and their outcomes were compared.Results: Most commonly affected age in this study was 51 to 60 years with male preponderance. Post-operative pain, analgesic requirement, wound infection, hospital stay, was significantly less in laparoscopic group as compared to open group (p<0.05).Conclusions: Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer is safe and feasible in properly selected patients and has superior results as compared to open surgery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 41%

Open versus laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a comparative study

Deshmukh

Parikh

2020

Int Surg J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The laparoscopic method is now more frequently used to address sudden abdominal problems. In several clinics, laparoscopic repair is frequently performed to treat PUP (14)(15) . In the literatures, PUP were treated laparoscopically using simple closure, regular Graham's omentopexy, modified Graham's omentopexy, and fibrin glue closure procedures (14,(16)(17)(18)(19)(20) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic Versus Open Suturing and Omental Patch Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Mohsen¹,

AboElazm²,

Azazy³

2023

The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:The conventional open omental patch repair is the gold standard treatment for peptic ulcer perforation (PUP). Laparoscopic management has been advocated for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers since 1990, but many concerns still exist about the technique's viability and safety. Objective: The aim of the current study is to compare the results and outcome of open versus laparoscopic repair technique for perforated peptic ulcers. Patients and methods: A total of 73 cases with a preoperative clinically diagnosed with peptic ulcer perforation were distributed randomly into two groups to perform either open or laparoscopic repair with an omental patch comparing their operative and postoperative results. Results:In comparison to open surgery, laparoscopic PUP repair led to quicker oral eating and bowel movements, less postoperative discomfort, less superficial wound infections, fewer pulmonary and overall problems, secondary intervention, and a shorter hospital stay. Its sole drawback was a longer operating time. Conclusions: Laparoscopic technique is a safe and feasible treatment modality for PUP with superior outcome when compared to open surgery.

show abstract

“…In recent years, with advances in minimally invasive surgery, laparoscopic approach is increasingly preferred for the treatment of acute abdomen. Laparoscopic repair is widely used in PUP treatment today [15][16]. In the literature, simple closure, standard Graham's omentopexy, modified Graham's omentopexy, and fibrin glue closure techniques were used in the laparoscopic treatment of PUP [15,[17][18][19][20][21].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Sürek¹,

Ferahman²,

Gemici³

et al. 2021

Journal of Surgery and Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 (4 th and 24 th 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.

show abstract

Laparoscopic Management of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Simple Closure or Something More?

Cited by 3 publications

References 24 publications

Open versus laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a comparative study

Open versus laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a comparative study

Laparoscopic Versus Open Suturing and Omental Patch Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About