27 research outputs found

    “Correcting” ulcers?

    Full text link

    Trends in Diagnosis and Surgical Management of Patients with Perforated Peptic Ulcer

    Get PDF
    Introduction While the laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) has been shown to be feasible and safe, its implementation into routine clinical practice has been slow. Only a few studies have evaluated its overall utility. The aim of this study was to investigate changes in surgical management of PPU and associated outcomes. Material and Methods The study was a retrospective, single institution, population-based review of all patients undergoing surgery for PPU between 2003 and 2009. Patient demographics, diagnostic evaluation, management, and outcomes were evaluated. Results Included were 114 patients with a median age of 67 years (range, 20–100). Women comprised 59% and were older (p<0.001), had more comorbidities (p=0.002), and had a higher Boey risk score (p=0.036) compared to men. Perforation location was gastric/pyloric in 72% and duodenal in 28% of patients. Pneumoperitoneum was diagnosed by plain abdominal x-ray in 30 of 41 patients (75%) and by abdominal computerized tomography (CT) in 76 of 77 patients (98%; p<0.001). Laparoscopic treatment was initiated in 48 patients (42%) and completed in 36 patients (75% of attempted cases). Laparoscopic treatment rate increased from 7% to 46% during the study period (p=0.02). Median operation time was shorter in patients treated via laparotomy (70 min) compared to laparoscopy (82 min) and those converted from laparoscopy to laparotomy (105 min; p=0.017). Postoperative complications occurred in 56 patients (49%). Overall 30-day postoperative mortality was 16%. No statistically significant differences were found in morbidity and mortality between open versus laparoscopic repair. Conclusion This study demonstrates an increased use of CT as the primary diagnostic tool for PPU and of laparoscopic repair in its surgical treatment. These changes in management are not associated with altered outcomes

    Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer: first choice? A review of literature

    Get PDF
    Background Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU), despite antiulcer medication and Helicobacter eradication, is still the most common indication for emergency gastric surgery associated with high morbidity and mortality. Outcome might be improved by performing this procedure laparoscopically, but there is no consensus on whether the benefits of laparoscopic closure of perforated peptic ulcer outweigh the disadvantages such as prolonged surgery time and greater expense. Methods An electronic literature search was done by using PubMed and EMBASE databases. Relevant papers written between January 1989 and May 2009 were selected and scored according to Effective Public Health Practice Project guidelines. Results Data were extracted from 56 papers, as summarized in Tables 1-7. The overall conversion rate for laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer was 12.4%, with main reason for conversion being the diameter of perforation. Patients presenting with PPU were predominantly men (79%), with an average age of 48 years. Onethird had a history of peptic ulcer disease, and one-fifth took nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Only 7% presented with shock at admission. There seems to be no consensus on the perfect setup for surgery and/or operating technique. In the laparoscopic groups, operating time was significant longer and incidence of recurrent leakage at the repair site was higher. Nonetheless there was significant less postoperative pain, lower morbidity, less mortality, and shorter hospital stay. Conclusion There are good arguments that laparoscopic correction of PPU should be first treatment of choice. A Boey score of 3, age over 70 years, and symptoms persisting longer than 24 h are associated with higher morbidity and mortality and should be considered contraindications for laparoscopic intervention

    2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

    Get PDF
    Peer reviewe
    corecore