Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach

BackgroundPerforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remain a surgical emergency accounting for 37% of all peptic ulcer-related deaths. Surgery remains the standard of care. The benefits of laparoscopic approach have been well-established even in the elderly. However, because of inconsistent results with specific regard to some technical aspects of such technique surgeons questioned the adoption of laparoscopic approach. This leads to choose the type of approach based on personal experience. The aim of our study was to critically appraise the use of the laparoscopic approach in PPU treatment comparing it with open procedure.MethodsA retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients underwent surgical procedure for PPU was performed. Patients undergoing PPU repair were divided into: Laparoscopic approach (LapA) and Open approach (OpenA) groups and clinical-pathological features of patients in the both groups were compared.ResultsA total of 453 patients underwent PPU simple repair. Among these, a LapA was adopted in 49% (222/453 patients). After propensity score matching, 172 patients were included in each group (the LapA and the OpenA). Analysis demonstrated increased operative times in the OpenA [OpenA: 96.4 +/- 37.2 vs LapA 88.47 +/- 33 min, p = 0.035], with shorter overall length of stay in the LapA group [OpenA 13 +/- 12 vs LapA 10.3 +/- 11.4 days p = 0.038]. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality [OpenA 26 (15.1%) vs LapA 18 (10.5%), p = 0.258]. Focusing on morbidity, the overall rate of 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the LapA group [OpenA 67 patients (39.0%) vs LapA 37 patients (21.5%) p = 0.002]. When stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification, the severity of postoperative complications was statistically different only for C-D 1-2.ConclusionsBased on the present study, we can support that laparoscopic suturing of perforated peptic ulcers, apart from being a safe technique, could provide significant advantages in terms of postoperative complications and hospital stay

Gastro-intestinal emergency surgery: Evaluation of morbidity and mortality. Protocol of a prospective, multicenter study in Italy for evaluating the burden of abdominal emergency surgery in different age groups. (The GESEMM study)

Gastrointestinal emergencies (GE) are frequently encountered in emergency department (ED), and patients can present with wide-ranging symptoms. more than 3 million patients admitted to US hospitals each year for EGS diagnoses, more than the sum of all new cancer diagnoses. In addition to the complexity of the urgent surgical patient (often suffering from multiple co-morbidities), there is the unpredictability and the severity of the event. In the light of this, these patients need a rapid decision-making process that allows a correct diagnosis and an adequate and timely treatment. The primary endpoint of this Italian nationwide study is to analyze the clinicopathological findings, management strategies and short-term outcomes of gastrointestinal emergency procedures performed in patients over 18. Secondary endpoints will be to evaluate to analyze the prognostic role of existing risk-scores to define the most suitable scoring system for gastro-intestinal surgical emergency. The primary outcomes are 30-day overall postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. Secondary outcomes are 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality rates, stratified for each procedure or cause of intervention, length of hospital stay, admission and length of stay in ICU, and place of discharge (home or rehabilitation or care facility). In conclusion, to improve the level of care that should be reserved for these patients, we aim to analyze the clinicopathological findings, management strategies and short-term outcomes of gastrointestinal emergency procedures performed in patients over 18, to analyze the prognostic role of existing risk-scores and to define new tools suitable for EGS. This process could ameliorate outcomes and avoid futile treatments. These results may potentially influence the survival of many high-risk EGS procedure