Cargando…

Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of the Perforated Peptic Ulcer: The LAMA Trial

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has become popular during the last decade, mainly because it is associated with fewer postoperative complications than the conventional open approach. It remains unclear, however, if this benefit is observed after laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer (P...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bertleff, Mariëtta J. O. E., Halm, Jens A., Bemelman, Willem A., van der Ham, Arie C., van der Harst, Erwin, Oei, Hok I., Smulders, J. F., Steyerberg, E. W., Lange, Johan F.
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer-Verlag 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2691927/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19430829
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0054-y
_version_ 1782167915417567232
author Bertleff, Mariëtta J. O. E.
Halm, Jens A.
Bemelman, Willem A.
van der Ham, Arie C.
van der Harst, Erwin
Oei, Hok I.
Smulders, J. F.
Steyerberg, E. W.
Lange, Johan F.
author_facet Bertleff, Mariëtta J. O. E.
Halm, Jens A.
Bemelman, Willem A.
van der Ham, Arie C.
van der Harst, Erwin
Oei, Hok I.
Smulders, J. F.
Steyerberg, E. W.
Lange, Johan F.
author_sort Bertleff, Mariëtta J. O. E.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has become popular during the last decade, mainly because it is associated with fewer postoperative complications than the conventional open approach. It remains unclear, however, if this benefit is observed after laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic closure of a PPU is as safe as conventional open correction. METHODS: The study was based on a randomized controlled trial in which nine medical centers from the Netherlands participated. A total of 109 patients with symptoms of PPU and evidence of air under the diaphragm were scheduled to receive a PPU repair. After exclusion of 8 patients during the operation, outcomes were analyzed for laparotomy (n = 49) and for the laparoscopic procedure (n = 52). RESULTS: Operating time in the laparoscopy group was significantly longer than in the open group (75 min versus 50 min). Differences regarding postoperative dosage of opiates and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain scoring system were in favor of the laparoscopic procedure. The VAS score on postoperative days 1, 3, and 7 was significant lower (P < 0.05) in the laparoscopic group. Complications were equally distributed. Hospital stay was also comparable: 6.5 days in the laparoscopic group versus 8.0 days in the open group (P = 0.235). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair of PPU is a safe procedure compared with open repair. The results considering postoperative pain favor the laparoscopic procedure.
format Text
id pubmed-2691927
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher Springer-Verlag
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26919272009-06-09 Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of the Perforated Peptic Ulcer: The LAMA Trial Bertleff, Mariëtta J. O. E. Halm, Jens A. Bemelman, Willem A. van der Ham, Arie C. van der Harst, Erwin Oei, Hok I. Smulders, J. F. Steyerberg, E. W. Lange, Johan F. World J Surg Article BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has become popular during the last decade, mainly because it is associated with fewer postoperative complications than the conventional open approach. It remains unclear, however, if this benefit is observed after laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic closure of a PPU is as safe as conventional open correction. METHODS: The study was based on a randomized controlled trial in which nine medical centers from the Netherlands participated. A total of 109 patients with symptoms of PPU and evidence of air under the diaphragm were scheduled to receive a PPU repair. After exclusion of 8 patients during the operation, outcomes were analyzed for laparotomy (n = 49) and for the laparoscopic procedure (n = 52). RESULTS: Operating time in the laparoscopy group was significantly longer than in the open group (75 min versus 50 min). Differences regarding postoperative dosage of opiates and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain scoring system were in favor of the laparoscopic procedure. The VAS score on postoperative days 1, 3, and 7 was significant lower (P < 0.05) in the laparoscopic group. Complications were equally distributed. Hospital stay was also comparable: 6.5 days in the laparoscopic group versus 8.0 days in the open group (P = 0.235). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair of PPU is a safe procedure compared with open repair. The results considering postoperative pain favor the laparoscopic procedure. Springer-Verlag 2009-05-09 2009-07 /pmc/articles/PMC2691927/ /pubmed/19430829 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0054-y Text en © The Author(s) 2009
spellingShingle Article
Bertleff, Mariëtta J. O. E.
Halm, Jens A.
Bemelman, Willem A.
van der Ham, Arie C.
van der Harst, Erwin
Oei, Hok I.
Smulders, J. F.
Steyerberg, E. W.
Lange, Johan F.
Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of the Perforated Peptic Ulcer: The LAMA Trial
title Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of the Perforated Peptic Ulcer: The LAMA Trial
title_full Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of the Perforated Peptic Ulcer: The LAMA Trial
title_fullStr Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of the Perforated Peptic Ulcer: The LAMA Trial
title_full_unstemmed Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of the Perforated Peptic Ulcer: The LAMA Trial
title_short Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of the Perforated Peptic Ulcer: The LAMA Trial
title_sort randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: the lama trial
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2691927/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19430829
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0054-y
work_keys_str_mv AT bertleffmariettajoe randomizedclinicaltrialoflaparoscopicversusopenrepairoftheperforatedpepticulcerthelamatrial
AT halmjensa randomizedclinicaltrialoflaparoscopicversusopenrepairoftheperforatedpepticulcerthelamatrial
AT bemelmanwillema randomizedclinicaltrialoflaparoscopicversusopenrepairoftheperforatedpepticulcerthelamatrial
AT vanderhamariec randomizedclinicaltrialoflaparoscopicversusopenrepairoftheperforatedpepticulcerthelamatrial
AT vanderharsterwin randomizedclinicaltrialoflaparoscopicversusopenrepairoftheperforatedpepticulcerthelamatrial
AT oeihoki randomizedclinicaltrialoflaparoscopicversusopenrepairoftheperforatedpepticulcerthelamatrial
AT smuldersjf randomizedclinicaltrialoflaparoscopicversusopenrepairoftheperforatedpepticulcerthelamatrial
AT steyerbergew randomizedclinicaltrialoflaparoscopicversusopenrepairoftheperforatedpepticulcerthelamatrial
AT langejohanf randomizedclinicaltrialoflaparoscopicversusopenrepairoftheperforatedpepticulcerthelamatrial