Cargando…

Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between laparoscopic and open omental patch repair (LOPR versus OR) in patients with similar presentation of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The secondary aim was to evaluate the outcomes according to the severity of peritonitis. Methods...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Daniel Jin Keat, Ye, MaDong, Sun, Keith Haozhe, Shelat, Vishalkumar G., Koura, Aaryan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5046012/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27722200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8605039
_version_ 1782457214360879104
author Lee, Daniel Jin Keat
Ye, MaDong
Sun, Keith Haozhe
Shelat, Vishalkumar G.
Koura, Aaryan
author_facet Lee, Daniel Jin Keat
Ye, MaDong
Sun, Keith Haozhe
Shelat, Vishalkumar G.
Koura, Aaryan
author_sort Lee, Daniel Jin Keat
collection PubMed
description Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between laparoscopic and open omental patch repair (LOPR versus OR) in patients with similar presentation of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The secondary aim was to evaluate the outcomes according to the severity of peritonitis. Methods. All patients who underwent omental patch repair at two university-affiliated institutes between January 2010 and December 2014 were reviewed. Matched cohort between LOPR and OR groups was achieved by only including patients that had ulcer perforation <2 cm in size and symptoms occurring <48 hours. Outcome measures were defined in accordance with length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and mortality. Results. 148 patients met the predefined inclusion criteria with LOPR performed in 40 patients. Outcome measures consistently support laparoscopic approach but only length of hospital stay (LOS) achieved statistical significance (LOPR 4 days versus OR 5 days, p < 0.01). In a subgroup analysis of patients with MPI score >21, LOPR is also shown to benefit, particularly resulting in significant shorter LOS (4 days versus 11 days, p < 0.01). Conclusion. LOPR offers improved short-term outcomes in patients who present within 48 hours and with perforation size <2 cm. LOPR also proved to be more beneficial in high MPI cases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5046012
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50460122016-10-09 Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study Lee, Daniel Jin Keat Ye, MaDong Sun, Keith Haozhe Shelat, Vishalkumar G. Koura, Aaryan Surg Res Pract Clinical Study Introduction. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between laparoscopic and open omental patch repair (LOPR versus OR) in patients with similar presentation of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The secondary aim was to evaluate the outcomes according to the severity of peritonitis. Methods. All patients who underwent omental patch repair at two university-affiliated institutes between January 2010 and December 2014 were reviewed. Matched cohort between LOPR and OR groups was achieved by only including patients that had ulcer perforation <2 cm in size and symptoms occurring <48 hours. Outcome measures were defined in accordance with length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and mortality. Results. 148 patients met the predefined inclusion criteria with LOPR performed in 40 patients. Outcome measures consistently support laparoscopic approach but only length of hospital stay (LOS) achieved statistical significance (LOPR 4 days versus OR 5 days, p < 0.01). In a subgroup analysis of patients with MPI score >21, LOPR is also shown to benefit, particularly resulting in significant shorter LOS (4 days versus 11 days, p < 0.01). Conclusion. LOPR offers improved short-term outcomes in patients who present within 48 hours and with perforation size <2 cm. LOPR also proved to be more beneficial in high MPI cases. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016 2016-09-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5046012/ /pubmed/27722200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8605039 Text en Copyright © 2016 Daniel Jin Keat Lee et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Study
Lee, Daniel Jin Keat
Ye, MaDong
Sun, Keith Haozhe
Shelat, Vishalkumar G.
Koura, Aaryan
Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study
title Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study
title_full Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study
title_fullStr Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study
title_short Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study
title_sort laparoscopic versus open omental patch repair for early presentation of perforated peptic ulcer: matched retrospective cohort study
topic Clinical Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5046012/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27722200
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8605039
work_keys_str_mv AT leedanieljinkeat laparoscopicversusopenomentalpatchrepairforearlypresentationofperforatedpepticulcermatchedretrospectivecohortstudy
AT yemadong laparoscopicversusopenomentalpatchrepairforearlypresentationofperforatedpepticulcermatchedretrospectivecohortstudy
AT sunkeithhaozhe laparoscopicversusopenomentalpatchrepairforearlypresentationofperforatedpepticulcermatchedretrospectivecohortstudy
AT shelatvishalkumarg laparoscopicversusopenomentalpatchrepairforearlypresentationofperforatedpepticulcermatchedretrospectivecohortstudy
AT kouraaaryan laparoscopicversusopenomentalpatchrepairforearlypresentationofperforatedpepticulcermatchedretrospectivecohortstudy