Literature DB >> 12960721

Comparison between open and laparoscopic technique in the management of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers.

Matthias H Seelig1, Stefanie K Seelig, Christian Behr, Klaus Schönleben.   

Abstract

GOALS: The aim of this study was to evaluate our results of laparoscopic treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers during a 5-year period and to compare the outcome of open and laparoscopic surgery.
BACKGROUND: The value of laparoscopic treatment of gastroduodenal ulcers is still controversially debated because its superiority to conventional open surgery has not been established. STUDY: From January 1996 to December 2001, 24 patients were treated laparoscopically and 31 patients underwent conventional open suture repair. The results of these patients were retrospectively reviewed.
RESULTS: There were 55 patients with a mean age of 55 years (range 18-92 years) who were eligible for the study. Patients with laparoscopic repair had a lower mean ASA score (2 vs. 2.9; P = 0.02) and a less severe Mannheimer peritonitis index (16.5 vs. 21; P = 0.00001) compared with patients with open repair. Three patients who were begun by the laparoscopic approach had to be converted to open surgery (12.5%). Three patients who underwent open repair died postoperatively (5.5%). There was no difference between treatment groups regarding operative time, morbidity, or postoperative hospital stay. The laparoscopic group required significantly fewer analgesics postoperatively (2.2 vs. 4 dosages; P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers is an effective treatment option and should be considered in suited patients for the initial approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12960721     DOI: 10.1097/00004836-200309000-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0192-0790            Impact factor:   3.062


  17 in total

Review 1.  [Surgical therapy of peritonitis].

Authors:  O Strobel; J Werner; M W Büchler
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 0.955

2.  The simple suture laparoscopic repair of peptic ulcer perforation without an omental patch.

Authors:  M Ates; A Dirican
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Risk factors influencing the early outcome results after laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer and their predictive value.

Authors:  Raimundas Lunevicius; Matas Morkevicius
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2005-07-22       Impact factor: 3.445

4.  Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: single-center results.

Authors:  Simone Guadagni; Ismail Cengeli; Christian Galatioto; Niccolò Furbetta; Vincenzo Lippolis Piero; Giuseppe Zocco; Massimo Seccia
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-03-08       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Comparison of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated duodenal ulcers.

Authors:  R Lunevicius; M Morkevicius
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 6.  Management strategies, early results, benefits, and risk factors of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer.

Authors:  Raimundas Lunevicius; Matas Morkevicius
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Management of perforated peptic ulcer in a district general hospital.

Authors:  A C Critchley; A W Phillips; S M Bawa; P V Gallagher
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.891

8.  Laparoscopic primary repair with omentopexy for duodenal ulcer perforation: a single institution experience of 21 cases.

Authors:  Chung Hyeun Ma; Min Gyu Kim
Journal:  J Gastric Cancer       Date:  2012-12-31       Impact factor: 3.720

9.  Ten-Year Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Laparoscopic Repair versus Open Closure of Perforated.

Authors:  Vishwanath Golash
Journal:  Oman Med J       Date:  2008-10

Review 10.  Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer: first choice? A review of literature.

Authors:  Mariëtta J O E Bertleff; Johan F Lange
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.