Raimundas Lunevicius1, Matas Morkevicius. 1. Clinic of General and Plastic Surgery, Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Vilnius University, Siltnamiu str. 29, 04130, Vilnius, Lithuania. rlunevichus@yahoo.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Clear patient selection criteria and indications for laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers are necessary. The aims of our study are to report the early outcome results after operation and to define the predictive values of risk factors influencing conversion rate and genesis of suture leakage. PATIENTS/ METHODS: Sixty nonrandomly selected patients operated on laparoscopically in a tertiary care academic center between October 1996 and May 2004 for perforated duodenal ulcers were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome measures included the duration of symptoms, shock, underlying medical illness, ulcer size, age, Boey score, and the collective predictive value of these variables for conversion and suture leakage rates. RESULTS: Laparoscopic repair was completed in 46 patients (76.7%). Fourteen patients (23.3%) underwent conversion to open repair. Eight patients (13.3%) had postoperative complications. Suture leakage was confirmed in four patients (6.7%). Hospital stay was 7.8+/-5.3 days. There was no mortality. Patients with an ulcer perforation size of >8 mm had a significantly increased risk for conversion to open repair (p<0.05): positive predictive value (PPV) 75%, sensitivity 27%, specificity 98%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 85%. The significance of ulcer perforation size was confirmed by a stepwise logistic regression test (p=0.0201). All patients who developed suture leakage had acute symptoms for >9 h preoperatively (p<0.001): PPV 31%, specificity 84%, sensitivity 100%, and NPV 100%. Conversions happened with surgeons whose previous experience involved 1.8+/-2.3 cases compared to 3.9+/-2.9 cases in successful laparoscopic repair (p=0.039, t test). CONCLUSIONS: Ulcer perforation size of >8 mm is a significant risk factor influencing the conversion rate. An increase in the suture leakage rate is predicted by delayed presentation of >9 h.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Clear patient selection criteria and indications for laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers are necessary. The aims of our study are to report the early outcome results after operation and to define the predictive values of risk factors influencing conversion rate and genesis of suture leakage. PATIENTS/ METHODS: Sixty nonrandomly selected patients operated on laparoscopically in a tertiary care academic center between October 1996 and May 2004 for perforated duodenal ulcers were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome measures included the duration of symptoms, shock, underlying medical illness, ulcer size, age, Boey score, and the collective predictive value of these variables for conversion and suture leakage rates. RESULTS: Laparoscopic repair was completed in 46 patients (76.7%). Fourteen patients (23.3%) underwent conversion to open repair. Eight patients (13.3%) had postoperative complications. Suture leakage was confirmed in four patients (6.7%). Hospital stay was 7.8+/-5.3 days. There was no mortality. Patients with an ulcer perforation size of >8 mm had a significantly increased risk for conversion to open repair (p<0.05): positive predictive value (PPV) 75%, sensitivity 27%, specificity 98%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 85%. The significance of ulcer perforation size was confirmed by a stepwise logistic regression test (p=0.0201). All patients who developed suture leakage had acute symptoms for >9 h preoperatively (p<0.001): PPV 31%, specificity 84%, sensitivity 100%, and NPV 100%. Conversions happened with surgeons whose previous experience involved 1.8+/-2.3 cases compared to 3.9+/-2.9 cases in successful laparoscopic repair (p=0.039, t test). CONCLUSIONS:Ulcer perforation size of >8 mm is a significant risk factor influencing the conversion rate. An increase in the suture leakage rate is predicted by delayed presentation of >9 h.
Authors: Wing T Siu; Heng T Leong; Bonita K B Law; Chun H Chau; Anthony C N Li; Kai H Fung; Yuk P Tai; Michael K W Li Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Eduardo A Bonin; Erica Moran; Christopher J Gostout; Andrea L McConico; Martin Zielinski; Juliane Bingener Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Stavros A Antoniou; George A Antoniou; Oliver O Koch; Rudolph Pointner; Frank A Granderath Journal: JSLS Date: 2013 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Antonio Tarasconi; Federico Coccolini; Walter L Biffl; Matteo Tomasoni; Luca Ansaloni; Edoardo Picetti; Sarah Molfino; Vishal Shelat; Stefania Cimbanassi; Dieter G Weber; Fikri M Abu-Zidan; Fabio C Campanile; Salomone Di Saverio; Gian Luca Baiocchi; Claudio Casella; Michael D Kelly; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; Ari Leppaniemi; Ernest E Moore; Andrew Peitzman; Gustavo Pereira Fraga; Marco Ceresoli; Ronald V Maier; Imtaz Wani; Vittoria Pattonieri; Gennaro Perrone; George Velmahos; Michael Sugrue; Massimo Sartelli; Yoram Kluger; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Mariëtta J O E Bertleff; Jens A Halm; Willem A Bemelman; Arie C van der Ham; Erwin van der Harst; Hok I Oei; J F Smulders; E W Steyerberg; Johan F Lange Journal: World J Surg Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.352