Literature DB >> 25692444

Strict Selection Criteria During Surgical Training Ensures Good Outcomes in Laparoscopic Omental Patch Repair (LOPR) for Perforated Peptic Ulcer (PPU).

Vishal G Shelat1, Saleem Ahmed, Clement L K Chia, Yee Lee Cheah.   

Abstract

Application of minimal access surgery in acute care surgery is limited due to various reasons. Laparoscopic omental patch repair (LOPR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) surgery is safe and feasible but not widely implemented. We report our early experience of LOPR with emphasis on strict selection criteria. This is a descriptive study of all patients operated on for PPU at academic university-affiliated institutes from December 2010 to February 2012. All the patients who were operated on for LOPR were included as the study population and their records were studied. Perioperative outcomes, Boey score, Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), and physiologic and operative severity scores for enumeration of mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) scores were calculated. All the data were tabulated in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and analyzed using Stata Version 8.x. (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Fourteen patients had LOPR out of a total of 45 patients operated for the PPU. Mean age was 46 years (range 22-87 years). Twelve patients (86%) had a Boey score of 0 and all patients had MPI < 21 (mean MPI = 14). The predicted POSSUM morbidity and mortality were 36% and 7%, respectively. Mean ulcer size was 5 mm (range 2-10 mm), mean operating time was 100 minutes (range 70-123 minutes) and mean length of hospital stay was 4 days (range 3-6 days). There was no morbidity or mortality pertaining to LOPR. LOPR should be offered by acute care surgical teams when local expertise is available. This can optimize patient outcomes when strict selection criteria are applied.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Laparoscopy; Peptic ulcer; Surgical training

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25692444      PMCID: PMC4337456          DOI: 10.9738/INTSURG-D-13-00241.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Surg        ISSN: 0020-8868


  18 in total

1.  Selection of patients for laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer.

Authors:  F Y Lee; K L Leung; P B Lai; J W Lau
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit.

Authors:  G P Copeland; D Jones; M Walters
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 6.939

3.  Laparoscopic repair/peritoneal toilet of perforated duodenal ulcer.

Authors:  L K Nathanson; D W Easter; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Perforated duodenal ulcers.

Authors:  J Boey; J Wong
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  H Lau
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-05-12       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Risk stratification in perforated duodenal ulcers. A prospective validation of predictive factors.

Authors:  J Boey; S K Choi; A Poon; T T Alagaratnam
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Surgery for perforated peptic ulcer in the elderly. Evaluation of factors influencing prognosis.

Authors:  Alessandro Uccheddu; Giulio Floris; Maria Luisa Altana; Adolfo Pisanu; Alessandro Cois; Salvatore L Farci
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec

8.  Routine use of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer.

Authors:  W T Siu; C H Chau; B K B Law; C N Tang; P Y Ha; M K W Li
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  The use of laparoscopy in abdominal emergencies.

Authors:  B Kirshtein; A Roy-Shapira; L Lantsberg; S Mandel; E Avinoach; S Mizrahi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-05-06       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: the LAMA Trial.

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

View more
  5 in total

1.  Marginal ulcer perforation: a single center experience.

Authors:  S K Natarajan; D Chua; K Anbalakan; V G Shelat
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 3.693

Review 2.  Perforated peptic ulcer - an update.

Authors:  Kin Tong Chung; Vishalkumar G Shelat
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2017-01-27

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

Authors:  Daniel Jin Keat Lee; MaDong Ye; Keith Haozhe Sun; Vishalkumar G Shelat; Aaryan Koura
Journal:  Surg Res Pract       Date:  2016-09-19

4.  Assessment of PULP score in predicting 30-day perforated duodenal ulcer morbidity, and comparison of its performance with Boey and ASA, a retrospective study.

Authors:  Tamer Saafan; Walid El Ansari; Omer Al-Yahri; Ammar Eleter; Hisham Eljohary; Rashad Alfkey; Mustafa Hajjar; Ali Toffaha; Abdelrahman El Osta
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2019-05-10

5.  Omental patch repair of large perforated peptic ulcers ≥25 mm is associated with higher leak rate.

Authors:  Yi Liang Wang; Xue Wei Chan; Kai Siang Chan; Vishal G Shelat
Journal:  J Clin Transl Res       Date:  2021-11-29
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.