Daniel L Davenport1, Walker R Ueland2, Shyanie Kumar3, Margaret Plymale4,5, Andrew C Bernard4,5, J Scott Roth4,5. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose Street, MN274, Lexington, KY, 40536-0298, USA. daniel.davenport@uky.edu. 2. College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. 3. General Surgery Residency Program, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose Street, MN274, Lexington, KY, 40536-0298, USA. 5. Division of General Surgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing emergent open and laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers in a large multicenter cohort. METHODS: Prospectively obtained data in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program public use files from 2010 to 2016 were reviewed. Perioperative risks and outcomes were compared in unmatched and propensity-matched groups using parametric/non-parametric statistical tests as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 4210 procedures were identified 345 (8.2%) laparoscopic and 3865 (91.8%) open. Laparoscopic repairs increased from 4.5% of 2010 cases to 11.4% of 2016 cases (p < .001). Open repair patients had more acute presentation including higher rates of ASA class, hypoalbuminemia, preoperative septic shock, dyspnea, and mechanical ventilation (all p < .01). Laparoscopic operations were longer than open procedures (p < .001). Mortality (8.5 vs. 3.5%), median length of stay (7 vs. 5 days), transfusion rates (13.7 vs. 7.0%), renal failure (3.7 vs. 1.2%), and respiratory failure (15.5 vs. 5.2%) were all worse in the unmatched open group (all p < .01). Propensity matching resulted in 342 laparoscopic and 626 open cases of similar ulcer type, demographics, ASA class, preoperative SIRS/sepsis, hypoalbuminemia, and wound class. Mortality was similar between matched groups (5.0 vs. 3.5%, p = .331). Median length of stay was longer in the open group (6 vs. 5 days, p < .001), which also had higher rates of prolonged ventilation/reintubation (9.6 vs. 5.3%, p = .019) and abdominal wall wound occurrences (6.2 vs. 2.3%, p = .042). Return to the operating room and 30-day readmissions did not differ between the matched groups. CONCLUSIONS: Emergent laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is increasingly being performed, is safe relative to open repair (in patients without preoperative septic shock), and confers a modest benefit in terms of length of stay, respiratory, and abdominal wall wound complications.
BACKGROUND: We compared 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing emergent open and laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers in a large multicenter cohort. METHODS: Prospectively obtained data in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program public use files from 2010 to 2016 were reviewed. Perioperative risks and outcomes were compared in unmatched and propensity-matched groups using parametric/non-parametric statistical tests as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 4210 procedures were identified 345 (8.2%) laparoscopic and 3865 (91.8%) open. Laparoscopic repairs increased from 4.5% of 2010 cases to 11.4% of 2016 cases (p < .001). Open repair patients had more acute presentation including higher rates of ASA class, hypoalbuminemia, preoperative septic shock, dyspnea, and mechanical ventilation (all p < .01). Laparoscopic operations were longer than open procedures (p < .001). Mortality (8.5 vs. 3.5%), median length of stay (7 vs. 5 days), transfusion rates (13.7 vs. 7.0%), renal failure (3.7 vs. 1.2%), and respiratory failure (15.5 vs. 5.2%) were all worse in the unmatched open group (all p < .01). Propensity matching resulted in 342 laparoscopic and 626 open cases of similar ulcer type, demographics, ASA class, preoperative SIRS/sepsis, hypoalbuminemia, and wound class. Mortality was similar between matched groups (5.0 vs. 3.5%, p = .331). Median length of stay was longer in the open group (6 vs. 5 days, p < .001), which also had higher rates of prolonged ventilation/reintubation (9.6 vs. 5.3%, p = .019) and abdominal wall wound occurrences (6.2 vs. 2.3%, p = .042). Return to the operating room and 30-day readmissions did not differ between the matched groups. CONCLUSIONS: Emergent laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is increasingly being performed, is safe relative to open repair (in patients without preoperative septic shock), and confers a modest benefit in terms of length of stay, respiratory, and abdominal wall wound complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Laparoscopic repair; Open repair; Outcomes; Perforated peptic ulcer
Authors: Robert S Sandler; James E Everhart; Mark Donowitz; Elizabeth Adams; Kelly Cronin; Clifford Goodman; Eric Gemmen; Shefali Shah; Aida Avdic; Robert Rubin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh; Philip Wai Yan Chiu; Amy Siu Yan Kok; Simon Kin Hung Wong; Enders Kwok Wai Ng Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.352
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