A comparative study of laparoscopic versus laparotomy repair of perforated peptic ulcer: A prospective study | ||||
| The Egyptian Journal of Surgery | ||||
| Volume 42, Issue 2, August 2023 PDF (2.68 MB) | ||||
| DOI: 10.4103/ejs.ejs_65_23 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Abd-El-Aal A. Saleem; Mohamed W. Arafa; Abdelrahman M. Galal | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Background Laparoscopic surgery is still gaining popularity in conditions associated with peritonitis, such as a perforated peptic ulcer. Aim of the work This study aimed to compare laparoscopic and laparotomy repair of perforated peptic ulcers regarding intraoperative parameters, postoperative pain, time of the start of oral feeding, postoperative complication, hospital stay, resuming normal activity, and outcomes. Patients and methods This is a prospective study of 50 patients (males and females), of any age with perforated peptic ulcer. Those patients will be divided by the random serial number method into two groups: the and the In a period from 15 April 2022 to 15 February 2023 data related to patients were recorded and subjected to analysis. Results All patients were divided into two groups: with 25 patients (23 of them underwent successful laparoscopic repair and two patients were converted to open) and the with 25 patients underwent laparotomy repair (of which 23 patients were living, and two patients died on the third and tenth postoperative days). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between both groups in terms of age, gender, special habits, preoperative risk factors, comorbidities, laboratory, and radiological findings; also both groups showed insignificant differences regarding the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (=0.83), total Boey's score (=0.77), shock on admission (= 1.00), and the duration of symptoms > 24 hours (= 0.77). Operative time was significantly increased in the laparoscopic versus open group (=0.0001). While, first-day pain score (VAS), opioid requirements, time of starting oral feeding, length of hospital stay, and return to normal activity were highly significantly decreased in laparoscopic repair compared with open repair (= <0.0001 for each). Total postoperative complications showed insignificant difference between the studied groups (=0.16), but they were more prevalent between the open group (14 patients, 56%) versus the laparoscopic group (9 patients, 36%). Good cosmetic results of wounds were more prevalent in the laparoscopic group [20 patients (80.00%)] than the open group [13 patients (56.52%)], but insignificant, =0.17. Conclusion Laparoscopic repair had an upper hand over open repair regarding less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative pain, requiring less postoperative analgesia, early starting of oral feeding, less postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, early return to normal activity, and good cosmetic results of wounds. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Laparoscopic repair; laparotomy repair; outcomes; Perforated peptic ulcer | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 8 PDF Download: 23 |
||||
