Study of Laparoscopic Repair Versus Laparotomy In Management of Peptic Perforation Peritonitis
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the widespread use of antisecretory agents and eradication therapy, the incidence of perforated peptic ulcer has changed little. Since the initial reports of successful laparoscopic management of perforated duodenal ulcers and perforation peritonitis several larger comparative series have been published confirming the technical feasibility and advantages of laparoscopic approach.
Objectives: The aim is to compare the outcome and efficacy of laparoscopic repair with conventional laparotomy in the management of peptic perforation.
Methods: The study was conducted on patients with diagnosis of peptic perforation in Hi-tech medical college and hospital, Bhubaneswar. It is a retrospective and prospective study from September 2012 to April 2014.
Result: 50 patients of peroration peritonitis were operated randomly by laparoscopic repair and laparotomy. It was found that the laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer was associated with less intra operative blood loss, no intra operative complications, minimum post operative complications, minimum postoperative pain which was significant as compared to laparotomy repair.
Conclusion: Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer could be considered as a treatment option in routine clinical practice in the management of peptic perforation peritonitis.
Downloads
References
2. Blomgren LG. Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Long-term Results after Simple Closure in the Elderly. World J Surg. 1997 May;21(4):412-4. [PubMed]
3. Mouret P1, François Y, Vignal J, Barth X, Lombard-Platet R.. Laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 1990 Sep;77(9):1006. [PubMed]
4. F Charles Brunicardi, Dana K Andersen, Timothy R Billiar, David L Dunn, John G Hunter, Raphael E Pollock. Schwartz's Principles of Surgery. 8th ed. McGraw-Hill Medical; 2004. P. 953-54, 957. [PubMed]
5. Nathanson LK, Easter DW, Cuschieri A. Laparoscopic repair/peritoneal toilet of perforated duodenal ulcer. Surg Endosc. 1990;4(4):232-3. [PubMed]
6. Schein M, Gecelter G, Freinkel W, Gerding H, Becker PJ. Peritoneal lavage in abdominal sepsis. A controlled clinical study. Arch Surg. 1990 Sep; 125(9): 1132-5. [PubMed]
7. Lau WY1, Leung KL, Kwong KH, Davey IC, Robertson C, Dawson JJ, Chung SC, Li AK. A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique. Ann Surg. 1996 Aug;224(2):131-8. [PubMed]
8. Sø JB, Kum CK, Fernandes ML, Goh P. Comparison between laparoscopic and conventional omental patch repair for perforated duodenal ulcer. Surg Endosc.1996 Nov; 10(11): 1060-3. [PubMed]
9. Sauerland S, Agresta F, Bergamaschi R, Borzellino G, Budzynski A, Champault G, Fingerhut A, Isla A, Johansson M, Lundorff P, Navez B, Saad S, Neugebauer EA. Laparoscopy for abdominal emergencies: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc. 2006 Jan;20(1):14-29. [PubMed]
10. Ding J, Liao GQ, Zhang ZM, Pan Y, Li DM, Wang RH, Xu KS, Yang XF, Yuan P, Wang SY. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2011 Oct;14(10): 785-9.
11. Bhogal RH, Athwal R, Durkin D, Deakin M, Cheruvu CN. Comparison between open and laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease. World J Surg. 2008 Nov;32(11): 2371-4.
OAI - Open Archives Initiative
