Skip to main content
Log in

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: single-center results

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU), the most common indication for emergency gastric surgery, is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Outcomes might be improved by performing this procedure laparoscopically, but no consensus exists on whether the benefits of laparoscopic repair (LR) of PPU outweigh the disadvantages.

Methods

From January 2002 to December 2012, 111 patients underwent surgery for perforated ulcer. A “laparoscopy-first” policy was attempted and then applied for 56 patients. The exclusion criteria for LR ruled out patients who had shock at admission, severe cardiorespiratory comorbidities, or a history of supramesocolic surgery. The aim of this study was a retrospective analysis of the 56 patients treated laparoscopically.

Results

The patient distribution was 30 men and 26 women, who had a mean age of 59 years (range 19–95 years). The mean ulcer size was 10 mm, and the Mannheim peritonitis index (MPI) was 21. LR was performed for 39 (69.6 %) of the 56 patients and included peritoneal lavage, suturing of the perforation, and omental patching. Conversion to laparotomy was necessary in 17 cases (30.4 %). The “conversion group” showed significant differences in ulcer size (larger ulcers: 1.9 vs 0.7 mm; p < 0.01), ulcer-site topography (higher incidence of posterior ulcers: 5 vs 0; p < 0.01), and MPI score (higher score: 24 vs 20; p < 0.05). The LR group had a mean operating time of 86 min (range 50–125 min), an in-hospital morbidity rate of 7.6 %, a mortality rate of 2.5 %, and a mean hospital stay of 6.7 days (range 5–12 days). None of these patients required reintervention.

Conclusions

The results showed that LR for PPU is feasible with acceptable mortality and morbidity rates. Skill in laparoscopic abdominal emergencies is required. Perforations 1.5 cm or larger, posterior duodenal ulcers, and an MPI higher than 25 should be considered the main risk factors for conversion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Svanes C (2000) Trends in perforated peptic ulcer: incidence, etiology, treatment, and prognosis. World J Surg 24:277–283

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mouret P, Francois Y, Vignal J, Barth X, Lombard-Platet R (1990) Laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 77:1006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bertleff MJOE, Lange JF (2010) Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer: first choice? A review of literature. Surg Endosc 24:1231–1239

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ding J, Liao GQ, Zhang ZM, Pan Y, Li DM, Wang RH, Xu KS, Yang XF, Yuan P, Wang SY (2011) Meta-analysis of laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi 14:785–789

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Robertson GS, Wemyss-Holden SA, Maddern GJ (2000) Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers: the role of laparoscopy in generalized peritonitis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82:6–10

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bergamaschi R, Marvik R, Johnsen G, Thoresen JE, Ystgaard B, Myrvold HE (1999) Open vs laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Surg Endosc 13:679–682

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Michelet I, Agresta F (2000) Perforated peptic ulcer: laparoscopic approach. Eur J Surg 166:405–408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Naesgaard JM, Edwin B, Reiertsen O, Trondsen E, Faerden AE, Rosseland AR (1999) Laparoscopic and open operation in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. Eur J Surg 165:209–214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Feussner H, Siewert JR (2001) Reduction of surgical access trauma: reliable advantages. Chirurg Mar 72:236–244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gál I, Róth E, Lantos J, Varga G, Jaberansari MT (1997) Inflammatory mediators and surgical trauma regarding laparoscopic access: free radical mediated reactions. Acta Chir Hung 36:97–99

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Arnaud JP, Tuech JJ, Bergamaschi R, Pessaux P, Regenet N (2002) Laparoscopic suture closure of perforated duodenal peptic ulcer. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:145–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Druart ML, Van Hee R, Etienne J, Cadière GB, Gigot JF, Legrand M, Limbosch JM, Navez B, Tugilimana M, Van Vyve E, Vereecken L, Wibin E, Yvergneaux JP (1997) Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Surg Endosc 11:1017–1020

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Siu WT, Leong HT, Law BKB, Chau CH, Li CAN, Fung KH, Tai YP, Li MKW (2002) Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 235:313–319

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee FY, Leung KL, Lai PB, Lau JW (2001) Selection of patients for laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 88:133–136

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Siu WT, Chau CH, Law BK, Tang CN, Ha PY, Li MK (2004) Routine use of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 91:481–484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M (2005) Systematic review comparing laparoscopic and open repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 92:1195–1207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wong DC, Siu WT, Wong SK, Tai YP, Li MK (2009) Routine laparoscopic single-stitch omental patch repair for perforated peptic ulcer: experience from 338 cases. Surg Endosc 23:457–458

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Song K-Y, Kim T-H, Kim S-N, Park C-H (2008) Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers: the simple one-stitch suture with omental patch technique. Surg Endosc 22:1632–1635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Seelig MH, Seelig SK, Behr C, Schonleben K (2003) Comparison between open and laparoscopic technique in the management of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers. J Clin Gastroenterol 37:226–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mehendale VG, Shenoy SN, Joshi AM, Chaudhari NC (2002) Laparoscopic versus open surgical closure of perforated duodenal ulcers: a comparative study. Indian J Gastroenterol 21:222–224

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lau H (2004) Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 18:1013–1021

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Michelet I, Agresta F (2000) Perforated peptic ulcer: laparoscopic approach. Eur J Surg 166:405–408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cellan-Jones CJ (1929) A rapid method of treatment in perforated duodenal ulcer. Br Med J 1:1076–1077

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schein M (2005) Perforated peptic ulcer: Schein’s common sense emergency abdominal surgery. Springer, Berlin, pp 143–150

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gurtner GC, Robertson CS, Chung SC, Ling TK, Ip SM, Li AK (1995) Effect of carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum on bacteraemia and endotoxemia in an animal model of peritonitis. Br J Surg 82:844–848

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Robertson GS, Wemyss-Holden SA, Maddern GJ (2000) Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers: the role of laparoscopy in generalised peritonitis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82:6–10

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ates M, Coban S, Sevil S, Terzi A (2008) The efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in patients with peritonitis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 18:453–456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Katkhoda N, Mavor E, Mason RJ (1999) Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers: outcome and efficacy in 30 consecutive patients. Arch Surg 134:845–850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lagoo S, McMahon RL, Kakihara M, Pappas TN, Eubanks S (2002) The sixth decision regarding perforated duodenal ulcer. JSLS 6:359–368

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

Simone Guadagni, Ismail Cengeli, Christian Galatioto, Niccolò Furbetta, Vincenzo Lippolis Piero, Giuseppe Zocco, and Massimo Seccia have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Guadagni.

Additional information

Presented at the 21st EAES Congress, June 19−22, 2013, Vienna, Austria.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guadagni, S., Cengeli, I., Galatioto, C. et al. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: single-center results. Surg Endosc 28, 2302–2308 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3481-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3481-2

Keywords

Navigation