To evaluate comparative outcomes of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer with omental patch versus without omental patch.
Methods
A systematic search of multiple electronic data sources was conducted, and all studies comparing laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) with and without omental patch were included. Operative time, postoperative complications, re-operation and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters for the meta-analysis. Revman 5.3 was used for data analysis.
Results
Four observational studies reporting a total number of 438 patients who underwent laparoscopic repair of PPU with (n = 268) or without (n = 170) omental patch were included. Operative time was significantly shorter in no-omental patch group (NOP) when compared to omental patch group (P = .02). There was no significant difference in the risk of postoperative ileus (Odd ratio (OR) .76, P = .61), leakage (OR 1.17, P = .80), wound infection (OR 1.89, P = .34), intra-abdominal abscess (OR 1.17, P = .87), re-operation (OR .00, P = .94) and mortality (OR .55, P = .48). Moreover, length of hospital stay was comparable between the two groups (P = .81).
Conclusion
Laparoscopic repair of PPU with or without omental patch have comparable postoperative complications and mortality rate. However, considering the shorter operative time, no-omental patch approach is an attractive and more favourable choice. Well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate this comparison.
AzhariHUnderwoodFKingJ, et al.A36 The global incidence of peptic ulcer disease and its complications at the turn of the 21st century: A systematic review. Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology. 2018;11(suppl 2):61-62.
3.
SvanesC. Trends in perforated peptic ulcer: Incidence, etiology, treatment, and prognosis. World J Surg. 2000;24(3):277-283.
4.
TarasconiACoccoliniFBifflWL, et al.Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines. World J Emerg Surg. 2020;15(1):3-24.
5.
JamiesonGG. Current status of indications for surgery in peptic ulcer disease. World J Surg. 2000;24(3):256-258.
6.
KhoursheedMFuadMSafarHDashtiHBehbehaniA. Laparoscopic closure of perforated duodenal ulcer. Surg Endosc. 2000;14(1):56-58.
7.
HermanssonMStaël von HolsteinCZillingT. Peptic ulcer perforation before and after the introduction of H2-receptor blockers and proton pump inhibitors. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1997;32(6):523-529.
8.
QuahGSEslickGDCoxMR. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease has better outcomes than open repair. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23(3):618-625.
9.
HigginsJPTGreenS, (editors) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://www.handbook.cochrane.org.
10.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJAltmanDG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336-341.
HozoSPDjulbegovicBHozoI. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:13.
13.
LauJIoannidisJPSchmidCH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;1127(9):820-826.
14.
LoHCWuSCHuangHCYehCCHuangJCHsiehCH. Laparoscopic simple closure alone is adequate for low risk patients with perforated peptic ulcer. World J Surg. 2011;35(8):1873-1878.
15.
Abd EllatifMESalamaAFElezabyAF, et al.Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: Patch versus simple closure. Int J Surg. 2013;11(9):948-951.
16.
WangYCHsiehCHLoHCSuLT. Sutureless onlay omental patch for the laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers. World J Surg. 2014;38(8):1917-1921.
17.
PanCWLiouLRMongFYTsaoMJLiaoGS. Simple laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer without omental patch. Asian J Surg. 2020;43(1):311-314.
18.
LaurenceJMTranPDRichardsonAJPleassHCLamVW. Laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy in cirrhosis: A systematic review of outcomes and meta-analysis of randomized trials. HPB. 2012;14(3):153-161.
19.
ZamanSMohamedahmedAYYSrinivasanA, et al.Single – Port laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port approach for acute appendicitis: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials. Surgeon. 2021;19:365-379. doi:10.1016/j.surge.2021.01.018
20.
OhtaniHTamamoriYAzumaT, et al.A meta-analysis of the short – And long-term results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopy – Assisted and conventional open surgery for rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15(8):1375-1385.
21.
McCroryBLaGrangeCAHallbeckM. Quality and safety of minimally invasive surgery: Past, present, and future. Biomed Eng Comput Biol. 2014;6:1-11.
22.
PaninSIBeburishviliAGPrudkovMI, et al.Open and laparoscopic surgery via minimally invasive approach in the treatment of perforated ulcer: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Khirurgiia. 2021;(2):94–100.
23.
CirocchiRSoreideKDi SaverioS, et al.Meta – analysis of perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018;85(2):417-425.
24.
MoussaGIAbd El WahabHGEl KhadrawyOHAbdulrazeckMMM. Omental plug technique in the treatment of a large perforated peptic ulcer (experimental and applied study). Egyptian Journal of Surgery. 2001;20(3).
25.
SeeligMHSeeligSKBehrCSchönlebenK. Comparison between open and laparoscopic technique in the management of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;37(3):226-229.
26.
AtesMSevilSBakirciogluEColakC. Laparoscopic repair of peptic ulcer perforation without omental patch versus conventional open repair. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2007;17(5):615-619.
KimJHChinHMBaeYJJunKH. Risk factors associated with conversion of laparoscopic simple closure in perforated duodenal ulcer. Int J Surg. 2015;15:40-44.
29.
LeeFYLeungKLLaiPBLauJW. Selection of patients for laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 2001;88(.1):133-136.
30.
LauWYLeungKLKwongKH, et al.A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique. Ann Surg. 1996;224(2):131-138.
SartelliMCatenaFDi SaverioS, et al.Current concept of abdominal sepsis: WSES position paper. World J Emerg Surg. 2014;9(1):22-16.
33.
RückerGSchwarzerGCarpenterJRSchumacherM. Undue reliance on I(2) in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:79.
34.
AlbaACAlexanderPEChangJMacIsaacJDeFrySGuyattGH. High statistical heterogeneity is more frequent in meta – Analysis of continuous than binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:129-135. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.09.005
35.
ChristensenSRiisANørgaardM, et al.Perforated peptic ulcer: use of pre – Admission oral glucocorticoids and 30 – day mortality. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;23(1):45-52. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02722.x
36.
ChristensenSRiisANørgaardMSørensenHTThomsenRW. Short – Term mortality after perforated or bleeding peptic ulcer among elderly patients: A population-based cohort study. BMC Geriatr. 2007;7(8):8. doi:10.1186/1471-2318-7-8
37.
MalmiHKautiainenHVirtaLJFärkkiläMA. Increased short – And long – Term mortality in 8146 hospitalised peptic ulcer patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016;44:234-245. doi:10.1111/apt.13682
38.
SungJJTsoiKKMaTKYungMYLauJYChiuPW. Causes of mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: A prospective cohort study of 10,428 cases. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:84-89.
39.
KumarKPaiDSrinivasanKJagdishSAnanthakrishnanN. Factors contributing to releak after surgical closure of perforated duodenal ulcer by Graham's Patch. Trop Gastroenterol. 2002;23(4):190-192.
40.
WilhelmsenMMøllerMHRosenstockS. Surgical complications after open and laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer in a nationwide cohort. Br J Surg. 2015;102(4):382-387. doi:10.1002/bjs.9753
41.
NicolauAEMerlanVVesteVMicuBBeuranM. Laparoscopic suture repair of perforated duodenal peptic ulcer for patients without risk factors. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2008;103(6):629-633.
42.
MehendaleVGShenoySNJoshiAMChaudhariNC. Laparoscopic versus open surgical closure of perforated duodenal ulcers: A comparative study. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2002;21(6):222-224.
43.
BekeleAZemenfesDKassaSDenekeATayeMWondimuS. Patterns and seasonal variations of perforated peptic ulcer disease: Experience from Ethiopia. Annals of African Surgery. 2017;14(2).
44.
DongoAEUhunmwaghoOKesiemeEBEluehikeSUAlufohaiEF. A Five – Year review of perforated peptic ulcer disease in Irrua, Nigeria. Int Sch Res Notices. 2017;2017:8375398.
45.
KatsinelosPBeltsisAParoutoglouG, et al.Endoclipping for gastric perforation after endoscopic polypectomy: An alternative treatment to avoid surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech. 2004;14(5):279-281.
46.
JoshiMAGadhireMParanjpeAA. Treatment of duodenal peptic ulcer perforation by endoscopic clips: A novel approach. J Dig Endosc. 2017;08(01):24-26.
47.
MalkovISZaynutdinovAMVeliyevNATagirovMRMerrellRC. Laparoscopic and endoscopic management of perforated duodenal ulcers. J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198(3):352-355.
48.
BergströmMVázquezJAParkP-O. Self – Expandable metal stents as a new treatment option for perforated duodenal ulcer. Endoscopy. 2013;45(03):222-225.
49.
LuneviciusRMorkeviciusM. Management strategies, early results, benefits, and risk factors of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. World J Surg. 2005;29(10):1299-1310.
50.
BertleffMJLangeJF. Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer: First choice? A review of literature. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(6):1231-1239.
HeywoodNParmarKLStottM, et al.The laparoscopy in emergency general surgery (LEGS) study: A questionnaire survey of UK practice. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2021;103(2):120-129.
