Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Cir Esp. 2013 Jun-Jul;91(6):372-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2012.10.016. Epub 2013 Jan 16.

[A comparison of laparoscopic versus open repair for the surgical treatment of perforated peptic ulcers].

[Article in Spanish]

Author information

1
Sección de Cirugía Gastrointestinal, Hospital Universitario del Mar, Institut Hospital del Mar d'Investigacions Mèdiques IMIM, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, España.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

To analyse the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcers (PPU).

METHODS:

All patients undergoing PPU repair between January 2002 and March 2012 were included in the study. Demographic characteristics, operation time, complications, and length of hospital stay were evaluated.

RESULTS:

Two hundred and twelve patients (median age, 49 years) were included, 60 in the laparoscopic group and 52 in the open group. Patients operated laparoscopically were significantly younger and had a higher consumption of tobacco, alcohol and cannabis. Median acute symptoms time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6h) compared to the open group (12h; P=.025) Symptoms time was shorter in the laparoscopic group. Median operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (104.5min vs. 76min, P=.025). The percentage of conversion to open repair was 25%. There was no difference in morbidity between 2 groups, but there were 3 deaths in the open group. Median hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients treated laparoscopically when compared with the open group (6 days vs. 8 days; P=.041).

CONCLUSION:

Laparoscopic and open repair are equally safe in the management of PPU. A shorter hospital stay can be achieved in the laparoscopic group.

PMID:
23332653
DOI:
10.1016/j.ciresp.2012.10.016
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Loading ...
Support Center