Budzyński Piotr, Pędziwiatr Michał, Grzesiak-Kuik Agata, Natkaniec Michał, Major Piotr, Matłok Maciej, Stanek Maciej, Wierdak Mateusz, Migaczewski Marcin, Pisarska Magdalena, Budzyński Andrzej
2 Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2015 Sep;10(3):430-6. doi: 10.5114/wiitm.2015.54057. Epub 2015 Sep 11.
Although the surgical treatment of patients with perforated duodenal ulcer is the method of choice, the introduction of effective pharmacotherapy has changed the surgical strategy. Nowadays less extensive procedures are chosen more frequently. The introduction of laparoscopic procedures had a significant impact on treatment results.
To present our experience in the treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer in two periods, by comparing open radical anti-ulcer procedures with laparoscopic ulcer repair.
The analysis covered patients operated on for perforated duodenal ulcer. Two groups of patients were compared. Group 1 included 245 patients operated on in the period 1980-1994 with a traditional method (pyloroplasty + vagotomy) before introduction of proton pump inhibitors (PPI). Group 2 included 106 patients treated in the period 2000-2014 with the laparoscopic technique supplemented with PPI therapy. Groups were compared in terms of patients' demographic structure, operative time, complication rate and mortality.
The mean operative time in group 1 was shorter than in group 2 (p < 0.0001). Complications were noted in 57 (23.3%) patients in group 1 and 14 (13.5%) patients in group 2 (p = 0.0312). Reoperation was necessary in 13 (5.3%) cases in group 1 and in 5 cases in group 2 (p = 0.8179). The mortality rate in group 1 was significantly higher than in group 2 (10.2% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.0192). In group 1, median length of hospital stay was 9 days and differed significantly from group 2 (6 days, p < 0.0001).
Within the last 30 years, significant changes in treatment of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) have occurred, mainly related to abandoning routine radical anti-ulcer procedures and replacing the open technique with minimally invasive surgery. Thus it was possible to improve treatment results by reducing complication and mortality rates, and shortening the length of hospital stay. Although the laparoscopic operation is longer, it improves outcomes. In the authors' opinion, in each patient with suspected peptic ulcer perforation, laparoscopy should be the method of choice.
尽管十二指肠溃疡穿孔患者的手术治疗是首选方法,但有效药物治疗方法的引入改变了手术策略。如今,人们更频繁地选择范围较小的手术。腹腔镜手术的引入对治疗效果产生了重大影响。
通过比较开放根治性抗溃疡手术与腹腔镜溃疡修补术,介绍我们在两个时期治疗十二指肠溃疡穿孔的经验。
分析对象为接受十二指肠溃疡穿孔手术的患者。比较两组患者。第一组包括1980年至1994年期间采用传统方法(幽门成形术+迷走神经切断术)进行手术的245例患者,当时质子泵抑制剂(PPI)尚未问世。第二组包括2000年至2014年期间采用腹腔镜技术并辅以PPI治疗的106例患者。比较两组患者的人口统计学结构、手术时间、并发症发生率和死亡率。
第一组的平均手术时间短于第二组(p<0.0001)。第一组有57例(23.3%)患者出现并发症,第二组有14例(13.5%)患者出现并发症(p=0.0312)。第一组有13例(5.3%)患者需要再次手术,第二组有5例(p=0.8179)。第一组的死亡率显著高于第二组(10.2%对2.8%,p=0.0192)。第一组的中位住院时间为9天,与第二组(6天)有显著差异(p<0.0001)。
在过去30年中,消化性溃疡穿孔(PPU)的治疗发生了重大变化,主要与放弃常规根治性抗溃疡手术以及用微创手术取代开放技术有关。因此,通过降低并发症和死亡率以及缩短住院时间,可以改善治疗效果。尽管腹腔镜手术时间较长,但它能改善治疗结果。作者认为,对于每一位疑似消化性溃疡穿孔的患者,腹腔镜检查都应作为首选方法。