Varcus Flore, Paun Ion, Duta Ciprian, Dobrescu Amadeus, Frandes Mirela, Tarta Cristi
Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania.
Craiova University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Craiova, Romania -
Minerva Chir. 2018 Apr;73(2):188-193. doi: 10.23736/S0026-4733.18.07603-4. Epub 2018 Jan 23.
Perforations of the peptic ulcers (PPUs) are the most common cause of emergency surgery among the complications of the gastroduodenal ulcers and the leading cause for morbidity and mortality due to secondary peritonitis and sepsis. PPU is a condition in which laparoscopic perforation repair (LPR) is an optimal solution. It makes possible the identification of the perforation's site and allows closure of the perforation and the subsequent peritoneal lavage, as in an open repair (OR) but without the large upper mid-abdominal incision. The main objective of this review was to evaluate the latest reported results in the laparoscopic treatment of the PPU.
Using PubMed and EMBASE databases between 1989 and June 2017 we did an extensive electronic literature search. The search terms used were "laparoscopic perforated peptic ulcer." Inclusion criteria were all the published studies that reported the outcomes of LPR and LPR compared with OR for PPU were included in the analysis. The exclusion criteria included animal or laboratory studies, pediatric surgery trials, papers reporting less than 30 cases of LPR, clinical trials without major outcomes, and other language then English.
There were 32 studies included, counting 3488 patients with LPR and 5208 with OR. OR patients had more frequent shock at admission and had a higher ASA risk class. LPR patients had shorter hospital stays with two days, morbidity (11.12% vs. 14.71% OR) and mortality (1.95% vs. 8.35% OR) were lower. Leakage was three times higher in LPR arm (2.18% vs. 0.79% OR). Conversion occurred in 4.18% overall. The three primary reasons for conversions were the size of the perforation, the inability to locate the perforation and technical difficulties.
LPR showed similar or better results than OR in terms of morbidity, mortality, operation time and hospital stay, caution is needed as the OR patients tend to be more shocked or with higher ASA at presentation. The higher leakage rate after LPR should be addressed in the training of the laparoscopic surgeons or other safety measures should be developed and employed.
消化性溃疡穿孔(PPU)是胃十二指肠溃疡并发症中急诊手术最常见的原因,也是继发性腹膜炎和脓毒症导致发病和死亡的主要原因。PPU是一种腹腔镜穿孔修补术(LPR)为最佳解决方案的病症。它能够确定穿孔部位,并像开放修补术(OR)一样实现穿孔闭合及随后的腹腔灌洗,但无需在上腹部正中做较大切口。本综述的主要目的是评估腹腔镜治疗PPU的最新报道结果。
我们利用1989年至2017年6月期间的PubMed和EMBASE数据库进行了广泛的电子文献检索。使用的检索词为“腹腔镜消化性溃疡穿孔”。纳入标准为所有报道LPR结果以及将LPR与PPU的OR进行比较的已发表研究均纳入分析。排除标准包括动物或实验室研究、小儿外科试验、报告LPR病例少于30例的论文、无主要结局的临床试验以及非英文的其他语言文献。
共纳入32项研究,其中LPR患者3488例,OR患者5208例。OR组患者入院时休克更常见,ASA风险分级更高。LPR组患者住院时间短两天,发病率(11.12%对14.71%,OR)和死亡率(1.95%对8.35%,OR)更低。LPR组的渗漏率高出三倍(2.18%对0.79%,OR)。总体中转率为4.18%。中转的三个主要原因是穿孔大小、无法定位穿孔和技术困难。
LPR在发病率、死亡率、手术时间和住院时间方面显示出与OR相似或更好的结果,鉴于OR组患者就诊时往往休克更严重或ASA分级更高,需要谨慎对待。LPR术后较高的渗漏率应在腹腔镜外科医生培训中加以解决,或者应制定并采用其他安全措施。