Advertisement

Indian Journal of Surgery

, Volume 81, Issue 4, pp 320–325 | Cite as

A 1-Year Randomized Controlled Study to Compare Laparoscopic Repair vs. Open Repair for the Treatment of Hollow Viscus Perforation

  • Ramesh S. Koujalagi
  • Rahul KenawadekarEmail author
  • Abhijit S. Gogate
  • Tadwalkar Nikhil Sunil
Original Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

In patients with hollow viscus perforation of the abdomen, open surgery is considered as the standard approach; however, the use of laparoscopy for diagnostic purposes and treatment appears to be a safe alternative with many advantages. The present study was conducted to compare the results of laparoscopic repair versus open repair in patients with hollow viscus perforation. A total of 60 patients with hollow viscus perforation undergoing either laparoscopic (group A = 30) or open repair (group B = 30) were included in the study. Demographic data, history, and clinical characteristics of all patients were noted. The primary outcomes such as time required for surgical procedure and resumption of normal activities were noted. The mean ages of groups A and B were 48.30 ± 18.23 and 49.30 ± 15.27 years, respectively, with male preponderance. In clinical characteristics, duration of vomiting (p = 0.001) and total leukocyte count (p = 0.032) were associated significantly with incidence of hollow viscus perforation. The mean Mannheim peritonitis index score was comparable in groups A and B (22.07 ± 4.65 vs. 21.47 ± 5.39; p = 0.646). The mean duration of surgery was significantly low in group A (105.13 ± 9.57 min) compared to group B (141.67 ± 20.19 min; p < 0.001). The mean duration of resumption of daily activities was significantly low in group A (4.53 ± 0.73 days) compared to group B (11.87 ± 2.93 days; p < 0.001). Laparoscopic repair is a beneficial procedure for the management of hollow viscus perforation in terms of lower surgical time and early resumption of daily activities.

Keywords

Duodenal Gastric Ileal Laparoscopy Perforation 

Notes

Author Contributions

The authors have contributed equally in the development of this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Arulselvan A (2016) Comprehensive study of hollow viscus perforation and its management. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 1:1–4Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tim HT, Swarupjit G, Ranjit KM, Jatasankar M, Dharmendra D (2015) Clinicopathological study on hollow Viscus perforation. J Pharm Biomed Sci 5:100–103Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gopalakrishna K (2016) Clinical study of perforations of small bowel. J Endocrinol Metab Disord Diabetes South Afr 5:4154–4160Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dorairajan L, Gupta S, Deo S, Chumber S, Sharma L (1994) Peritonitis in India--a decade’s experience. Trop Gastroenterol 16:33–38Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rao M, Samee AA, Khan S (2015) Hollow viscous perforation: a retrospectum study. Intern J Sci Res 6:3250–3254Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yeo CJ, McFadden DW, Pemberton JH, Peters JH, Matthews JB (2012) Shackelford’s surgery of the alimentary tract. Elsevier Health Sciences, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaiser AM, Katkhouda N (2002) Laparoscopic management of the perforated viscus. Semin Laparosc Surg 9:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robertson G, Wemyss-Holden S, Maddern G (2000) Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers. The role of laparoscopy in generalised peritonitis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82:6–10Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siow SL, Mahendran HA, Wong CM, Hardin M, Luk TL (2018) Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer: improving outcomes utilizing a standardized technique. Asian J Surg 41(2):136–142Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kologlu M, Elker D, Altun H, Sayek I (2000) Validation of MPI and PIA II in two different groups of patients with secondary peritonitis. Hepatogastroenterology 48:147–151Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bosscha K, Reijnders K, Hulstaert P, Algra A, Van der Werken C (1997) Prognostic scoring systems to predict outcome in peritonitis and intra-abdominal sepsis. Br J Surg 84:1532–1534Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laforgia R, Balducci G, Carbotta G, Prestera A, Sederino MG, Casamassima G, Minafra M, Sallustio P, Palasciano N (2017) Laparoscopic and open surgical treatment in gastroduodenal perforations: our experience. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 27:113–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA (2013) Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer. JSLS 17:15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sreeramulu P, Venkatachalapathy T, Supreet C, Prathima S (2013) A comparative study of laparoscopic vs open surgery for the management of duodenal ulcer perforation. World J Lap Surg 6:11–14Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M (2005) Systematic review comparing laparoscopic and open repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 92:1195–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bertleff MJ, Halm JA, Bemelman WA, van der Ham AC, van der Harst E, Oei HI, Smulders J, Steyerberg E, Lange JF (2009) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: the LAMA Trial. World J Surg 33:1368–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M (2005) Comparison of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated duodenal ulcers. Surg Endosc 19:1565–1571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirshtein B, Bayme M, Mayer T, Lantsberg L, Avinoach E, Mizrahi S (2005) Laparoscopic treatment of gastroduodenal perforations: comparison with conventional surgery. Surg Endosc 19:1487–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zedan AS, Lolah MA, Badr ML, Ammar MS (2015) Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated duodenal peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial. Menoufia Med J 28:62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kumar P, Kumar S, Verma RK, Agarwal A, Kumari R (2016) Laparoscopic versus open repair of duodenal perforation: a comparative study in tertiary care hospital in Uttarakhand, India. Int Surg J 3:1975–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Domínguez-Vega G, Pera M, Ramón JM, Puig S, Membrilla E, Sancho J, Grande L (2013) A comparison of laparoscopic versus open repair for the surgical treatment of perforated peptic ulcers. Cir Esp 91:372–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Surgeons of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramesh S. Koujalagi
    • 1
  • Rahul Kenawadekar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Abhijit S. Gogate
    • 1
  • Tadwalkar Nikhil Sunil
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of General Surgery, J N Medical CollegeK.L.E. University’s Dr. Prabhakar Kore Hospital and Medical Research CentreBelagaviIndia

Personalised recommendations