A 1-Year Randomized Controlled Study to Compare Laparoscopic Repair vs. Open Repair for the Treatment of Hollow Viscus Perforation
- 36 Downloads
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.
KeywordsDuodenal Gastric Ileal Laparoscopy Perforation
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.
- 1.Arulselvan A (2016) Comprehensive study of hollow viscus perforation and its management. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 1:1–4Google Scholar
- 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.Gopalakrishna K (2016) Clinical study of perforations of small bowel. J Endocrinol Metab Disord Diabetes South Afr 5:4154–4160Google Scholar
- 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.Rao M, Samee AA, Khan S (2015) Hollow viscous perforation: a retrospectum study. Intern J Sci Res 6:3250–3254Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.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.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.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
- 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