BackgroundPerforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remain a surgical emergency accounting for 37% of all peptic ulcer-related deaths. Surgery remains the standard of care. The benefits of laparoscopic approach have been well-established even in the elderly. However, because of inconsistent results with specific regard to some technical aspects of such technique surgeons questioned the adoption of laparoscopic approach. This leads to choose the type of approach based on personal experience. The aim of our study was to critically appraise the use of the laparoscopic approach in PPU treatment comparing it with open procedure.MethodsA retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients underwent surgical procedure for PPU was performed. Patients undergoing PPU repair were divided into: Laparoscopic approach (LapA) and Open approach (OpenA) groups and clinical-pathological features of patients in the both groups were compared.ResultsA total of 453 patients underwent PPU simple repair. Among these, a LapA was adopted in 49% (222/453 patients). After propensity score matching, 172 patients were included in each group (the LapA and the OpenA). Analysis demonstrated increased operative times in the OpenA [OpenA: 96.4 +/- 37.2 vs LapA 88.47 +/- 33 min, p = 0.035], with shorter overall length of stay in the LapA group [OpenA 13 +/- 12 vs LapA 10.3 +/- 11.4 days p = 0.038]. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality [OpenA 26 (15.1%) vs LapA 18 (10.5%), p = 0.258]. Focusing on morbidity, the overall rate of 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the LapA group [OpenA 67 patients (39.0%) vs LapA 37 patients (21.5%) p = 0.002]. When stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification, the severity of postoperative complications was statistically different only for C-D 1-2.ConclusionsBased on the present study, we can support that laparoscopic suturing of perforated peptic ulcers, apart from being a safe technique, could provide significant advantages in terms of postoperative complications and hospital stay.

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach / Costa, Gianluca; Fransvea, Pietro; Lepre, Luca; Liotta, Gianluca; Mazzoni, Gianluca; Biloslavo, Alan; Bianchi, Valentina; Occhionorelli, Savino; Costa, Alessandro; Sganga, Gabriele; FACS on behalf of the IGo-GIPS study group (Agresta, F; Alemanno, G; Altieri, G; Antropoli, M; Argenio, G; Atzeni, J; Avenia, N; Azzinnaro, A; Badessi, G; Baldazzi, G; Bergamini, C; Biloslavo, A; Bombardini, C; Borzellino, G; Bozzo, S; Brachini, G; Brisinda, G; Buonanno, Gm; Canini, T; Capolupo, Gt; Carannante, F; Cardella, S; Caricato, M; Carrara, G; Cascone, Ca; Cassini, D; Castriconi, M; Catarci, M; Ceccarelli, G; Celi, D; Ceresoli, M; Chiarugi, M; Cimino, F; Cirocchi, R; Cobuccio, L; Coccolini, C; Cocorullo, G; Colangelo, E; Colozzi, S; Cortese, F; Costa, A; Costa, G; Cozza, V; Crucitti, A; Cucinotta, E; D’Alessio, R; Dalla Caneva, P; De Manzini, N; de Manzoni Garberini, A; De Nisco, C; De Prizio, M; De Sol, A; De Stefano, M; Dibella, A; Di Cosimi, C; Di Grezia, M; Falcioni, T; Falco, N; Farina, C; Fico, V; Finotti, E; Fontana, T; Francioni, G; Fransvea, P; Frezza, B; Garbarino, Gm; Garulli, G; Genna, M; Giannessi, S; Gioffrè, A; Giordano, A; Gozzo, D; Grimaldi, S; Iacopini, V; Iarussi, T; Kurihara, H; La Greca, A; Laracca, Gg; Laterza, E; La Vaccara, V; Leonardi, A; Lepre, L; Liotta, G; Luridiana, G; Magalini, S; Malagnino, A; Mar, G; Mariani, D; Marini, P; Marzaioli, R; Macianà, G; Mazzoni, G; Mecarelli, V; Mercantini, P; Mingoli, A; Mirco, P; Montuori, M; Nigro, C; Occhionorelli, S; Paderno, N; Palini, Gm; Paradies, D; Paroli, M; Perrone, F; Pepe, G; Petruzzelli, L; Pezzolla, A; Piazza, D; Piazza, V; Pignata, G; Pinotti, E; Pisanu, A; Podda, M; Poillucci, G; Porfidia, R; Puccioni, C; Rocca, A; Rondelli, F; Rossi, G; Sacchi, M; Sapienza, P; Sganga, G; Spagnoli, A; Spinoglio, G; Sulis, R; Tartaglia, D; Tranà, C; Travaglino, A; Tomaiuolo, P; Tomassini, F; Tropeano, G; Valeri, A; Zago, M; Zanoni, E. ).. - In: SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY. - ISSN 0930-2794. - (2023), pp. 1-13. [10.1007/s00464-023-09998-5]

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach

Fransvea, Pietro
;
Mazzoni, Gianluca;Costa, Alessandro;Alemanno G;Baldazzi G;Brachini G;Cardella S;Caricato M;Carrara G;Ceresoli M;Coccolini C;Colangelo E;Colozzi S;Cozza V;De Manzini N;Francioni G;Fransvea P;Garbarino GM
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Giannessi S;Laracca GG
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Mercantini P
Membro del Collaboration Group
;
Montuori M;Podda M;Sacchi M;Sapienza P;Travaglino A;Zago M;
2023

Abstract

BackgroundPerforated peptic ulcer (PPU) remain a surgical emergency accounting for 37% of all peptic ulcer-related deaths. Surgery remains the standard of care. The benefits of laparoscopic approach have been well-established even in the elderly. However, because of inconsistent results with specific regard to some technical aspects of such technique surgeons questioned the adoption of laparoscopic approach. This leads to choose the type of approach based on personal experience. The aim of our study was to critically appraise the use of the laparoscopic approach in PPU treatment comparing it with open procedure.MethodsA retrospective study with propensity score matching analysis of patients underwent surgical procedure for PPU was performed. Patients undergoing PPU repair were divided into: Laparoscopic approach (LapA) and Open approach (OpenA) groups and clinical-pathological features of patients in the both groups were compared.ResultsA total of 453 patients underwent PPU simple repair. Among these, a LapA was adopted in 49% (222/453 patients). After propensity score matching, 172 patients were included in each group (the LapA and the OpenA). Analysis demonstrated increased operative times in the OpenA [OpenA: 96.4 +/- 37.2 vs LapA 88.47 +/- 33 min, p = 0.035], with shorter overall length of stay in the LapA group [OpenA 13 +/- 12 vs LapA 10.3 +/- 11.4 days p = 0.038]. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality [OpenA 26 (15.1%) vs LapA 18 (10.5%), p = 0.258]. Focusing on morbidity, the overall rate of 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly lower in the LapA group [OpenA 67 patients (39.0%) vs LapA 37 patients (21.5%) p = 0.002]. When stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification, the severity of postoperative complications was statistically different only for C-D 1-2.ConclusionsBased on the present study, we can support that laparoscopic suturing of perforated peptic ulcers, apart from being a safe technique, could provide significant advantages in terms of postoperative complications and hospital stay.
2023
Laparoscopic approach; Perforated peptic ulcer; Surgical treatment
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach / Costa, Gianluca; Fransvea, Pietro; Lepre, Luca; Liotta, Gianluca; Mazzoni, Gianluca; Biloslavo, Alan; Bianchi, Valentina; Occhionorelli, Savino; Costa, Alessandro; Sganga, Gabriele; FACS on behalf of the IGo-GIPS study group (Agresta, F; Alemanno, G; Altieri, G; Antropoli, M; Argenio, G; Atzeni, J; Avenia, N; Azzinnaro, A; Badessi, G; Baldazzi, G; Bergamini, C; Biloslavo, A; Bombardini, C; Borzellino, G; Bozzo, S; Brachini, G; Brisinda, G; Buonanno, Gm; Canini, T; Capolupo, Gt; Carannante, F; Cardella, S; Caricato, M; Carrara, G; Cascone, Ca; Cassini, D; Castriconi, M; Catarci, M; Ceccarelli, G; Celi, D; Ceresoli, M; Chiarugi, M; Cimino, F; Cirocchi, R; Cobuccio, L; Coccolini, C; Cocorullo, G; Colangelo, E; Colozzi, S; Cortese, F; Costa, A; Costa, G; Cozza, V; Crucitti, A; Cucinotta, E; D’Alessio, R; Dalla Caneva, P; De Manzini, N; de Manzoni Garberini, A; De Nisco, C; De Prizio, M; De Sol, A; De Stefano, M; Dibella, A; Di Cosimi, C; Di Grezia, M; Falcioni, T; Falco, N; Farina, C; Fico, V; Finotti, E; Fontana, T; Francioni, G; Fransvea, P; Frezza, B; Garbarino, Gm; Garulli, G; Genna, M; Giannessi, S; Gioffrè, A; Giordano, A; Gozzo, D; Grimaldi, S; Iacopini, V; Iarussi, T; Kurihara, H; La Greca, A; Laracca, Gg; Laterza, E; La Vaccara, V; Leonardi, A; Lepre, L; Liotta, G; Luridiana, G; Magalini, S; Malagnino, A; Mar, G; Mariani, D; Marini, P; Marzaioli, R; Macianà, G; Mazzoni, G; Mecarelli, V; Mercantini, P; Mingoli, A; Mirco, P; Montuori, M; Nigro, C; Occhionorelli, S; Paderno, N; Palini, Gm; Paradies, D; Paroli, M; Perrone, F; Pepe, G; Petruzzelli, L; Pezzolla, A; Piazza, D; Piazza, V; Pignata, G; Pinotti, E; Pisanu, A; Podda, M; Poillucci, G; Porfidia, R; Puccioni, C; Rocca, A; Rondelli, F; Rossi, G; Sacchi, M; Sapienza, P; Sganga, G; Spagnoli, A; Spinoglio, G; Sulis, R; Tartaglia, D; Tranà, C; Travaglino, A; Tomaiuolo, P; Tomassini, F; Tropeano, G; Valeri, A; Zago, M; Zanoni, E. ).. - In: SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY. - ISSN 0930-2794. - (2023), pp. 1-13. [10.1007/s00464-023-09998-5]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Costa_Perforated-peptic-ulcer_2023.pdf

accesso aperto

Note: articolo
Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.09 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.09 MB Adobe PDF

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1681667
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact