AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightBased on our results, we believe that laparoscopic approach is safe and superior to conventional surgery in the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Background/Aim: In recent years, laparoscopic repair has become common in the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation (PUP). In this study, we aimed to compare the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic and conventional graham omentopexy in the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation (PUP). Methods: The files of the patients who underwent laparoscopic and conventional graham omentopexy were reviewed in this retrospective cohort study. The two groups were compared in terms of age, gender, comorbidities, ASA scores, location and diameter of perforation, Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), operation times, VAS scores (4th and 24th hour), oral intake, flatus, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, morbidity, and mortality. Results: A total of 192 cases were included in the study, with 123 patients in the Laparoscopy Group and 69 patients in the Conventional Group. In the Laparoscopy Group, earlier oral intake, earlier bowel movements, less pain, shorter length of hospitalization, less pulmonary and total complications, and fewer secondary interventions were observed (P=0.001, P=0.001, P=0.001, P=0.037, P=0.009, P=0.039, respectively). In the Conventional Group, the mean operation time was significantly shorter (P=0.002). Other findings were similar. Conclusion: We observed many advantages of laparoscopic repair in the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation. Longer operation time was the only disadvantage. Based on our results, we believe that laparoscopic approach is safe and superior to conventional surgery in the treatment of peptic ulcer perforation.