KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 10

Open versus laparoscopic technique in peptic ulcus perforation, how effective are score systems? Single-center experience and literature review

Emrah Akin
Fatih Altintoprak
Yesim Akdeniz
Baris Mantoglu
Kayhan Ozdemir
Necattin Firat
Recayi Çapoğlu
Sayfa
1437–1441
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The operation time was found to be longer in the laparoscopic group (110,2 SD20,6/75–150 min) than open group (54,2 SD15,7/30–120 min) (p

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:BACKGROUND: One of the most common peptic ulcer complications is perforation (PUP) which also remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:METHODS: Pre-operative Boey, CCI, and MPI scores were calculated by retrospectively examining the files of patients who were operated under emergency conditions with the diagnosis of PUP.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The operation time was found to be longer in the laparoscopic group (110,2 SD20,6/75–150 min) than open group (54,2 SD15,7/30–120 min) (p
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

BACKGROUND: One of the most common peptic ulcer complications is perforation (PUP) which also remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality. In this study, it was aimed to compare the results of patients who had similar pre-operative scoring index results (Boey, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), and type of surgery. METHODS: Pre-operative Boey, CCI, and MPI scores were calculated by retrospectively examining the files of patients who were operated under emergency conditions with the diagnosis of PUP. The patients divided into two groups those who underwent laparo- scopic surgery/Group-1 and open surgery/Group-2. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of demographic data, hospital admission time, and length of hospital stay. The operation time was found to be longer in the laparoscopic group (110,2 SD20,6/75–150 min) than open group (54,2 SD15,7/30–120 min) (p

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Akin, E., Altintoprak, F., Akdeniz, Y., Mantoglu, B., Ozdemir, K., Firat, N., Çapoğlu, R. (2022). Open versus laparoscopic technique in peptic ulcus perforation, how effective are score systems? Single-center experience and literature review. Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 10, 1437–1441. https://ajindex.com/articles/643991

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Thorsen K, Søreide JA, Søreide K. Scoring systems for outcome pre- diction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. Scand J Trauma Resusc merg Med 2013;21:25
  2. Coe PO, Lee MJ, Boyd-Carson H, Lockwood S, Saha A. Open versus laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease: A propensity- matched study of the national emergency laparotomy audit. Ann Surg 2022;275:928–32
  3. Malmi H, Kautiainen H, Virta LJ, Färkkilä MA. Increased short- and long-term mortality in 8146 hospitalised peptic ulcer patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2016;44:234–45
  4. Johnson CH, McLean RC, McCallum I, Perren D, Phillips AW. An eval- uation of the epidemiology, management and outcomes for perforated peptic ulcers across the North of England over 15 years: A retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg 2019;64:24–32
  5. Boey J, Choi SK, Poon A, Alagaratnam TT. Risk stratification in perfo- rated duodenal ulcers. A prospective validation of predictive factors. Ann Surg 1987;205:22–6
  6. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373–83
  7. Linder MM, Wacha H, Feldmann U, Wesch G, Streifensand RA, Gund- lach E. The mannheim peritonitis index. An instrument for the intraop- erative prognosis of peritonitis. Chirurg 1987;58:84–92
  8. Nathanson LK, Easter DW, Cuschieri A. Laparoscopic repair/peritoneal toilet of perforated duodenal ulcer. Surg Endosc 1990;4:232–3
  9. Mouret P, François Y, Vignal J, Barth X, Lombard-Platet R. Laparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 1990;77:1006
  10. Miserez M, Eypasch E, Spangenberger W, Lefering R, Troidl H. Laparo- scopic and conventional closure of perforated peptic ulcer. A comparison. Surg Endosc 1996;10:831–6
  11. Bergamaschi R, Mårvik R, Johnsen G, Thoresen JE, Ystgaard B, Myrvold HE. Open vs laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Surg Endosc 1999;13:679–82
  12. Mehendale VG, Shenoy SN, Joshi AM, Chaudhari NC. Laparoscopic versus open surgical closure of perforated duodenal ulcers: A comparative study. Indian J Gastroenterol 2002;21:222–4
  13. Siu WT, Leong HT, Law BK, Chau CH, Li AC, Fung KH, et al. Laparo- scopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2002;235:313–9
  14. Bertleff MJ, Halm JA, Bemelman WA, van der Ham AC, van der Harst E, Oei HI, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: The LA