Laparoscopic repair vs open repair for perforated peptic ulcers: Quality of life assessment
Suleyman Caglar Ertekin,Ozhan Cetindag,Muhammer Ergenç,Cumhur Yeğen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gassur.2024.07.023
Abstract:Purpose: Studies reporting patient-centered outcomes, including quality of life and satisfaction, in perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment are insufficient. This study was designed to assess the relative efficacy of laparoscopic repair (LR) as opposed to open surgical repair (OR) in the treatment of and its impact on quality of life. Methods: This investigation performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent treatment for PPU at a secondary care hospital between January 2017 and April 2020. Patients were categorized into 2 separate groups according to the type of surgical procedure received: LR and OR. Comparisons were made based on a variety of factors, such as demographic data, intra- and postoperative metrics, pain control, patient contentment, and quality of life indicators. Results: In the analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic or clinical characteristics between the LR (n = 35) and OR (n = 62) groups (P > .05). Conversely, the rates of incisional hernia and surgical site infection were significantly greater in the OR group (P < .05). Moreover, the LR exhibited benefits such as a shorter length of hospital stay (P < .05), more rapid resumption of a normal diet, and fewer surgical site infections-factors that contributed to a lower rate of overall postoperative complications. According to the quality-of-life questionnaire, the LR group exhibited significantly greater scores for physical function, role, pain, and general health by the 30th postoperative day (P = .003, P < .001, P = .006, and P = .001, respectively), and by the 1-year follow-up, the LR group showed substantial improvements in physical function, physical role, emotional role, pain and general health (P = .047, P = .004, P = .039, P = .001, and P = .021, respectively), indicating its effectiveness in patient recovery and quality of life enhancement after surgery. Conclusion: This study showed that LR could provide certain benefits in managing PPUs, such as reduced lengths of hospital stay and lower incidences of surgical site infections. Although LR reported promising directions in patient satisfaction and quality of life indicators, the limited duration of postoperative monitoring necessitates caution in broadly applying these results.