Abstract
Introduction: Gastroduodenal perforation continues to be a relatively frequent surgical emergency, despite advances in the medical treatment of ulcer disease. Its laparoscopic approach has been increasing in the last years, although it has not been generalized. Objective: Was to analyze the postoperative results in patients with perforated ulcer treated with laparoscopic suture, and to compare them with a similar group with laparotomy suture. Our hypothesis was that laparoscopic suture is a safe option and with less morbidity than the laparotomy approach. Material and Methods: Comparative retrospective analysis of two patient cohorts: one treated with laparoscopic suture during 2014 and 2015, a period in which this approach was fully implanted in the emergency room in our hospital, and another comparable group treated by suture for open surgery during the period 2001-2003. Complications were analyzed according to Clavien-Dindo classification, conversion rate, mean stay and mortality. Results: The groups were comparable in age, sex, comorbidities and anesthetic risk. There was a trend towards superiority in favor of the laparoscopic approach in certain variables analyzed, with a conversion rate of 3%. The presence of early postoperative complications was greater in the laparotomy suture group: post-surgical septic shock (15.2% vs 6%) and wound infection (15.2% vs 3%), as well as medical complications, although not significantly. The group with laparoscopic suture had a longer surgical time, lower mean stay and lower mortality. Conclusion: The laparoscopic suture of the gastroduodenal ulcer in our center has had a very low conversion rate and a somewhat lower morbidity to the laparotomy suture, with a lower rate of reinterventions and a mean stay, despite a longer surgical time.
