Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs Open Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcers: An ACS-NSQIP Study.

BACKGROUND

Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) is a surgical emergency needing swift operative resolution. While laparoscopic and open approaches are viable options, it remains unclear whether laparoscopic repair has significantly improved outcomes. We use a national surgical database to compare perioperative and 30-d postoperative (30POP) outcomes.

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

The 2016-2018 ACS-NSQIP database was used to create the patient cohort, using ICD-10 and CPT codes. An unmatched analysis identified factors that likely contributed to the laparoscopic versus open treatment allocation. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to identify outcomes that were not explained by underlying differences in the patient cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 3475 patients were included: 3135 in open group (OG), 340 (~10%) in laparoscopic group (LG). After PSM to control for comorbidities and illness severity that differed between groups on univariate analysis, 288 patients remained in each group. Analysis of the matched cohorts revealed no statistically significant difference in mortality (5.9% OG versus 3.8% LG, P = 0.245). The LG had significantly longer operative times (92 versus 79 min, P = 0.003), shorter hospital stays (8.2 versus 9.4 d, P = 0.044) and higher probability of being discharged home (81% versus 73%, P = 0.017). 30POP outcomes were largely equivalent, except that OG had higher risk for bleeding (14.6% versus 8%, P = 0.012) and pneumonia (8.7% versus 4.5%, P = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

While laparoscopic repairs take longer, they lead to shorter hospital stays and higher likelihood of discharge home. Further study to identify patients that are candidates for this technique is warranted.