Reappraising the Surgical Approach on the Perforated Gastroduodenal Ulcer: Should Gastric Resection Be Abandoned?

Kazuaki Kuwabara, Shinya Matsuda, Kiyohide Fushimi, Koichi B. Ishikawa, Hiromasa Horiguchi, Kenji Fujimori

Abstract


Background: Advancements in medical care for peptic ulcer disease (PUD) have reduced the need for invasive surgical procedures such as gastric resection (GR). Community-based PUD studies from a large sampling of PUD patients designed to analyze hospital resource use and outcomes after different surgical procedures have been rare. We aimed to exhaustively reappraise the risk factors and patient demographics that affect PUD patient recoveries after GR compared to those after simple closure (SC).

Methods: We used a Japanese administrative database for 6 consecutive months each year between 2006 and 2010. The database included a total of 68,432 PUD patients; we analyzed 6,334 perforation cases and 3,148 cases of patients who underwent GR or SC. Study variables were demographics, comorbidities, characteristics of PUD, and operative day. Study outcomes that were analyzed included mortality, postoperative complications, ventilation administration, postoperative blood transfusions, length of stay, total charges, operating room (OR) time, and the postoperative fasting period (defined as the day of surgery to the day oral food intake was resumed.) To reduce selection bias in study procedures and to control the variation in hospital practice, a propensity score (PS) matching cohort analysis and a mixed linear regression model were used to assess the effects of GR on the outcomes.

Results: In 699 hospitals, 322 GRs and 2,826 SCs were observed. Younger age, duodenal ulcers, preexisting anemia and an operative day no more than 24hours were significant associated with the choice of SCs. No significant differences were observed in study outcomes after either GR or SC; more postoperative blood transfusions and longer OR times but shorter postoperative fasting periods were observed after GR. Longer OR times, ventilation and postoperative blood transfusion were significantly associated with mortality. Not GR but longer OR times use of ventilation and complications were the most significant indicators of increased resource use.

Conclusions: There were no major significant differences in GR when compared to SC with regards to patient recoveries. Surgeons should obtain the skills and establish strategies to optimize either type of surgical procedure including minimizing OR time and establishing the best perioperative critical care.




doi:10.4021/jocmr608w


Keywords


Peptic ulcer perforation; Simple closure; Gastric resection; Outcome; Resource use

Full Text: HTML PDF

 

 

 

 

Browse  Journals  

     

Journal of clinical Medicine Research

Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics

World Journal of Oncology

Gastroenterology Research

Journal of Hematology

Journal of Medical Cases

Journal of Current Surgery

Clinical Infection and Immunity

Cardiology Research

World Journal of Nephrology and Urology

Cellular and Molecular Medicine Research

Journal of Neurology Research

International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics

 

 

 

 

 

Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, monthly, ISSN 1918-3003 (print), 1918-3011 (online), published by Elmer Press Inc.            
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
This is an open-access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted
non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Creative Commons Attribution license (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International CC-BY-NC 4.0)


This journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals,
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

website: www.jocmr.org   editorial contact: editor@jocmr.org
Address: 9225 Leslie Street, Suite 201, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3H6, Canada

© Elmer Press Inc. All Rights Reserved.