Retrospective comparative study of different surgical methods for gastric ulcer perforation: Efficacy and postoperative complications.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Yu-Fan Pang, Liang Shu, Cheng-Wei Xia
{"title":"Retrospective comparative study of different surgical methods for gastric ulcer perforation: Efficacy and postoperative complications.","authors":"Yu-Fan Pang, Liang Shu, Cheng-Wei Xia","doi":"10.4240/wjgs.v17.i2.101896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Gastric ulcer perforation is a critical condition that can lead to significant morbidity and mortality if not promptly addressed. It is often the result of chronic peptic ulcer disease, which is characterized by a breach in the gastric wall due to ulceration. Surgical intervention is essential for managing this life-threatening complication. However, the optimal surgical technique remains debatable among clinicians. Various methods have been employed, including simple closure, omental patch repair, and partial gastrectomy, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Understanding the comparative efficacy and postoperative outcomes of these techniques is crucial for improving patient care and surgical decision-making. This study addresses the need for a comprehensive analysis in this area.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the efficacy and postoperative complications of different surgical methods for the treatment of gastric ulcer perforation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 120 patients who underwent surgery for gastric ulcer perforation between September 2020 and June 2023. The patients were divided into three groups based on the surgical method: Simple closure, omental patch repair, and partial gastrectomy. The primary outcomes were the operative success rate and incidence of postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included the length of hospital stay, recovery time, and long-term quality of life.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The operative success rates for simple closure, omental patch repair, and partial gastrectomy were 92.5%, 95%, and 97.5%, respectively. Postoperative complications occurred in 20%, 15%, and 17.5% of patients in each group, respectively. The partial gastrectomy group showed a significantly longer operative time (<i>P</i> < 0.001) but the lowest rate of ulcer recurrence (2.5%, <i>P</i> < 0.05). The omental patch repair group demonstrated the shortest hospital stay (mean 7.2 days, <i>P</i> < 0.05) and fastest recovery time.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While all three surgical methods showed high success rates, omental patch repair demonstrated the best overall outcomes, with a balance of high efficacy, low complication rates, and shorter recovery time. However, the choice of the surgical method should be tailored to individual patient factors and the surgeon's expertise.</p>","PeriodicalId":23759,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","volume":"17 2","pages":"101896"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11886023/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i2.101896","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Gastric ulcer perforation is a critical condition that can lead to significant morbidity and mortality if not promptly addressed. It is often the result of chronic peptic ulcer disease, which is characterized by a breach in the gastric wall due to ulceration. Surgical intervention is essential for managing this life-threatening complication. However, the optimal surgical technique remains debatable among clinicians. Various methods have been employed, including simple closure, omental patch repair, and partial gastrectomy, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Understanding the comparative efficacy and postoperative outcomes of these techniques is crucial for improving patient care and surgical decision-making. This study addresses the need for a comprehensive analysis in this area.

Aim: To compare the efficacy and postoperative complications of different surgical methods for the treatment of gastric ulcer perforation.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 120 patients who underwent surgery for gastric ulcer perforation between September 2020 and June 2023. The patients were divided into three groups based on the surgical method: Simple closure, omental patch repair, and partial gastrectomy. The primary outcomes were the operative success rate and incidence of postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included the length of hospital stay, recovery time, and long-term quality of life.

Results: The operative success rates for simple closure, omental patch repair, and partial gastrectomy were 92.5%, 95%, and 97.5%, respectively. Postoperative complications occurred in 20%, 15%, and 17.5% of patients in each group, respectively. The partial gastrectomy group showed a significantly longer operative time (P < 0.001) but the lowest rate of ulcer recurrence (2.5%, P < 0.05). The omental patch repair group demonstrated the shortest hospital stay (mean 7.2 days, P < 0.05) and fastest recovery time.

Conclusion: While all three surgical methods showed high success rates, omental patch repair demonstrated the best overall outcomes, with a balance of high efficacy, low complication rates, and shorter recovery time. However, the choice of the surgical method should be tailored to individual patient factors and the surgeon's expertise.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
5.00%
发文量
111
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信