{"title":"腹腔镜治疗穿孔性腹膜炎的可行性和结果:一项倾向评分匹配的前瞻性队列研究。","authors":"Shruti Soni, Yash Kumar Parihar, Ramkaran Chaudhary, Naveen Sharma, Mahaveer Singh Rodha, Mahendra Lodha, Manoj Kumar Gupta, Nikhil Kothari, Aditya Baksi, Ashok Kumar Puranik","doi":"10.4103/jmas.jmas_135_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Perforation peritonitis remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in emergency surgical patients. Conventionally, open laparotomy has been the preferred approach. However, with advancements in minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic management has emerged as a potential alternative. The study aims to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared to open laparotomy in managing perforation peritonitis.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A prospective observational study was conducted from January 2022 to May 2023 for patients diagnosed with perforation peritonitis. A total of 140 patients were recruited, 110 patients underwent laparotomy while 30 patients underwent laparoscopic management. Propensity score matching (PSM) in 1:1 ratio was applied to balance confounding variables, resulting in two matched groups of 28 patients each. Operative time, length of post-operative stay, post-operative Visual Analogue Scale score, morbidity and mortality rates were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (217.43 ± 86.10 min) compared to the laparotomy group (182.46 ± 31.63 min; P = 0.049). However, patients in the laparoscopic group experienced a significantly shorter hospital stay (4.39 ± 2.04 days vs. 8.68 ± 3.45 days; P < 0.001) and lower post-operative pain scores at all time points (P < 0.012). The 30-day morbidity rate was lower in the laparoscopic group (10% vs. 32%), with fewer surgical site infections and reoperations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Laparoscopy is a feasible and effective alternative to laparotomy in selected cases of perforation peritonitis, offering benefits such as reduced post-operative pain and shorter hospital stay. Despite technical challenges, improved surgical expertise and patient selection can enhance its role in emergency surgical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":48905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility and outcomes of laparoscopic management in perforation peritonitis: A prospective cohort study with propensity score matching.\",\"authors\":\"Shruti Soni, Yash Kumar Parihar, Ramkaran Chaudhary, Naveen Sharma, Mahaveer Singh Rodha, Mahendra Lodha, Manoj Kumar Gupta, Nikhil Kothari, Aditya Baksi, Ashok Kumar Puranik\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jmas.jmas_135_25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Perforation peritonitis remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in emergency surgical patients. Conventionally, open laparotomy has been the preferred approach. However, with advancements in minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic management has emerged as a potential alternative. The study aims to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared to open laparotomy in managing perforation peritonitis.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>A prospective observational study was conducted from January 2022 to May 2023 for patients diagnosed with perforation peritonitis. A total of 140 patients were recruited, 110 patients underwent laparotomy while 30 patients underwent laparoscopic management. Propensity score matching (PSM) in 1:1 ratio was applied to balance confounding variables, resulting in two matched groups of 28 patients each. Operative time, length of post-operative stay, post-operative Visual Analogue Scale score, morbidity and mortality rates were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (217.43 ± 86.10 min) compared to the laparotomy group (182.46 ± 31.63 min; P = 0.049). However, patients in the laparoscopic group experienced a significantly shorter hospital stay (4.39 ± 2.04 days vs. 8.68 ± 3.45 days; P < 0.001) and lower post-operative pain scores at all time points (P < 0.012). The 30-day morbidity rate was lower in the laparoscopic group (10% vs. 32%), with fewer surgical site infections and reoperations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Laparoscopy is a feasible and effective alternative to laparotomy in selected cases of perforation peritonitis, offering benefits such as reduced post-operative pain and shorter hospital stay. Despite technical challenges, improved surgical expertise and patient selection can enhance its role in emergency surgical settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_135_25\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_135_25","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Feasibility and outcomes of laparoscopic management in perforation peritonitis: A prospective cohort study with propensity score matching.
Background: Perforation peritonitis remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in emergency surgical patients. Conventionally, open laparotomy has been the preferred approach. However, with advancements in minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic management has emerged as a potential alternative. The study aims to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared to open laparotomy in managing perforation peritonitis.
Patients and methods: A prospective observational study was conducted from January 2022 to May 2023 for patients diagnosed with perforation peritonitis. A total of 140 patients were recruited, 110 patients underwent laparotomy while 30 patients underwent laparoscopic management. Propensity score matching (PSM) in 1:1 ratio was applied to balance confounding variables, resulting in two matched groups of 28 patients each. Operative time, length of post-operative stay, post-operative Visual Analogue Scale score, morbidity and mortality rates were compared.
Results: The mean operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (217.43 ± 86.10 min) compared to the laparotomy group (182.46 ± 31.63 min; P = 0.049). However, patients in the laparoscopic group experienced a significantly shorter hospital stay (4.39 ± 2.04 days vs. 8.68 ± 3.45 days; P < 0.001) and lower post-operative pain scores at all time points (P < 0.012). The 30-day morbidity rate was lower in the laparoscopic group (10% vs. 32%), with fewer surgical site infections and reoperations.
Conclusion: Laparoscopy is a feasible and effective alternative to laparotomy in selected cases of perforation peritonitis, offering benefits such as reduced post-operative pain and shorter hospital stay. Despite technical challenges, improved surgical expertise and patient selection can enhance its role in emergency surgical settings.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery (JMAS), the official publication of Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo Surgeons, launched in early 2005. The JMAS, a quarterly publication, is the first English-language journal from India, as also from this part of the world, dedicated to Minimal Access Surgery. The JMAS boasts an outstanding editorial board comprising of Indian and international experts in the field.