Comparative Study of Role of Laparoscopic Vs Conventional Management in Peritonitis

Laparoscopic Vs Conventional Management in Peritonitis

  • Nishit R Santoki Post Graduate Student, Department of Surgery, Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Science, Bhuj, Gujarat, India
  • Mahalaxmi Pillai Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Science, Bhuj, Gujarat, India
  • Gyaneshwar Rao Professor and Head, Department of Surgery, Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Science, Bhuj, Gujarat, India
Keywords: Hospital stay, Laparoscopic, laparotomy, peritonitis

Abstract

Background : A very commonly encountered case in the field of general surgery is peritonitis. In our study, we analyse 100 cases of acute peritonitis due to various causes, being managed conventionally and laparoscopicaly. Subjects and Methods: The observational, continuous, prospective, single centre study was carried out at Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Science at GK General Hospital Bhuj. The study was conducted for a total duration of 27 months from October 2017- December 2019 (Patients were enrolled in the study and followed up till the day of admission to the day of the discharge). Total 100 patients are enrolled in the study but there were no intervention done. We compare the outcomes in terms of postoperative pain, removal of ryles tube, urinary catheter, drains, early ambulation and duration of hospital stay. Results: Maximum patients were diagnosed as having pre pyloric peptic (pyloric with antral perforation) perforation (45%) followed by jejunal perforation (17%). successful laparoscopic surgery without conversion was done in 92%. study total 4 cases of laparoscopic managed group needed to convert in open including 2 duodenal perforation cases, 1 sigmoid colon perforation case and 1 ascending colon perforation. Conclusion: Laparascopic intervention to be better of the two provided availability of skill and setup.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Struller F, Weinreich FJ, Horvath P, Kokkalis MK, Beckert S, Königsrainer A, et al. Peritoneal innervation: embryology and functional anatomy. Pleura Peritoneum. 2017;2(4):153–161. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/pp-2017-0024.

Jhobta RS, Attri AK, Kaushik R, Sharma R. Spectrum of perforation peritonitis in India-review of 504 consecutive cases. World J Emerg Surg. 2006;1(26):1–4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-1-26.

Wu AM, Zhang K, Li XL, Cheng XF, Zhou TJ, Du L, et al. The compression of L5 nerve root, single or double sites?— radiographic graded signs, intra-operative detect technique and clinical outcomes. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2018;8(4):383–390. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims.2018.05.08.

Charles H, Williams PKN, Ronan O, Connell A, Mccaskie. The peritoneum, omentum, mesentery and retroperitoneal space; 2018.

Michailova KN, Wassilev WA, Kühnel W. Features of the peritoneal covering of the lesser pelvis with special reference to stomata regions. Ann Anat. 2005;187(1):23–33. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2004.05.002.

Suzuki K, Horigome I, Shishido Y, Chiba S, Miyazaki M. Peritoneal dialysis–associated peritonitis caused by gram-negative bacteria: characteristics similar to spontaneous bacterial peritonitis? Adv Perit Dial. 1999;15:197–200.

Leivonen MK, Haglund CH, Nordling SFA. Helicobacter pylori infection after partial gastrectomy for peptic ulcer and its role in relapsing disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1997;9(4):373–374. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00042737-199704000-00010.

Boey J, Wong J, Ong GB. A Prospective Study of Operative Risk Factors in Perforated Duodenal Ulcers. Ann Surg . 1982;195(3):265–269. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000658-198203000-00004.

Sangrasi AK, Talpur KAH, Kella N, Laghari AA, Abbasi MR, Qureshi JN. Role of laparoscopy in peritonitis. PaK J Med Sci. 2013;29(4):1028–1032. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.12669/pjms.294.3624.

Navez B, d’Udekem Y, Cambier E, Richir C, de Pierpont B, Guiot P. Laparoscopy for management of nontraumatic acute abdomen. World J Surg. 1995;19(3):382–386. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00299164.

Kirshtein B, Roy-Shapira A, Lantsberg L, Mandel S, Avinoach E, Mizrahi S. The use of laparoscopy in abdominal emergencies. Surg Endosc. 2003;17(7):1118–1124. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-002-9114-1.

Lau WY, Leung KL, Zhu XL, Lam YH, Chung SCS, Li AKC. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 1995;82(6):814–816. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800820630.

Lagoo S, Mahon RLM, Kalkharu M, T NPP, Eubanks S. The sixth decision regarding perforated duodenal ulcer. JSLS. 2002;6:359–68.

Sø JBY, Kum CK, Fernandes ML, Goh P. Comparison between laparoscopic and conventional omental patch repair for per- forated duodenal ulcer. Surg Endo. 1996;10(11):1060–1063. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004649900240.

Yeom S, Kim MS, Park S. Comparison of the outcomes of laparoscopic and open approaches in the treatment of periap- pendiceal abscess diagnosed by radiologic investigation. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2014;24(11):762–769. Avail- able from: https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2014.0224.

Lee FYJ, Leung KL, Lai PBS, Lau JWY. Selection of patients for laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg. 2001;88(1):133–136. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01642.x.

Bertleff MJOE, Stegmann T, Liem RSB, Kors G, Robinson PH, Nicolai JP, et al. Comparison of Closure of Gastric Perforation Ulcers With Biodegradable Lactide-Glycolide-Caprolactone or Omental Patches. JSLS. 2009;13(4):550–554. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.4293/108680809x12589998404362.

Sinha R, Sharma N, Joshi M. Laparoscopic repair of small bowel perforation. JSLS. 2005;9(4):399–402.

Agresta F, Ciardo LF, Mazzarolo G, Michelet I, Orsi G, TrentinG. World J Emerg Surg. 2006;24:1–9.

Published
2020-12-27