The feasibility of falciformopexy in the repair of peptic ulcer perforation
- PMID: 37889028
- PMCID: PMC10771241
- DOI: 10.14744/tjtes.2023.53246
The feasibility of falciformopexy in the repair of peptic ulcer perforation
Abstract
Background: Modified Graham omentopexy is the most commonly used operative technique in the repair of peptic ulcer perfo-ration (PUP); however, there is little data on falciformopexy in the literature. The aim is to investigate the feasibility of falciformopexy in the repair of PUP, comparing with modified Graham omentopexy.
Methods: Data of 471 patients who were operated for PUP were retrospectively analyzed. Patients' demographics, pre-operative basic laboratory findings, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, operative findings, and post-operative complications were recorded. The patients were classified into two groups modified Graham omentopexy and falciformopexy, and then compared with each other in terms of clinical characteristics, operative findings, and post-operative complications.
Results: Modified Graham omentopexy and falciformopexy were performed in 425 (90.2%) and 46 (9.8%) patients, respectively. The two groups were similar in terms of basic patient characteristics and pre-operative laboratory findings (P>0.05). ASA physical status was significantly different between the groups (P=0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of complications, except for an anastomotic leak. Anastomotic leak was observed more frequently in patients who underwent falciformopexy than in patients with modified Graham omentopexy (P=0.017).
Conclusion: Although falciformopexy technique has a higher rate of leak compared to the modified Graham omentopexy method, it should be kept in mind as an alternative method for repair of PUP, especially in cases where omentopexy cannot be applied for various reasons such as the presence of unavailable or unsuitable omentum.
Conflict of interest statement
Similar articles
-
Does Omental Plugging Provide a Better Surgical Treatment Outcome than the Omentopexy Technique in the Management of Giant Peptic Ulcer Perforation? A Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies.Oman Med J. 2022 Nov 30;37(6):e439. doi: 10.5001/omj.2022.61. eCollection 2022 Nov. Oman Med J. 2022. PMID: 36458249 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Role of Radiology and Laparoscopy in Childhood Peptic Ulcer Perforation.J Environ Public Health. 2022 Jul 20;2022:1211499. doi: 10.1155/2022/1211499. eCollection 2022. J Environ Public Health. 2022. Retraction in: J Environ Public Health. 2023 Jun 28;2023:9858063. doi: 10.1155/2023/9858063. PMID: 35910757 Free PMC article. Retracted.
-
Primary closure versus Graham patch omentopexy in perforated peptic ulcer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgeon. 2022 Jun;20(3):e61-e67. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2021.04.006. Epub 2021 Jun 3. Surgeon. 2022. PMID: 34090810 Review.
-
Omentopexy versus falciformopexy for peptic ulcer perforation.Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2019 Nov;25(6):580-584. doi: 10.14744/tjtes.2019.11387. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2019. PMID: 31701495 English.
-
Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: simple closure versus omentopexy.J Surg Res. 2017 Dec;220:341-345. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.07.034. Epub 2017 Aug 19. J Surg Res. 2017. PMID: 29180201
References
-
- Ansari AZ, Bhatia NY, Gharat SA, Godad AP, Doshi GM. Exploring cytokines as potential target in peptic ulcer disease:A systematic update. Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets. 2023;23:21–34. - PubMed
-
- Lu CL, Chang SS, Wang SS, Chang FY, Lee SD. Silent peptic ulcer disease:Frequency, factors leading to “silence,”and implications regarding the pathogenesis of visceral symptoms. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:34–8. - PubMed
-
- Narashimaswamy P, Karthik B, Vinay R. Clinical profile and outcome of surgical management of perforated duodenal ulcer:A record based study in a tertiary hospital. J Cardiovasc Dis Res. 2022;13:2142–50.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources