• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

SAGES

Reimagining surgical care for a healthier world

  • Home
    • Search
    • SAGES Home
    • SAGES Foundation Home
  • About
    • Awards
    • Who Is SAGES?
    • Leadership
    • Our Mission
    • Advocacy
    • Committees
      • SAGES Board of Governors
      • Officers and Representatives of the Society
      • Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs
      • Committee Rosters
      • SAGES Past Presidents
  • Meetings
    • SAGES NBT Innovation Weekend
    • SAGES Annual Meeting
      • 2026 Scientific Session Call for Abstracts
      • 2026 Emerging Technology Call for Abstracts
    • CME Claim Form
    • SAGES Past, Present, Future, and Related Meeting Information
    • SAGES Related Meetings & Events Calendar
  • Join SAGES!
    • Membership Application
    • Membership Benefits
    • Membership Types
      • Requirements and Applications for Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Affiliate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Associate Active Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for Candidate Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements and Applications for International Membership in SAGES
      • Requirements for Medical Student Membership
    • Member Spotlight
    • Give the Gift of SAGES Membership
  • Patients
    • Join the SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN)
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Healthy Sooner – Patient Information for Minimally Invasive Surgery
    • Choosing Wisely – An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation
    • All in the Recovery: Colorectal Cancer Alliance
    • Find A SAGES Surgeon
  • Publications
    • Sustainability in Surgical Practice
    • SAGES Stories Podcast
    • SAGES Clinical / Practice / Training Guidelines, Statements, and Standards of Practice
    • Patient Information Brochures
    • Patient Information From SAGES
    • TAVAC – Technology and Value Assessments
    • Surgical Endoscopy and Other Journal Information
    • SAGES Manuals
    • MesSAGES – The SAGES Newsletter
    • COVID-19 Archive
    • Troubleshooting Guides
  • Education
    • Wellness Resources – You Are Not Alone
    • Avoid Opiates After Surgery
    • SAGES Subscription Catalog
    • SAGES TV: Home of SAGES Surgical Videos
    • The SAGES Safe Cholecystectomy Program
    • Masters Program
    • Resident and Fellow Opportunities
      • SAGES Free Resident Webinar Series
      • Fluorescence-Guided Surgery Course for Fellows
      • Fellows’ Career Development Course
      • SAGES Robotics Residents and Fellows Courses
      • MIS Fellows Course
    • SAGES S.M.A.R.T. Enhanced Recovery Program
    • SAGES @ Cine-Med Products
      • SAGES Top 21 Minimally Invasive Procedures Every Practicing Surgeon Should Know
      • SAGES Pearls Step-by-Step
      • SAGES Flexible Endoscopy 101
    • SAGES OR SAFETY Video Activity
  • Opportunities
    • Fellowship Recognition Opportunities
    • SAGES Advanced Flexible Endoscopy Area of Concentrated Training (ACT) SEAL
    • Multi-Society Foregut Fellowship Certification
    • Research Opportunities
    • FLS
    • FES
    • FUSE
    • Jobs Board
    • SAGES Go Global: Global Affairs and Humanitarian Efforts
  • Search
    • Search the SAGES Site
    • Guidelines Search
    • Video Search
    • Search Images
    • Search Abstracts
  • OWLS/FLS
  • Login
You are here: Home / Abstracts / Comparing Laparoscopic vs. Open Repair in Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched, Cohort Study.

Comparing Laparoscopic vs. Open Repair in Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease: A Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched, Cohort Study.

Victor Vakayil, MD, MS, Brent Bauman, MD, Reema Mallick, MD, Sayeed Ikramuddin, MD, MHA, James Harmon, MD, PhD, FACS. University of Minnesota

Introduction: Perforated peptic ulcer disease (PPUD) is the second most common cause for an abdominal perforation requiring surgical intervention. Laparoscopic surgery(LS) or an open surgical approach(OS) is utilized to repair the bowel, however, there exists no consensus on the comparative effectiveness and safety of each technique. Few small, prospective trials, conducted in this patient cohort have been inconclusive. The rarity of this diagnosis precludes the design of an adequately powered, large-sized randomized study.

Methods: A 7-year retrospective review (2009-2015) of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database identified 3,654 adult patients (LP=485, OP= 3169) who underwent the OP or LP surgical approach for PPUD. All patients who had a concurrent surgical procedure, bleeding peptic ulcers, history of renal failure, severe COPD, and disseminated cancer were excluded from the analysis. Propensity scores were calculated using logistic regression models to eliminate the confounding effects of baseline demographic, clinical and laboratory variables between the two patient cohorts, and to adjust for the inherent heterogeneity in the model. Using a caliper distance ±0.2 and a case(LP): control(OP) ratio of 1:3; a propensity score(PS) matched analysis was performed to contrast and compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

Results: PS matching created a total of 987 (LP=292, OP= 695) matched pairs. The robustness of the model was tested using an overall multivariate imbalance measure test L1( before matching= 0.995, vs after matching 0.980). Univariate analysis demonstrated successful matching of demographics, baseline clinical variables including Age, BMI, comorbidities, pre-operative laboratory variables and ASA scores. The laparoscopic approach was associated with increased operative time (LP= 96.8± 87.8 vs OP= 71.7± 46.1, P=0.001) but shorter duration of stay (LP= 6.6± 84.1vs OP= 8.4± 6.8, P=0.001). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a decreased risk for superficial surgical site infection (LP= 0.3% vs OP= 2.3%, P=0.031) and postoperative wound dehiscence (LP= 0.3%% vs OP= 2.4%, P=0.02). There was no difference in the rates of 30-day mortality, deep space infections, pneumonia, UTI's, pulmonary embolism, sepsis and readmission rates between both matched groups.

Conclusion: Less than 13% of all PPUD’s were repaired laparoscopically. This approach had a shorter duration of hospitalization and was associated with a significant reduction in the rates of post-operative surgical site infections and wound dehiscence. Our data suggest that a minimally invasive approach may be superior to the open approach, provided the patient is a suitable candidate. 


Presented at the SAGES 2017 Annual Meeting in Houston, TX.

Abstract ID: 88054

Program Number: S066

Presentation Session: Acute Care Session

Presentation Type: Podium

83


  • Foundation
  • SAGES.TV
  • MyCME
  • Educational Activities

Copyright © 2025 Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons