The feasibility of falciformopexy in the repair of peptic ulcer perforation Peptik ülser perforasyonu onarımında falsiformopeksinin uygulanabilirliği
Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi, cilt.29, sa.11, ss.1237-1241, 2023 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus, TRDizin)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
- Cilt numarası: 29 Sayı: 11
- Basım Tarihi: 2023
- Doi Numarası: 10.14744/tjtes.2023.53246
- Dergi Adı: Ulusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, CINAHL, MEDLINE, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1237-1241
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Falciformopexy, modified graham omentopexy, peptic ulcer perforation
- Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
- Kütahya Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Adresli: Hayır
Özet
BACKGROUND: Modified Graham omentopexy is the most commonly used operative technique in the repair of peptic ulcer perforation (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.