OUTCOMES OF APPLICATION THE ENHANCED RECOVERY PROTOCOL FOR PERFORATED DUODENAL ULCER
https://doi.org/10.17238/issn2072-3180.2021.1.47-53
Abstract
Objective: Improvement of the results of treatment of patients operated on for perforated duodenal ulcer (PDU) with the use of the Enhanced Recovery Protocol (ERP).
Material and methods. The results of surgical treatment of 102 patients with PDU in the period 2015–2019 were analyzed. A monocenter prospective randomized study was performed at the clinical base of the Department of surgery and endoscopy of the Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University. The operated patients were divided into 2 groups: the main group (fast-track group (FT-group), with ERP) and the control group (CG, standard perioperative management). The severity of postoperative complications was assessed according to the Clavien–Dindo scale.
Results. In the FT-group, the duration of the operation was 78.96±4.51 minutes. In the FT-group, 3 postoperative complications were identified. The duration of hospitalization is 3.85±0.14 days. In CG, the duration of the operation was 114.32±8.73 minutes. 10 postoperative complications were identified in the CG. The duration of hospitalization is 6.84±0.29 days. There were no deaths or repeated hospitalizations in both groups.
Conclusion. The use of ERP can improve the immediate results of surgical treatment of patients with PDU and reduce the length of hospital stay.
About the Authors
A. I. Khripun
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Khripun Alexey Ivanovich — Doctor of Medicine, Professor, head of the Department of surgery and endoscopy faculty of additional professional education, Head of the Moscow Department of Health
117997, Moscow, Ostrovityanova str., 1
I. V. Sazhin
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; Buyanov City Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sazhin Ilya Vyacheslavovich — PhD in Medicine, associate Professor of the Department of surgery and endoscopy faculty of additional professional education, head of the surgical Department No. 1
117997, Moscow, Ostrovityanova str., 1
A. A. Churkin
Buyanov City Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Churkin Alexander Andreevich — surgeon of the operating unit
115516, Moscow, Bakinskaya str., 26
A. N. Alimov
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University; Buyanov City Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alimov Alexander Nikolaevich — Doctor of Medicine, Professor of the Department of surgery and endoscopy faculty of additional professional education
117997, Moscow, Ostrovityanova str., 1
S. A. Asratyan
Buyanov City Clinical Hospital
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Asratyan Sarkis Albertovich — PhD in Medicine, deputy chief physician for surgery
115516, Moscow, Bakinskaya str., 26
References
1. Lanas A., Chan F.K.L. Peptic ulcer disease. Lancet, 2017, 390 (10094), pp. 613–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32404-7
2. Tarasconi A., Coccolini F., Biffl W.L. Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines. World J. Emerg. Surg., 2020, 15 (3), pp. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-019-0283-9
3. Bertleff M.J., Lange J.F. Perforated peptic ulcer disease: a review of history and treatment. Dig. Surg., 2010, 27 (3), pp. 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1159/000264653
4. Lau J.Y., Sung J., Hill C., Henderson C., Howden C.W., Metz D.C. Systematic review of the epidemiology of complicated peptic ulcer disease: incidence, recurrence, risk factors and mortality. Digestion, 2011, 84 (2), pp. 102–13. https://doi.org/10.1159/000323958
5. Shabunin A.V., Bedin V.V., Grekov D.N., Yakomaskin V.N., Eminov M.Z., Shikov D.V. Obosnovanie vybora sposoba khirurgicheskogo lecheniya pri perforativnoi yazve zheludka i dvenadtsatiperstnoi kishki [Justification of the choice of surgical approach for perforated peptic ulcer]. Moscow Surgical Journal, 2020, No. 1, pp. 7–12. https://doi.org/10.17238/issn2072-3180.2020.1.7-12 (in Russ.)
6. Mоller M.H., Adamsen S., Thomsen R.W., Møller A.M., Peptic Ulcer Perforation (PULP) trial group. Multicentre trial of a perioperative protocol to reduce mortality in patients with peptic ulcer perforation. Br. J. Surg., 2011, 98 (6), pp. 802–810. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7429
7. Nathanson L.K., Easter D.W., Cuschieri A. Laparoscopic repair/ peritoneal toilet of perforated duodenal ulcer. Surg. Endosc., 1990, 4 (4), pp. 232–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00316801
8. Zatevakhin I.I., Kirienko A.I., Sazhin A.V. Neotlozhnaya abdominal’naya khirurgiya: Metodicheskoe rukovodstvo dlya praktikuyushchego vracha. [Emergency abdominal surgery: a methodological guide for the practitioner]. M.: OOO «Meditsinskoe informatsionnoe agenstvo», 2018, 488 p. (In Russ.)
9. Khubutiya M.Sh., Yartsev P.A. Endokhirurgiya pri neotlozhnykh zabolevaniyakh i travme: rukovodstvo [Endosurgery in emergency diseases and trauma: a guide]. M.: «GEOTAR-Media», 2014, 240 p. (In Russ.)
10. Alekberzade A.V., Krylov N. N., Rustamov E. A., Badalov D. A., Popovtsev M.A. Ushivanie perforativnoi pepticheskoi yazvy: laparoskopicheskoe ili otkrytoe (s kommentariem A.S. Ermolova) [Suture plication of a perforated peptic ulcer: laparoscopic or open? (with a comment by A. S. Yermolov)]. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery, 2017, No. 2, pp. 45–50. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia2017245-50
11. Quah G.S., Eslick G.D., Cox M.R. Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair. J. Gastrointest. Surg., 2019, 23 (3), pp. 618–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-4047-8
12. Cirocchi R., Soreide K., Di Saverio S., Rossi E., Arezzo A., Zago M., Abraha I., Vettoretto N., Chiarugi M. Meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg., 2018, 85 (2), pp. 417–425. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000001925
13. Kehlet H. Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br. J. Anaesth., 1997, 78 (5), pp. 606–617. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/78.5.606
14. Gonenc M., Dural A.C., Celik F., Akarsu C., Kocatas A., Kalayci M.U., Dogan Y., Alis H. Enhanced postoperative recovery pathways in emergency surgery: a randomised controlled clinical trial. American Journal of Surgery, 2014, 207 (6), pp. 807–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.07.025
15. Mohsina S., Shanmugam D., Sureshkumar S., Kundra P., Mahalakshmy T., Kate V. Adapted ERAS Pathway vs. Standard Care in Patients with Perforated Duodenal Ulcer-a Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Gastrointest. Surg., 2018, 22 (1), pp. 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605.017.3474-2
16. Khripun A.I., Sazhin I.V., Shurygin S.N., Makhuova G.B. Uskorennaya reabilitatsiya pri probodnoi yazve dvenadtsatiperstnoi kishki [Fast track rehabilitation in perforated duodenal ulcer]. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery, 2018, No. 6, pp. 58–61. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia2018658-61
17. Sazhin A.V., Ivakhov G.B., Stradymov E.A., Petukhov V.A., Titkova S.M. Primenenie modifitsirovannoi prognosticheskoi shkaly Boey (mBoey) u patsientov s perforativnymi gastroduodenal’nymi yazvami, oslozhnennymi rasprostranennym peritonitom [The use of the modified Boey score (mBoey) in perforated gastroduodenal ulcer patients complicated by diffuse peritonitis]. Russian Annals of Surgery, 2019, No. 24 (4), pp. 263–270. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/1560-9502-2019-24-4-263-270
18. Mоller M.H., Engebjerg M.C., Adamsen S., Bendix J., Thomsen R.W. The peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score: a predictor of mortality following peptic ulcer perforation. A cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand., 2012, 56 (5), pp. 655–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2011.02609.x
Review
For citations:
Khripun A.I., Sazhin I.V., Churkin A.A., Alimov A.N., Asratyan S.A. OUTCOMES OF APPLICATION THE ENHANCED RECOVERY PROTOCOL FOR PERFORATED DUODENAL ULCER. Moscow Surgical Journal. 2021;(1):47-53. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17238/issn2072-3180.2021.1.47-53
Views:
447
Email this article 