Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Studies reporting patient-centered outcomes, including quality of life and satisfaction, in perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment are insufficient. This study was designed to assess the relative efficacy of laparoscopic repair (LR) as opposed to open surgical repair (OR) in the treatment of and its impact on quality of life.
METHODS: This investigation performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent treatment for PPU at a secondary care hospital between January 2017 and April 2020. Patients were categorized into 2 separate groups according to the type of surgical procedure received: LR and OR. Comparisons were made based on a variety of factors, such as demographic data, intra- and postoperative metrics, pain control, patient contentment, and quality of life indicators.
RESULTS: In the analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic or clinical characteristics between the LR (n = 35) and OR (n = 62) groups (P > .05). Conversely, the rates of incisional hernia and surgical site infection were significantly greater in the OR group (P < .05). Moreover, the LR exhibited benefits such as a shorter length of hospital stay (P < .05), more rapid resumption of a normal diet, and fewer surgical site infections-factors that contributed to a lower rate of overall postoperative complications. According to the quality-of-life questionnaire, the LR group exhibited significantly greater scores for physical function, role, pain, and general health by the 30th postoperative day (P = .003, P < .001, P = .006, and P = .001, respectively), and by the 1-year follow-up, the LR group showed substantial improvements in physical function, physical role, emotional role, pain and general health (P = .047, P = .004, P = .039, P = .001, and P = .021, respectively), indicating its effectiveness in patient recovery and quality of life enhancement after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that LR could provide certain benefits in managing PPUs, such as reduced lengths of hospital stay and lower incidences of surgical site infections. Although LR reported promising directions in patient satisfaction and quality of life indicators, the limited duration of postoperative monitoring necessitates caution in broadly applying these results.
METHODS: This investigation performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent treatment for PPU at a secondary care hospital between January 2017 and April 2020. Patients were categorized into 2 separate groups according to the type of surgical procedure received: LR and OR. Comparisons were made based on a variety of factors, such as demographic data, intra- and postoperative metrics, pain control, patient contentment, and quality of life indicators.
RESULTS: In the analysis, there were no statistically significant differences in demographic or clinical characteristics between the LR (n = 35) and OR (n = 62) groups (P > .05). Conversely, the rates of incisional hernia and surgical site infection were significantly greater in the OR group (P < .05). Moreover, the LR exhibited benefits such as a shorter length of hospital stay (P < .05), more rapid resumption of a normal diet, and fewer surgical site infections-factors that contributed to a lower rate of overall postoperative complications. According to the quality-of-life questionnaire, the LR group exhibited significantly greater scores for physical function, role, pain, and general health by the 30th postoperative day (P = .003, P < .001, P = .006, and P = .001, respectively), and by the 1-year follow-up, the LR group showed substantial improvements in physical function, physical role, emotional role, pain and general health (P = .047, P = .004, P = .039, P = .001, and P = .021, respectively), indicating its effectiveness in patient recovery and quality of life enhancement after surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that LR could provide certain benefits in managing PPUs, such as reduced lengths of hospital stay and lower incidences of surgical site infections. Although LR reported promising directions in patient satisfaction and quality of life indicators, the limited duration of postoperative monitoring necessitates caution in broadly applying these results.
摘要：
目的：本研究旨在评估腹腔镜修补术（LR）与开腹手术修补术（OR）治疗消化性溃疡穿孔（PPU）的相对疗效及其对生活质量的影响。
背景：报告以患者为中心的结果的研究，包括生活质量和满意度，在PPU治疗中是不够的。
方法：本调查对2016年12月至2020年11月在二级保健医院接受PPU治疗的患者进行了回顾性分析。根据接受的外科手术类型，将患者分为两组：LR和OR。根据各种因素进行了比较，比如人口统计数据，术中和术后指标，疼痛控制,耐心的满足，和生活质量指标。
结果：在分析中，LR组(n=35)和OR组(n=62)之间的人口统计学或临床特征差异无统计学意义(p>0.05).相反，OR组切口疝和手术部位感染率明显高于OR组（p<0.05）。此外，LR表现出益处，例如住院时间较短(p<0.05)，更迅速地恢复正常饮食，和较少的手术部位感染-导致术后总并发症发生率较低的因素。根据生活质量问卷,LR组表现出更高的身体功能得分，角色,疼痛,到术后第30天（p=0.003，p<0.001，p=0.006和p=0.001），通过一年的随访，LR组显示出身体功能的实质性改善，身体的作用,情感角色,疼痛和一般健康（分别为p=0.047，p=0.004，p=0.039，p=0.001，p=0.021），表明其在术后患者恢复和生活质量提高的有效性。
结论：这项研究表明，LR可以在管理PPU方面提供某些好处，例如缩短住院时间和降低手术部位感染的发生率。尽管LR报告了患者满意度和生活质量指标的有希望的方向，术后监测的持续时间有限,因此在广泛应用这些结果时必须谨慎.
背景：报告以患者为中心的结果的研究，包括生活质量和满意度，在PPU治疗中是不够的。
方法：本调查对2016年12月至2020年11月在二级保健医院接受PPU治疗的患者进行了回顾性分析。根据接受的外科手术类型，将患者分为两组：LR和OR。根据各种因素进行了比较，比如人口统计数据，术中和术后指标，疼痛控制,耐心的满足，和生活质量指标。
结果：在分析中，LR组(n=35)和OR组(n=62)之间的人口统计学或临床特征差异无统计学意义(p>0.05).相反，OR组切口疝和手术部位感染率明显高于OR组（p<0.05）。此外，LR表现出益处，例如住院时间较短(p<0.05)，更迅速地恢复正常饮食，和较少的手术部位感染-导致术后总并发症发生率较低的因素。根据生活质量问卷,LR组表现出更高的身体功能得分，角色,疼痛,到术后第30天（p=0.003，p<0.001，p=0.006和p=0.001），通过一年的随访，LR组显示出身体功能的实质性改善，身体的作用,情感角色,疼痛和一般健康（分别为p=0.047，p=0.004，p=0.039，p=0.001，p=0.021），表明其在术后患者恢复和生活质量提高的有效性。
结论：这项研究表明，LR可以在管理PPU方面提供某些好处，例如缩短住院时间和降低手术部位感染的发生率。尽管LR报告了患者满意度和生活质量指标的有希望的方向，术后监测的持续时间有限,因此在广泛应用这些结果时必须谨慎.
