Retrospective comparison of outcomes of patients undergoing omental patch versus falciform patch repair of perforated peptic ulcers

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe omental patch repair is the gold standard for the repair of perforated peptic ulcers. This can be performed open or laparoscopically. However, in the event of non‐viable or inadequate omentum available at the time of surgery the falciform ligament has been reportedly used to as an alternative. Nonetheless, evidence for its safety is scant. This study aims to determine differences in patient outcomes when comparing the two repair techniques.MethodsFollowing ethics approval, patients who underwent surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcers using omental or falciform patch repair, between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2017, across all three Western Australian tertiary hospital services and at least 18 years of age were included. Data were collected by reviewing medical records of included patients.ResultsThree hundred twenty‐nine patients who underwent either open or laparoscopic repairs were included. Thirty‐seven patients had falciform repairs and were mostly ASA of 2 compared to 292 patients receiving omental patch repair who were mostly ASA 3. Falciform patch repairs were more commonly used in duodenal ulcer perforations. There were no statistically significant differences in patient outcomes between the omental patch and falciform ligament groups. This included post‐operative intra‐abdominal sepsis, return to theatre, post‐operative ICU admission, inpatient mortality, 30‐day readmission and ulcer healing on follow‐up gastroscopy.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates safety, efficacy and similar outcomes for patients receiving the falciform ligament patch repair compared with omental patch repair.