Am J Surg 2001, 181:122–127.CrossRefPubMed 14. Karatepe O, Gulcicek OB, Adas G, Battal G, Ozdenkaya
Y, Kurtulus I, Altiok M, Karahan S: Caecal diverticulitis mimicking acute appendicitis: a report of 4 Cases. World J Emerg Surg 2008, 3:16.CrossRefPubMed 15. Griffiths EA, Date RS: Acute presentation of a solitary caecal diverticulum: case report. J Medical Case Reports 2007, 1:129.CrossRef 16. Pelosi MA 3rd, Pelosi MA, Villalona E: Right-sided colonic diverticulitis mimicking acute cholecystitis in pregnancy: case report and laparoscopic treatment. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1999, 9:63–67.CrossRefPubMed Competing interests The authors declare that they have no SCH727965 in vivo competing interests. Authors’ contributions MC participated in the admission and the care of this patient, the conception, the design, data collection and interpretation, manuscript preparation and literature search. AAA participated in the admission and the care of this patient, the conception, the design, data collection and interpretation, manuscript preparation and literature search. JP participated in the admission click here and the care of this patient, the conception, the design, data collection and interpretation, manuscript preparation and literature search. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.”
“Background Since the first laparoscopic repair of
selleck chemicals llc perforated peptic ulcer by Mouret in 1990 , mini-invasive technique has gained large popularity. A research in electronic databases as Pub Med (meta-analysis, randomised control trial) and Cochrane review was conducted to identify the most relevant articles published between 1990 and 2008 regarding laparoscopic
repair of perforated peptic ulcers. In a meta analysis, Lau  identified that the post operative pain was lower than in open repair, and there was a significant reduction in wound infection, but reoperation rate was higher than open repair. Lau’s conclusion was that laparoscopic repair was safe and effective for duodenal and juxtapyloric ulcers in patients without Boey’s risk factors  (shock, major medical illnesses and longstanding perforation > 24 h). Sanabria et al.  in a Cochrane database systematic review state that there were no statistically differences in septic abdominal complications between laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcers. Lunevicius et al.  in a systematic review confirm good results of laparoscopic repair in low risk GBA3 patients in terms of lower analgesic use, shorter hospital stay, less wound infection, but define appropriate open repair in high risk patients and report in this case a shorter operation time than laparoscopic repair. Moreover, Katkhouda et al.  report that laparoscopic repair for perforated duodenal ulcers is safe and maintains the benefits of minimally invasive approach (what means short hospital stay and less analgesic use), but still underline that laparoscopic repair is not beneficial in patients with shock and prolonged operation time than open repair.