Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19430829›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of surgery2009

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: the LAMA Trial.

Mariëtta J O E Bertleff, Jens A Halm, Willem A Bemelman, Arie C van der Ham, Erwin van der Harst, Hok I Oei, J F Smulders, E W Steyerberg, Johan F Lange

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of surgery, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 63 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05699616 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Laparoscopic Management of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Multicenter Experience

TypeobservationalSponsorSouth Valley UniversityRan2023 to 2023Enrolled150ConditionsPerforated Peptic UlcerArmsRepair of perforated peptic ulcer
NCT05767320 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Comparison Between Open vs Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer

TypeinterventionalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled40ConditionsPerforated Peptic UlcerArmsopen repair(exploration), abdominal laparoscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Open versus laparoscopic technique in peptic ulcus perforation, how effective are score systems?Single-center experience and literature review.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2022
    Review
  20. Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Mariëtta J O E BertleffDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Academic Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands. doc.bert@orange.nl
Jens A Halm
Willem A Bemelman
Arie C van der Ham
Erwin van der Harst
Hok I Oei
J F Smulders
E W Steyerberg
Johan F Lange

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic surgery has become popular during the last decade, mainly because it is associated with fewer postoperative complications than the conventional open approach. It remains unclear, however, if this benefit is observed after laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic closure of a PPU is as safe as conventional open correction.

methodsThe study was based on a randomized controlled trial in which nine medical centers from the Netherlands participated. A total of 109 patients with symptoms of PPU and evidence of air under the diaphragm were scheduled to receive a PPU repair. After exclusion of 8 patients during the operation, outcomes were analyzed for laparotomy (n = 49) and for the laparoscopic procedure (n = 52).

resultsOperating time in the laparoscopy group was significantly longer than in the open group (75 min versus 50 min). Differences regarding postoperative dosage of opiates and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain scoring system were in favor of the laparoscopic procedure. The VAS score on postoperative days 1, 3, and 7 was significant lower (P < 0.05) in the laparoscopic group. Complications were equally distributed. Hospital stay was also comparable: 6.5 days in the laparoscopic group versus 8.0 days in the open group (P = 0.235).

conclusionsLaparoscopic repair of PPU is a safe procedure compared with open repair. The results considering postoperative pain favor the laparoscopic procedure.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIntraoperative ComplicationsLaparoscopyLaparotomyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPeptic Ulcer PerforationPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative Pain

Identifiers

PMID19430829
PMCPMC2691927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.