Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20033725›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2010

Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer: first choice? A review of literature.

Mariëtta J O E Bertleff, Johan F Lange

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05767320 (Comparison Between Open vs Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer), which is not on this map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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.

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

53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 186 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Potential use of peptic ulcer perforation (PULP) score as a conversion index of laparoscopic-perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) repair.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. An Overview of Gastroduodenal Perforation.Frontiers in surgery · 2020
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mariëtta J O E BertleffDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Academic Hospital Maastricht, P.Debeyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands. doc.bert@online.nl
Johan F Lange
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerforated peptic ulcer (PPU), despite antiulcer medication and Helicobacter eradication, is still the most common indication for emergency gastric surgery associated with high morbidity and mortality. Outcome might be improved by performing this procedure laparoscopically, but there is no consensus on whether the benefits of laparoscopic closure of perforated peptic ulcer outweigh the disadvantages such as prolonged surgery time and greater expense.

methodsAn electronic literature search was done by using PubMed and EMBASE databases. Relevant papers written between January 1989 and May 2009 were selected and scored according to Effective Public Health Practice Project guidelines.

resultsData were extracted from 56 papers, as summarized in Tables 1-7. The overall conversion rate for laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer was 12.4%, with main reason for conversion being the diameter of perforation. Patients presenting with PPU were predominantly men (79%), with an average age of 48 years. One-third had a history of peptic ulcer disease, and one-fifth took nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Only 7% presented with shock at admission. There seems to be no consensus on the perfect setup for surgery and/or operating technique. In the laparoscopic groups, operating time was significant longer and incidence of recurrent leakage at the repair site was higher. Nonetheless there was significant less postoperative pain, lower morbidity, less mortality, and shorter hospital stay.

conclusionThere are good arguments that laparoscopic correction of PPU should be first treatment of choice. A Boey score of 3, age over 70 years, and symptoms persisting longer than 24 h are associated with higher morbidity and mortality and should be considered contraindications for laparoscopic intervention.

Indexed as

Duodenal UlcerHumansLaparoscopyOmentumPeptic Ulcer PerforationStomach UlcerTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID20033725
PMCPMC2869436
OpenAlexW2004700170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.