ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2011
Management of perforated peptic ulcer in a district general hospital.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Updated Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer.Scientific reports · 2015Pooled it
- Epidemiology of perforated peptic ulcer: age- and gender-adjusted analysis of incidence and mortality.World journal of gastroenterology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaparoscopic surgery has become increasingly popular for elective surgery but it has gained slow transference to emergency surgery. The management of perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) laparoscopically is an accepted strategy yet it still remains infrequently used. The purpose of this study was to analyse the utility and outcomes of laparoscopy versus open repair for PPU in a district general hospital. In addition, we evaluated whether the subspecialty of the on-call consultant affected the method of repair performed and the training opportunities for trainee surgeons.
methodsBetween 2003 and 2009, 53 patients underwent laparoscopic repair, 89 patients underwent open repair and a further 20 patients had laparoscopic repair that was converted to open repair for PPU. The results from a prospectively compiled database were analysed with primary outcome measures including operative time, length of hospital stay and mortality.
resultsThe median operating time in the laparoscopic group was 60.0 minutes compared with 50.5 minutes in the open group. Hospital stay in surviving patients was significantly shorter in patients treated completely laparoscopically (5 days) when compared with the open group (6 days) ( p <0.01). There were six deaths in the laparoscopic group (11%) compared with 13 in the open group (15%) and one in the converted group (5%). Trainees performed 53% (47/89) of open repairs and 13% (7/54) of laparoscopic repairs.
conclusionsBoth laparoscopic and open repair are equally safe in the management of PPU. Our findings support the view that this procedure can be successfully used as a training operation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.