SynthesisJSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer.
Synthesis in JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer perforation: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials. Time to conclude!Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2025Pooled it
- Laparoscopic suture repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease: a meta-review and trial sequential analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- 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 · 2019Pooled it
- Methodological overview of systematic reviews to establish the evidence base for emergency general surgery.The British journal of surgery · 2017Pooled it
- An Updated Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer.Scientific reports · 2015Pooled it
- Comparison of Mortality and Postoperative Complications Between Open and Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: An Umbrella Review.Minimally invasive surgery · 2024Review
- Efficacy of pantoprazole plus perforation repair for peptic ulcer and its effect on the stress response.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Article
- A comparative study on laparoscopic and open surgical approaches for perforated peptic ulcer repair: efficacy and outcomes analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Outcome of Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcers in a Resource-Limited Setting.Cureus · 2022Article
- Clinical Characteristics of Primary Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer: 10-Year Experience in a Single Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- A comparison of short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open emergent repair of perforated peptic ulcers.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcers: laparoscopic versus open approach.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Impact of laparoscopic approach in emergency major abdominal surgery: single-centre analysis of 748 consecutive cases.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2018Article
- Endoscopic management of perforations, leaks and fistulas.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2018Review
- Perforated peptic ulcer.Lancet (London, England) · 2015Review
- Simple patch closure for perforated peptic ulcer in children followed by helicobacter pylori eradication.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesLaparoscopic treatment of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) has been introduced as an alternative procedure to open surgery. It has been postulated that the minimally invasive approach involves less operative stress and results in decreased morbidity and mortality.
methodsWe conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials to test this hypothesis. Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Trials databases were searched, with no date or language restrictions.
resultsOur literature search identified 4 randomized trials, with a cumulative number of 289 patients, that compared the laparoscopic approach with open sutured repair of perforated ulcer. Analysis of outcomes did not favor either approach in terms of morbidity, mortality, and reoperation rate, although odds ratios seemed to consistently support the laparoscopic approach. Results did not determine the comparative efficiency and safety of laparoscopic or open approach for PPU.
conclusionIn view of an increased interest in the laparoscopic approach, further randomized trials are considered essential to determine the relative effectiveness of laparoscopic and open repair of PPU.
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.