ArticleUlusal cerrahi dergisi2014
The growing role of laparoscopic repair in patients with early diagnosed peptic ulcer perforation.
Article in Ulusal cerrahi dergisi, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- A comparative study on laparoscopic and open surgical approaches for perforated peptic ulcer repair: efficacy and outcomes analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Assessment of PULP score in predicting 30-day perforated duodenal ulcer morbidity, and comparison of its performance with Boey and ASA, a retrospective study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLaparoscopy is gaining more importance in emergency abdominal surgery. Peptic ulcer perforation (PUP) constitutes a significant portion of surgical emergencies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methods and results of patients who underwent surgery due to PUP in our department. MATERIAL AND
methodsPatients who were admitted to the hospital in the early period and received Graham-patch (GP) repair due to PUP from January 2009 to January 2013 were divided into two groups as laparoscopic (group L) or open (group O) surgery. Demographic data of the patients, duration of the operation, conversion to open surgery, length of hospital stay, secondary interventions, re-admissions, morbidity and mortality rates were retrospectively evaluated. Patients with conversion to open surgery were included in Group O.
resultsTwo hundred and nineteen patients were included in the study, 148 of which were in Group O (including the 47 patients with conversion), and 71 in group L. In patients with early admission, the rate of laparoscopically completed GP was 19.6% in the first year of the study, whereas this rate was 61.8% in the fourth year (p<0.001). The rate of conversion to open surgery was 50% in 2009, and 24.4% in 2012 (p=0.028). Length of hospital stay was shorter in group L (p=0.35). The complication rate was 4.2% in patients who had laparoscopic procedures, and was 6.1% in patients who underwent open surgery (p=0.57). Seventy-three percent (n=11) of re-hospitalized patients in the perioperative period (n=15) were treated conservatively. When costs related to secondary interventions and re-hospitalization were included, there was no significant difference between laparoscopic and open surgery groups in terms of cost (p=0.06).
conclusionLaparoscopic surgery for PUP is a reliable method and has been used increasingly over the years in our department. The operative time is longer, the length of hospital stay is shorter, the complication rates are less than open surgery, and the conversion rate is significantly reduced. Laparoscopic GP is feasible in early-admitted patients with PUP, due to the above-mentioned advantages. We believe the rate of conversion to open surgery decreases with increasing experience in laparoscopy.
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.