SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2019
Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05699616 (Laparoscopic Management of Perforated Peptic Ulcer), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 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.
Laparoscopic Management of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Multicenter Experience
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 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
- Evidence-based, cost-effective management of perforated peptic ulcer disease: An algorithm of the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Emergency General Surgery Algorithms Working Group.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2026Article
- An Endoscopic Approach as a Salvage Strategy in Complicated Perforated Gastric Ulcer: A Case Report.Cureus · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer: systematic scoping review and in-depth evaluation of existing evidence.BJS open · 2025Article
- Prognostic risk factors in upper gastrointestinal perforation: the role of body composition parameters.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Risk factors and predictive model construction for severe complications following repair of perforated peptic ulcer.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Unravelling Peptic Ulcers: Comprehensive Insights into Etiology, Diagnosis, Screening Techniques, and Treatment.Current pharmaceutical design · 2025Review
- Clinical effects of anweiyang capsule and Pinellia decoction for eradication of Helicobacter pylori and healing of peptic ulcers.AMB Express · 2024Article
- Usefulness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation: a single-center retrospective cohort study.Surgery today · 2024Article
- Perforated gastric ulcer causing mediastinal emphysema: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- A comparative study on laparoscopic and open surgical approaches for perforated peptic ulcer repair: efficacy and outcomes analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcers: analysis of outcomes and identification of predictive factors of conversion.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Saline irrigation versus gauze wiping and suction only for peritoneal decontamination during laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Experience of management of pediatric upper gastrointestinal perforations: a series of 30 cases.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- 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 · 2022Review
- Article
- Non-marginal jejunal ulcer perforation following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.Journal of surgical case reports · 2022Article
- 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 · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOver the last 3 decades, laparoscopic procedures have emerged as the standard treatment for many elective and emergency surgical conditions. Despite the increased use of laparoscopic surgery, the role of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer remains controversial among general surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer.
methodsA systemic literature review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Database of all randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared laparoscopic (LR) with open repair (OR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). Data was extracted using a standardised form and subsequently analysed.
resultsThe meta-analysis using data from 7 RCT showed that LR for PPU has decreased overall post-operative morbidity (LR = 8.9% vs. OR = 17.0%) (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.79, p < 0.01), wound infections, (LR = 2.2% vs. OR = 6.3%) (OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.5, p < 0.01) and shorter duration of hospital stay (6.6 days vs. 8.2 days, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in length of operation, leakage rate, incidence of intra-abdominal abscess, post-operative sepsis, respiratory complications, re-operation rate or mortality. There was no publication bias and the quality of the studies ranged from poor to good.
conclusionThese results demonstrate that laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer has a reduced morbidity and total hospital stay compared with open approach. There are no significant differences in mortality, post-operative sepsis, abscess and re-operation rates. LR should be the preferred treatment option for patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease.
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.