Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31897688›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgery2020

Single-Port Laparoscopic Repair of Perforated Duodenal Ulcers.

Tri Huu Nguyen, Thanh Nhu Dang, Thomas Schnelldorfer

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tri Huu NguyenDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Hue University School of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue City, Vietnam. trihuunguyen@huemed-univ.edu.vn.
Thanh Nhu DangDepartment of Digestive Surgery, Hue University School of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue City, Vietnam.
Thomas SchnelldorferDepartment of Surgery, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic single-port surgery has widely been introduced for the treatment of various abdominal conditions. But controversies still exist regarding its potential advantages and risks, especially for emergency surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of a single-port laparoscopic repair using straight laparoscopic instruments for the treatment of perforated duodenal ulcers.

methodsA prospective consecutive case series was conducted including all patients with a perforated duodenal ulcer who underwent a laparoscopic single-port repair at a single institution from January 2012 to June 2018. The operation was performed through a single port using conventional straight laparoscopic instruments and intra-corporeal knot tying techniques.

resultsOut of 75 patients, simple closure of the perforation without omental patch was accomplished in 96% of cases. Conversion to an open operation was required in one patient (1.3%) due to a posterior duodenal perforation, and additional trocar placement was needed in another patient (1.3%). The mean incision length was 2.0 ± 0.2 cm. The mean operation time was 63.0 ± 26.6 min. Meantime a nasogastric tube remained in place was 2.9 ± 0.8 days. Mean duration of analgesic use was 2.8 ± 0.8 days. The rate of postoperative complications was 2.7%, including two patients with wound infections. There were no instances of intestinal leak or abscess. The postoperative hospital stay was 5.7 ± 1.2 days.

conclusionLaparoscopic single-port repair using conventional straight laparoscopic instruments with intra-corporeal knot tying technique was safe and feasible for patients with perforated duodenal ulcers with low risk factors. This method offers results comparable to those expected with the standard multiport laparoscopic approach with the addition of improved cosmetic outcomes.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDuodenal UlcerFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMaleMiddle AgedPeptic Ulcer PerforationPostoperative ComplicationsProspective Studies

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.