ArticleCureus2020
Laparoscopy: A Better Approach for Perforated Duodenal Ulcer.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Laparoscopic surgery is becoming the gold standard for most abdominal surgeries in recent times. Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer (PDU), however, is still an area of debate. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repair of PDU versus open repair. Methods In this cross-sectional study, patients were consecutively sampled. Out of 101 patients with clinically diagnosed PDU, 36 patients underwent laparoscopic Graham patch repair and 65 underwent open Graham patch repair in a tertiary care academic hospital. Open repair was via upper midline incision, and laparoscopic repair by the three-port technique. The following stages were calculated: operative time, duration of postoperative analgesia, time taken to mobilize, and patient length of stay after the operation. Results The mean operative time was somewhat longer in the laparoscopy group compared to the open repair group (74.01 vs 56.17 minutes, respectively). Mean postoperative analgesia requirement, time taken to mobilize, and hospital stay were significantly shorter after laparoscopy than after open repair (1.21 days, 9.32 hours, and 3.12 days vs 3.83 days, 16.20 hours, and 4.85 days, respectively). Three patients (8%) in the laparoscopy group and 35 (54%) in the open repair group had postoperative complications. Conclusions Laparoscopic repair of PDU is a safe approach and better than open repair in terms of operative time with the right level of expertise only, postoperative analgesia requirement, mobilization, duration of hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative respiratory and wound complications.
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.