ArticleCureus2022
Outcome of Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcers in a Resource-Limited Setting.
Article in Cureus, 2022. 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, 3 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 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Perforation of peptic ulcers is a common cause of emergency surgery and has significant morbidity and mortality. The use and range of laparoscopic surgery have greatly increased over the past three decades. Laparoscopic approach is an option for perforated peptic ulcers because of the simple nature of the intervention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic approach for peptic ulcer repair in emergency setting by means of operative time, post-operative pain, mean hospital stay, and post-operative complications. Methods In this study, we enrolled patients presenting with perforated peptic ulcers in the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital in Lahore, Pakistan. Approval from the hospital ethical committee and informed consent were taken from all patients. After resuscitation, the patient underwent laparoscopic repair of perforation. Post-operative course of patients was monitored. Duration of surgery, post-operative pain, length of hospital stay, and post-operative complications were noted for all patients. Results Between December 2018 and December 2021, 31 patients with perforated peptic ulcers underwent laparoscopic repair at our hospital. Mean age of patients was 37.25 ± 7.80 years. Most of the patients were male (70.76%). The mean operation time was 109.35 ± 17.02 minutes for laparoscopic repair. Mean duration of hospital stay was 5.10 ± 0.87 days. Mean post-operative pain was 3.55 ± 0.85 assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale. There were no mortalities during the 30-day post-operative window. Conclusion With proper patient selection, laparoscopic surgery offers better results as compared to open surgery in patients undergoing emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcers.
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.