ReviewUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2022
Open versus laparoscopic technique in peptic ulcus perforation, how effective are score systems?Single-center experience and literature review.
Review in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne of the most common peptic ulcer complications is perforation (PUP) which also remains an important cause of morbidity and mortality. In this study, it was aimed to compare the results of patients who had similar pre-operative scoring index results (Boey, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and Mannheim Peritonitis Index (MPI), and type of surgery.
methodsPre-operative Boey, CCI, and MPI scores were calculated by retrospectively examining the files of patients who were operated under emergency conditions with the diagnosis of PUP. The patients divided into two groups those who underwent laparoscopic surgery/Group-1 and open surgery/Group-2.
resultsThere was no statistical difference between the groups in terms of demographic data, hospital admission time, and length of hospital stay. The operation time was found to be longer in the laparoscopic group (110,2 SD20,6/75-150 min) than open group (54,2 SD15,7/30-120 min) (p<0.001). Morbidity was less in laparoscopic group (4% versus 14.6%) (p<0.001).
conclusionThe laparoscopic method may be used safely in PUP due to the lower post-operative complication rates and known advantages of minimally invasive surgery.
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.