ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2023
The feasibility of falciformopexy in the repair of peptic ulcer perforation.
Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pedicled falciformopexy as an alternative surgical technique in peptic ulcer perforation: a case report and review of the literature.International journal of surgery case reports · 2026Article
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
backgroundModified Graham omentopexy is the most commonly used operative technique in the repair of peptic ulcer perfo-ration (PUP); however, there is little data on falciformopexy in the literature. The aim is to investigate the feasibility of falciformopexy in the repair of PUP, comparing with modified Graham omentopexy.
methodsData of 471 patients who were operated for PUP were retrospectively analyzed. Patients' demographics, pre-operative basic laboratory findings, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, operative findings, and post-operative complications were recorded. The patients were classified into two groups modified Graham omentopexy and falciformopexy, and then compared with each other in terms of clinical characteristics, operative findings, and post-operative complications.
resultsModified Graham omentopexy and falciformopexy were performed in 425 (90.2%) and 46 (9.8%) patients, respectively. The two groups were similar in terms of basic patient characteristics and pre-operative laboratory findings (P>0.05). ASA physical status was significantly different between the groups (P=0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of complications, except for an anastomotic leak. Anastomotic leak was observed more frequently in patients who underwent falciformopexy than in patients with modified Graham omentopexy (P=0.017).
conclusionAlthough falciformopexy technique has a higher rate of leak compared to the modified Graham omentopexy method, it should be kept in mind as an alternative method for repair of PUP, especially in cases where omentopexy cannot be applied for various reasons such as the presence of unavailable or unsuitable omentum.
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.