ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Laparoscopic surgery in acute perforated gastroduodenal ulcers: an underutilized technique despite favorable short-term outcomes.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute perforation is a serious complication associated with peptic ulcer disease (PUD). Laparotomy remains the traditional operative intervention for repair. However, the laparoscopic approach has gained popularity over the last two decades. This study aims to evaluate the 30-day outcomes of laparoscopic and open approach in patients with acute PUD perforation.
methodsPatients who presented emergently with acute gastroduodenal ulcer perforation between 2005 and 2017 were identified from the ACS-NSQIP database. Patients were stratified based on whether they underwent laparoscopic repair (LR) or open repair (OR) and selected using one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM). Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, morbidity, readmission and reoperation rates, operative time, and total length of hospital stay (LOS). Categorical variables were assessed using Pearson's chi-squared or Fischer's exact tests. Continuous variables were tested with parametric or non-parametric tests.
results7099 patients were identified; 775 (11%) underwent LR and 6324 (89%) underwent OR. 1534 patients were matched (767 patients per group); matched groups had similar demographic, comorbidity, and perioperative characteristics. There were no differences between LR and OR regarding 30-day mortality (5.6% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.292), overall morbidity (38.9% vs. 43.3%, p = 0.078), serious morbidity (36.1% vs. 37.3%, p = 0.634), and reoperation rate (5.5% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.454). LR had a lower 30-day readmission rate (6.5% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.002), lower overall minor morbidities (14.3% vs. 19.9%, p = 0.004), shorter median (IQR) LOS (6 [5,10] vs. 7 [5,11], p < 0.001). Median (IQR) operative time was longer in the LR group (83 [61, 109) vs. 63 [47, 86] minutes, p < 0.001).
conclusionLR of gastroduodenal ulcers is currently underutilized. Patients who underwent LR tended to have longer operative time, but shorter LOS, and lower readmission rates. There were no differences in 30-day mortality between LR and OR groups. Therefore, a laparoscopic approach should be attempted for patients presenting with acute perforation of gastroduodenal ulcers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40425863What 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.