ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery2026
Feasibility and outcomes of laparoscopic management in perforation peritonitis: A prospective cohort study with propensity score matching.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery, 2026. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPerforation peritonitis remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in emergency surgical patients. Conventionally, open laparotomy has been the preferred approach. However, with advancements in minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic management has emerged as a potential alternative. The study aims to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery compared to open laparotomy in managing perforation peritonitis. PATIENTS AND
methodsA prospective observational study was conducted from January 2022 to May 2023 for patients diagnosed with perforation peritonitis. A total of 140 patients were recruited, 110 patients underwent laparotomy while 30 patients underwent laparoscopic management. Propensity score matching (PSM) in 1:1 ratio was applied to balance confounding variables, resulting in two matched groups of 28 patients each. Operative time, length of post-operative stay, post-operative Visual Analogue Scale score, morbidity and mortality rates were compared.
resultsThe mean operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (217.43 ± 86.10 min) compared to the laparotomy group (182.46 ± 31.63 min; P = 0.049). However, patients in the laparoscopic group experienced a significantly shorter hospital stay (4.39 ± 2.04 days vs. 8.68 ± 3.45 days; P < 0.001) and lower post-operative pain scores at all time points ( P < 0.012). The 30-day morbidity rate was lower in the laparoscopic group (10% vs. 32%), with fewer surgical site infections and reoperations.
conclusionLaparoscopy is a feasible and effective alternative to laparotomy in selected cases of perforation peritonitis, offering benefits such as reduced post-operative pain and shorter hospital stay. Despite technical challenges, improved surgical expertise and patient selection can enhance its role in emergency surgical settings.
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.