ReviewCureus2025
Post-operative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Perforated Duodenal Ulcer: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Perforated duodenal ulcer is a surgical emergency associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. While open repair has long been the standard, laparoscopic repair is increasingly adopted for its minimally invasive advantages. This systematic review, conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251117651), compared outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair in adult patients with perforated duodenal ulcers. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library identified comparative studies published between January 2000 and December 2024. Six studies involving 739 patients met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes assessed included operative time, conversion rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), post-operative complications, leak rate, and mortality. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tool for the single randomized controlled trial and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Laparoscopic repair was consistently associated with shorter LOS (4.0-7.8 versus 7.8-11.7 days), lower complication rates (5.8-13% versus 8.6-44.3%), and reduced mortality (0-1.8% versus 0-27.9%) compared with open repair, while leak rates were comparable (0-7% versus 1.4-4.9%). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 0-17.8% of laparoscopic cases. Operative times were longer in earlier studies but equivalent or shorter in more recent work. Risk of bias ranged from low to moderate. In conclusion, laparoscopic repair is a safe and effective alternative to open repair, offering a faster recovery and lower morbidity without increasing the risk of leaks. Open repair remains essential for unstable patients or those with severe contamination. Further multicentre randomized trials with standardized outcome reporting are warranted to confirm these benefits and define optimal patient selection.
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.