SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2026
Efficacy of laparoscopic barbed sutures in the repair of gastroduodenal perforations: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic repair of gastroduodenal perforation has been widely used in clinical practice. With the advent of barbed sutures, the position of traditional absorbable sutures has been challenged, but the superiority of one over the other in terms of clinical outcomes remains unclear.
aimTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic barbed sutures in the repair of gastroduodenal perforations through a meta-analysis.
methodsA systematic review, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case‒control studies, was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. From the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CNKI, CDDB, and CSTJ databases up to August 23, 2024, relevant studies comparing laparoscopic barbed sutures to conventional sutures were identified. The primary outcomes were suturing time and operative duration, whereas the secondary outcomes included hospital stay and postoperative complications. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings, and publication bias was examined via Egger's test complemented by the trim-and-fill method. The study was registered on the platform Prospero with the ID CRD42024591576.
resultsFive studies with 436 patients were included. Barbed sutures significantly reduced the operative time [standard mean difference (SMD: -0.89; 95% CI: -1.38-0.40; p < 0.001) and suturing time (SMD: -1.31; 95% CI: -1.91-0.71; p < 0.001) without increasing the risk of postoperative complications, such as anastomotic leakage, intestinal obstructions, or intra-abdominal abscesses. Additionally, no significant differences were observed in hospital stay.
conclusionThe use of barbed sutures in laparoscopic repair of gastroduodenal perforation offers significant advantages in reducing the operative time and simplifying the suturing process without compromising patient safety or increasing the incidence of postoperative complications. High-quality randomized controlled trials are needed for further validation. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024591576.
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.