Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

Lee, Dong Hoon; Ye, MaDong; Sun, Haozhe; Shelat, Vishal G; Koura, Aaryan

doi:10.1155/2016/8605039

Cited by 18 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…this difference might be attributed to the ease of process of peritoneal wash and larger volume of normal saline that can be used with open approach while it's to a little bit more difficult with laparoscopic approach and can't be as effective as in open approach. this was comparable to many other studies which showed same results 10,17,25 . Wound infection seen more frequent with open approach as seen in table IV.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer

Alluaibi¹,

Al-Wajeeh²,

Mohammed³

2017

Basrah Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peptic ulcer is the most common GIT disorder with a prevalence of 2%, peaking around the age of 70 years. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer began to evolve and replace the ordinary upper laparotomy. We studied 47 patients suffering from perforated duodenal or gastric ulcer in Al-Mawanee General Hospital in Basrah in the period 2014-2017, the patients were categorized into 2 groups: 1st group(24 patients) managed laparoscopically and the 2nd group (23 patients) managed by open approach. Perforation found to occur more with duodenal ulcer (29 pt. 61.70%) and more in male patients (26 pt. 55.33%). The peak perforation seen in age group >60 years and the commonest risk factors was the NSAIDs usage. Operative time was insignificantly longer in laparoscopic approach. However, the laparoscopic approach has less post operative pain and less overall complications (4 pt. 16.6% vs. 8 pt. 34.7%). In conclusion, laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a feasible operation and considered promising with less postoperative pain, less postoperative complications and better cosmetic results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer

Alluaibi¹,

Al-Wajeeh²,

Mohammed³

2017

Basrah Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Included studies were published between 1996 and 2019. Five were RCTs [14][15][16][17][18] , three were prospective cohort studies [19][20][21] , and the other 15 studies used retrospective cohort or case-control designs [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] ( Table 1). All compared outcomes of laparoscopic versus open peptic ulcer repair.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in descriptors of patient characteristics in randomized clinical trials of peptic ulcer repair: a systematic review

Lee

Coe

O'Donoghue³

et al. 2020

British Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The ability to compare findings across surgical research is important. Inadequate description of participants, interventions or outcomes could lead to bias and inaccurate assessment of findings. The aim of this study was to assess consistency of description of participants using studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of peptic ulcer as an example. Methods: This systematic review is reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Searches of MEDLINE and Embase databases were performed to identify studies comparing laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer in adults, published in the English language. Manuscripts were dual-screened for eligibility. Full texts were retrieved and dual-screened for inclusion. Data extracted from studies included descriptors of participants in studies from tables and text. Descriptors were categorized into conceptual domains by the research team, and coverage of each domain by study was tabulated. Results: Searches identified 2018 studies. After screening, 37 full texts were retrieved and 23 studies were included in the final synthesis. A total of 76 unique descriptors were identified. These were classified into demographics (11 descriptors), vital signs (9 descriptors), disease-specific characteristics (10 descriptors), presentation and pathway factors (4 descriptors), risk factors (8 descriptors), laboratory tests (14 descriptors) and baseline health (28 descriptors). The number of descriptors in a single study ranged from three to 31. All studies reported at least one demographic descriptor. Laboratory tests was the least frequently described domain. Conclusion: Study participants are described inconsistently in studies of a single example surgical condition.

show abstract

“… 8 – 10 Moreover, research has revealed that establishing pneumoperitoneum for intestinal decompression in patients with intestinal obstruction improved treatment efficacy and led to better clinical outcomes including shorter durations of surgery, less intraoperative blood loss, lower postoperative pain scores, and shorter lengths of hospital stay. 11 – 13 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of laparoscopic surgery versus traditional laparotomy for the treatment of emergency patients

Cui

Liu

2019

J Int Med Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic gastrointestinal emergency surgery and postoperative complications. Methods Data for 604 patients undergoing emergency gastrointestinal surgery between January 2013 and December 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Treatment efficacy and postoperative complications were compared between 300 patients (control group) undergoing traditional laparotomy and 304 patients (observation group) undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Results Clinical features were significantly better in the observation group than in the control group, including duration of surgery (59.12 ± 10.31 minutes vs. 70.34 ± 12.83 minutes), intraoperative blood loss (41.21 ± 10.45 mL vs. 61.38 ± 9.97 mL), postoperative pain score (1.25 ± 0.25 points. vs. 5.13 ± 0.43 points), length of hospital stay (5.13 ± 0.24 days vs. 7.05 ± 0.13 days), and time to free activity (13 ± 2.96 hours vs. 22 ± 3.02 hours). The total complication incidence in the observation group was 3.9%, compared with 16% in the control group (16%). No significant differences in direct medical costs were recorded between the observation and control groups. Conclusions For patients undergoing emergency gastrointestinal surgery, laparoscopic surgery resulted in better clinical outcomes than traditional laparotomy without incurring additional costs. The potential clinical benefits of emergency laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery warrant further study.

show abstract

Laparoscopic versus Open Omental Patch Repair for Early Presentation of Perforated Peptic Ulcer: Matched Retrospective Cohort Study

Cited by 18 publications

References 31 publications

Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer

Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair of Perforated Peptic Ulcer

Variation in descriptors of patient characteristics in randomized clinical trials of peptic ulcer repair: a systematic review

Comparison of laparoscopic surgery versus traditional laparotomy for the treatment of emergency patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About