Shanjun Tan1, Guohao Wu2, Qiulin Zhuang1, Qiulei Xi1, Qingyang Meng1, Yi Jiang1, Yusong Han1, Chao Yu3, Zhen Yu4, Ning Li5. 1. Department of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, PR China. 2. Department of General Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, PR China. Electronic address: wuguohaozs@163.com. 3. Department of Nephrology & Rheumatology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200072, PR China. 4. Department of General Surgery, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200072, PR China. 5. Research Institute of General Surgery, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210002, PR China.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The role of laparoscopic surgery in the repair for peptic ulcer disease is unclear. The present study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and references of identified articles and relevant reviews. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, mortality, and reoperation. Secondary outcomes were operative time, postoperative pain, postoperative hospital stay, nasogastric tube duration, and time to resume diet. Statistical analysis was carried out by Review Manage software. RESULTS: Five RCTs investigating a total of 549 patients, of whom, 279 received laparoscopic repair and 270 received open repair, were included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences between these two procedures in some primary outcomes including overal postoperative complication rate, mortality, and reoperation rate. Subcategory analysis of postoperative complications showed that laparoscopic repair had also similar rates of repair site leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, pneumonia, and urinary tract infection as open surgery, except of the lower surgical site infection rate (P < 0.05). In addition, there were also no significant differences between these two procedures in some second outcomes including operative time, postoperative hospital stay, and time to resume diet, but laparoscopic repair had shorter nasogastric tube duration (P < 0.05) and less postoperative pain (P < 0.05) than open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery is comparable with open surgery in the setting of repair for perforated peptic ulcer. The obvious advantages of laparoscopic surgery are the lower surgical site infection rate, shorter nasogastric tube duration and less postoperative pain. However, more higher quality studies should be undertaken to further assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repair for peptic ulcer disease.
INTRODUCTION: The role of laparoscopic surgery in the repair for peptic ulcer disease is unclear. The present study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic versus open repair for peptic ulcer disease were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and references of identified articles and relevant reviews. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, mortality, and reoperation. Secondary outcomes were operative time, postoperative pain, postoperative hospital stay, nasogastric tube duration, and time to resume diet. Statistical analysis was carried out by Review Manage software. RESULTS: Five RCTs investigating a total of 549 patients, of whom, 279 received laparoscopic repair and 270 received open repair, were included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences between these two procedures in some primary outcomes including overal postoperative complication rate, mortality, and reoperation rate. Subcategory analysis of postoperative complications showed that laparoscopic repair had also similar rates of repair site leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, pneumonia, and urinary tract infection as open surgery, except of the lower surgical site infection rate (P < 0.05). In addition, there were also no significant differences between these two procedures in some second outcomes including operative time, postoperative hospital stay, and time to resume diet, but laparoscopic repair had shorter nasogastric tube duration (P < 0.05) and less postoperative pain (P < 0.05) than open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery is comparable with open surgery in the setting of repair for perforated peptic ulcer. The obvious advantages of laparoscopic surgery are the lower surgical site infection rate, shorter nasogastric tube duration and less postoperative pain. However, more higher quality studies should be undertaken to further assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repair for peptic ulcer disease.
Authors: Daniel L Davenport; Walker R Ueland; Shyanie Kumar; Margaret Plymale; Andrew C Bernard; J Scott Roth Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Edvard Grišin; Saulius Mikalauskas; Tomas Poškus; Valdemaras Jotautas; Kęstutis Strupas Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 1.195
Authors: Diego Paim Carvalho Garcia; Cyntia Ferreira Dos Reis; Luiza Ohasi de Figueiredo; Guilherme Vaz de Melo Mota; Leonardo Quinete Guimarães; Fernando Augusto de Vasconcellos Santos; Luiz Ronaldo Alberti; Thiago de Almeida Furtado Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2019-11-17