-
Critical Care (London, England) May 2016The relative efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared to histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) should guide their use in reducing bleeding risk... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The relative efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared to histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) should guide their use in reducing bleeding risk in the critically ill.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, clinical trials registries, and conference proceedings through November 2015 without language or publication date restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PPIs vs H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults for clinically important bleeding, overt gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, nosocomial pneumonia, mortality, ICU length of stay and Clostridium difficile infection were included. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess our confidence in the evidence for each outcome.
RESULTS
In 19 trials enrolling 2117 patients, PPIs were more effective than H2RAs in reducing the risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR 0.39; 95 % CI 0.21, 0.71; P = 0.002; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence) and overt GI bleeding (RR 0.48; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.66; P < 0.0001; I (2) = 3 %, moderate confidence). PPI use did not significantly affect risk of pneumonia (RR 1.12; 95 % CI 0.86, 1.46; P = 0.39; I (2) = 2 %, low confidence), mortality (RR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.87, 1.27; P = 0.61; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence), or ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), -0.38 days; 95 % CI -1.49, 0.74; P = 0.51; I (2) = 30 %, low confidence). No RCT reported Clostridium difficile infection.
CONCLUSIONS
PPIs were superior to H2RAs in preventing clinically important and overt GI bleeding, without significantly increasing the risk of pneumonia or mortality. Their impact on Clostridium difficile infection is yet to be determined.
Topics: Duodenal Ulcer; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Peptic Ulcer; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Stomach Ulcer
PubMed: 27142116
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1305-6 -
Nutrients Aug 2019It has been suggested that in doubtful cases of coeliac disease, a high CD3 T-cell receptor gamma delta (TCRγδ) intraepithelial lymphocyte count increases the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Accuracy of Both Gamma Delta+ Intraepithelial Lymphocytes and Coeliac Lymphogram Evaluated by Flow Cytometry for Coeliac Disease Diagnosis.
UNLABELLED
It has been suggested that in doubtful cases of coeliac disease, a high CD3 T-cell receptor gamma delta (TCRγδ) intraepithelial lymphocyte count increases the likelihood of coeliac disease.
AIM
To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of both an isolated increase of TCRγδ cells and a coeliac lymphogram (increase of TCRγδ decrease of CD3 intraepithelial lymphocytes) evaluated by flow cytometry in the diagnosis of coeliac disease.
METHODS
The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The inclusion criteria were: an article that allows for the construction of a 2 × 2 table of true and false positive and true and false negative values. A diagnostic accuracy test meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
The search provided 49 relevant citations, of which 6 were selected for the analysis, which represented 519 patients and 440 controls. Coeliac lymphogram: The pooled S and Sp were 93% and 98%, without heterogeneity. The area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99). TCRγδ: Pooled S and Sp were both 95%, with significant heterogeneity. The AUC was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98). : Both TCRγδ count and coeliac lymphogram assessed by flow cytometry in duodenal mucosal samples are associated with a high level of diagnostic accuracy for and against coeliac disease.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biomarkers; CD3 Complex; Celiac Disease; Child; Child, Preschool; Duodenum; Female; Flow Cytometry; Humans; Immunophenotyping; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Intestinal Mucosa; Intraepithelial Lymphocytes; Lymphocyte Count; Male; Middle Aged; Predictive Value of Tests; Receptors, Antigen, T-Cell, gamma-delta; Reproducibility of Results; Young Adult
PubMed: 31443602
DOI: 10.3390/nu11091992 -
PharmacoEconomics Jun 2011Intravenous esomeprazole (Nexium®) is approved in Europe for the prevention of rebleeding following therapeutic endoscopy for acute bleeding gastric or duodenal ulcers.... (Review)
Review
Intravenous esomeprazole (Nexium®) is approved in Europe for the prevention of rebleeding following therapeutic endoscopy for acute bleeding gastric or duodenal ulcers. In a pivotal clinical trial, patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and high-risk stigmata who received intravenous esomeprazole for 72 hours following endoscopic haemostatic therapy were significantly less likely than those receiving intravenous placebo to experience recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding at days 3, 7 and 30. In addition, the need for repeat endoscopic haemostatic therapy, the total amount of blood transfused and the number of additional hospital days required because of rebleeding were significantly lower in intravenous esomeprazole recipients than in intravenous placebo recipients. All patients received oral esomeprazole for 27 days following intravenous study drug administration. Intravenous esomeprazole was generally well tolerated in the pivotal trial, with infusion-site reactions being among the most commonly reported adverse events. Two pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted from a healthcare payer perspective used decision-tree models with 30-day time horizons to examine the cost effectiveness and cost utility of intravenous esomeprazole in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers who had undergone endoscopic haemostatic therapy. With regard to the incremental cost per bleed averted, intravenous esomeprazole was predicted to be dominant in Spain and cost effective in Sweden and the US compared with no intravenous esomeprazole. Efficacy results and resource utilization data from the pivotal clinical trial were inputted into this model, and the results of the analysis were generally robust to plausible variations in key variables. In the cost-utility analysis, which was conducted in the UK and is available as an abstract and poster, esomeprazole was considered to be the most cost-effective treatment alternative, compared with omeprazole or pantoprazole. For this analysis, clinical outcomes data were obtained from a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison (given the absence of head-to-head trial data), and utility values were proxied from the literature. In conclusion, intravenous esomeprazole prevents peptic ulcer rebleeding in patients who have undergone endoscopic haemostatic therapy. Pharmacoeconomic analyses support the use of intravenous esomeprazole following endoscopic haemostatic therapy in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding and high-risk stigmata.
Topics: Anti-Ulcer Agents; Esomeprazole; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Omeprazole; Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage; Secondary Prevention
PubMed: 21568358
DOI: 10.2165/11207430-000000000-00000 -
BMC Gastroenterology Nov 2017Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) has been gradually attempted. However, whether MIPD is superior, equal or inferior to its conventional open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) is not clear.
METHODS
Studies published up to May 2017 were searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Main outcomes were comprehensively reviewed and measured including conversion to open approach, operation time (OP), estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, length of hospital stay (LOS), overall complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), post-pancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), readmission, reoperation and reasons of preoperative death, number of retrieved lymph nodes (RLN), surgical margins, recurrence, and survival. The software of Review Manage version 5.1 was used for meta-analysis.
RESULTS
One hundred studies were included for systematic review and 26 out of them (totally 3402 cases, 1064 for MIPD, 2338 for OPD) were included for meta-analysis. In the early years, most articles were case reports or non-control case series studies, while in the last 6 years high-volume and comparative researches were increasing gradually. Systematic review revealed conversion rates of MIPD to OPD ranged from 0% to 40%. The mean or median OP of MIPD ranged from 276 to 657 min. The total POPF rates vary between 3.8% and 50% observed in all systematic reviewed studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated MIPD had longer OP (WMD = 99.4 min; 95%CI: 46.0 ~ 152.8, P < 0.01), lower blood loss (WMD = -0.54 ml; 95% CI, -0.88 ~ -0.20 ml; P < 0.01), lower transfusion rate (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.57 ~ 0.94, P = 0.02), shorter LOS (WMD = -3.49 days; 95%CI: -4.83 ~ -2.15, P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in time to oral intake, postoperative complications, POPF, reoperation, readmission, perioperative mortality and number of retrieved lymph nodes.
CONCLUSION
Our study demonstrates MIPD is technically feasible and safety on the basis of historical studies. MIPD is associated with less blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, shorter length of hospitalization and longer operation time. These findings are waiting for being confirmed with robust prospective comparative studies and randomized clinical trials.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Common Bile Duct Diseases; Humans; Length of Stay; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Operative Time; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 29169337
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-017-0691-9 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jul 2011There may be a positive association between coeliac disease and serum hypertransaminasaemia but evidence is conflicting. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There may be a positive association between coeliac disease and serum hypertransaminasaemia but evidence is conflicting.
AIMS
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the prevalence of coeliac disease in adults presenting with cryptogenic serum hypertransaminasaemia and the prevalence of hypertransaminasaemia in patients with newly diagnosed coeliac disease.
METHODS
MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to August 2010. Case series and case-control studies recruiting adults with either cryptogenic hypertransaminasaemia that applied serological tests for coeliac disease and/or distal duodenal biopsy to participants or newly diagnosed biopsy-proven coeliac disease that assessed serum transaminases were eligible. The pooled prevalence of coeliac disease in individuals presenting with abnormal serum transaminases and the pooled prevalence of hypertransaminasaemia in newly diagnosed coeliac disease were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
Eleven eligible studies were identified. Pooled prevalences of positive coeliac serology and biopsy-proven coeliac disease in cryptogenic hypertransaminasaemia were 6% (95% CI 3% to 10%) and 4% (95% CI 1% to 7%) respectively. Pooled prevalence of abnormal serum transaminases in newly diagnosed coeliac disease was 27% (95% CI 13% to 44%). Exclusion of gluten led to normalisation of serum transaminase levels in 63% to 90% of patients within 1 year.
CONCLUSIONS
Undetected coeliac disease is a potential cause for cryptogenic hypertransaminasaemia in 3% to 4% of cases. More than 20% of individuals with newly diagnosed coeliac disease may have abnormal serum transaminases and these normalise on a gluten-free diet in the majority of cases.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Celiac Disease; Confidence Intervals; Female; Humans; Liver Diseases; Male; Middle Aged; Prevalence; Transaminases
PubMed: 21545472
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04685.x -
Journal of Pediatric Surgery Aug 2013To compare LILT and STEP, the two principal procedures to lengthen the native bowel in children with a short bowel syndrome (SBS), by discussing the indications and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
PURPOSE
To compare LILT and STEP, the two principal procedures to lengthen the native bowel in children with a short bowel syndrome (SBS), by discussing the indications and presenting the outcome from published data.
METHODS
A review of literature was performed. N=39 publications were reviewed.
RESULTS
For LILT and STEP, failure to achieve intestinal autonomy by conservative therapy represents the main indication, and end-stage liver disease the main contraindication. A sufficiently dilated intestinal segment is a common anatomical precondition for both procedures. STEP can be performed on shorter intestinal segments and on intricate segments such as the duodenum, which is technically not feasible for LILT. Both procedures have a similar extent of intestinal lengthening (approximately 70%) and result in improvement of enteral nutrition and reversal of complications of parenteral nutrition. STEP seems to have a lower mortality and overall progression to transplantation.
CONCLUSIONS
STEP and LILT are both accepted procedures for non-transplant surgical management of SBS in children. The outcome after STEP seems to be more favourable, but larger series are needed to further assess accurate selection of eligible patients and to estimate effectiveness of procedures. A considerably higher number of cases for evaluation might be accomplished through the widespread use of a centralised registry.
Topics: Adolescent; Bacterial Translocation; Child; Child, Preschool; Comorbidity; Contraindications; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Enteral Nutrition; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Intestine, Small; Intestines; Liver Failure; Male; Malnutrition; Parenteral Nutrition; Postoperative Complications; Recovery of Function; Sepsis; Short Bowel Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23932625
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2013.05.018 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2014Background Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death for men and the fifth for women. The standard treatment for resectable tumours consists of a classic Whipple (CW) operation or a pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPW). It is unclear which of these procedures is more favourable in terms of survival, mortality, complications and quality of life.Objectives The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of CW and PPW techniques for surgical treatment of cancer of the pancreatic head and the periampullary region.Search methods We conducted searches on 28 March 2006, 11 January 2011 and 9 January 2014 to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs),while applying no language restrictions. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects(DARE) from The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1946 to January 2014); and EMBASE (1980 to January 2014). We also searched abstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week (1995 to 2010). We identified no additional studies upon updating the systematic review in 2014.Selection criteria We considered RCTs comparing CW versus PPW to be eligible if they included study participants with periampullary or pancreatic carcinoma. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies. We used a random-effects model for pooling data. We compared binary outcomes using odds ratios (ORs), pooled continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) and used hazard ratios (HRs) for meta-analysis of survival. Two review authors independently evaluated the methodological quality and risk of bias of included studies according to the standards of The Cochrane Collaboration.Main results We included six RCTs with a total of 465 participants. Our critical appraisal revealed vast heterogeneity with respect to methodological quality and outcome parameters. In-hospital mortality (OR 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.40; P value 0.18), overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; P value 0.29) and morbidity showed no significant differences. However, we noted that operating time (MD -68.26 minutes, 95% CI -105.70 to -30.83; P value 0.0004) and intraoperative blood loss (MD -0.76 mL, 95%CI -0.96 to -0.56; P value < 0.00001) were significantly reduced in the PPW group. All significant results are associated with low quality of evidence as determined on the basis of GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.Authors' conclusions No evidence suggests relevant differences in mortality, morbidity and survival between the two operations. Given obvious clinical and methodological heterogeneity, future research must be undertaken to perform high-quality randomised controlled trials of complex surgical interventions on the basis of well-defined outcome parameters.
Topics: Ampulla of Vater; Blood Loss, Surgical; Common Bile Duct Neoplasms; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Operative Time; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pylorus; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25387229
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006053.pub5 -
Medicine Mar 2017Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a common and frequently occurring disease. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD), and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a common and frequently occurring disease. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy (PPPD), and duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) are important treatment options for patients with chronic pancreatitis. The Beger and Frey procedures are 2 main duodenum-preserving techniques in duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) strategies. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical efficacy of DPPHR versus PD, the Beger procedure versus PD, the Frey procedure versus PD, and the Beger procedure versus the Frey procedure in the treatment of pancreatitis. The optimal surgical option for chronic pancreatitis is still under debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of different surgical strategies for chronic pancreatitis.
METHODS
Five databases (PubMed, Medline, SinoMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched with the limitations of human subjects and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) text. Data were extracted by 2 of the coauthors independently and analyzed using the RevMan statistical software, version 5.3. Weighted mean differences (WMDs), risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Seven studies involving a total of 385 patients who underwent the surgical treatments were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to moderate and included PD (n = 134) and DPPHR (n = 251 [Beger procedure = 100; Frey procedure = 109; Beger or Frey procedure = 42]). There were no significant differences between DPPHR and PD in post-operation mortality (RR = 2.89, 95% CI = 0.31-26.87, P = 0.36), pain relief (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.94-1.25, P = 0.26), exocrine insufficiency (follow-up time > 60 months: RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.72-1.15, P = 0.41), and endocrine insufficiency (RR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.52-1.08, P = 0.12). Concerning the follow-up time < 60 months, the DPPHR group had better results of exocrine insufficiency (RR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.08-0.62, P = 0.04). However, operation time (P < 0.0001), blood transfusion (P = 0.02), hospital stay (P = 0.0002), postoperation morbidity (P = 0.0007), weight gain (P < 0.00001), quality of life (P = 0.01), and occupational rehabilitation (P = 0.007) were significantly better for patients who underwent the DPPHR procedure compared with the PD procedure. The comparison results of the Frey procedure and PD showed that both procedures had an equal effect in the pain relief, postoperation mortality, exocrine and endocrine function, and quality of life (QoL) (P > 0.05), whereas patients who underwent the Frey procedure had significantly reduced operative times (P < 0.05) and less blood transfusions (P < 0.05). Comparing the Beger procedure to the PD procedure, there were no significant differences in hospital stay, blood transfusion, postoperation morbidity or mortality, pain relief, weight gain, exocrine insufficiency, and occupational rehabilitation (P > 0.05). Two studies comparing the Beger and Frey procedures showed no differences in postoperative morbidity, pain relief, exocrine insufficiency, and quality of life (P > 0.05). In terms of operative time, blood transfusion, hospital stay, postoperation morbidity, weight gain, quality of life, and occupational rehabilitation, the results also favored duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection (DPPHR) strategies.
CONCLUSION
All procedures are equally effective for the management of pain, postoperation morbidity, exocrine insufficiency, and endocrine insufficiency for chronic pancreatitis. Improved short- and long-term outcomes, including operative time, blood transfusion, hospital stay, quality of life, weight gain, and occupational rehabilitation make DPPHR a more favorable surgical strategy for patients with chronic pancreatitis. Further, relevant trails are eager to prove these findings.
Topics: Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Humans; Pancreatitis, Chronic
PubMed: 28248878
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006220 -
Nutrients Aug 2019We aimed to estimate the seroprevalence and the prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) in women with reproductive problems. A systematic review of English published articles... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
We aimed to estimate the seroprevalence and the prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) in women with reproductive problems. A systematic review of English published articles until June 2019 was performed in PubMed and Scopus using the terms: (infertility and (coeliac disease OR gluten) OR (miscarriage and (coeliac disease OR gluten) OR (abortion and (coeliac disease OR gluten). All articles showing numerical data of anti-transglutaminase type 2 or anti-endomisium antibodies, or intestinal biopsy information were included. The study group comprised women with overall infertility, unexplained infertility, or recurrent spontaneous abortions. Two authors independently performed data extraction using a predefined data sheet. The initial search yielded 310 articles, and 23 were selected for data extraction. After meta-analysis, the pooled seroprevalence was very similar for overall and unexplained infertility, with a pooled proportion of around 1.3%-1.6%. This implies three times higher odds of having CD in infertility when compared to controls. The pooled prevalence could not be accurately calculated due to the small sample sizes. Further studies with increased sample sizes are necessary before giving specific recommendations for CD screening in women with reproductive problems, but current data seem to support a higher risk of CD in these women.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Autoantibodies; Biopsy; Celiac Disease; Duodenum; Ethnicity; Female; GTP-Binding Proteins; Humans; Immunoglobulin A; Infertility, Female; Pregnancy; Protein Glutamine gamma Glutamyltransferase 2; Transglutaminases
PubMed: 31434238
DOI: 10.3390/nu11081950 -
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Jan 2023The mainstay of surgical management of perforated peptic ulcer is omental patch repair. Advances in minimally invasive techniques have shown feasibility of laparoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The mainstay of surgical management of perforated peptic ulcer is omental patch repair. Advances in minimally invasive techniques have shown feasibility of laparoscopic omental patch repair (LOPR). Laparoscopic omental patch repair is limited by learning curve (LC), but there is a lack of reporting of LC in LOPR. This study aims to compare outcomes following LOPR versus open omental patch repair (OOPR) with reporting of LC.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till January 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing LOPR and OOPR in perforated peptic ulcer. Exclusion criteria were primary repair without use of omental patch repair. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, postoperative leak, and LC analysis.
RESULTS
There were a total of 29 studies including 5,311 patients (LOPR, n = 1,687; OOPR, n = 3,624), with 4 RCTs with 238 patients (LOPR, n = 118; OOPR, n = 120). Majority of ulcers were located in the duodenum (57.0%) followed by stomach (30.7%). Mean ulcer size ranged from 5 to 16.2 mm in LOPR and 4.7 to 15.8 mm in OOPR. Laparoscopic omental patch repair was associated with lower 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.92; p = 0.02), overall morbidity (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18-0.53; p < 0.0001), surgical site infection (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.42; p < 0.00001), and length of stay (mean difference, -2.84 days; 95% CI, -3.63 to -2.06; p < 0.00001). Postoperative leakage (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.43-2.61; p = 0.90) was comparable between LOPR and OOPR. Only three studies analyzed the proportion of consultants to trainees; LOPR was performed mainly by consultants (range, 82.4-91.4%), while OOPR was mainly performed by trainees (range, 52.8-96.8%). One study showed that consultants who performed open conversion had shorter operating time compared with chief residents (85 vs. 186.6 minutes, p < 0.003).
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic omental patch repair has lower mortality, overall morbidity, length of stay, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain compared with OOPR. More prospective studies should be conducted to evaluate LC in LOPR.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Level IV.
Topics: Humans; Treatment Outcome; Pain, Postoperative; Peptic Ulcer Perforation; Laparoscopy; Duodenum; Postoperative Complications; Length of Stay
PubMed: 36252181
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003799