[Open and laparoscopic surgery via minimally invasive approach in the treatment of perforated ulcer: a systematic review and metaanalysis].

Autor:	Panin SI; Volgograd State Medical University, Volgograd, Russia., Beburishvili AG; Volgograd State Medical University, Volgograd, Russia., Prudkov MI; Ural State Medical University, Ekaterinburg, Russia., Sovtsov SA; South Ural State Medical University, Chelyabinsk, Russia., Timerbulatov VM; Bashkir State Medical University, Ufa, Russia., Bykov AV; Volgograd State Medical University, Volgograd, Russia., Abdullaev EG; Vladimir City Emergency Hospital, Vladimir, Russia., Khasanov AG; Bashkir State Medical University, Ufa, Russia., Nishnevich EV; Ural State Medical University, Ekaterinburg, Russia., Fedorov AV; Vishnevsky National Medical Research Center of Surgery, Moscow, Russia.
Jazyk:	ruština
Zdroj:	Khirurgiia [Khirurgiia (Mosk)] 2021 (2), pp. 94-100.
DOI:	10.17116/hirurgia202102194
Abstrakt:	Objective: Systematic review and metaanalysis of the effectiveness of open and minimally invasive laparoscopic suturing of perforated peptic ulcer. Material and Methods: Searching for Russian and English language reports included Scientific Electronic Library, Cochrane Collaboration Library and PubMed databases. We have analyzed contents of specialized journals, reviews and their references. Unpublished data were obtained via communication with chiefs of national surgical hospitals. RevMan 5.3 software was used for metaanalysis. Results: We found no international randomized trials in available literature. Metaanalysis was based on national non-randomized studies. Total sample was 1177 cases. Laparoscopic minimally invasive surgery was performed in 43% of cases ( n =503), open suturing - in 57% ( n =674) of patients. Choice of these procedures is not currently not standardized. Minimally invasive procedures are shorter in time (mean difference -8.02, 95% CI -11.26 - -4.77, p <0.00001) and ensure less hospital-stay (mean difference -1.93, 95% CI -2.97 - -0.88, p =0.0003). Complications were less common (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.07-0.27, p <0.00001) after minimally invasive operations (2.4%, 12/503) compared to laparotomy (11.4%, 77/674). Incidence of suture failure was similar (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-1.6, p =0.2) (0.4% (2/503) vs. 0.7% (5/674)). Postoperative mortality was higher (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05-0.37, p <0.0001) after laparotomy (8%, 54/674) compared to laparoscopy (0.8%, 4/503). Conclusion: A metaanalysis indicates the advantage of laparoscopy-assisted suturing of perforated ulcer via minimally invasive approach over laparotomy. The absence of a standardized approach in choosing of minimally invasive laparotomy and conventional approach is a limitation of these results.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu