A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open omental patch repair of perforated peptic ulcer

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.

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

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.

Optical puncture combined with balloon dilation PCNL vs. conventional puncture dilation PCNL for kidney stones without hydronephrosis: a retrospective study

Background

Accurate puncture and dilation of the target kidney calices for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) can be difficult. This study aimed to investigate the advantages of PCNL using optical puncture (i.e. the puncture is visualized on a screen as seen through the needle) combined with balloon dilation vs. conventional puncture methods.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of 58 consecutive patients with kidney stones without hydronephrosis and treated at the Minimally Invasive Urology Center of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Hospital between 10/2016 and 12/2017. Twenty-one patients underwent optical puncture combined with balloon dilation PCNL. Thirty-seven patients underwent conventional puncture instrument dilation PCNL (controls). Success rate, tubeless rate, blood loss, pain, and complications were compared between the two groups.

Results

The one-time puncture success rate (95.2% [20/21] vs. 67.6% [25/37], P = 0.02) and the postoperative tubeless rate (81.0% [17/21] vs. 54.1% [20/37], P = 0.04) were higher in the optical puncture group compared with controls. The average postoperative hemoglobin reduction was smaller (1.13 ± 0.63 vs. 1.56 ± 0.59 g/dL, P = 0.01), the postoperative VAS score was lower (1.6 ± 0.9 vs. 2.5 ± 1.2, P = 0.004), the rate of postoperative analgesic use was lower (14.3% [3/21] vs. 40.5% [15/37], P = 0.04), and the postoperative mean hospitalization days was shorter (3.7 ± 0.9 vs. 4.4 ± 0.8, P = 0.005) in the optical puncture group vs. controls. There was no case of urinary sepsis, blood transfusion, perirenal hematoma, pleural injury, and visceral organ damage.

Conclusions

Optical puncture combined with balloon dilation PCNL could be associated with good therapeutic effect and low frequency of complications for the treatment of kidney stones without hydronephrosis.