Panin S I, Beburishvili A G, Prudkov M I, Sovtsov S A, Timerbulatov V M, Bykov A V, Abdullaev E G, Khasanov A G, Nishnevich E V, Fedorov A V
Volgograd State Medical University, Volgograd, Russia.
Ural State Medical University, Ekaterinburg, Russia.
Khirurgiia (Mosk). 2021(2):94-100. doi: 10.17116/hirurgia202102194.
Systematic review and metaanalysis of the effectiveness of open and minimally invasive laparoscopic suturing of perforated peptic ulcer.
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 Unpublished data were obtained via communication with chiefs of national surgical hospitals.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.
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 (=503), open suturing - in 57% (=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, <0.00001) and ensure less hospital-stay (mean difference -1.93, 95% CI -2.97 - -0.88, =0.0003). Complications were less common (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.07-0.27, <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, =0.2) (0.4% (2/503) vs. 0.7% (5/674)). Postoperative mortality was higher (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05-0.37, <0.0001) after laparotomy (8%, 54/674) compared to laparoscopy (0.8%, 4/503).
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.
对开放性和微创腹腔镜缝合穿孔性消化性溃疡的有效性进行系统评价和荟萃分析。
检索俄语和英语报告,包括科学电子图书馆、Cochrane协作图书馆和PubMed数据库。我们分析了专业期刊的内容、综述及其参考文献。通过与国家外科医院院长沟通获取未发表的数据。使用RevMan 5.3软件进行荟萃分析。
在现有文献中未发现国际随机试验。荟萃分析基于国内非随机研究。总样本为1177例。43%(=503)的病例采用腹腔镜微创手术,57%(=674)的患者采用开放缝合。目前这些手术方式的选择尚未标准化。微创手术时间更短(平均差值-8.02,95%可信区间-11.26至-4.77,<0.00001),住院时间更短(平均差值-1.93,95%可信区间-2.97至-0.88,=0.0003)。与开腹手术(11.4%,77/674)相比,微创手术后并发症较少见(比值比0.14,95%可信区间0.07-0.27,<0.00001)(2.4%,12/503)。缝合失败的发生率相似(比值比0.4,95%可信区间0.1-1.6,=0.2)(0.4%(2/503)对0.7%(5/674))。与腹腔镜手术(0.8%,4/503)相比,开腹手术后的术后死亡率更高(比值比0.14,95%可信区间0.05-0.37,<0.0001)(8%,54/674)。
荟萃分析表明,与开腹手术相比,腹腔镜辅助下经微创途径缝合穿孔性溃疡具有优势。在选择微创剖腹手术和传统手术方式时缺乏标准化方法是这些结果的一个局限性。