Chan Kai Siang, Ng Shi Tong Carissa, Tan Chin Hong Ben, Gerard Gheslynn, Oo Aung Myint
From the Department of General Surgery (K.S.C., A.M.O.), Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore; Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine (S.T.C.N., C.H.B.T., G.G., A.M.O.), National University of Singapore, Singapore; and Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine (A.M.O.), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2023 Jan 1;94(1):e1-e13. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003799. Epub 2022 Oct 17.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Level IV.
穿孔性消化性溃疡的外科治疗主要方法是网膜补片修补术。微创技术的进展已显示出腹腔镜网膜补片修补术(LOPR)的可行性。腹腔镜网膜补片修补术受学习曲线(LC)的限制,但关于LOPR学习曲线的报道较少。本研究旨在比较LOPR与开放网膜补片修补术(OOPR)的疗效,并报告学习曲线。
从数据库建立至2022年1月,系统检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆和Scopus,以查找比较LOPR和OOPR治疗穿孔性消化性溃疡的随机对照试验(RCT)和非RCT。排除标准为未使用网膜补片修补的一期修补术。主要结局为30天死亡率、术后渗漏和学习曲线分析。
共有29项研究,包括5311例患者(LOPR组1687例;OOPR组3624例),其中4项RCT,共238例患者(LOPR组118例;OOPR组120例)。大多数溃疡位于十二指肠(57.0%),其次是胃(30.7%)。LOPR组溃疡平均大小为5至16.2mm,OOPR组为4.7至15.8mm。腹腔镜网膜补片修补术与较低的30天死亡率(比值比[OR],0.57;95%置信区间[CI],0.35 - 0.92;p = 0.02)、总体发病率(OR,0.31;95% CI,0.18 - 0.53;p < 0.0001)、手术部位感染(OR,0.27;95% CI,0.18 - 0.42;p < 0.00001)和住院时间(平均差值,-2.84天;95% CI,-3.63至-2.06;p < 0.00001)相关。LOPR和OOPR术后渗漏情况(OR,1.06;95% CI,0.43 - 2.61;p = 0.90)相当。只有三项研究分析了顾问医生与实习医生的比例;LOPR主要由顾问医生进行(范围为82.4 - 91.4%),而OOPR主要由实习医生进行(范围为52.8 - 96.8%)。一项研究表明,进行开放手术转换的顾问医生与住院总医师相比,手术时间更短(85分钟对186.6分钟,p < 0.003)。
与OOPR相比,腹腔镜网膜补片修补术具有更低的死亡率、总体发病率、住院时间、术中出血量和术后疼痛。应进行更多前瞻性研究以评估LOPR的学习曲线。
系统评价与荟萃分析;四级。