[Laparoscopic versus laparoscopy-assisted suturing of perforated peptic ulcers (meta-analysis)]. / Laparoskopicheskoe i laparoskopicheski assistirovannoe ushivanie probodnoi yazvy (metaanaliz).

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare laparoscopic and laparoscopy-assisted repair of perforated peptic ulcer using evidence-based methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews.Data searching was carried out in Russian and English languages using the E-library, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases. We analyzed titles and references in specialized journals and thematic reviews, respectively. Clarifying information was obtained via personal contacts with the heads of surgical hospitals. The RevMan 5.4 software was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: We found no randomized trials devoted to comparison of laparoscopic and laparoscopy-assisted surgeries in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. Meta-analysis was based on non-randomized trials with satisfactory methodological quality according to the I-ROBINS formalized assessment. Overall clinical material included 478 observations 229 (47.9%) laparoscopic surgeries and 249 (52.1%) laparoscopy-assisted procedures via minimally invasive access. There were no conversions. Incidence of postoperative complications was 4.36 and 8.83% (OR=0.39, 95% CI 0.08, 1.87), postoperative mortality 0.87 and 0.81%, respectively (OR=1.26, 95% CI 0.08, 8.24). Laparoscopic surgeries were shorter (MD= -8 min, 95% CI -9.7, -6.4). Length of hospital-stay was also shorter after laparoscopic surgery (MD= -4.6, 95% CI -9.7, -6.4). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic operations are shorter and accompanied by lower incidence of postoperative complications and less hospital-stay. Large statistical power is required to confirm these differences.