Improvement of Russian clinical guidelines and reduction of mortality in perforated ulcers

Close metadata

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the results of laparoscopic surgery in patients with perforated ulcers using evidence-based medicine approaches.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We compared the efficacy and effectiveness of laparoscopic and open surgeries in patients with perforated ulcers. Meta-analysis of mortality after laparoscopic surgeries (randomized controlled trials) and trial sequential analysis were carried out.

RESULTS

We clarified the differences between the efficacy and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgeries regarding postoperative mortality. In the Russian Federation, mortality after laparoscopic surgery is 9—11 times lower compared to open procedures. According to evidence-based researches (efficacy of laparoscopic interventions in 10 meta-analyses), these differences are less obvious (1.4—3.0 times) and not significant. The diversity-adjusted required information size to draw reasonable conclusions about differences in mortality in trial sequential analysis was 68 181 participants. Meta-analyses of RCTs also demonstrate lower incidence of wound complications (1.8—5.0% after laparoscopic surgery and 6.3—13.3% after laparotomy), shorter hospital-stay (mean difference from –0.13 to –2.84) and less severe pain syndrome (mean difference in VAS score from –2.08 to –2.45) after laparoscopic technologies.

CONCLUSION

The obvious advantage of laparoscopic surgery in patients with perforated ulcers is fast-truck recovery following shorter hospital-stay, mild pain and rarer wound complications. Comparison of postoperative mortality regarding efficacy and effectiveness is difficult due to insufficient introduction of laparoscopic technologies in clinical practice and diversity-adjusted required information size.

Keywords:

perforated ulcer

postoperative mortality

evidence-based medicine

meta-analysis of mortality

trial sequential analysis

Authors:

Panin S.I.

Volgograd State Medical University

SPIN RSCI: 8303-5413
Scopus AuthorID: 57198338379
ORCID: 0000-0003-4086-2054

Sazhin V.P.

Vishnevsky National Medical Research Center of Surgery;
Pavlov Ryazan State Medical University

ORCID: 0000-0001-9452-1656

Received:

10.09.2023

Accepted:

29.09.2023

List of references:

Federal’nyi zakon ot 21.11.2011 N 323-FZ (red. ot 19.12.2022). Ob osnovakh okhran yzdorov’ya grazhdan v Rossiiskoi Federatsii. Accessed July 21, 2023. (In Russ.). https://fzakon.ru/laws/federalnyy-zakon-ot-21.11.2011-n-323-fz/
Omel’yanovskii VV. Metodicheskie rekomendatsii po provedeniyu otsenki nauchnoi obosnovannosti vklyuchaemoi v klinicheskie rekomendatsii informatsii. M. 2019. Accessed February 14, 2020. (In Russ.). https://rosmedex.ru/recomendations
Kolbin AS, Gapeshin RA, Malyshev SM. Translational research. Prospects In Russia. Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products Bulletin. 2015;1:40-44. (In Russ.).
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal. 2009;26(2):91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Raitskaya LK, Tikhonova EV. Reviews as a promising kind of scholarly publication, its types and characteristics. Science Editor and Publisher. 2019;4(3-4):131-139. (In Russ.). https://10.24069/2542-0267-2019-3-4-131-139
Revishvili ASh, Olovyanny VE, Sazhin VP, Kuznetcov AV, Shelina NV, Ovecnkin AI. Surgical care in the Russian Federation. Information and analytical collection for 2021. M. 2022;200. (In Russ.).
Revishvili ASh, Olovyanny VE, Sazhin VP, Anishenko MA, Kuznetcov AV, Mironova NL, Shelina NV. Surgical care in the Russian Federation. Information and analytical collection for 2020. M. 2021;180. (In Russ.).
Revishvili ASh, Olovyanny VE, Sazhin VP, Nechaev OI, Zakharova MA, Shelina NV, Mironova NL. Surgical care in the Russian Federation. Information and analytical collection for 2019. M. 2020;132. (In Russ.).
Revishvili ASh, Olovyanny VE, Sazhin VP, Nechaev OI, Zakharova MA, Shelina NV, Mironova NL. SurgicalcareintheRussianFederation. Information and analytical collection for 2018. M. 2019;136. (In Russ.).
Revishvili ASh, Sazhin VP, Fedorov AV, Olovyanny VE, Nechaev OI, Shelina NV, Zakharova MA. Surgical care in the Russian Federation. Information and analytical collection for 2017. M. 2018;134. (In Russ.).
Lau H. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis. Surgical Endoscopy. 2004;18(7):1013-1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-003-8266-y
Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M. Systematic review comparing laparoscopic and open repair for perforated peptic ulcer. British Journal of Surgery. 2005;92(10):1195-1207. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5155
Khatri KM, Sajid S, Baig K, Sayegh M, Singh K. Laparoscopic versus open perforated peptic ulcer suture repair: an updated meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:S54-S148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1603-7
Sanabria A, Villegas MI, Morales Uribe CH. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;2:CD004778. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004778.pub3
Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Koch OO, Pointner R, Granderath FA. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer. JSLS. 2013;17(1):15-22. https://doi.org/10.4293/108680812X13517013317752
Zhou C, Wang W, Wang J, Zhang X, Zhang Q, Li B, Xu Z. An Updated Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:13976. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13976
Tan S, Wu G, Zhuang Q, Xi Q, Meng Q, Jiang Y, Han Y, Yu C, Yu Z, Li N. Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Surgery. 2016;33 Pt A:124-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.07.077
Arezzo A, Zago M, Abraha I, Vettoretto N, Chiarugi M. Meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2018;85(2):417-425. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000001925
Quah GS, Eslick GD, Cox MR. Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair. Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery. 2019;23(3):618-625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-4047-8
Chan KS, Ng STC, Tan CHB, Gerard G, Oo AM. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open omental patch repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2023;94(1):e1-e13. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000003799
Shlyakhto EV. Translational research as a model of progress in current medical science. Translational medicine. 2014;2:5-18. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18705/2311-4495-2014-0-1-13-22
Lean ME, Mann JI, Hoek JA, Elliot RM, Schofield G. Translational research. BMJ. 2008;337:a863. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a863
Ponomarenko GN. Kontseptsiya translyatsionnoi meditsiny v fizioterapii I reabilitatsii. Fizioterapiya, Bal’neologiya I Reabilitatsiya. 2014;3:4-12. (In Russ.).
Rubio DM, Schoenbaum EE, Lee LS, Schteingart DE, Marantz PR, Anderson KE, Platt LD, Baez A, Esposito K. Defining translational research: Implications for training. Academic Medicine. 2010;85:470-475. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccd618
Lau WY, Leung KL, Kwong KH, Davey IC, Robertson C, Dawson JJ, Chung SC, Li AK. A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique. Annals of Surgery. 1996;224:131-138. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199608000-00004
Lau JY, Lo SY, Ng EK, Lee DW, Lam YH, Chung SC. A randomized comparison of acute phase response and endotoxemia in patients with perforated peptic ulcers receiving laparoscopic or open patch repair. American Journal of Surgery. 1998;175:325-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9610(98)00006-3
Siu WT, Leong HT, Law BK, Chau CH, Li AC, Fung KH, Tai YP, Li MK. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of Surgery. 2002;235(3):313-319. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-200203000-00001
Bertleff MJ, Halm JA, Bemelman WA, van der Ham AC, van der Harst E, Oei HI, Smulders JF, Steyerberg EW, Lange JF. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: the LAMATrial. World Journal of Surgery. 2009;33(7):1368-1373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0054-y
Schietroma M, Piccione F, Carlei F, Sista F, Cecilia EM, Amicucci G. Peritonitis from perforated peptic ulcer and immune response. Journal of Investigative Surgery. 2013;26(5):294-304. https://doi.org/10.3109/08941939.2012.762073
Ge B, Wu M, Chen Q, Chen Q, Lin R, Liu L, Huang Q. A prospective randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic repair versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcers. Surgery. 2016;159(2):451-458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.07.021
Shah FH, Mehta SG, GandhiMD, Saraj. Laparoscopic Peptic Ulcer Perforation Closure: the Preferred Choice. Indian Journal of Surgery. 2015;77(suppl 2):403-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-013-0853-0

Close metadata