Abstract
Background
Perforated peptic ulcer remains a common cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Surgical treatment includes a trend towards minimally invasive surgery. To safely implement this, it is important to understand the key steps that have been assessed in clinical trials. The aim of this review is to assess the reporting of intervention steps in laparoscopic and open ulcer repair.
Methods
A systematic search was performed of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, & clinical trial databases (PROSPERO (CRD42023404537)). Randomised trials on laparoscopic vs open repair of peptic ulcer were included. Data extracted included study metadata, as well as technical aspects of interventions, use of co-interventions. Study design was assessed using the PRECIS-2 tool, to explore whether trials were predominantly pragmatic or explanatory, and also using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.
Results
408 studies were screened for eligibility, and nine full-texts were included. This included six studies from China, two from India, and one from the Netherlands. Incision, ulcer closure details, and lavage, were the best reported aspects of laparoscopic repair (n=7). Method of access, incision, and ulcer closure were well described in 8 studies. Co-interventions such as antibiotic use, analgesia, and H pylori eradication were poorly described. Interventions were delivered by high volume laparoscopic surgeons. Studies were considered at high risk of bias. PRECIS-2 assessment found studies were neither fully pragmatic nor explanatory.
Conclusions
Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a poorly defined intervention. Standardisation of key steps and co-interventions is required to facilitate a well designed randomised trial.
Perforated peptic ulcer remains a common cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Surgical treatment includes a trend towards minimally invasive surgery. To safely implement this, it is important to understand the key steps that have been assessed in clinical trials. The aim of this review is to assess the reporting of intervention steps in laparoscopic and open ulcer repair.
Methods
A systematic search was performed of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, & clinical trial databases (PROSPERO (CRD42023404537)). Randomised trials on laparoscopic vs open repair of peptic ulcer were included. Data extracted included study metadata, as well as technical aspects of interventions, use of co-interventions. Study design was assessed using the PRECIS-2 tool, to explore whether trials were predominantly pragmatic or explanatory, and also using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.
Results
408 studies were screened for eligibility, and nine full-texts were included. This included six studies from China, two from India, and one from the Netherlands. Incision, ulcer closure details, and lavage, were the best reported aspects of laparoscopic repair (n=7). Method of access, incision, and ulcer closure were well described in 8 studies. Co-interventions such as antibiotic use, analgesia, and H pylori eradication were poorly described. Interventions were delivered by high volume laparoscopic surgeons. Studies were considered at high risk of bias. PRECIS-2 assessment found studies were neither fully pragmatic nor explanatory.
Conclusions
Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a poorly defined intervention. Standardisation of key steps and co-interventions is required to facilitate a well designed randomised trial.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | zrae163 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | BJS Open |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| Early online date | 6 Mar 2025 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Apr 2025 |
Bibliographical note
Publisher Copyright:© The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.