Safety and Efficacy of the Falciformopexy Technique for Peptic Ulcer Perforation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY American Surgeon Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1177/00031348251323722
Leonardo Januário Campos Cardoso, Kleuber Arias Meireles Martins, Paulo Vitor Marques Xavier, Filipe Gabriel Oliveira Nascimento, Pedro Henrique Gibram Gontijo, Juan Lima Minkauskas, Isabela Coutinho Faria, Ronaldo Duarte Araújo Abreu, Alexandre Lages Savassi Rocha, Jorge Walker Vásquez Del Aguila
{"title":"Safety and Efficacy of the Falciformopexy Technique for Peptic Ulcer Perforation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Leonardo Januário Campos Cardoso, Kleuber Arias Meireles Martins, Paulo Vitor Marques Xavier, Filipe Gabriel Oliveira Nascimento, Pedro Henrique Gibram Gontijo, Juan Lima Minkauskas, Isabela Coutinho Faria, Ronaldo Duarte Araújo Abreu, Alexandre Lages Savassi Rocha, Jorge Walker Vásquez Del Aguila","doi":"10.1177/00031348251323722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectivesPeptic ulcer perforation (PUP) is a severe complication of peptic ulcer disease, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The Graham patch repair (GPR) is the standard surgical treatment; however, when the greater omentum is insufficient, falciformopexy has emerged as a viable alternative. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of falciformopexy for PUP through a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Ovid to identify studies reporting on PUP patients treated with falciformopexy. Outcomes evaluated included length of hospital stay, perioperative mortality, wound infections, and reoperation rates. A comparative analysis with patients treated with GPR was also performed. Safety and efficacy outcomes were analyzed using single proportions, while risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were pooled for comparative assessments.ResultsSix studies involving 868 patients were included, of whom 148 underwent falciformopexy for PUP. The mean hospital stay was 8.76 days (95% CI: 6.5-11.02; I<sup>2</sup> = 92%). The perioperative mortality rate was 4.38% (95% CI: 0%-10.26%; I<sup>2</sup> = 53%), the wound infection rate was 6.66% (95% CI: 2.31%-11.02%; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%), and reoperation was required in 1.76% of cases (95% CI: 0%-4.73%; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Comparative analysis revealed no significant differences between the falciformopexy and GPR groups regarding mortality, wound infections, or reoperation rates.ConclusionThese results indicate that the use of the falciform ligament for PUP repair is associated with low perioperative mortality, wound infection, and reoperation rates, suggesting it is a viable alternative when the omentum is unavailable.</p>","PeriodicalId":7782,"journal":{"name":"American Surgeon","volume":" ","pages":"859-870"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348251323722","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectivesPeptic ulcer perforation (PUP) is a severe complication of peptic ulcer disease, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The Graham patch repair (GPR) is the standard surgical treatment; however, when the greater omentum is insufficient, falciformopexy has emerged as a viable alternative. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of falciformopexy for PUP through a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Ovid to identify studies reporting on PUP patients treated with falciformopexy. Outcomes evaluated included length of hospital stay, perioperative mortality, wound infections, and reoperation rates. A comparative analysis with patients treated with GPR was also performed. Safety and efficacy outcomes were analyzed using single proportions, while risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals were pooled for comparative assessments.ResultsSix studies involving 868 patients were included, of whom 148 underwent falciformopexy for PUP. The mean hospital stay was 8.76 days (95% CI: 6.5-11.02; I2 = 92%). The perioperative mortality rate was 4.38% (95% CI: 0%-10.26%; I2 = 53%), the wound infection rate was 6.66% (95% CI: 2.31%-11.02%; I2 = 0%), and reoperation was required in 1.76% of cases (95% CI: 0%-4.73%; I2 = 0%). Comparative analysis revealed no significant differences between the falciformopexy and GPR groups regarding mortality, wound infections, or reoperation rates.ConclusionThese results indicate that the use of the falciform ligament for PUP repair is associated with low perioperative mortality, wound infection, and reoperation rates, suggesting it is a viable alternative when the omentum is unavailable.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
刀形固定术治疗消化性溃疡穿孔的安全性和有效性:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
目的:消化性溃疡穿孔(PUP)是消化性溃疡疾病的严重并发症,具有显著的发病率和死亡率。格雷厄姆补片修复(GPR)是标准的手术治疗方法;然而,当大网膜不足时,镰形固定术已成为一种可行的选择。本研究旨在通过系统回顾和荟萃分析来评估镰形刀固定术治疗PUP的有效性和安全性。方法:系统检索PubMed、Scopus、Cochrane、Web of Science、Ovid等文献,对PUP患者行镰形固定术的相关研究进行检索。结果评估包括住院时间、围手术期死亡率、伤口感染和再手术率。与GPR治疗的患者进行比较分析。安全性和有效性结果采用单一比例分析,而95%置信区间的风险比(RR)合并进行比较评估。结果:纳入6项研究,共纳入868例患者,其中148例患者行刀状骨固定术。平均住院时间为8.76天(95% CI: 6.5-11.02;I2 = 92%)。围手术期死亡率为4.38% (95% CI: 0% ~ 10.26%;I2 = 53%),伤口感染率为6.66% (95% CI: 2.31% ~ 11.02%;I2 = 0%), 1.76%的病例需要再次手术(95% CI: 0%-4.73%;I2 = 0%)。对比分析显示,刀形固定术组和GPR组在死亡率、伤口感染或再手术率方面没有显著差异。结论:这些结果表明,使用镰状韧带进行PUP修复术的围手术期死亡率、伤口感染和再手术率较低,提示在大网膜不可用时,它是一种可行的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American Surgeon
American Surgeon 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
623
期刊介绍: The American Surgeon is a monthly peer-reviewed publication published by the Southeastern Surgical Congress. Its area of concentration is clinical general surgery, as defined by the content areas of the American Board of Surgery: alimentary tract (including bariatric surgery), abdomen and its contents, breast, skin and soft tissue, endocrine system, solid organ transplantation, pediatric surgery, surgical critical care, surgical oncology (including head and neck surgery), trauma and emergency surgery, and vascular surgery.
期刊最新文献
Is It Possible to Prevent Nontherapeutic Laparotomies in Breast Cancer Patients With Isolated Adnexal Masses? Protocolized Gastrointestinal Fistula Management is Superior to Historic Data and National Averages: A Retrospective Review of an Enterocutaneous Fistula Registry. Comparing the Distressed Communities Index and Area Deprivation Index in Predicting Firearm-Related Emergency Department Visits. Pre-Trauma THC Use Is Associated With a Positive Posttraumatic Adjustment Scale Screening. Assessment of Online Patient Education Materials for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1