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

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
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><strong>Objectives: </strong>Peptic 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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These 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":"31348251323722"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","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":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Peptic 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.

Methods: A 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.

Results: Six 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.

Conclusion: These 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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信