{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,18]],"date-time":"2026-09-18T01:26:20Z","timestamp":1789694780997,"version":"4.0.1"},"reference-count":38,"publisher":"Frontiers Media SA","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,12]],"date-time":"2025-02-12T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1739318400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["frontiersin.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Front. Surg."],"abstract":"<jats:sec><jats:title>Background<\/jats:title><jats:p>The number of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses in surgery is growing exponentially. Meta-epidemiology, as a form of evidence synthesis, allows for the pooling of data and assessment of the diversity present in multiple and overlapping SRs.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Aim of the research<\/jats:title><jats:p>This study aimed to summarize evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and reanalyze outcome data on laparoscopic suture repair of perforated peptic ulcers using trial sequential analysis (TSA).<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Materials and methods<\/jats:title><jats:p>The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, eLibrary, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched before 1 June 2024. A meta-epidemiological approach and TSA were used.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results<\/jats:title><jats:p>In total, 16 relevant Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs that addressed laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs) were identified and critically appraised. Three overlapping reviews of RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Their pooled results showed a lower postoperative pain score after laparoscopic repair compared with open closure on postoperative day 1 as the only significant outcome. There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes. The re-analyses of meta-analytic findings and adjustments of sample size by TSA confirmed that laparoscopic repair was associated with less postoperative pain [100% of the diversity-adjusted required information size (DARIS) was reached]. The calculated DARIS for operative time and hospital stay were 40.1% and 14.6%, respectively, and the TSA showed neither significant benefit nor harm of laparoscopic surgery in the attained information size in the meta-analysis. Further trials with regard to mortality, surgical site infection, and intra-abdominal abscess are not very promising because the DARIS did not exceed 5% after combining the results of eight RCTs.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title><jats:p>Summarization of evidence from systematic reviews and reanalysis using TSA confirmed sufficient evidence for only one outcome, namely, that laparoscopic suture repair of PPUs is accompanied by lower pain scores at 24\u201372\u2005h. Regarding the issues of postoperative complications and mortality, achieving DARIS through additional studies seems unpromising.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3389\/fsurg.2025.1496192","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,12]],"date-time":"2025-02-12T07:28:25Z","timestamp":1739345305000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":2,"title":["Laparoscopic suture repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease: a meta-review and trial sequential analysis"],"prefix":"10.3389","volume":"12","author":[{"given":"S. I.","family":"Panin","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"T. V.","family":"Nechay","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"I. V.","family":"Sazhin","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"K. Yu.","family":"Melnikov-Makarchuk","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"A. V.","family":"Sazhin","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"A. V.","family":"Puzikova","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"A. N.","family":"Akinchits","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"A. V.","family":"Bykov","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1965","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,12]]},"reference":[{"key":"B1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"CD004778","DOI":"10.1002\/14651858.CD004778.pub3","article-title":"Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease","volume":"2015","author":"Sanabria","year":"2015","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"key":"B2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"5137","DOI":"10.1007\/s00464-023-09998-5","article-title":"Perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) treatment: an Italian nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study investigating laparoscopic vs open approach","volume":"37","author":"Costa","year":"2023","journal-title":"Surg Endosc"},{"key":"B3","article-title":"Surgical care in the Russian Federation.","author":"Revishvili","year":""},{"key":"B4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"5302","DOI":"10.3748\/wjg.v26.i35.5302","article-title":"Epidemiology of perforating peptic ulcer: a population-based retrospective study over 40 years","volume":"26","author":"Dadfar","year":"2020","journal-title":"World J Gastroenterol"},{"key":"B5","article-title":"Chapter V: overviews of reviews","volume-title":"Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.4 (updated August 2023)","author":"Pollock","year":"2023"},{"key":"B6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"175","DOI":"10.7334\/psicothema2021.586","article-title":"Overviews of reviews: concept and development","volume":"2","author":"L\u00f3pez-L\u00f3pez","year":"2022","journal-title":"Psicothema"},{"key":"B7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"51","DOI":"10.1186\/1471-2288-12-51","article-title":"An optimal search filter for retrieving systematic reviews and meta-analyses","volume":"12","author":"Lee","year":"2012","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol"},{"key":"B8","article-title":"Critical appraisal tools\u2014Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM).","year":""},{"key":"B9","first-page":"1","volume-title":"User Manual for Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) [pdf]","author":"Thorlund","year":"2017"},{"key":"B10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"61","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-015-0055-5","article-title":"Simulation-based estimation of mean and standard deviation for meta-analysis via Approximate Bayesian Computation (ABC)","volume":"15","author":"Kwon","year":"2015","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol"},{"key":"B11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1341","DOI":"10.1002\/sim.4780131308","article-title":"Interim analysis: the alpha spending function approach","volume":"13","author":"DeMets","year":"1994","journal-title":"Stat Med"},{"key":"B12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"CD006798","DOI":"10.1002\/14651858.CD006798.pub4","article-title":"Day-surgery versus overnight stay surgery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy","volume":"2013","author":"Vaughan","year":"2013","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"key":"B13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"CD005440","DOI":"10.1002\/14651858.CD005440.pub3","article-title":"Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with acute cholecystitis","author":"Gurusamy","year":"2013","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"key":"B14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"S54","DOI":"10.1007\/s00464-011-1603-7","article-title":"Laparoscopic versus open perforated peptic ulcer suture repair: an updated meta-analysis","volume":"25","author":"Khatri","year":"2011","journal-title":"Surg Endosc"},{"key":"B15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"15","DOI":"10.4293\/108680812X13517013317752","article-title":"Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer","volume":"17","author":"Antoniou","year":"2013","journal-title":"JSLS"},{"key":"B16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"124","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijsu.2016.07.077","article-title":"Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials","volume":"33","author":"Tan","year":"2016","journal-title":"Int J Surg"},{"key":"B17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"417","DOI":"10.1097\/TA.0000000000001925","article-title":"Meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers","volume":"85","author":"Cirocchi","year":"2018","journal-title":"J Trauma Acute Care Surg"},{"key":"B18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"618","DOI":"10.1007\/s11605-018-4047-8","article-title":"Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease has better outcomes than open repair","volume":"23","author":"Quah","year":"2019","journal-title":"J Gastrointest Surg"},{"key":"B19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1013","DOI":"10.1007\/s00464-003-8266-y","article-title":"Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a meta-analysis","volume":"18","author":"Lau","year":"2004","journal-title":"Surg Endosc"},{"key":"B20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1195","DOI":"10.1002\/bjs.5155","article-title":"Systematic review comparing laparoscopic and open repair for perforated peptic ulcer","volume":"92","author":"Lunevicius","year":"2005","journal-title":"Br J Surg"},{"key":"B21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"13976","DOI":"10.1038\/srep13976","article-title":"An updated meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer","volume":"5","author":"Zhou","year":"2015","journal-title":"Sci Rep"},{"key":"B22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"188","DOI":"10.23736\/S0026-4733.18.07603-4","article-title":"Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer","volume":"73","author":"Varcus","year":"2018","journal-title":"Minerva Chir"},{"key":"B23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"586","DOI":"10.1097\/SLE.0000000000001086","article-title":"Surgical management of perforated peptic ulcer: a comparative meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open surgery","volume":"32","author":"Salman","year":"2022","journal-title":"Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech"},{"key":"B24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e1","DOI":"10.1097\/TA.0000000000003799","article-title":"A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open omental patch repair of perforated peptic ulcer","volume":"94","author":"Chan","year":"2023","journal-title":"J Trauma Acute Care Surg"},{"key":"B25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"72","DOI":"10.17116\/hirurgia202302172","article-title":"Laparoscopic versus laparoscopy-assisted suturing of perforated peptic ulcers (meta-analysis)","volume":"2","author":"Panin","year":"2023","journal-title":"Khirurgiia"},{"key":"B26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2005","DOI":"10.1177\/00031348211067991","article-title":"Comparison of omental patch closure versus simple closure for laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"89","author":"Mohamedahmed","year":"2023","journal-title":"Am Surg"},{"key":"B27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"435","DOI":"10.1007\/s00423-023-03171-1","article-title":"A comparative study on laparoscopic and open surgical approaches for perforated peptic ulcer repair: efficacy and outcomes analysis","volume":"408","author":"Li","year":"2023","journal-title":"Langenbecks Arch Surg"},{"key":"B28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1570","DOI":"10.1002\/bjs.11771","article-title":"Variation in descriptors of patient characteristics in randomized clinical trials of peptic ulcer repair: a systematic review","volume":"107","author":"Lee","year":"2020","journal-title":"Br J Surg"},{"key":"B29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e082732","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2023-082732","article-title":"Approaches for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials\u2014study protocol","volume":"14","author":"Wadewitz","year":"2024","journal-title":"BMJ Open"},{"key":"B30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"131","DOI":"10.1097\/00000658-199608000-00004","article-title":"A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique","volume":"224","author":"Lau","year":"1996","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"key":"B31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"325","DOI":"10.1016\/s0002-9610(98)00006-3","article-title":"A randomized comparison of acute phase response and endotoxemia in patients with perforated peptic ulcers receiving laparoscopic or open patch repair","volume":"175","author":"Lau","year":"1998","journal-title":"Am J Surg"},{"key":"B32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"313","DOI":"10.1097\/00000658-200203000-00001","article-title":"Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial","volume":"235","author":"Siu","year":"2002","journal-title":"Ann Surg"},{"key":"B33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1368","DOI":"10.1007\/s00268-009-0054-y","article-title":"Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: the LAMATrial","volume":"33","author":"Bertleff","year":"2009","journal-title":"World J Surg"},{"key":"B34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"294","DOI":"10.3109\/08941939.2012.762073","article-title":"Peritonitis from perforated peptic ulcer and immune response","volume":"26","author":"Schietroma","year":"2013","journal-title":"J Invest Surg"},{"key":"B35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"403","DOI":"10.1007\/s12262-013-0853-0","article-title":"Laparoscopic peptic ulcer perforation closure: the preferred choice","volume":"77","author":"Shah","year":"2015","journal-title":"Indian J Surg"},{"key":"B36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"11","DOI":"10.4103\/1110-2098.155945","article-title":"Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated duodenal peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial","volume":"28","author":"Zedan","year":"2015","journal-title":"Menoufia Med J"},{"key":"B37","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"451","DOI":"10.1016\/j.surg.2015.07.021","article-title":"A prospective randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic repair versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcers","volume":"159","author":"Ge","year":"2016","journal-title":"Surgery"},{"key":"B38","first-page":"300","article-title":"A prospective randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic repair versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcers","volume":"20","author":"Wang","year":"2017","journal-title":"Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi"}],"container-title":["Frontiers in Surgery"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fsurg.2025.1496192\/full","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,12]],"date-time":"2025-02-12T07:28:31Z","timestamp":1739345311000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fsurg.2025.1496192\/full"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,12]]},"references-count":38,"alternative-id":["10.3389\/fsurg.2025.1496192"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fsurg.2025.1496192","relation":{},"ISSN":["2296-875X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2296-875X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,2,12]]},"article-number":"1496192"}}