Fast-track recovery after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer safely shortens hospital stay : A systematic review and meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials and 356 patients
Zeyara, Adam LU
; Thomasson, Jacob
LU
; Andersson, Bodil
LU
and Tingstedt, Bobby
LU
(2024)
In World Journal of Surgery
48(7).
p.1575-1585
- Abstract
Background: Postoperative management after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer is still burdened by old traditions. All available data for fast-track recovery in this setting are either very unspecific or underpowered. The aim of this study was to evaluate fast-track recovery in this diagnosis-specific context in a larger sample. Methods: Electronic data sources were searched. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fast-track recovery and traditional management after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer in adults. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines regulated the process. Quality and risk of bias assessments of... (More)
Background: Postoperative management after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer is still burdened by old traditions. All available data for fast-track recovery in this setting are either very unspecific or underpowered. The aim of this study was to evaluate fast-track recovery in this diagnosis-specific context in a larger sample. Methods: Electronic data sources were searched. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fast-track recovery and traditional management after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer in adults. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines regulated the process. Quality and risk of bias assessments of individual RCTs were performed by means of the Let Evidence Guide Every New Decision criteria and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Primary endpoints were length of hospital stay and risk of complications. Random or fixed effects modeling were applied as indicated. Outcomes were measured by mean difference and risk difference. Results: Six RCTs with a total cohort of 356 patients were included. Results of our meta-analysis showed significantly shortened length of hospital stay (mean difference −3.50 days [95% CI -4.51 to −2.49], p ≤ 0.00001), significantly less superficial and deep surgical-site infections (risk differences −0.12 [95% CI −0.20, −0.05], p = 0.002 and −0.03 [95% CI −0.09, 0.03], and p = 0.032, respectively), and significantly fewer pulmonary complications (risk difference −0.10 [95% CI −0.17, −0.03], p = 0.004) in the fast-track group. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that fast-track recovery after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer significantly shortened hospital stay in the studied cohort without increasing the risk of postoperative complications.
(Less)
- author
- Zeyara, Adam
LU
; Thomasson, Jacob
LU
; Andersson, Bodil
LU
and Tingstedt, Bobby
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2024-07
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- enhanced recovery, ERAS, fast-track, FT, meta-analysis, perforated peptic ulcer, systematic review
- in
- World Journal of Surgery
- volume
- 48
- issue
- 7
- pages
- 11 pages
- publisher
- Springer
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85195197325
- pmid:38838070
- ISSN
- 0364-2313
- DOI
- 10.1002/wjs.12234
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 1e60a02b-1da3-4e00-8a2d-66cb9327222a
- date added to LUP
- 2024-09-16 14:41:01
- date last changed
- 2024-09-16 14:42:23
@article{1e60a02b-1da3-4e00-8a2d-66cb9327222a,
abstract = {{<p>Background: Postoperative management after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer is still burdened by old traditions. All available data for fast-track recovery in this setting are either very unspecific or underpowered. The aim of this study was to evaluate fast-track recovery in this diagnosis-specific context in a larger sample. Methods: Electronic data sources were searched. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fast-track recovery and traditional management after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer in adults. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines regulated the process. Quality and risk of bias assessments of individual RCTs were performed by means of the Let Evidence Guide Every New Decision criteria and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Primary endpoints were length of hospital stay and risk of complications. Random or fixed effects modeling were applied as indicated. Outcomes were measured by mean difference and risk difference. Results: Six RCTs with a total cohort of 356 patients were included. Results of our meta-analysis showed significantly shortened length of hospital stay (mean difference −3.50 days [95% CI -4.51 to −2.49], p ≤ 0.00001), significantly less superficial and deep surgical-site infections (risk differences −0.12 [95% CI −0.20, −0.05], p = 0.002 and −0.03 [95% CI −0.09, 0.03], and p = 0.032, respectively), and significantly fewer pulmonary complications (risk difference −0.10 [95% CI −0.17, −0.03], p = 0.004) in the fast-track group. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows that fast-track recovery after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer significantly shortened hospital stay in the studied cohort without increasing the risk of postoperative complications.</p>}},
author = {{Zeyara, Adam and Thomasson, Jacob and Andersson, Bodil and Tingstedt, Bobby}},
issn = {{0364-2313}},
keywords = {{enhanced recovery; ERAS; fast-track; FT; meta-analysis; perforated peptic ulcer; systematic review}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{7}},
pages = {{1575--1585}},
publisher = {{Springer}},
series = {{World Journal of Surgery}},
title = {{Fast-track recovery after surgery for perforated peptic ulcer safely shortens hospital stay : A systematic review and meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials and 356 patients}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12234}},
doi = {{10.1002/wjs.12234}},
volume = {{48}},
year = {{2024}},
}