{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0296875, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0078125, 'mean_word_length': 5.637305699481865, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Meta-analysis of laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer].

OBJECTIVE
To assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer.


METHODS
Studies on comparison between laparoscopic repair(LR) and open repair(OR) of perforated peptic ulcer were collected. Data of operating time, blood loss, time to first flatus, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications and mortality between LR group and OR group were meta-analyzed using fixed effect model and random effect model.


RESULTS
Nineteen studies including 1507 patients were selected for this study,including laparoscopic surgery(n=673) and open surgery(n=834). There were significant differences in blood loss, time to first flatus, postoperative hospital stay, wound infection rate and mortality between LR group and OR group. However, no significant differences existed in operative time, postoperative sepsis, pulmonary infection, abdominal abscess, and suture leakage between the two groups.


CONCLUSIONS
Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is associated with improved outcomes in terms of less blood loss, quicker recovery, and lower rates of wound infection and mortality. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is safe and feasible.