Comparação entre cirurgia aberta e minimamente invasiva para úlcera péptica perfurada

This study conducts a systematic review comparing open surgery and laparoscopic repair techniques for perforated peptic ulcer. The research was performed using PubMed and ScienceDirect databases, covering studies published in the last five years. Nine articles directly comparing the two surgical techniques were included, evaluating factors such as hospitalization time, postoperative complications, wound healing time, and infection rates. The results suggest that laparoscopic surgery offers several advantages, including reduced hospital stay and faster recovery, while open surgery remains relevant in specific cases. The analysis highlights the importance of selecting the surgical technique based on the patient's clinical condition and the surgeon's expertise, with laparoscopy emerging as the preferred approach in most cases. This study aims to provide evidence that can guide surgical practice, promoting better outcomes and a more patient-centered approach to the management of perforated peptic ulcers.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
RCMOS - Revista Científica Multidisciplinar O Saber
Published
2024-09-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.51473/rcmos.v1i1.2024.598
Primary Topic
Reconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparação entre cirurgia aberta e minimamente invasiva para úlcera péptica perfurada

Artur Carvalho Diamante, GUILHERME STARLING MOSS, Mateus Manzan, Enzo Assunção de Assis Santos et al.
RCMOS - Revista Científica Multidisciplinar O Saber
Reconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
article

Comparação entre cirurgia aberta e minimamente invasiva para úlcera péptica perfurada

Artur Carvalho Diamante, GUILHERME STARLING MOSS, Mateus Manzan, Enzo Assunção de Assis Santos, Luiza Bitarães Amorim
article en

Abstract

This study conducts a systematic review comparing open surgery and laparoscopic repair techniques for perforated peptic ulcer. The research was performed using PubMed and ScienceDirect databases, covering studies published in the last five years. Nine articles directly comparing the two surgical techniques were included, evaluating factors such as hospitalization time, postoperative complications, wound healing time, and infection rates. The results suggest that laparoscopic surgery offers several advantages, including reduced hospital stay and faster recovery, while open surgery remains relevant in specific cases. The analysis highlights the importance of selecting the surgical technique based on the patient's clinical condition and the surgeon's expertise, with laparoscopy emerging as the preferred approach in most cases. This study aims to provide evidence that can guide surgical practice, promoting better outcomes and a more patient-centered approach to the management of perforated peptic ulcers.

RCMOS - Revista Científica Multidisciplinar O SaberVol. 1(1)
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais (BR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Reconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.