LAUSR

Background Pelvic abscess surgery consists mostly of open laparotomy and laparoscopic surgery. Open surgery is regarded as a classic procedure. With the rise and promotion of laparoscopic indications in recent years, comparative studies of the two's postoperative effectiveness have been limited. Objective To compare the clinical effects of laparoscopic exploratory surgery and open surgery in the treatment of pelvic abscess. Methods Through computer searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Weipu databases, we found publicly available case-control research on laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for treating pelvic abscess. The papers that met the evaluation criteria were screened, and meta-analysis was used to look at 8 papers on laparoscopic surgery and open surgery for treating pelvic abscess from 2010 to 2021. Results The results of this study showed that compared with the open laparotomy group, the incidence of laparoscopic group in the incision infection rate (RR = 0.29, 95% CI (0.20, 0.41), and P < 0.00001), the incidence of intestinal injury (RR = 0.08, 95% CI (0.04, 0.14), and P < 0.00001), incidence of intestinal obstruction (RR = 0.26, 95% CI (0.08, 0.90), and P = 0.03 < 0.05), and postoperative pelvic abscess recurrence rate (RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.13, 0.86), and P = 0.02 < 0.05) are lower than open surgery, and the difference of these four items is statistically significant. There was no difference in the risk of urinary tract injury between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery (RR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.27, 3.17), and P = 0.89 > 0.05). Conclusion In terms of incision infection, intestinal damage, intestinal obstruction, and recurrence of pelvic abscess, the laparoscopic group clearly outperforms the open group, and it merits clinical promotion and use.