Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated duodenal ulcers

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

There is great controversy regarding the choice of procedure for perforated duodenal ulcer patients. The purpose of this study was to compare the early outcome results of laparoscopic and open repair and to propose which risk factors influence the outcome.

Methods

Between October 1996 and May 2004, 60 patients underwent laparoscopic and 162 patients underwent open repair of perforated peptic ulcers in a tertiary care academic center. The results were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome measures included operative time, duration of hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality.

Results

The operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopy group compared to the open repair group (76.2 ± 35.3 vs 57.3 ± 26.1 min, respectively). The hospital stay in surviving patients appeared to be significantly shorter after laparoscopy than after open repair (7.8 ± 5.3 vs 10.3 ± 10.6 days, respectively). Eight patients (13%) in the laparoscopic group and 41 patients (25%) in the open repair group had morbidity in the postoperative period. Suture leakage was confirmed in four patients (7%) following laparoscopic repair and in three patients (2%) in the open repair group. There were 20 deaths (9%), all in the open repair group.

Conclusions

Independent Boey risk factors, patient age, and large perforation size have a negative impact on patient recovery. Both laparoscopic and open repair are equally safe and effective in perforated duodenal ulcer patients with a Boey score of 0 or 1.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bergamaschi R, Marvik R, Johnsen G, Thoresen JE, Ystgaard B, Myrvold HE (1999) Open vs laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Surg Endosc 13: 679–682

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Boey J, Choi SK, Poon A, Alagaratnam TT (1987) Risk stratification in perforated duodenal ulcers. A prospective validation of predictive factors. Ann Surg 205: 22–26

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Druart ML, Van Hee R, Etienne J, et al. (1997) Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer. A prospective multicenter clinical trial. Surg Endosc 11: 1017–1020

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Katkhouda N, Mavor E, Mason RJ, Campos GM, Soroushyari A, Berne TV (1999) Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers: outcome and efficacy in 30 consecutive patients. Arch Surg 134: 845–850

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lau H (2004) Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 18: 1013–1016

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lau WY, Leung KL, Kwong KH, et al. (1996) A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique. Ann Surg 224: 131–138

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee FY, Leung KL, Lai BS, Ng SS, Dexter S, Lau WY (2001) Predicting mortality and morbidity of patients operated on for perforated peptic ulcers. Arch Surg 136: 90–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Matsuda M, Nishiyama M, Hanai T, Saeki S, Watanabe T (1995) Laparoscopic omental patch repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Ann Surg 221: 236–240

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Mehendale VG, Shenoy SN, Joshi AM, Chaudhari NC (2002) Laparoscopic versus open surgical closure of perforated duodenal ulcers: a comparative study. Indian J Gastroenterol 21: 222–224

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Michelet I, Agresta F (2000) Perforated peptic ulcer: laparoscopic approach. Eur J Surg 166: 405–408

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Naesgaard JM, Edwin B, Reiertsen O, Trondsen E, Faerden AE, Rosseland AR (1999) Laparoscopic and open operation in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. Eur J Surg 165: 209–214

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nathanson LK, Easter DW, Cuschieri A (1990) Laparoscopic repair/peritoneal toilet of perforated duodenal ulcer. Surg Endosc 4: 232–233

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Robertson GS, Wemyss-Holden SA, Maddern GJ (2000) Laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcers. The role of laparoscopy in generalised peritonitis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82: 6–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Seelig MH, Seelig SK, Behr C, Schonleben K (2003) Comparison between open and laparoscopic technique in the management of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers. J Clin Gastroenterol 37: 201

    Google Scholar 

  15. Siu WT, Chau CH, Law BK, Tang CN, Ha PY, Li MK (2004) Routine use of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Br J Surg 91: 481–484

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Siu WT, Leong HT, Law BK, et al. (2002) Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 235: 313–319

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. So JB, Kum CK, Fernandes ML, Goh P (1996) Comparison between laparoscopic and conventional omental patch repair for perforated duodenal ulcer. Surg Endosc 10: 1060–1063

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic of General and Plastic Surgery, Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, Vilnius University, 29 Siltnamiu Street, Vilnius, LT-04130, Lithuania

    R. Lunevicius & M. Morkevicius

Authors
  1. R. Lunevicius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Morkevicius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Lunevicius.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lunevicius, R., Morkevicius, M. Comparison of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated duodenal ulcers. Surg Endosc 19, 1565–1571 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0146-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0146-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation