Comparison between open and laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease

BACKGROUND: The place of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer followed by peritoneal toilet has been established, although it is not routinely practiced. This prospective study compared laparoscopic and open repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease. We evaluated whether the early results from laparoscopic repair resulted in improved patient outcome compared with conventional open repair.

METHODS: All patients who underwent repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease during a 12-month period in our unit were included in the study. The primary end points that were evaluated were total operative time, nasogastric tube utilisation, intravenous fluid requirement, total time of urinary catheter and abdominal drainage usage, time taken to return to normal diet, intravenous/intramuscular opiate use, time to full mobilization, and total in-patient hospital stay.

RESULTS: Thirty-three patients underwent surgical repair of perforated peptic ulcer disease (19 laparoscopic repairs and 14 open repairs; mean age, 54.2 (range, 32-82) years). There was no increase in total operative time in patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair (mean: 61 minutes laparoscopic versus 57 minutes open). There was significantly less requirement for intravenous/intramuscular opiate analgesia in patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair (mean time to oral analgesia: 1.2 days laparoscopic versus 3.8 days open). In addition there was a significant decrease in the time that the nasogastric tube (mean: 2.1 days laparoscopic versus 3.1 days open), urinary catheter (mean: 2.3 days laparoscopic versus 3.7 days open) and abdominal drain (mean: 2.2 days laparoscopic versus 3.8 days open) were required during the postoperative period. Patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair required less intravenous fluids (mean: 1.4 days laparoscopic versus 3.1 days open) and returned to normal diet (mean: 2.3 days laparoscopic versus 4.8 days open) and full mobilization significantly earlier than those who had undergone open repair (mean: 2.3 days laparoscopic versus 3.3 days open). In addition, patients who had undergone laparoscopic repair required a shorter in-patient hospital stay (mean: 3.1 days laparoscopic versus 4.3 days open).

CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic repair is a viable and safe surgical option for patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease and should be considered for all patients, providing that the necessary expertise is available.