Laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer: A single-center analysis

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the early postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic and open repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease in our clinic.
METHODS: An observational single-center study was conducted at the Marmara University Pendik Training and Research Hospital between June 2018 and June 2023. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, preoperative laboratory tests, surgical technique, duration of operation, ulcer location (duodenal, gastric, prepyloric), postoperative length of hospital stay, readmission, and complications were analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups, open and laparoscopic operations, and compared.
RESULTS: We compared 99 patients who underwent open surgery (OS) with 23 who underwent laparoscopic surgery (LS). The median age of the entire cohort was 42.5 years (IQR 30.3–62). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of ulcer location. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (45 min OS vs. 60 min LS, p<0.001). Although the median length of hospital stay was three days between the two groups, there was a significant difference in favor of the laparoscopic group. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications or 30-day mortality between the two groups (0.754 and 0.684, respectively).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Compared with the open method, the laparoscopic method can be safely applied in the surgical treatment of peptic ulcer perforation without increasing complications. In suitable patients, advantages such as shorter hospital stays can be utilized.