Perforation, per se, presents the most serious complication of peptic ulcer disease with a mortality rate that cannot be underestimated. Surgery is the only treatment option, which can be performed laparoscopically or via conventional laparotomy. The present study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of laparoscopy and laparotomy techniques in the surgical treatment of peptic ulcer perforation. A retrospective study design was structured to compare the perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes of 102 patients who had undergone laparoscopic and conventional repair of the perforated peptic ulcer over a six-year interval (January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2021). Of these, 44 (43.1%) had undergone laparoscopic repair while 58 (56.9%) had surgical repair via conventional laparotomy. The operative time and length of hospital stay were comparable in both subgroups (p=0.984 and p =0.585). Nevertheless, 30-day postoperative morbidity was significantly higher in the open surgery subgroup (75.9% vs. 59.1%, p= 0.032). The risk of relaparotomy was similar in both study subgroups; however, suture dehiscence as a reason for surgical revision was significantly more frequent in the laparoscopic subgroup (13.6% vs 3.4%). Of note, the mortality rate in the laparoscopic group of patients was 13.6%, and in the laparotomy group 41.4%. The laparoscopic approach to peptic ulcer perforation is the procedure of choice for low-risk patients. Conventional surgery seems to be associated with a significantly higher incidence of severe postoperative complications and mortality. However, the higher mortality in these patients is probably related to their worse initial clinical condition.

Endocrine Surgery Giresun University Faculty of Medicine Giresun TUR

General Surgery Faculty of Medicine University of Ostrava Ostrava CZE

General Surgery Giresun University Faculty of Medicine Giresun TUR

General Surgery University Hospital Ostrava Ostrava CZE

General Surgery Univerzita Tomáše Bati ve Zlíně Zlín CZE

Pathology Giresun University Faculty of Medicine Giresun TUR

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Risk factors influencing the short-term results of gastroduodenal perforation. Wakayama T, Ishizaki Y, Mitsusada M, et al. Surg Today. 1994;24:681–687. PubMed

Systematic review of peptic ulcer disease incidence rates: do studies without validation provide reliable estimates? Lin KJ, García Rodríguez LA, Hernández-Díaz S. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20:718–728. PubMed

Short-term mortality after perforated or bleeding peptic ulcer among elderly patients: a population-based cohort study. Christensen S, Riis A, Nørgaard M, Sørensen HT, Thomsen RW. BMC Geriatr. 2007;7:8. PubMed PMC

Perforated peptic ulcer: main factors of morbidity and mortality. Noguiera C, Silva AS, Santos JN, Silva AG, Ferreira J, Matos E, Vilaça H. World J Surg. 2003;27:782–787. PubMed

Scoring systems for outcome prediction in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. Thorsen K, Søreide JA, Søreide K. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013;21:25. PubMed PMC

Perforated peptic ulcer: clinical presentation, surgical outcomes, and the accuracy of the Boey scoring system in predicting postoperative morbidity and mortality. Lohsiriwat V, Prapasrivorakul S, Lohsiriwat D. World J Surg. 2009;33:80–85. PubMed

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

Laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer: first choice? A review of literature. Bertleff MJ, Lange JF. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1231–1239. PubMed PMC

Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease. Sanabria A, Villegas MI, Morales Uribe CH. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013:0. PubMed PMC

Meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes of acute laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers. Cirocchi R, Soreide K, Di Saverio S, et al. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018;85:417–425. PubMed

The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–196. PubMed

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

Cost-efficiency and outcomes in the treatment of perforated peptic ulcer disease: laparoscopic versus open approach. Wright GP, Davis AT, Koehler TJ, Scheeres DE. Surgery. 2014;156:1003–1007. PubMed

A comparison of short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open emergent repair of perforated peptic ulcers. Davenport DL, Ueland WR, Kumar S, Plymale M, Bernard AC, Roth JS. Surg Endosc. 2019;33:764–772. PubMed

Outcomes of laparoscopic vs open repair of perforated peptic ulcers: an ACS-NSQIP study. Jayaraman SS, Allen R, Feather C, Turcotte J, Klune JR. J Surg Res. 2021;265:13–20. PubMed

Surgery for perforated peptic ulcer: is laparoscopy a new paradigm? Pereira A, Santos Sousa H, Gonçalves D, Lima da Costa E, Costa Pinho A, Barbosa E, Barbosa J. Minim Invasive Surg. 2021;2021:8828091. PubMed PMC

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer in the elderly: an interim analysis of the FRAILESEL Italian Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study. Fransvea P, Costa G, Lepre L, et al. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2020;31:2–7. PubMed

Ambulatory laparoscopic appendectomy: does the conventional approach need a reappraisal? Aydin I, Sengul I, Gungor M, Kesicioglu T, Sengul D, Vural S, Yimaz E. Cureus. 2022;14:0. PubMed PMC

A randomized clinical trial of technical modifications of appendix stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Ihnát P, Tesař M, Tulinský L, Ihnát Rudinská L, Okantey O, Durdík Š. BMC Surg. 2021;21:272. PubMed PMC

Technical modifications of appendiceal transection during laparoscopic appendectomy (Article in German) Ihnát P, Tesař M, Tulinský L, Vávra P. Rozhl Chir. 2020;99:534–538. PubMed

Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease has better outcomes than open repair. Quah GS, Eslick GD, Cox MR. J Gastrointest Surg. 2019;23:618–625. PubMed

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer. Varcus F, Paun I, Duta C, Dobrescu A, Frandes M, Tarta C. Minerva Chir. 2018;73:188–193. PubMed

Perforated peptic ulcer - an update. Chung KT, Shelat VG. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;9:1–12. PubMed PMC

A practical scoring system to predict mortality in patients with perforated peptic ulcer. Menekse E, Kocer B, Topcu R, Olmez A, Tez M, Kayaalp C. World J Emerg Surg. 2015;10:7. PubMed PMC

Systematic review comparing laparoscopic and open repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Lunevicius R, Morkevicius M. Br J Surg. 2005;92:1195–1207. PubMed

An updated meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer. Zhou C, Wang W, Wang J, Zhang X, Zhang Q, Li B, Xu Z. Sci Rep. 2015;5:13976. PubMed PMC

Surgical complications after open and laparoscopic surgery for perforated peptic ulcer in a nationwide cohort. Wilhelmsen M, Møller MH, Rosenstock S. Br J Surg. 2015;102:382–387. PubMed

Comparison of omental patch closure versus simple closure for laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Mohamedahmed AY, Albendary M, Patel K, et al. Am Surg. 2022:31348211067991. PubMed

Connection of reactive oxygen species as an essential actor for the mechanism of phenomena; ischemic preconditioning and postconditioning: come to age or ripening? Sengul D, Sengul I. North Clin Istanb. 2021;8:644–649. PubMed PMC

"Zooming" in strategies and outcomes for trauma cases with Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥16: promise or passé? Doklestić K, Lončar Z, Coccolini F, et al. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2022;68:847–852. PubMed PMC