Comparative Study of Early Outcomes and Complications of Laparoscopic vs Open Repair for Perforated Duodenal Ulcers

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 in?uence the outcome. Methods: Between January 2009 and June 2021, 60 patients underwent laparoscopic and 162 patients under - went open repair of perforated peptic ulcers in SMIMER Hospital. The results were retrospectively analysed. The primary outcome measures included operative time, duration of hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality. Results: The operative time was signi?cantly 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 signi?cantly 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 41patients (25%) in the open repair group had morbidity in the postoperative period. Suture leakage was con?rmed 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 e?ective in perforated duodenal ulcer patients with a Boey score of 0or1.