A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique.
OBJECTIVE:This study compares laparoscopic versus open repair and suture versus sutureless repair of perforated duodenal and juxtapyloric ulcers. BACKGROUND DATA:The place of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer followed by peritoneal toilet of the peritoneal cavity has been established. Whether repair of the perforated peptic ulcer by the laparoscopic approach is better than conventional open repair and whether sutured repair is better than sutureless repair are both undetermined. METHODS:One hundred three patients were randomly allocated to laparoscopic suture repair, laparoscopic sutureless repair, open suture repair, and open sutureless repair. RESULTS:Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer (groups 1 and 2) took significantly longer than open repair (groups 3 and 4; 94.3 +/ 40.3 vs. 53.7 +/ 42.6 minutes: Student's test, p < 0.001), but the amount of analgesic required after laparoscopic repair was significantly less than in open surgery (median 1 dose vs. 3 doses) (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the four groups of patients in terms of duration of nasogastric aspiration, duration of intravenous drip, total hospital stay, time to resume normal diet, visual analogue scale score for pain in the first 24 hours after surgery, morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS:Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a viable option. Sutureless repair is as safe as suture repair and it takes less time to perform.
Lau, WY; Leung, KL; Kwong, KH; Davey, IC; Robertson, C; Dawson, JJ; Chung, SC; Li, AK
Volume / Issue
Start / End Page
Pubmed Central ID
Electronic International Standard Serial Number (EISSN)
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)