BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic closure of duodenal ulcer perforation may be an alternative to open surgery due to lower morbidity. Most published series have used omental plug for laparoscopic closure. We performed simple closure of the perforation laparoscopically and compared the results with those obtained by open surgery. METHODS: Of 77 consecutive patients with duodenal ulcer perforation 10 were excluded due to their high risk for laparoscopic surgery. 34 (age 18-61 years; one woman) were treated by laparoscopic surgery while 33 (age 23-63 years; two women) underwent laparotomy. Closure of the perforation was achieved by suturing the edges of the perforation. RESULTS: 27 patients had successful closure of perforation by laparoscopy; one had sealed perforation and did not need closure. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 6 patients (17.8%). Median operating time was 50 minutes (range 25 to 120) and median hospital stay was 4 days (range 4 to 6) for laparoscopy. There was no postoperative leak. Corresponding figures for open surgery were 55 minutes (45 to 75) and 9 days (7 to 13). Patients in the laparoscopy group returned early to work (median 13 days, range 10 to 15 days postoperatively) as against 26 days (21 to 35) in the open surgery group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic closure of duodenal ulcer perforation is safe and effective. It is a better method of treating duodenal ulcer perforation when the patient's condition allows pneumoperitoneum and laparoscopy.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic closure of duodenal ulcer perforation may be an alternative to open surgery due to lower morbidity. Most published series have used omental plug for laparoscopic closure. We performed simple closure of the perforation laparoscopically and compared the results with those obtained by open surgery. METHODS: Of 77 consecutive patients with duodenal ulcer perforation 10 were excluded due to their high risk for laparoscopic surgery. 34 (age 18-61 years; one woman) were treated by laparoscopic surgery while 33 (age 23-63 years; two women) underwent laparotomy. Closure of the perforation was achieved by suturing the edges of the perforation. RESULTS: 27 patients had successful closure of perforation by laparoscopy; one had sealed perforation and did not need closure. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 6 patients (17.8%). Median operating time was 50 minutes (range 25 to 120) and median hospital stay was 4 days (range 4 to 6) for laparoscopy. There was no postoperative leak. Corresponding figures for open surgery were 55 minutes (45 to 75) and 9 days (7 to 13). Patients in the laparoscopy group returned early to work (median 13 days, range 10 to 15 days postoperatively) as against 26 days (21 to 35) in the open surgery group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic closure of duodenal ulcer perforation is safe and effective. It is a better method of treating duodenal ulcer perforation when the patient's condition allows pneumoperitoneum and laparoscopy.