Home > Journals > Minerva Chirurgica > Past Issues > Minerva Chirurgica 2018 April;73(2) > Minerva Chirurgica 2018 April;73(2):188-93



To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



Minerva Chirurgica 2018 April;73(2):188-93

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4733.18.07603-4


language: English

Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer

Flore VARCUS 1, Ion PAUN 2 , Ciprian DUTA 1, Amadeus DOBRESCU 1, Mirela FRANDES 1, Cristi TARTA 1

1 Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania; 2 Craiova University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Craiova, Romania


INTRODUCTION: Perforations of the peptic ulcers (PPUs) are the most common cause of emergency surgery among the complications of the gastroduodenal ulcers and the leading cause for morbidity and mortality due to secondary peritonitis and sepsis. PPU is a condition in which laparoscopic perforation repair (LPR) is an optimal solution. It makes possible the identification of the perforation’s site and allows closure of the perforation and the subsequent peritoneal lavage, as in an open repair (OR) but without the large upper mid-abdominal incision. The main objective of this review was to evaluate the latest reported results in the laparoscopic treatment of the PPU.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Using PubMed and EMBASE databases between 1989 and June 2017 we did an extensive electronic literature search. The search terms used were “laparoscopic perforated peptic ulcer.” Inclusion criteria were all the published studies that reported the outcomes of LPR and LPR compared with OR for PPU were included in the analysis. The exclusion criteria included animal or laboratory studies, pediatric surgery trials, papers reporting less than 30 cases of LPR, clinical trials without major outcomes, and other language then English.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: There were 32 studies included, counting 3488 patients with LPR and 5208 with OR. OR patients had more frequent shock at admission and had a higher ASA risk class. LPR patients had shorter hospital stays with two days, morbidity (11.12% vs. 14.71% OR) and mortality (1.95% vs. 8.35% OR) were lower. Leakage was three times higher in LPR arm (2.18% vs. 0.79% OR). Conversion occurred in 4.18% overall. The three primary reasons for conversions were the size of the perforation, the inability to locate the perforation and technical difficulties.
CONCLUSIONS: LPR showed similar or better results than OR in terms of morbidity, mortality, operation time and hospital stay, caution is needed as the OR patients tend to be more shocked or with higher ASA at presentation. The higher leakage rate after LPR should be addressed in the training of the laparoscopic surgeons or other safety measures should be developed and employed.

KEY WORDS: Peptic ulcer perforation - Laparoscopy - Operative surgical procedures

top of page