Send to

Choose Destination
Cir Esp. 2013 Jun-Jul;91(6):372-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2012.10.016. Epub 2013 Jan 16.

[A comparison of laparoscopic versus open repair for the surgical treatment of perforated peptic ulcers].

[Article in Spanish]

Author information

Sección de Cirugía Gastrointestinal, Hospital Universitario del Mar, Institut Hospital del Mar d'Investigacions Mèdiques IMIM, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, España.



To analyse the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcers (PPU).


All patients undergoing PPU repair between January 2002 and March 2012 were included in the study. Demographic characteristics, operation time, complications, and length of hospital stay were evaluated.


Two hundred and twelve patients (median age, 49 years) were included, 60 in the laparoscopic group and 52 in the open group. Patients operated laparoscopically were significantly younger and had a higher consumption of tobacco, alcohol and cannabis. Median acute symptoms time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6h) compared to the open group (12h; P=.025) Symptoms time was shorter in the laparoscopic group. Median operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (104.5min vs. 76min, P=.025). The percentage of conversion to open repair was 25%. There was no difference in morbidity between 2 groups, but there were 3 deaths in the open group. Median hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients treated laparoscopically when compared with the open group (6 days vs. 8 days; P=.041).


Laparoscopic and open repair are equally safe in the management of PPU. A shorter hospital stay can be achieved in the laparoscopic group.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Loading ...
Support Center