Comparison between Laparoscopic Vs Open Repair of Perforated Duodenal Ulcer

Abstract

Background and objective: Patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease frequently arrive at medical facilities late for treatment, which raises morbidity and mortality rates in underdeveloped nations. The current study's findings will be useful to medical professionals, surgeons, and medical officers as they develop treatment plans for patients with perforated peptic ulcers in an effort to lower morbidity and death. Methodology: The study included 134 patients, aged 18 to 60 years who had been diagnosed with a perforated duodenal ulcer. Patients with known gastrointestinal cancers, a history of abdominal surgery, a systolic blood pressure of less than 90 mmHg at presentation, and co-morbid conditions such ischemic heart disease and chronic liver disease on prior medical records were not included. A computer-generated random number was used to divide the patients into two groups, A and B. Group A: Patients with perforated peptic ulcers receiving laparoscopic surgery. Group B: Individuals with perforated peptic ulcers undergoing open surgery. The same surgical team conducted all of the procedures. The following outcome variables were documented: intraoperative time, postoperative pain, and postoperative hospital stay. Results: The mean operation time for laparoscopic repair in my study was 109.35 ± 17.02 minutes, while the mean operation time for open repair was 91.35 ± 18.95 minutes (p-value = 0.0002). Patients in the laparoscopic group had a statistically significant (p = 0.0001) lower mean length of hospital stay (5.10 ± 0.87 versus 5.48 ± 0.99 days) than those in the open group. The mean post-operative pain for laparoscopic repair was 5.10 ± 0.87, while the mean for open repair was 9.32 ± 1.62 (p-value = 0.0001). Conclusion: This study found that, in terms of mean hospital stay and mean postoperative discomfort, laparoscopic surgery is superior to open repair for peptic duodenal ulcer rupture.