Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer: A retrospective cohort study

Rohan Stuart Smith, Senthilkumar Rajavel Sundaramurthy, Daniel Croagh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


INTRODUCTION: Perforated peptic ulcer disease (PPU) is a condition subject to wide geographical variations in incidence. It remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, even in the era of Helicobacter pylori eradication and proton-pump inhibitor therapy. There is no clear consensus on whether laparoscopic or open approaches are superior, and with most studies in this area originating from Europe and Asia, Australian data addressing this issue are lacking. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent surgery for PPU within a hospital network in Australia. Baseline variables and primary outcomes, including length of hospital stay, chest and abdominal complications, and mortality, were recorded. Secondary outcomes, including reasons for conversion, were also considered. RESULTS: In total, 109 patients underwent operations for PPU between January 2011 and December 2015. There were no significant differences with regard to baseline comorbidities. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of median length of hospital stay or rates of chest and abdominal complications, but the operative time was 28.5 min longer (P = <0.001) in the laparoscopic group than in the open group. CONCLUSION: Open operations were faster to perform than laparoscopic operations for repair of PPU. Despite increased experience treating many surgical diseases laparoscopically, this study did not find it to be superior in terms of length of hospital stay or complication rates.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)139-144
Number of pages6
JournalAsian Journal of Endoscopic Surgery
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2019
Externally publishedYes


  • General surgery
  • laparoscopy
  • peptic ulcer perforation

Cite this