Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 15, 2026

Application of a New Mesh Fixation Method in Laparoscopic Incisional Hernia Repair
Published on: December 23, 2022
Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer
Flore Varcus1, Ion Paun2, Ciprian Duta1
1Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania.
Insights
Laparoscopic perforation repair (LPR) for perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs) offers shorter hospital stays and lower morbidity/mortality compared to open repair (OR). However, LPR has a higher leakage rate, necessitating improved surgeon training.
Area of Science:
- Gastroenterology
- Surgical Innovation
- Minimally Invasive Surgery
Background:
- Perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs) are a common surgical emergency, leading to significant morbidity and mortality.
- Laparoscopic perforation repair (LPR) offers a minimally invasive approach compared to open repair (OR).
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the latest reported outcomes of laparoscopic perforation repair (LPR) for perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs).
- To compare LPR with traditional open repair (OR) for PPUs.
Main Methods:
- Extensive literature search of PubMed and EMBASE databases (1989-2017) for studies on LPR for PPU.
- Inclusion of 32 studies (3488 LPR patients, 5208 OR patients) comparing outcomes, excluding animal studies, pediatric trials, and studies with <30 LPR cases.
Main Results:
- LPR patients experienced shorter hospital stays (2 days less) and lower morbidity (11.12% vs. 14.71%) and mortality (1.95% vs. 8.35%) compared to OR.
- OR patients presented with higher rates of shock and higher ASA risk class.
- LPR had a higher leakage rate (2.18% vs. 0.79%) and conversion rate (4.18%) due to perforation size, localization issues, or technical difficulties.
Conclusions:
- LPR demonstrates comparable or superior outcomes to OR regarding morbidity, mortality, operation time, and hospital stay.
- Caution is advised due to the higher leakage rate in LPR, highlighting the need for enhanced surgeon training and safety measures.
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.
Related Concept Videos
Peptic Ulcer Disease II: Pathophysiology
Damaging agents such as Helicobacter pylori, gastric acid, pepsin, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can weaken the mucosal defense, allowing hydrogen ions to infiltrate back and harm epithelial cells.
Peptic Ulcer Disease I: Introduction
An acute ulcer, marked by superficial erosion and minimal inflammation, swiftly resolves upon identifying and addressing the underlying cause. In contrast, a chronic ulcer persists, potentially eroding through the muscular wall and forming fibrous tissue.
Peptic ulcers can also be...
Peptic Ulcer Disease IV: Management
The therapeutic approach involves ensuring adequate rest, implementing drug therapy, promoting smoking cessation, making dietary modifications, and emphasizing long-term follow-up care.
Pharmacological management
The prevailing therapy for peptic ulcers involves a combination of managing the patient's current...
Pathophysiology of Peptic Ulcer Disease: Injurious Factors
In the antrum region, G cells secrete the gastrin hormone that binds to gastrin-cholecystokinin-B (CCK2) receptors on parietal and enterochromaffin-like (ECL) cells in the fundic glands. Simultaneously, the vagus nerve releases acetylcholine, which binds...
Pathophysiology of Peptic Ulcer Disease: Mucosal Defense Factors
Acid Suppressive Drugs for Peptic Ulcer Disease: Antacids
However, this neutralization reaction between...

