Comparison between Laparoscopic and Open Repair of Perforated Duodenal Ulcer.

Background: A fatal consequence of peptic ulcer (PU) is perforation, which necessitates prompt surgicalintervention. The easiest, most dependable, and best option is to simply close the hole with an omental patch.Laparoscopic repair of a perforated duodenal ulcer is preferable to open repair in terms of less discomfort, less timespent in the hospital, improved wound healing, and decreased risk of incisional hernias.Aim of work: to compare the postoperative outcome of laparoscopic repair of perforated duodenal ulcer, with theoutcome of the conventional open repair using omental patch in both groups.Patients and methods: this prospective comparative study was conducted in emergency department ofKasralainy hospital, Cairo University and included 40 patients presenting with acute abdominal pain and diagnosedwith perforated duodenal ulcer divided into 2 groups 20 patients for each group.Result: Group underwent open repair, mean duration of the operation was shorter with higher rate of surgicalsite infection and longer post-operative hospital stay. Group underwent laparoscopic repair, mean duration ofthe operation was longer, with shorter mean post-operative hospital stay and less incidence of postoperativecomplications.Conclusion: we suggest that laparoscopic repair of a perforated duodenal ulcer is a safe and dependable surgerythat should be considered for all patients providing that necessary expertise is available.