Abstract
Peptic ulcer perforation is a common life-threatening emergency needing immediate intervention. Laparoscopic closure of perforation is now widely practiced over conventional open closure. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic peptic ulcer perforation closure with conventional open closure in terms of operative time, postoperative analgesia, complications, hospital stay, and return to routine activities. This unicentric, nonblinded, prospective, randomized study was carried out in 50 patients with peptic ulcer perforation who were randomly allocated to undergo either laparoscopic closure or open closure surgery with 25 patients in each group. The mean operative time (60 vs 90 min) was less in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.05). Postoperative analgesia requirements (1 vs 6 days) were also less in laparoscopic patients (p < 0.05). Complications (nil vs 6; p < 0.05) and hospital stay (3 vs 8 days) were less in laparoscopic patients (p < 0.05). Patients return to normal activities (5 vs 10 days; p < 0.05) earlier in laparoscopic perforation closure than in open closure. Our study has shown better outcomes and lesser morbidities with laparoscopic approach in terms of shorter operative time, shorter hospital stay, less analgesic requirements, and less wound infections. Patients also return to routine activities earlier with the laparoscopic approach. It is a safe alternative to open surgery and should be a preferred choice when there are no contraindications to laparoscopy.