Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open repair of the perforated peptic ulcer: the LAMA Trial. Laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer: a randomized controlled trial. A randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated peptic ulcer using suture or sutureless technique.
Laparoscopic surgery has become popular during the last decade, mainly because it is associated with fewer postoperative complications than the conventional open approach. It remains unclear, however, if this benefit is observed after laparoscopic correction of perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether laparoscopic closure of a PPU is as safe as conventional open correction.
                The study was based on a randomized controlled trial in which nine medical centers from the Netherlands participated. A total of 109 patients with symptoms of PPU and evidence of air under the diaphragm were scheduled to receive a PPU repair. After exclusion of 8 patients during the operation, outcomes were analyzed for laparotomy (n = 49) and for the laparoscopic procedure (n = 52).
                Operating time in the laparoscopy group was significantly longer than in the open group (75 min versus 50 min). Differences regarding postoperative dosage of opiates and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain scoring system were in favor of the laparoscopic procedure. The VAS score on postoperative days 1, 3, and 7 was significant lower (P < 0.05) in the laparoscopic group. Complications were equally distributed. Hospital stay was also comparable: 6.5 days in the laparoscopic group versus 8.0 days in the open group (P = 0.235).
                Laparoscopic repair of PPU is a safe procedure compared with open repair. The results considering postoperative pain favor the laparoscopic procedure. To compare the results of open versus laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcers.
                Omental patch repair with peritoneal lavage is the mainstay of treatment for perforated peptic ulcers in many institutions. Laparoscopic repair has been used to treat perforated peptic ulcers since 1990, but few randomized studies have been carried out to compare open versus laparoscopic procedures.
                From January 1994 to June 1997, 130 patients with a clinical diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer were randomly assigned to undergo either open or laparoscopic omental patch repair. Patients were excluded for a history of upper abdominal surgery, concomitant evidence of bleeding from the ulcer, or gastric outlet obstruction. Patients with clinically sealed-off perforations without signs of peritonitis or sepsis were treated without surgery. Laparoscopic repair would be converted to an open procedure for technical difficulties, nonjuxtapyloric gastric ulcers, or perforations larger than 10 mm. A Gastrografin meal was performed 48 to 72 hours after surgery to document sealing of the perforation. The primary end-point was perioperative parenteral analgesic requirement. Secondary endpoints were operative time, postoperative pain score, length of postoperative hospital stay, complications and deaths, and the date of return to normal daily activities.
                Nine patients with a surgical diagnosis other than perforated peptic ulcer were excluded; 121 patients entered the final analysis. There were 98 male and 23 female patients recruited, ages 16 to 89 years. The two groups were comparable in age, sex, site and size of perforations, and American Society of Anesthesiology classification. There were nine conversions in the laparoscopic group. After surgery, patients in the laparoscopic group required significantly less parenteral analgesics than those who underwent open repair, and the visual analog pain scores in days 1 and 3 after surgery were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group as well. Laparoscopic repair required significantly less time to complete than open repair. The median postoperative stay was 6 days in the laparoscopic group versus 7 days in the open group. There were fewer chest infections in the laparoscopic group. There were two intraabdominal collections in the laparoscopic group. One patient in the laparoscopic group and three patients in the open group died after surgery.
                Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a safe and reliable procedure. It was associated with a shorter operating time, less postoperative pain, reduced chest complications, a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and earlier return to normal daily activities than the conventional open repair. This study compares laparoscopic versus open repair and suture versus sutureless repair of perforated duodenal and juxtapyloric ulcers.
                The place of laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer followed by peritoneal toilet of the peritoneal cavity has been established. Whether repair of the perforated peptic ulcer by the laparoscopic approach is better than conventional open repair and whether sutured repair is better than sutureless repair are both undetermined.
                One hundred three patients were randomly allocated to laparoscopic suture repair, laparoscopic sutureless repair, open suture repair, and open sutureless repair.
                Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer (groups 1 and 2) took significantly longer than open repair (groups 3 and 4; 94.3 +/ 40.3 vs. 53.7 +/ 42.6 minutes: Student's test, p < 0.001), but the amount of analgesic required after laparoscopic repair was significantly less than in open surgery (median 1 dose vs. 3 doses) (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the four groups of patients in terms of duration of nasogastric aspiration, duration of intravenous drip, total hospital stay, time to resume normal diet, visual analogue scale score for pain in the first 24 hours after surgery, morbidity, reoperation, and mortality rates.
                Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer is a viable option. Sutureless repair is as safe as suture repair and it takes less time to perform.
This review suggests that a decrease in septic abdominal complications may exist when laparoscopic surgery is used to correct perforated peptic ulcer. However, it is necessary to perform more randomized controlled trials with a greater number of patients to confirm such an assumption, guaranteeing a long learning curve for participating surgeons. With the information provided it could be said that laparoscopic surgery results are not clinically different from those of open surgery.