GoalsThe aim of this study was to evaluate our results of laparoscopic treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers during a 5-year period and to compare the outcome of open and laparoscopic surgery.BackgroundThe value of laparoscopic treatment of gastroduodenal ulcers is still controversially debated because its superiority to conventional open surgery has not been established.StudyFrom January 1996 to December 2001, 24 patients were treated laparoscopically and 31 patients underwent conventional open suture repair. The results of these patients were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsThere were 55 patients with a mean age of 55 years (range 18–92 years) who were eligible for the study. Patients with laparoscopic repair had a lower mean ASA score (2 vs. 2.9;P= 0.02) and a less severe Mannheimer peritonitis index (16.5 vs. 21;P= 0.00001) compared with patients with open repair. Three patients who were begun by the laparoscopic approach had to be converted to open surgery (12.5%). Three patients who underwent open repair died postoperatively (5.5%). There was no difference between treatment groups regarding operative time, morbidity, or postoperative hospital stay. The laparoscopic group required significantly fewer analgesics postoperatively (2.2 vs. 4 dosages;P= 0.04).ConclusionsLaparoscopic treatment of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers is an effective treatment option and should be considered in suited patients for the initial approach.