Background and Aim: Peptic perforation refers to a duodenal ulcer perforation or a gastric ulcer perforation. Graham’s omental patch repair is required to correct peptic perforations. This surgical intervention can be performed either laparoscopically or openly. The study’s aims were to investigate various complications of open laparotomy peptic perforation repair and laparoscopic peptic perforation repair, and then to reduce post-operative complications by customising a suitable procedure in a specific person. Material and Methods: This was a descriptive study. This one-year study was carried out at a tertiary care centre in Gujarat. These patients were split into two groups. Perforated peptic ulcers were fixed laparoscopically in group A (n=30) participants. Perforated peptic ulcers were fixed openly (laparotomy) in group B (n=30) individuals. In terms of intraoperative time, post-operative hospital stay, and post-operative complications such as surgical site wound infection and post-operative pain, the author compared two groups. Results: Important factors in our study include intraoperative time, post-operative discomfort, surgical site infection, and hospital stay among patients in groups A and B. Group B patients required postoperative analgesics for a longer period of time than group A patients. Group B patients had a higher risk of surgical site infection than group A patients. Group B patients spend longer time in the hospital after surgery. Conclusion: The shift in disease pattern favours a straightforward repair approach in perforated peptic ulcers. In patients with perforated peptic ulcers, laparoscopic surgery has no additional disadvantages over open repair, but it has the advantage of reducing post-operative time, surgical site infection, and length of hospital stay. Laparoscopic perforated peptic ulcer repair is therefore recommended whenever possible.

Background and Aim: Peptic perforation refers to a duodenal ulcer perforation or a gastric ulcer perforation. Graham’s omental patch repair is required to correct peptic perforations. This surgical intervention can be performed either laparoscopically or openly. The study’s aims were to investigate various complications of open laparotomy peptic perforation repair and laparoscopic peptic perforation repair, and then to reduce post-operative complications by customising a suitable procedure in a specific person. Material and Methods: This was a descriptive study. This one-year study was carried out at a tertiary care centre in Gujarat. These patients were split into two groups. Perforated peptic ulcers were fixed laparoscopically in group A (n=30) participants. Perforated peptic ulcers were fixed openly (laparotomy) in group B (n=30) individuals. In terms of intraoperative time, post-operative hospital stay, and post-operative complications such as surgical site wound infection and post-operative pain, the author compared two groups. Results: Important factors in our study include intraoperative time, post-operative discomfort, surgical site infection, and hospital stay among patients in groups A and B. Group B patients required postoperative analgesics for a longer period of time than group A patients. Group B patients had a higher risk of surgical site infection than group A patients. Group B patients spend longer time in the hospital after surgery. Conclusion: The shift in disease pattern favours a straightforward repair approach in perforated peptic ulcers. In patients with perforated peptic ulcers, laparoscopic surgery has no additional disadvantages over open repair, but it has the advantage of reducing post-operative time, surgical site infection, and length of hospital stay. Laparoscopic perforated peptic ulcer repair is therefore recommended whenever possible.