Our patients required significantly less parenteral analgesics that more than half of them did not ask for any pethidine injection. They had a lower visual analog pain score on postoperative days 1 and 3. This can be

explained by the already existing evidence that laparoscopic correction of PPU causes less postoperative pain [11, 21, 26, 30]. The meta-analysis published by Lau [11] reported that eight out of ten studies showed a significant reduction in dosage of analgesics required in the laparoscopic group. Also, the three studies that had included VAS pain scores showed consistently Capmatinib mouse lower pain scores, as was observed in our study as well. Whether this will lead to a better quality of life for patients, especially during the first weeks after surgery still needs to be analyzed. Patients in our series who underwent laparoscopy had less postoperative pain and also a less length of hospital stay 75 ± 12.6 h. It appears that the age of PPU patients may have influenced this relatively shorter hospital stay; it was 39.5 ± 8.6 years. In most of the published series the age is increasing. This not only increases the mean hospital stay time but it may eventually represent a significant problem in the future [22, 32]. One benefit of the laparoscopic procedure not often mentioned in literature pain [11]

is cosmetic outcome. Nowadays patients are aware of this benefit, and sometimes this is the reason why they demand laparoscopic surgery [34]. In conclusion, the results of the current trial confirm the results of other trials that laparoscopic correction of PPU is safe, feasible find more for the experienced laparoscopic surgeon, and causes less postoperative Carnitine palmitoyltransferase II pain. Operating time was less than previously reported and complications are less. These results however, need further evaluation on bigger patients sample with more advanced age on the future studies. References 1. Koo J, Ngan YK, Lam SK: Trends in hospital admissions, perforation and mortality of peptic ulcer in Hong Kong from 1970 to 1980. Gastroenterology 1983, 84:1558–1562.PubMed 2. Alagaratnam TT, Wong J: No decrease in duodenal ulcer surgery

after cimetidine in Hong Kong. J Clin Gastroenterol 1988, 10:25–27.PU-H71 mw PubMedCrossRef 3. Hopkins RJ, Girardi LS, Turney EA: Relationship between Helicobacter pylori eradication and reduced duodenal and gastric ulcer recurrence: a review. Gastroenterology 1996, 110:1244–1252.PubMedCrossRef 4. Lam SK, Byth K, Ng MM: Perforated peptic ulcer in Hong Kong and New South Wales. J Gastroenterol Hepato 1992, l7:508–511.CrossRef 5. Canoy DS, Hart AR, Todd CJ: Epidemiology of duodenal ulcer perforation: a study on hospital admissions in Norfolk, United Kingdom. Dig Liver Dis 2002, 34:322–327.PubMedCrossRef 6. Crofts TJ, Park KGM, Steel RJC: A randomized trial of non-operative treatment for perforated peptic ulcer. N Engl J Med 1989, 320:970–973.PubMedCrossRef 7.