A prospective randomized trial comparing open versus laparoscopic appendectomy

Laparoscopic appendectomy conversion rates two decades later: an analysis of surgeon and patient-specific factors resulting in open conversion

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy in appendicitis has gained increased popularity but remains controversial. Despite more than 20 y of experience in laparoscopy, the nationwide laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) conversion rate is reportedly 8.6%. We sought to analyze the impact of patient-specific and surgeon-specific factors that may contribute to open conversion during LA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 745 LAs (49.9% females and 50.1% males; average age of 37.8 y performed at a large tertiary community teaching hospital over a 5-y period (May 2004-October 2008) was performed.

RESULTS

The overall conversion rate for the study period was 4.16% (n = 31). The most common reason for open conversion was severe acute inflammation (38.7%). Among converted cases, 77.42% had no prior abdominal surgery and only 25.81% of cases were converted due to adhesions. Females and patients ≥ 65-y-old had a higher likelihood of open conversion (4.30% versus 4.02%, P < 0.99 and 9.26% versus 3.76%, P < 0.1107). The overall conversion rate of cases performed by high-volume surgeons (≥ 50 total cases) in comparison to low-volume surgeons (10-49 total cases) was higher (4.86% versus 3.30%, P < 0.39). Conversion rates were lower among surgeons who completed residency training after 1990 (3.72% versus 4.35%, P < 0.82) and those with fellowship training (1.42% versus 5.18%, P < 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic conversion continues to gain popularity and remains the gold standard procedure for appendectomy. Older patients have a higher likelihood of conversion with severe acute inflammation being the most common reason for conversion. Additional minimally invasive fellowship training was the only surgeon-specific factor that significantly impacted conversion rate.

Laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy: An Indian perspective

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendicectomy though widely practiced has not gained universal approval. Laparoscopic appendicectomy in India is relatively new and the literature is scant. This study was aimed to compare laparoscopic with open appendicectomy and ascertain the therapeutic benefit, if any, in the overall management of acute appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study group consisted of two hundred and seventy nine patients suffering from acute appendicitis. One hundred patients underwent laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) and one hundred seventy nine patients underwent open appendecectomy (OA). Comparison was based on length of hospital stay, operating time, postoperative morbidity, duration of convalescence and operative cost in terms of their medians. The Mann-Whitney statistics (T) were calculated and because of large samples, the normal deviate test (Z) was used.

RESULTS

Of the hundred patients, six patients (6%) had the procedure converted to open surgery. The rate of infections and overall complications (LA: 15%, OA: 31.8%, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in patients undergoing LA. The median length of stay was significantly shorter after LA (3 days after LA, 5 days after OA, P < 0.0001) than after OA. The operating time was shorter {OA: 25 min (median), LA: 28 min (median), 0.01< P < 0.05} in patients undergoing open appendicectomy compared to laparoscopic appendicectomy.

CONCLUSION

Hospital stay for LA is significantly shorter and the one-time operative charges appear to be almost the same. LA is also associated with increased clinical comfort in terms of fewer wound infections, faster recovery, earlier return to work and improved cosmesis.

Non-trocar related major retroperitoneal bleeding during laparoscopic appendectomy

Most of the reported vascular injuries in laparoscopic appendectomies occur during trocar or Veress needle insertions. As laparoscopy continues to evolve, it is essential that surgeons report unusual complications in an effort to raise awareness and guide management of any iatrogenic injury incurred during minimally-invasive procedures. We report the case of a patient who sustained a major non-trocar related retroperitoneal vascular injury during a routine LA.

Laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age

BACKGROUND

Acute lower abdominal pain is common and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal woman as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with the symptoms of appendicitis and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The  Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINHAL were searched (to April 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, nonspecific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two authors and the risk of bias assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (7 RCTs, 561 participants; OR 4.10, 95% CI 2.50 to 6.71; I(2) 18%) but there was no evidence of reduced rate for any adverse event (8 RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I(2) 0%).Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. There was a significant difference favouring laparoscopy in the rate of specific diagnoses (4 RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I(2) 79%) but there was no evidence of a difference in the rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I(2) 0%).  

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of laparoscopy in women with nonspecific abdominal pain and suspected appendicitis include a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared to open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. There was no evidence of an increase in adverse events with any of the strategies.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a comparison of primary outcome measures

BACKGROUND/AIM

The aim of the study was to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy (OA) in terms of primary outcome measures.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial. Place and duration of the study: Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan, February 2008 to December 2009.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 160 patients were divided into two groups, A and B. Group A patients were subjected to laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), whereas Group B patients were subjected to OA. Data regarding age, gender, and primary outcome measures, such as hospital stay, operative duration, and postoperative complication, were recorded and analyzed. Percentages were calculated for categorical data, whereas numerical data were represented as mean ± SD. Chi-square test and t test were used to compare categorical and numerical variables, respectively. Probability ≤ 0.05 (P ≤ 0.05) was considered significant.

RESULTS

After randomization, 72 patients in group A and 75 patients in group B were analyzed. The mean age of patients in groups A and B was 23.09 ± 8.51 and 23.12 ± 10.42 years, respectively, (P = 0.981). The mean hospital stay was 1.52 ± 0.76 days in group A and 1.70 ± 1.06 days in group B (P = 0.294). The mean operative duration in group A and B were 47.54 ± 12.82 min and 31.36 ± 11.43 min, respectively (P < 0.001). Pain (overall level) was significantly less in group A compared with group B (P = 0.004). The two groups were comparable in terms of other postoperative complications, such as hematoma (P = 0.87), paralytic ileus (P = 0.086), urinary retention (P = 0.504), and wound infection (P = 0.134).

CONCLUSION

LA is an equivalent procedure and not superior to OA in terms of primary outcome measures.

Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Although laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.

Methods

A meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.

Results

Forty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).

Conclusion

LA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis has been proposed to have advantages over conventional surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic and therapeutic effects of laparoscopic and conventional 'open' surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CNKI, SciSearch, study registries, and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults or children. Studies comparing immediate OA versus diagnostic laparoscopy (followed by LA or OA if necessary) were separately identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Missing information or data was requested from the authors. We used odds ratios (OR), relative risks (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies, of which 56 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were less likely after LA than after OA (OR 0.43; CI 0.34 to 0.54), but the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses was increased (OR 1.87; CI 1.19 to 2.93). The duration of surgery was 10 minutes (CI 6 to 15) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 8 mm (CI 5 to 11 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Hospital stay was shortened by 1.1 day (CI 0.7 to 1.5). Return to normal activity, work, and sport occurred earlier after LA than after OA. While the operation costs of LA were significantly higher, the costs outside hospital were reduced. Seven studies on children were included, but the results do not seem to be much different when compared to adults. Diagnostic laparoscopy reduced the risk of a negative appendectomy, but this effect was stronger in fertile women (RR 0.20; CI 0.11 to 0.34) as compared to unselected adults (RR 0.37; CI 0.13 to 1.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In those clinical settings where surgical expertise and equipment are available and affordable, diagnostic laparoscopy and LA (either in combination or separately) seem to have various advantages over OA. Some of the clinical effects of LA, however, are small and of limited clinical relevance. In spite of the mediocre quality of the available research data, we would generally recommend to use laparoscopy and LA in patients with suspected appendicitis unless laparoscopy itself is contraindicated or not feasible. Especially young female, obese, and employed patients seem to benefit from LA.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a metaanalysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) provides a safe and effective alternative to open appendectomy (OA), but its use remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency and safety of LA through a metaanalysis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA and OA published between January 1992 and February 2010 were included in this study. Strict literature appraisal and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. A metaanalysis then was performed to evaluate operative time, hospital cost, postoperative complications, length of analgesia, bowel function recovery, day liquid diet began, hospital stay, and return to work and normal activity.

RESULTS

The metaanalysis comprised 25 RCTs involving 4,694 patients (2,220 LA and 2,474 OA cases). No significant differences were found between the LA and OA groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), or type of appendiceal inflammation. Compared with OA, LA showed advantages of fewer postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.98; p = 0.04), less pain (length of analgesia: weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.53; 95% CI, -0.91 to -0.15; p = 0.007), earlier start of liquid diet (WMD, -0.51; 95% CI, -0.75 to -0.28; p < 0.0001), shorter hospital stay (WMD, -0.68; 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.35; p < 0.0001), and earlier return to work (WMD, -3.09; 95% CI, -5.22 to -0.97; p = 0.004) and normal activity (WMD, -4.73; 95% CI, -6.54 to -2.92; p < 0.00001), but a comparable hospital cost (WMD of LA/OA ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.40; p = 0.47) and a longer operative time (WMD, 10.71; 95% CI, 6.76-14.66; p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Despite the longer operative time, LA results in less postoperative pain, faster postoperative rehabilitation, a shorter hospital stay, and fewer postoperative complications than OA. Therefore, LA is worth recommending as an effective and safe procedure for acute appendicitis.

The impact of surgeon choice on the cost of performing laparoscopic appendectomy

INTRODUCTION

While laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) can be performed using a myriad of techniques, the cost of each method varies. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of surgeon choice of technique on the cost of key steps in LA.

METHODS

Surgeon operative notes, hospital invoice lists, and surgeon instrumentation preference sheets were obtained for all LA cases in 2008 at Cambridge Health Alliance (CHA). Only cases (N = 89) performed by fulltime staff general surgeons (N = 8) were analyzed. Disposable costs were calculated for the following components of LA: port access, mesoappendix division, and management of the appendiceal stump. The actual cost of each disposable was determined based on the hospital's materials management database. Actual hospital reimbursements for LA in 2008 were obtained for all payers and compared with the disposable cost per case.

RESULTS

Disposable cost per case for the three portions analyzed for 126 theoretical models were calculated and found to range from US $81 to US $873. The surgeon with the most cost-effective preferred method (US $299) utilized one multi-use endoscopic clip applier for mesoappendix division, two commercially available pretied loops for management of the appendiceal stump, and three 5-mm trocars as their preferred technique. The surgeon with the least cost-effective preferred method (US $552) utilized two staple firings for mesoappendix division, one staple firing for management of the appendiceal stump, and 12/5/10-mm trocars for access. The two main payers for LA patients were Medicaid and Health Safety Net, whose total hospital reimbursements ranged from US $264 to US $504 and from US $0 to US $545 per case, respectively, for patients discharged on day 1.

DISCUSSION

Disposable costs frequently exceeded hospital reimbursements. Currently, there is no scientific literature that clearly illustrates a superior surgical method for performing these portions of LA in routine cases. This study suggests that surgeons should review the cost implications of their practice and to find ways to provide the most cost-effective care without jeopardizing clinical outcome.

Long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcome following open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy.

METHODS

A total of 105 patients with suspected acute appendicitis were randomized to LA (51) or OA (54) between 1997 and 1999 at one hospital. Perioperative factors and follow-up data from the outpatient clinic were recorded. Information about symptoms and overall satisfaction was obtained by telephone interview. In addition, appendicectomy data for 2008 were analysed retrospectively for comparison in a contemporary setting.

RESULTS

Data from 52 patients who had OA and 47 who had LA were analysed. OA was performed mostly by trainees, but LA was more likely to be undertaken by a consultant. The open procedure was quicker than the laparoscopic operation in the trial period (median 38 versus 65 min respectively; P < 0.001), but the difference was only 10 min in 2008. The OA group returned to work later than the LA group (median 13 versus 8 days; P = 0.013) and had more complications (22 versus 6; P = 0.014). Only one patient (OA) had a reoperation, owing to abdominal adhesions. Among 76 patients available for telephone interview, satisfaction scores were marginally higher for LA than OA.

CONCLUSION

LA has some advantages compared with an open approach.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00908804 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Comparison of outcomes after laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 222 ACS NSQIP hospitals

BACKGROUND

The benefit of laparoscopic (LA) versus open (OA) appendectomy, particularly for complicated appendicitis, remains unclear. Our objectives were to assess 30-day outcomes after LA versus OA for acute appendicitis and complicated appendicitis, determine the incidence of specific outcomes after appendectomy, and examine factors influencing the utilization and duration of the operative approach with multi-institutional clinical data.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database (2005-2008), patients were identified who underwent emergency appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 222 participating hospitals. Regression models, which included propensity score adjustment to minimize the influence of treatment selection bias, were constructed. Models assessed the association between surgical approach (LA vs OA) and risk-adjusted overall morbidity, surgical site infection (SSI), serious morbidity, and serious morbidity/mortality, as well as individual complications in patients with acute appendicitis and complicated appendicitis. The relationships between operative approach, operative duration, and extended duration of stay with hospital academic affiliation were also examined.

RESULTS

Of 32,683 patients, 24,969 (76.4%) underwent LA and 7,714 (23.6%) underwent OA. Patients who underwent OA were significantly older with more comorbidities compared with those who underwent LA. Patients treated with LA were less likely to experience an overall morbidity (4.5% vs 8.8%; odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.68) or a SSI (3.3% vs 6.7%; OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.50-0.65) but not a serious morbidity (2.6% vs 4.2%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.01) or a serious morbidity/mortality (2.6% vs 4.3%; OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.01) compared with those who underwent OA. All patients treated with LA were significantly less likely to develop individual infectious complications except for organ space SSI. Among patients with complicated appendicitis, organ space SSI was significantly more common after laparoscopic appendectomy (6.3% vs 4.8%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05-1.73). For all patients with acute appendicitis, those treated at academic-affiliated versus community hospitals were equally likely to undergo LA versus OA (77.0% vs 77.3%; P = .58). Operative duration at academic centers was significantly longer for both LA and OA (LA, 47 vs 38 minutes [P < .0001]; OA, 49 vs 44 minutes [P < .0001]). Median duration of stay after LA was 1 day at both academic-affiliated and community hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Within ACS NSQIP hospitals, LA is associated with lower overall morbidity in selected patients. However, patients with complicated appendicitis may have a greater risk of organ space SSI after LA. Academic affiliation does not seem to influence the operative approach. However, LA is associated with similar durations of stay but slightly greater operative times than OA at academic versus community hospitals.

Laparoscopic appendectomy is the preferred approach for appendicitis: a retrospective review of two practice patterns

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the results of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 264 patients who underwent appendectomy (155 LA and 109 OA) over an 8-year period was performed. The variables analyzed included patient data (white blood cell count [WBC], duration of symptoms, American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] score), operating data (length of the procedure and pathology), postoperative data (postoperative complications and length of hospital stay), and total costs.

RESULTS

Patient demographic data (age and sex), preoperative WBC, duration of symptoms, and pathology all were similar in the two study groups. Six cases were converted to OA and included in the LA group data. There was no statistical difference in the average operative time between the LA (mean, 55.7 + or - 22.3 min; range, 20-128 min) and OA (mean, 58.9 + or - 23.7 min; range, 29-135 min) groups (95% confidence interval [CI] -8.8-2.43; p = 0.26). The overall incidence of minor and major complications was significantly less in the LA group (3.2%, five incidents) than in the OA group (17.4%, 19 incidents; p = 0.0043). The median length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (median, 2 days; range, 1-8 days) than in the open group (median, 3 days; range, 1-11 days; p < 0.001). The mean total cost was $5,663 in the laparoscopic group and $6,031 in the open group (non-significant difference of -$368; 95% CI, -$926-$190; p = 0.19).

CONCLUSION

The findings show that LA is associated with fewer complications and similar total costs compared with OA. Therefore, LA can be recommended as a preferred approach to appendectomy.

[Appendix abscess: analysis of 19 cases treated at University Hospital of Yaounde and practical deductions ]

Introduction

L’abcès appendiculaire représente 10% des cas d’appendicite aigue. Leur incidence accrue pourrait traduire des difficultés diagnostiques rencontrées en milieux défavorisés ou l’utilisation des examens morphologiques doit être pertinente lorsqu’ils sont disponibles. Le drainage par voie extrapéritonéale si possible suivit d’une appendicectomie à froid était considéré comme l’attitude thérapeutique indiquée. On observe en pratique une incidence faible des appendicectomies différées par rapport à la prévalence des cas d’abcès appendiculaires.

Méthodes

Le but de cette étude était d’évaluer de façon critique la prise en charge des abcès appendiculaires au CHU de Yaoundé. Nous avons rétrospectivement analysé les dossiers de patients traités pour appendicite au CHU de Yaoundé de 2001 à 2006 et les données concernant l’âge, le sexe, les découvertes opératoires, les gestes thérapeutiques étaient recueillis.

Résultats

Dix-neuf cas d’abcès sur 200 cas d’appendicites ont été retrouvés. Dans deux cas seulement il n’y avait pas eu d’appendicectomie au cours de l’intervention soit 10%. On avait 10.5% de complications essentiellement des suppurations pariétales ; comparable à 6% pour les formes non évoluées.

Conclusion

Nous en concluons qu’il est nécessaire de disposer d’un examen morphologique dans les appendicites évoluées avec des manifestations localisées et nous recommandons une prise en charge individualisée.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in men: a prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic treatment in acute appendicitis still is unclear. Although some evidence in the literature suggests diagnostic benefits from laparoscopy for young women with suspected acute appendicitis, there is scepticism about the utility of this approach for men. This study aimed to compare open and laparoscopic appendectomy performed for men with suspected acute appendicitis.

METHODS

All male patients older than 15 years with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) classification of 3 or less, no previous abdominal surgery, and no contraindication for pneumoperitoneum were prospectively randomized to undergo either open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). The primary end point was a detected difference in postoperative hospital length of stay, and the secondary end points were detected differences in postoperative analgesia, morbidity, and length of the recovery period.

RESULTS

In this study, 147 men with suspected acute appendicitis were randomized to either OA (n = 75) or LA (n = 72). It took longer to perform LA (60 min; range, 20-120 min vs. 45 min; range, 20-90 min; p = 0.0027), and LA did not result in any significant difference for the parameters evaluated.

CONCLUSION

The postoperative length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between OA and LA for men. Laparoscopic appendectomy required more time and did not offer any advantages compared with OA.

Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy, being the most common surgical procedure performed in general surgery, is still being performed by both open and laparoscopic methods due to a lack of consensus as to which is the most appropriate method. Because further trials are necessary and few such studies have been performed in developing countries, we decided to evaluate the outcomes of the 2 procedures to share our experience with the international community.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with suspected acute appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic (LA) (n=48) and open (n=52) appendectomy (OA) over a period of 3 years were studied. Clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups in relation to operative time, analgesia used, length of hospital stay, return to work, resumption of a regular diet, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Mean age of patients was 25.8 years in the laparoscopic and 25.5 years in the open group. Patient demographics were similar in both groups (P>0.05). There was significantly less need for analgesia (1.0+/-0.5 in LA and 1.5+/-0.6 doses in OA), a short hospital stay (1.4+/-0.7 in LA and 3.4+/-1.0 days in OA), early return to work (12.6+/-3.3 in LA and 19.1+/-3.1 days in OA), and less time needed to return to a regular diet (20.1+/-2.9 in LA and 22.0+/-4.7, P<0.05 in OA) in the laparoscopic appendectomy group. Operative time was significantly shorter (54.9+/-14.7 in LA and 13.6+/-12.6 minutes in OA) in the open group. Total number of complications was less in the laparoscopic group; however, there was no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic technique is a safe and clinically beneficial operative procedure. It provides certain advantages over open appendectomy, including short hospital stay, decreased requirement of postoperative analgesia, early food tolerance, and earlier return to normal activities. Where feasible, laparoscopy should be undertaken as the initial procedure of choice for most cases of suspected appendicitis.

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: Is this a feasible option for developing countries?

BACKGROUND/AIM

The role of laparoscopic appendectomy is still not well defined in the literature. This study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic appendectomy at a university hospital in a developing country.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) from August 2002 to August 2006 were identified. For each case, a control was selected from patients undergoing open appendectomy (OA) during the same year by systematic sampling. The groups were compared in terms of duration of surgery, requirement of narcotic analgesia, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications and the overall cost for each patient.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy during the study period. Median duration of surgery was 82 minutes in LA group and 70 minutes in OA group (P < 0.001). Forty-five patients in LA group and 64 in OA group required narcotic analgesia (P 0.001). Median length of hospital stay (P = 0.672) and postoperative complications (P = 0.779) were comparable in both groups. Median cost of hospital stay was Pakistani Rupees (PKR) 47121/in LA group and PKR 39318/in OA group, the difference being significant (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy is feasible in developing countries with similar postoperative outcome and less requirement of narcotic analgesia. The duration of surgery and overall cost were significantly higher and efforts should be made to develop expertise and reduce operative time with resultant decrease in cost. Development of standardized protocols for discharge of patients from the hospital after LA may further reduce the cost and benefit patients in developing countries.

Perforated appendicitis: is early laparoscopic appendectomy appropriate?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy for nonperforated appendicitis is associated with improved outcomes; however, laparoscopy has been challenged for perforated appendicitis owing to higher morbidity compared with open or staged procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the laparoscopic approach for perforated appendicitis results in improved outcomes compared with open appendectomy.

METHODS

Postoperative patient records for confirmed perforated appendicitis from 2005 to 2008 were reviewed retrospectively. Demographics, surgical approach, conversion rate, and outcomes were tabulated, including length of stay (LOS), intra-abdominal and wound infections, and duration of antibiotic therapy.

RESULTS

The incidence of perforation was 27.9% in 885 total patients. The conversion rate from laparoscopic to open for perforated appendicitis was 16%. Hospital LOS was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (P < .05). The incidence of postoperative abscess was not significantly different; however, the incidence of wound infection and duration of antibiotic therapy were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Successful laparoscopic appendectomy reduces LOS, antibiotic therapy, and wound infections compared with open appendectomy in perforated appendicitis without increasing the incidence of postoperative abscess. We conclude that perforated appendicitis can be managed effectively by laparoscopic appendectomy in a high percentage of patients with improved outcomes compared with open appendectomy.

Video-assisted laparoscopic extracorporeal appendectomy versus open appendectomy

OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is categorized into intracorporeal appendectomy (ICA) and video-assisted extracorporeal appendectomy (VAECA). This study is conducted to compare feasibility and effectiveness of video-assisted extracorporeal appendectomy (VAECA) with open appendectomy (OA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a comparative descriptive study conducted at the Department of Surgery of Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences (Jamshoro, Pakistan) from June 2003 to November 2007. Two hundred and eighty-three patients of acute appendicitis were included and categorized into two groups: A and B. Group A included 150 (53%) patients operated on by the OA technique, while group B included 133 (47%) patients in whom VAECA was performed. VAECA was accomplished through three ports in the majority of patients (89%), while a few cases (11%) were completed by two ports only. Patients below 10 years of age and with suspected appendicular mass were excluded from the study. Both operative techniques and their merits and demerits were explained to all the patients and, depending upon their choice or by a simple flip of a coin, they were operated on by either of the techniques. A well-informed written consent was also taken from every patient. The results of both the groups were collected on a proforma and were compared in terms of cosmesis, total operative time, operative and postoperative complications, and total duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The mean operating time was much shorter in group B (p < 0.001), compared to group A patients. The incidence of postoperative infection was comparatively higher in OA, compared to VAECA. The rate of operative complications (p < 0.001), postoperative complications (p < 0.01), and duration of hospital stay (p < 0.001) were all significantly lower in the VAECA group. Cosmetic results were excellent in VAECA, compared to OA, as assessed by length of incision and the postoperative scar formation.

CONCLUSION

VAECA can be a good alternate option in simple cases without much adhesions or mass formation.

Laparoscopic appendicectomy versus open appendicectomy: a comparative study of clinical outcome and cost analysis - Institutional experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendicetomy had not gained importance against open appendicectomy and it remains controversial in Indian perspective.

AIM

Compare the clinical outcome and cost effectiveness of Laparoscopic Appendicectomy (LA) versus Open Appendicectomy (OA).

METHODS

A prospective study for a period of 21 months from Oct. 2005 to June 2007, 249 patients underwent appendicectomy and 200 patients were included in the study. 114 underwent Open appendicectomy and 86 underwent laparoscopic appendicectomy. Duration of surgery, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative pain and requirement of analgesia, resumption of oral feeds, cost of hospital stay and return to normal activities was compared and noted.

RESULT

Laparoscopic appendicectomy was better than open appendiectomy with respect to the wound infection rate, early resumption of oral feeds, postoperative pain, lesser use of analgesics, postoperative hospital stay (3.13 days after LA, 4.36 days after OA, P < 0.0001) and return to normal activities (LA group to OA group; 13.86 days to 19.44 days P< 0.0001). Although above mentioned advantages were at the cost of slightly increased duration of surgery (58.29 min in OA group to 74.13 min in LA group P < 0.0001HS) and cost of surgery {LA: OA Rs.4225.81: Rs.5560.92 (P <0.0001)}.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendicectomy was better than open appendiectomy with respect to wound infection rate, early resumption of oral feeds, postoperative pain, lesser use of analgesics, postoperative hospital stay and return to normal activities. Although above mentioned advantages were at the cost of slightly increased duration of surgery and cost of surgery.

Laparoscopic appendectomy--is it worth the cost? Trend analysis in the US from 2000 to 2005

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic appendectomy is widely used for treatment of appendicitis, it is still unclear if it is superior to the open approach.

STUDY DESIGN

From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2000 to 2005, hospitalizations with the primary ICD-9 procedure code of laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) were included in this study. Outcomes of length of stay, costs, and complications were assessed by stratified analysis for uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis (perforation or abscess). Regression methods were used to adjust for covariates and to detect trends. Costs were rescaled using the hospital and related services portion of the Medical Consumer Price Index.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2005, 132,663 (56.3%) patients underwent OA and 102,810 (43.7%) had LA. Frequency of LA increased from 32.2% to 58.0% (p < 0.001); conversion rates decreased from 9.9% to 6.9% (p < 0.001). Covariate adjusted length of stay for LA was approximately 15% shorter than for OA in both uncomplicated and complicated cases (p < 0.001). Adjusted costs for LA were 22% higher in uncomplicated appendicitis and 9% higher in patients with complicated appendicitis (p < 0.001). Costs and length of stay decreased over time in OA and LA. The risk for a complication was higher in the LA group (p < 0.05, odds ratio=1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14) with uncomplicated appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

LA results in higher costs and increased morbidity for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. Nevertheless, LA is increasingly used. Patients undergoing LA benefit from a slightly shorter hospital stay. In general, open appendectomy may be the preferred approach for patients with acute appendicitis, with indication for LA in selected subgroups of patients.

Incidental appendectomy during endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The first laparoscopic appendectomy was performed over 25 years ago, and yet controversy still exists over the open method vs. the laparoscopic approach, and whether an incidental appendectomy is warranted. This study aimed to evaluate our experience in performing a laparoscopic incidental appendectomy and to address these issues.

METHODS

A total of 772 laparoscopic appendectomies were performed and analyzed and statistically evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean age of the patients was 30.8+/-7.0 years. Mean operating time for an incidental appendectomy was 12.3+/-4.5 minutes. Most common pathology result was adhesions, and the rarest was endometriosis. Of patients with confirmed appendicitis, 75.8% did not have an initial preoperative diagnosis of appendicitis. When warranted, 103 (13.3%) patients underwent a second-look laparoscopy: 75.5% had no adhesions, 23.5% had mild adhesions, 2% had moderate adhesions. Backward elimination logistic regression revealed that endometriosis (P=0.016), endometrioma (P=0.039), pelvic or abdominal adhesions (P=0.015) were associated with a reduced likelihood of encountering appendicitis on pathology examination. The complication rate was 0.13%. Anesthesia cost was lower for an incidental appendectomy compared with an urgent one.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic incidental appendectomy is safe and quick to perform. Due to the complex nature of confirming the diagnosis of pelvic and abdominal pain, this study supports the routine performance of an incidental appendectomy in the female patient.

[Complicated acute apendicitis. Open versus laparoscopic surgery]

INTRODUCTION

Although laparoscopy has become the standard approach in other procedures, this technique is not generally accepted for acute appendicitis, especially if it is complicated due reports on the increase in intra-abdominal abscesses.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the morbidity in a group of patients diagnosed with complicated apendicitis (gangrenous or perforated) who had undergone open or laparoscopic appendectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We prospectively studied 107 patients who had undergone appendectomy for complicated appendicitis over a two year period. Mean operation time, mean hospital stay and morbidity, such as wound infection and intra-abdominal abscess were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the group with gangrenous appendicitis morbidity was significantly lower in laparoscopic appendectomy group (p = 0.014). Wound infection was significantly higher in the open appendectomy group (p = 0.041), and there were no significant differences in intra-abdominal abscesses (p = 0.471). In the perforated appendicitis group overall morbidity (p = 0.046) and wound infection (p = 0.004) was significantly higher in the open appendectomy group. There were no significant differences in intra-abdominal abscesses (p = 0.612).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is a safe procedure that may prove to have significant clinical advantages over conventional surgery.

Laparoscopic appendectomy without clip or ligature. An experimental study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to test the efficacy and safety of closure of the appendeceal stump with only laparoscopic bipolar electrocautery in rats.

METHODS

In this study, 40 female Wistar-Albino rats were used. In group I (n = 10), appendix vermiformis, approximately 1 cm in width, was completely ligated with 3/0 silk suture close to cecum, and removed. In group II (n = 20) and group III (n = 10), the appendeceal stump was coagulated by bipolar cautery. The coagulation of 70 mA took 10 s, and was repeated one more time. The stump was divided, and checked to ensure complete occlusion. Groups I and II underwent relaparotomy at 15 days, cecum was taken out, and the burst pressure of the stump was measured. Group III did not undergo relaparotomy; the burst pressure was measured during the first laparotomy.

RESULTS

All rats survived. At relaparotomy, no intra-abdominal complications were detected, including intestinal obstruction, abscess, and leakage. Omentum and fatty tissue of uterus was adhered to the appendix stump in group I, but only fatty tissue of uterus was adhered on the stump in group II. Although the intracecal pressure reached 30 cmH(2)O, at which pressure the cecum was highly stretched, ligated (group I) or coagulated (group II) stumps did not burst or opened. In group III, the burst or opening pressure of the stump (11.2 +/- 2.7 cmH(2)O) was significantly lower than in groups I and II (p < 0.001). Of group II rats, 80% had complete epithelial regeneration at the coagulated stump sites in contrast to ligated rats (p < 0.001) with severe inflammatory changes, abscess, and necrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

At late course, coagulated stumps did not allow the leakage or burst, unlike ligated stumps. However, coagulation of the stump seemed to contribute more to epithelial healing. This experimental model suggests that the closure of the stump with only bipolar coagulation was a safe and feasible method.

Laparoscopic appendectomy in a district hospital: does the technique influence the outcome?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) has proved to be a safe, effective procedure for appendicitis. However, its application in the current surgical practice is still far less than the laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Therefore, its role as a gold standard operation for acute appendicitis (AA) is less well established.

METHODS

Between September 1999 and January 2007, a series of 200 patients (112 female, 88 male) with AA underwent LA in our surgical unit. A single consultant surgeon performed all the cases. Outcomes, including the length of stay, operative time, and complications, were evaluated. Follow-up assessment of patients was performed by outpatient appointment.

RESULTS

The indications for LA were clinical diagnosis of AA for 177 patients (85%) and interval appendicectomy for 23 patients (15%). The mean age of these patients was 18.8 years (range, 8-83). Operative diagnosis of inflamed appendix, including perforated appendicitis in 9 patients (7.5%), was made in 139 patients (69.5%), and the appendix was macroscopically normal in 40 patients (20%). Different pathologies were found in 21 patients (11.5%). Of the 40 (20%) macroscopically normal appendices, 10 (5%) appendices were reported as inflamed by histopathology examination. The operative time ranged from 13 to 62 minutes, with a mean of 18 minutes. Minor morbidity was reported in 11 patients (5.5%)

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands using a meticulous technique, LA provides diagnostic and therapeutic options, decreased operative time, rapid recovery, short hospital stay, fewer postoperative complications, and no intra-abdominal abscesses. Appendicectomy has cured right iliac fossa pain in almost all the patients.

Cost analysis of ligature versus stapling techniques of laparoscopic appendectomy in children

BACKGROUND

Although longer operative times and specialized instrumentation render laparoscopic appendectomies (LA) more expensive to perform than open appendectomies, the documented advantages of the laparoscopic approach have led many surgeons to prefer it. LAs are currently performed using either the ligature or the stapling technique. The decision as to which technique to employ is currently based on the surgeon's personal preference rather than on a knowledge of comparative costs. In light of the pressures for cost containment, we evaluated data from both laparoscopic methods to determine which was more effective based on cost and patient outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 55 pediatric patients who underwent LA by either the ligature or stapling technique at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (Cincinnati, OH) between March 2000 and March 2001. Comparative data on operating room cost, operative time, length of hospital stay, and readmission owing to complications were obtained for all LA cases.

RESULTS

The cost of LA performed using the stapling technique was significantly higher than the cost of LA using the ligature technique. Overall, a 37% reduction in operating room cost was seen for ligature versus stapling LA. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the other variables measured.

CONCLUSIONS

The ligation technique has appeal in residency training situations owing to the greater skill set that is needed for tissue handling and manipulation when using this technique. Our data suggest that LA performed using a ligation technique may also be less costly than the stapling technique and, therefore, should be considered as an appropriate surgical option.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy has been widely practiced for uncomplicated appendicitis; various reports demonstrated its merits in assisting diagnosis, reducing postoperative pain, analgesic requirement, and incidence of wound infection. The role of laparoscopy in management of complicated appendicitis, ie, gangrenous, perforated appendicitis and appendiceal abscess, remains undefined. Currently, the choice of operative approach is mostly at the surgeons' discretion. A retrospective study was conducted in our institution to review the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with complicated appendicitis.

STUDY DESIGN

From January 1999 to January 2004, records of patients older than 14 years of age with diagnosis of appendicitis were retrieved from computer database for analysis. All patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy to confirm diagnosis of complicated appendicitis, and patients subsequently underwent either laparoscopic or open appendectomies. Patients' demographics data and perioperative outcomes from the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1,133 patients with acute appendicitis underwent operations in our institution. Two hundred forty-four patients (21.5%) with complicated appendicitis were identified by laparoscopy, of which 175 underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and 69 had open appendectomy (OA). Both groups of patients were comparable in demographics. Mean operative time was 55 minutes for LA group and 70 minutes for the OA group (p<0.001). Mean hospital stay was 5 days and 6 days for LA and OA group respectively (p<0.001). There was one conversion patient (0.6%) in the LA group who suffered from wound infection, and there were seven (10%) wound infections in the OA group (p=0.001). There were 10 cases (5.7%) of intraabdominal collection in the LA group and 3 (4.3%) in the OA group (p=0.473). There was no mortality in the current series.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is feasible and safe. It is associated with a significantly shorter operative time, lower incidence of wound infection, and reduced length of hospital stay when compared with patients who had open appendectomy.

Our experience with selective laparoscopy through an open appendectomy incision in the management of suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

An accurate preoperative diagnosis of suspected appendicitis at times can be extremely difficult. We report our experience with a simple strategy of selective laparoscopy through an open appendectomy incision after finding a noninflamed appendix in the management of suspected appendicitis.

METHODS

Patients presenting with suspected appendicitis after regular office hours (6 pm to 8 am weekdays and weekends) were recruited prospectively from January 2002 to December 2003. Laparoscopy through an open appendectomy incision was performed only when the appendix was found to be normal.

RESULTS

Twenty-five (18.5%) of 135 patients underwent laparoscopy through an open appendectomy incision because of a normal-looking appendix. Laparoscopy through an open appendectomy incision helped to identify additional intra-abdominal pathology in 13 (52%) of the 25 patients; thus improving the overall detection rate of underlying pathology from 81.5% (110 of 135) to 91.2% (123 of 135).

CONCLUSIONS

Selective laparoscopy through an open appendectomy incision in patients with a noninflamed appendix is a simple technique that can identify potentially fatal pathology and also maintains a valuable training opportunity for young surgeons to perform open abdominal surgery. We recommend using this technique in the management of suspected appendicitis.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: differences between male and female patients with suspected acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy in the management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis remains controversial. It has been suggested that laparoscopy is useful mainly in young women of reproductive age because of the high incidence of wrong diagnosis in these patients.

METHODS

Different management protocols for patients with suspected acute appendicitis were prospectively used in male and female patients; women of reproductive age were treated laparoscopically, while men were randomised to open or laparoscopic appendectomy.

RESULTS

From September 2002 to September 2005, 132 patients-54 women and 78 men-with suspected acute appendicitis were treated according to the protocol. The incidence of wrong diagnosis in female patients was high (26% and the conversion rate low (5.5%). In contrast, in the laparoscopic male subgroup, these rates showed a reverse relationship (5.2% and 18.5%, respectively). Morbidity did not differ between female and male patients or between the 2 arms of the male group. Laparoscopic appendectomy took longer to perform without affecting significantly the needs for postoperative analgesia, the duration of hospital stay and the time to return to normal activities when compared with open appendectomy in men.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy is at least as safe as the open procedure in the male population, although it does not appear to offer any obvious advantage over the open procedure. The diagnostic advantage that laparoscopy offers to fertile women makes the procedure attractive for this population.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy in a Patient with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia with Neutropenia

The management of acute myelogenous leukemia is often complicated by infections due to neutropenia, but the appendix is not a common site of infection in adult patients with acute myelogenous leukemia. The diagnosis of acute appendicitis may be delayed or even missed because of the lack of characteristic signs and symptoms associated with acute appendicitis in neutropenic patients. Moreover, urgent surgery may lead to high postoperative complications and mortality rates in these patients. The case presented here is of a 33-year-old Hispanic man with acute myelogenous leukemia who developed severe diffuse acute abdominal pain with positive signs of rebound tenderness, fever, and hypotension ten days after receiving reinduction chemotherapy. The patient was at his nadir, with a white blood cell count of 0.2 x 10(9)/L, platelet count of 20 x 10(9)/L, and hemoglobin of 7 g/dL. A computed tomography scan of the abdomen was suspicious for acute appendicitis. The patient underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy that revealed gangrenous appendicitis. No perioperative complications occurred. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 7 and his chemotherapy was continued as scheduled. Laparoscopic appendectomy may be considered a primary approach in neutropenic patients because it can be associated with less postoperative infection, hemorrhagic complications, and a lower mortality rate.

Two-trocar laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

In order to reduce abdominal trauma and operative costs we have adopted a two-trocar laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy for patients with acute appendicitis. In the current study, the proposed technique is prospectively evaluated against conventional laparoscopic appendectomy with respect to feasibility, safety, and postoperative outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between July 2001 and July 2003, 83 consecutive patients were admitted with clinically diagnosed acute appendicitis and were randomly assigned to two-trocar laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (n = 40, 48.2%) or conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 43, 51.8%).

RESULTS

Two-trocar laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy was successfully completed in 30 patients (80.1%). Four patients initially scheduled for two-trocar laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (10.8%) were converted to laparotomy due to excessive body weight (BMI > or = 40), while an additional 5-mm infraumbilical trocar was inserted in another 3 patients (8.1%). The procedure was associated with decreased operative time and more rapid return to normal activity compared to laparoscopic appendectomy (P < 0.001 and P = 0.038, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference regarding the duration of hospitalization or the morbidity rate between the two groups. Conversion of the initial procedure was associated with increased wound infection rate and higher morbidity (P = 0.032 and P = 0.018, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Two-trocar laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy represents a promising minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of acute appendicitis. It is fast and easy to perform, and it is expected to decrease the overall cost of laparoscopic appendectomy. Its only contraindication is excessive body weight; it remains to be evaluated in the setting of perforated appendicitis and retrocecally located appendices.

Small lateral access--an alternative approach to appendicitis in paediatric patients: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Conventionally the appendix is removed through a right lower quadrant transverse incision or a gridiron incision approximately 5 cm in length. In this modern era of minimally invasive surgery, there is a lot of emphasis on cosmesis and early recovery. We performed a prospective, double blind, randomised trial to evaluate a new incision for appendectomy to compare with conventional appendectomy.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty patients, aged between 3 and 18 years, were randomized to receive either small access appendectomy (SAA) (n=60, 53 acute appendicitis and 7 interval appendectomy) or conventional appendectomy (CAP) (n=60, 55 acute appendicitis and 5 interval appendectomy). SAA was performed through an incision in the lateral 1/3 of the spino-umbilical line, lateral to McBurney's point. The caecum along with the appendix could be delivered through this small incision easily as the ileal loops did not interfere with the delivery. All patients suspected of acute appendicitis were evaluated by the modified Alvarado's system to reduce the rate of negative appendectomies. Patients with diffuse peritonitis were excluded.

RESULTS

The demographic data for the two groups were similar. The SAA group required less analgesics (p<0.001), had earlier ambulation and shorter hospital stay (p<0.001), and better cosmetic score (p<0.001), but the operation took longer (p<0.001) compared to the CAP group.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that SAA can be done safely without the need for any special equipment, with definite advantages over conventional appendectomy.

Videolaparoscopic appendectomy: the current outlook

BACKGROUND

Mini-invasive techniques have revolutionized surgery, but the superiority of laparoscopic access for appendectomy is widely debated. The authors analyze their monocentric experience with 1,347 laparoscopic appendectomies.

METHODS

Between October 1991 and December 2002, all the patients with an indication for appendectomy underwent surgery (301 emergency and 1,046 interval appendectomies) using the laparoscopic approach.

RESULTS

For 1,248 patients, appendectomy was performed laparoscopically, whereas for 99 patients (7.3%), it was converted to an open procedure because of technical reasons (90 patients, 6.7%) or intraoperative complications (9 patients, 0.6%). For 59 patients (4.4%), the appendectomy was associated with another procedure. Histology showed "acute" alterations in 261 of the 301 emergency surgeries and in 148 of the 1,046 elective operations. Postoperative complications arose in 37 patients (2.7%), with 5 patients (0.3%) requiring invasive treatment. The mean postoperative stay was 30 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy offers unquestionable advantages, but it is not yet considered the "gold standard" for appendiceal pathology. Many centers reserve it for selected patients (e.g., obese patients and women suspected of having other pathologies). No randomized trials or metaanalyses have definitively proved its superiority.

Training in laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in surgical training is unclear. Although LA as a therapeutic modality is potentially superior to open surgery, it has failed to become established as standard in training hospitals. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome of LA performed by inexperienced surgeons in a training environment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all attempted LA performed over a 12-month period was undertaken. Data collected included operator grade (experienced and inexperienced), conversion rate and duration of surgery, complications, and postoperative stay.

RESULTS

During the study period, 169 appendectomies were performed. The conversion rate to open surgery declined significantly from 28% in the first quarter to 9% in the last quarter, with no difference in the conversion rate between experienced and inexperienced surgeons. Operative time shortened significantly in the inexperienced group. Postoperative complications occurred in 8% of patients, independent of operative grade.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that LA may be safely introduced as a teaching procedure. Time-to-train should not preclude institutions from adopting the laparoscopic approach in the treatment of acute appendicitis.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for perforated appendicitis

The role of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for perforated appendicitis is under investigation. A retrospective study was conducted to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy (OA) for perforated appendicitis. From January 2001 through December 2003, 229 patients with perforated appendicitis were treated at Far-Eastern Memorial Hospital. LA was successfully completed in 91 of 99 patients. OA was performed in 130 patients. Operation time was longer in the LA group (mean +/- SD = 96.1 +/- 43.1 vs. 67.8 +/- 32.2 minutes, P < 0.01). Return of oral intake was faster in the LA group (3.2 +/- 2.4 vs. 5.0 +/- 7.0 days, P < 0.01). The intravenous antibiotic usage period was shorter in the LA group (4.4 +/- 2.8 vs. 6.3 +/- 7.1 days, P < 0.01). The postoperative wound infection rates were 15.2 % (LA group) and 30.7% (OA group). The overall infectious complication rates were 19% in the LA group and 37% in the OA group (P < 0.01). Hospital stay days were shorter for the LA group (6.3 +/- 2.9 vs. 9.3 +/- 8.6 days, P < 0.01). Our results indicated that laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and effective procedure for treating patients with perforated appendicitis.

Open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy: a critical review

BACKGROUND

The benefit of laparoscopic appendicectomy remains unclear. We have analysed available randomised studies comparing laparoscopic and open appendicectomy regarding their clinical pitfalls and statistical relevance.

METHODS

Thirty eight studies were analysed in terms of the following aspects: A. clinical problems (e.g., expertise of the surgeons, pre- and postoperative antibiotic treatment, definition of complications, blinding of outcomes) and B. statistical problems (e.g., definition of primary and secondary outcomes, power and sample size, statistical methods, confidence intervals, comparability of groups and studies).

RESULTS

Most of the studies have clinical and statistical pitfalls. The most important pitfalls are the uncertain expertise of the operating surgeons, blinding, and the exploratory nature of the studies. Our analysis aims at giving useful information for the appraisal of existing studies and the conduct of further studies. It also gives some preliminary results.

CONCLUSIONS

More than twenty years after Semm performed the first laparoscopic appendicectomy, it is necessary to clarify the superiority of laparoscopic or open appendectomy with well-defined, carefully designed randomised studies.

Laparoscopic appendectomy in the elderly

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy among the elderly.

METHODS

Data on 53 elderly patients with a diagnosis of suspected appendicitis were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. Among these patients, 24 had undergone laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and 29 had undergone open appendectomy (OA). The indications for either method were based on the patient's choice.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference in operative time was found between the LA (70 +/- 28 min) and OA (60 +/- 22 min) groups. There was no statistically significant difference in lengths of hospital stay between the LA (4.8 +/- 3.0 days) and OA (5.0 +/- 3.1 days) groups, and there was a statistically significant difference in the postoperative analgesic doses between the LA (0.5 +/- 0.3 doses) and OA (1.7 +/- 1.5 doses) groups. No conversion of laparoscopic to open surgery was necessary, and no intraabdominal abscesses developed.

CONCLUSION

According to this study, LA is as safe and effective as OA for the elderly. Furthermore, it significantly reduces postoperative wound pain.

Morbidity of laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis: an international study

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic appendectomy has some advantages over open appendectomy, some reports do show more postoperative intraabdominal abscesses.

METHODS

A retrospective review of complicated appendicitis managed surgically by eight surgical groups from six countries was undertaken. Among 3,433 patients with appendicitis, 1,017 (29.5%) had complicated appendicitis, which included perforated or gangrenous appendicitis with or without localized or disseminated peritonitis. There were 74 preoperative abscesses (7.4%) and 5 small bowel obstructions.

RESULTS

One patient died. There were 29 postoperative intraabdominal abscesses (2.8%) and 112 mostly minor complications. Conversion to laparotomy was necessary for 28 patients (2.7%). The surgical time ranged from 32 to 132 min (mean, 62 min), and the hospital stay ranged from 1 to 18 days (mean, 3.5 days).

CONCLUSIONS

The morbidity rates, particularly for intraabdominal abscesses, were less for laparoscopic appendectomy in complicated appendicitis than those reported in the literature for open appendectomy, whereas operating times and hospital stays were similar.

Minimally invasive: minimally reimbursed? An examination of six laparoscopic surgical procedures

It is generally believed that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) results in less postoperative pain, fewer complications, and shorter recovery periods compared with open procedures. Yet despite these benefits, the level of reimbursement assigned to the surgeon by United States health-care payers is often lower than that for open procedures. Furthermore, the cost of performing a MIS may be higher vs an open procedure because specialized equipment, increased surgical time, or both may be required. In this report, we examine the issue by comparing reimbursements for MIS with open procedures, summarizing the medical literature on MIS vs open surgical procedures, and offering recommendations for payers who establish reimbursement policies. The review is focused on six MIS procedures where outcomes data exist: laparoscopic cholecystectomy (lap chole), laparoscopic colectomy (LC), laparoscopic fundoplication (LF), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR), and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Outcomes summarized were length of hospital stay (LOS), operating room time, operating room costs, complications, and return to work or normal activities. The level of scientific evidence was assigned to each study using predetermined criteria. A total of 112 articles were reviewed: 14 for lap chole, 26 for LC, 7 for LF, 19 for LH, 9 for LVHR, and 37 for LA. The data demonstrate that these procedures result in reduced hospital stay, reduced hospital costs, and faster return to work or normal activities. Yet, the operating room time and costs are frequently higher for MIS. These findings suggest that as both the outcomes value and level of operating room resources are greater, MIS warrants reimbursement that meets or exceeds that of open procedures.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in West Bengal, India

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic appendectomy, although widely practiced, has not gained universal approval. Laparoscopic appendectomy in India is relatively new, and reports regarding its use are few. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic with open appendectomy and ascertain its therapeutic benefit, if any, in the overall management of acute appendicitis.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 279 patients suffering from acute appendicitis. One hundred patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and 179 patients underwent open appendectomy (OA). Comparisons were based on median values for length of hospital stay, operating time, postoperative morbidity, duration of convalescence and operative cost. Mann-Whitney statistics (T) were calculated and, because of the large sample size, the normal deviate test (Z) was used.

RESULTS

Of the 100 patients who were to receive LA, six patients (6%) had the procedure converted to open surgery. The rate of overall complications (LA 15%vs OA 31.8%; P < 0.001) was significantly lower in patients undergoing LA. The median length of stay was significantly shorter after LA (3 days after LA vs 5 days after OA; P < 0.0001) than after OA. The operating time was shorter (median values: OA 25 min vs LA 28 min; 0.01 < P < 0.05) in patients undergoing OA compared with LA.

CONCLUSION

For LA, hospital stay was significantly shorter, and the one-time operative cost appeared to be marginally the same as open surgery. Furthermore, LA was associated with increased clinical comfort in terms of fewer wound infections, faster recovery, earlier return to work and improved cosmesis.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The value of laparoscopy in appendicitis is not established. Studies suffer from multiple limitations. Our aim is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a prospective randomized double blind study.

METHODS

Two hundred forty-seven patients were analyzed following either laparoscopic or open appendectomy. A standardized wound dressing was applied blinding both patients and independent data collectors. Surgical technique was standardized among 4 surgeons. The main outcome measures were postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures included evaluation of pain and activity scores at base line preoperatively and on every postoperative day, as well as resumption of diet and length of stay. Activity scores and quality of life were assessed on short-term follow-up.

RESULTS

There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (18.5% versus 17% in the laparoscopic and open groups respectively), but some early complications in the laparoscopic group required a reoperation. Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (80 minutes versus 60 minutes; P = 0.000) while there was no difference in the pain scores and medications, resumption of diet, length of stay, or activity scores. At 2 weeks, there was no difference in the activity or pain scores, but physical health and general scores on the short-form 36 (SF36) quality of life assessment forms were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Appendectomy for acute or complicated (perforated and gangrenous) appendicitis had similar complication rates, regardless of the technique (P = 0.181).

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike other minimally invasive procedures, laparoscopic appendectomy did not offer a significant advantage over open appendectomy in all studied parameters except quality of life scores at 2 weeks. It also took longer to perform. The choice of the procedure should be based on surgeon or patient preference.

Comparison of needlescopic appendectomy versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a randomized controlled trial

Laparoscopic appendectomy has been shown to improve postoperative recovery when compared with open appendectomy. The present randomized trial was conducted to evaluate any further difference in outcome between needlescopic appendectomy (NA) and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) in the management of acute appendicitis. Patients with the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized to either NA (instrument size < or = 3 mm) or CLA (instrument size > or = 5 mm). Standardized anesthetic technique and perioperative management were adopted. The primary end point was length of postoperative hospital stay. Other parameters such as conversion rate, postoperative pain score and analgesic requirement, return of bowel function, resumption of normal activities, complication rate, and length of the final scars were also assessed and compared. A total of 363 patients (NA: 174, CLA: 189) were recruited. Both approaches could accurately arrive at the diagnosis (NA: 98.3%; CLA: 100%). Compared with CLA, NA resulted in a significantly longer operation time (P = 0.015) and a higher conversion rate (P < 0.001). The final scars of the NA group were significantly shorter when compared with the CLA group (P < 0.001). Otherwise, there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups in terms of complication rate, postoperative pain score, length of postoperative stay, and other recovery parameters. NA resulted in a longer operation time and higher conversion rate. Except for a smaller scar, the present study was unable to demonstrate any other short-term benefits. Thus, the technique cannot be routinely recommended.

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for confirmed appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is safe for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. This study compared recovery after laparoscopic (LA) and open appendicectomy (OA) for confirmed appendicitis, carried out by experienced surgeons in an educational setting.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-three patients with laparoscopically confirmed appendicitis suitable for LA were randomized prospectively to either LA or OA in a blinded fashion. The primary endpoint was time to full recovery. Secondary endpoints were operating time, complications, hospital stay and functional status.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between LA and OA in time to full recovery (9 and 11 days respectively; P = 0.225). Operating time was 55 min in the LA group and 60 min in the OA group (P = 0.416). The complication rate was 8.6 and 11.0 per cent respectively (P = 0.696), and median hospital stay was 2 days in both groups (P = 0.192). Functional status was significantly better in the LA group 7-10 days after operation (P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in time to full recovery after LA and OA in patients with laparoscopically confirmed appendicitis. A trend towards better physical activity was noted after the laparoscopic procedure.