Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: prospective randomized trial

The impact of conventional and laparoscopic colon resection (CO2 or helium) on intraperitoneal adhesion formation in a rat peritonitis model

BACKGROUND

Although postoperative intra-abdominal adhesion formation has been shown to be less with laparoscopic procedures than with open surgery, the extent of intraperitoneal adhesion formation after open and laparoscopic colon resection in patients with intra-abdominal infection remains unclear.

METHODS

A standardized fecal inoculum was intraperitoneally applied in 72 rats to induce peritonitis. The rats were randomized into four groups. The three experimental groups underwent laparoscopic resection of the cecum with carbon dioxide (n = 20) or helium (n = 20) insufflation at a pressure of 8 mmHg, or conventional open cecum resection (n = 20). In the control group, no further manipulations were performed after induction of the peritonitis (n = 12). Blood samples were taken during the perioperative course to determine the plasma levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) and interleukin-10 (IL-10). The number of intraperitoneal adhesions and the bacterial species of peritoneal swabs were determined in each animal.

RESULTS

The adhesions were increased in all operation groups as compared with the control group. The number of adhesions was significantly greater after conventional resection than after laparoscopic approaches (p < 0.01). The overall adhesion score was significantly lower in the helium group (p < 0.05) than in the two other operation groups. There was no difference between the laparotomy and carbon dioxide groups. Whereas postoperative TNF-alpha plasma levels were decreased, IL-10 levels were significantly greater in the helium group than in the other three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraperitoneal infection is reducing the benefit of laparoscopic surgery regarding postoperative adhesions. Although laparoscopic resection showed an advantage in the number of adhesions with both gases, the total adhesion score was lowest in the helium group.

Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy in overweight patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been associated with a faster recovery and less postoperative pain than the open technique. However, few data are available on the clinical outcome of LA in overweight patients.

METHODS

A group of 106 patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 26.4, representing the upper quintile of 500 prospectively randomized patients, were included in the study. They were randomized to undergo either laparoscopic or open appendectomy (OA). Operating and anesthesia times, postoperative pain, complications, hospital stay, functional index (1 week postoperatively), sick leave, and time to full recovery were documented.

RESULTS

In OA, the operating time for overweight patients was significantly longer than that for patients in the normal weight range (40 vs 35 min, p < 0.05). In LA, there was no difference in operating time between the normal and overweight patients. Overweight patients who underwent LA had longer operating and anesthesia times than their OA counterparts (55 vs 40 min, p < 0.001; and 125 vs 100 min, p < 0.001, respectively). Postoperative pain was significantly greater in overweight patients who underwent OA than in those treated with the laparoscopic technique. Postoperative pain was also significantly greater in overweight patients subjected to OA than in patients of normal weight after 4 weeks; the clinical significance may, however, be of less importance since the values are low (0.26 vs 0.09, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two operating techniques in terms of complications. Hospital stay was longer for overweight patients than for normal-weight patients undergoing OA (3.0 vs 2.0, p < 0.01). The functional index did not differ between any group of patients. Sick leave was longer for overweight patients who underwent OA than for normal-weight patients treated with the same technique (17 vs 13 days, p < 0.01). In the laparoscopic group, however, there were no differences between the overweight and normal-weight patients. Time to full recovery was greater in overweight patients subjected to OA than in the overweight patients in the LA group (22 vs 15 days, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this study, overweight patients who were submitted to LA had less postoperative pain and a faster postoperative recovery than overweight patients who had OA. LA also abolished some of the negative effects that overweight had on operating time, hospital stay, and sick leave with the open technique. However, anesthesia and operating times were significantly longer in LA for both overweight patients and those with a normal BMI.

Laparoscopic appendectomy in Switzerland: a prospective audit of 2, 179 cases

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Since its introduction in 1983, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has not replaced the conventional open procedure. The patient benefit seems limited to a decreased wound infection rate, and the overall morbidity and mortality rates remain equal to those of open appendectomy.

METHODS

The data (collected by the Swiss Association of Laparoscopic and Thoracoscopic Surgery) from 2, 179 patients undergoing LA at 84 surgical institutions in Switzerland between January 1995 and December 1997 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

More than 90% of all patients had no intra- or postoperative complications. However, perforated appendicitis was associated with more complications, in particular a threefold increased wound infection rate (9.2 vs 3.5%). Furthermore, the conversion and reoperation rates of perforated appendicitis were significantly increased compared to 'simple' acute appendicitis (25. 5 and 10.4% vs 4.8 and 2.1%, respectively). LA performed with a stapling device is superior to LA performed with loops, although the difference is not significant.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, LA is a safe and effective procedure. The postoperative morbidity and mortality rates are comparable to those of open appendectomy, which is still the most commonly used procedure in Switzerland. The question of whether perforated appendicitis is better treated laparoscopically or by the open procedure cannot be answered with our data.

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy in patients with a clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis has not gained wide acceptance, and its use remains controversial.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy, 583 of 828 consecutive patients consented to participate. Three hundred and one patients were allocated to open appendicectomy and 282 patients to laparoscopy, 65 of whom required conversion to open appendicectomy. Length of stay in hospital was the primary endpoint, while operating time, postoperative morbidity, duration of convalescence and cosmesis were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analysis revealed an equally short hospital stay in the two groups (median 2 days). The median time to return to normal activity (7 versus 10 days) and work (10 versus 16 days) was significantly shorter following laparoscopy. Laparoscopy was associated with fewer wound infections (P < 0.03) and improved cosmesis (P < 0.001), but the operating time was longer (60 versus 40 min). Laparoscopy was associated with more intraperitoneal abscesses (5 versus 1 per cent) but, adjusted for a greater number of gangrenous or perforated appendices in this group, the difference failed to reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Hospital stay was equally short, whereas laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with fewer wound infections, faster recovery, earlier return to work and improved cosmesis.

Intraabdominal abscess rate after laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Studies suggest increased intraabdominal abscess (IA) rates following laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), especially for perforated appendicitis. Consequently, an open approach has been advocated. The aim of our study is to compare IA rates following LA performed by a laparoscopic surgery and a general surgical service within the same institution.

METHODS

Data of LA patients treated at Los Angeles County-University of Southern California (LAC-USC) Medical Center between March 1992 and June 1997 were reviewed. The main outcome measure was postoperative IA.

RESULTS

In all, 645 LA were reviewed. A total of 413 LA (285 acute, 61 gangrenous, 67 perforated appendicitis) were performed by three general surgical services (10 attendings). Ten abscesses occurred postoperatively (2.4%), 6 with perforated appendicitis. After the laparoscopic service was introduced, 232 standardized LA (126 acute, 46 gangrenous, 60 perforated) were performed by two attendings. One IA occurred (gangrenous appendicitis). The IA rate for perforated appendicitis was significantly lower on the laparoscopic service (P = 0.025). There was no difference in IA rates for acute and gangrenous appendicitis. There was no mortality in either group.

CONCLUSION

IA rate following LA for perforated appendicitis was significantly reduced on the laparoscopic service. Mastery of the learning curve and addition of specific surgical techniques explained this improved result. Therefore, laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis may not be contraindicated, even for perforated appendicitis.

Introducing diagnostic laparoscopy for patients with suspected acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic accuracy in patients with suspected acute appendicitis varies from 60% to 90% depending on age and gender. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of diagnostic laparoscopy for diagnostic purposes in patients with suspected acute appendicitis to prevent unnecessary laparotomy and to leave a macroscopically normal appendix in place.

METHODS

For this study, 500 consecutive patients with suspected acute appendicitis admitted between January 1994 and October 1996 were included prospectively in a surgical training program set to provide diagnostic laparoscopy on a 24-h-a-day basis. Primary open operation was performed when no laparoscopically trained surgeon was available. Short-term outcome measurements were recorded, and a retrospective long-term follow-up evaluation was performed.

RESULTS

We succeeded in performing a diagnostic laparoscopy in 376 patients and a primary open operation in 124 patients. The overall appendicitis rate was 78%. A diagnostic laparoscopy alone was performed in 66 patients (56 of which were fertile women), with a median operating time of 36 min and a complication rate of 0%. The overall complication rate was 8.0%. During a median follow-up period of 19 months one patient returned on a later occasion with appendicitis. At completion of the study, 85% of the surgeons were skilled in diagnostic laparoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial education effort is needed to introduce diagnostic laparoscopy on a 24-h-a-day basis. Diagnostic laparoscopy has a high rate of accuracy, short operating time, and low associated morbidity, and prevents unnecessary laparotomy. It is possible to leave a macroscopically normal-appearing appendix in place.

Appendicitis at the millennium

Acute appendicitis is a common clinical problem. Accurate and prompt diagnosis is essential to minimize morbidity. While the clinical diagnosis may be straightforward in patients who present with classic signs and symptoms, atypical presentations may result in diagnostic confusion and delay in treatment. Helical computed tomography (CT) and graded compression color Doppler ultrasonography (US) are highly accurate means of establishing the diagnosis. These imaging modalities have now assumed critical roles in the treatment of patients suspected to have appendicitis. The purpose of this article is threefold: to provide an update on new information regarding the pathophysiology, clinical diagnosis, and laparoscopic treatment of acute appendicitis; to describe the state-of-the art use of CT and US in diagnosing this disease entity; and to address the role of medical imaging in this patient population.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy is commonly performed and has been presumed to offer economic benefits similar to those of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study was done to examine that premise.

METHODS

Two surgical groups contributed consecutively operated patients with a clinical diagnosis of appendicitis. One group did all appendectomies open and the other group did them laparoscopically. Hospital expenses were compared using a single billing formula. Hospital length of stay, time to return to work, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Operating room times were longer for the laparoscopic group, median 80 minutes, versus median 50 minutes for the open group. Hospital length of stay and return to work were the same, median 1 day and median 10 days, respectively. Wound complications were less common in the laparoscopic group, 0 of 30, than in the open group, 3 of 18; however, there was 1 intra-abdominal abscess in the laparoscopic group. Median cost of the laparoscopic group was $2,915 versus $1,747 for the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy is more expensive than appendectomy but does not reduce hospital length of stay nor change the time to return to work; however, wound complications are less common.

Factors that influence length of stay after appendicectomy in children

BACKGROUND

The length of hospital stay following appendicectomy in children at Christchurch Hospital has decreased in recent years. The aim of the present study was to identify those factors that contributed to this change.

METHODS

A retrospective review of children admitted to Christchurch Hospital between 1994 and 1998 inclusive who underwent appendicectomy for suspected appendicitis was conducted. Data recorded included standard demographic information, symptom duration, operative details, analgesia, antibiotics, pathology, complications and postoperative length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Postoperative LOS decreased significantly during the period reviewed across all degrees of appendiceal inflammation, from a mean of 70.5 to 50.1 h. The main determinant of postoperative hospital stay was the severity of the appendiceal inflammatory process. Other factors that influenced LOS included surgical approach (open vs. laparoscopic), use of intra-operative local anaesthesia, type and mode of postoperative analgesia, and age of the child. Longer duration of antibiotic use and symptom duration of greater than 24 h were associated with a longer LOS, primarily as a reflection of the severity of inflammation of the appendix. Factors that appeared to have little or no influence included gender and the experience of the surgeon.

CONCLUSION

The severity of the inflammatory process appeared to be the main determinant of postoperative hospital LOS; advanced appendicitis with abscess formation or peritonitis was associated with the longest LOS, irrespective of the surgical approach, although the LOS after appendicectomy was reduced by a laparoscopic approach. Intra-operative local anaesthesia during open appendicectomy reduced hospital stay, probably because it reduced the need for postoperative narcotics. Early diagnosis (< 24 h) was associated with a shorter postoperative LOS for acutely inflamed appendices.

Impact of laparoscopy with carbon dioxide versus helium on local and systemic inflammation in an animal model of peritonitis

Increased intraperitoneal pressure and insufflation of carbon dioxide during laparoscopy may cause sepsis by promoting systemic inflammation in patients with intra-abdominal inflammatory diseases. The influence of carbon dioxide and helium during laparoscopy on bacteremia, endotoxemia, the plasma concentration of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), TNF-alpha secretion ex vivo by peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), and intraperitoneal abscess formation was investigated in an animal model. A standardized fecal inoculum was injected intraperitoneally, and rats underwent laparoscopy with either carbon dioxide (N = 20) or helium (N = 20) or no further manipulation (control group; N = 20). Bacteremia was significantly more common 1 hour after laparoscopy with CO2 than in animals receiving helium or the control group. Furthermore, helium use led to a significant decrease of bacteremia 1 week after intervention. Fecal inoculation caused significant leukocytopenia in all groups within 1 hour after intervention, with complete recovery only in the helium-treated group (p < 0.05). The TNF-alpha plasma concentration was significantly lower in the helium-treated group, and suppression of ex vivo production recovered only in the animals undergoing laparoscopy with helium (p < 0.05). The number of intraperitoneal abscesses was significantly lower after laparoscopy with helium (2+/-1.5) than after CO2 laparoscopy (6.3+/-5.1) or in the control group (5.2+/-4.8). Laparoscopy with CO2 increased systemic inflammation only slightly, while helium use was associated with a significant lower incidence of bacteremia and local and systemic inflammation compared with the control group.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Despite many randomized controlled trials, the merits of laparoscopic appendectomy remain unclear. A meta-analysis may provide insights not evident from any individual studies.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic literature search yielded 17 trials (1,962 subjects) of true randomized design with usable statistical data comparing laparoscopic and conventional appendectomy in adults. The effect sizes for operating time, hospitalization, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, wound infection, and intra-abdominal abscess were calculated, using the random effects model to allow for heterogeneity. An estimate of the robustness of all positive findings was also calculated.

RESULTS

Modest but statistically significant effect sizes were found for four of the six outcome measures. Laparoscopic appendectomy takes 31% longer to perform, but results in less postoperative pain, faster recovery (by 35%), and lower wound infection rates (by 60%).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy offers significant improvement in postoperative outcomes at the cost of a longer operation.

Prospective randomized multicentre study of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

A prospective randomized multicentre study was performed to compare the outcome of laparoscopic and open appendicectomy in patients with suspected acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A total of 523 patients was randomized, but because of 23 withdrawals the outcome in 500 patients is reported, 244 in the laparoscopic group and 256 in the open group.

RESULTS

Patients having laparoscopic appendicectomy recovered more quickly than those having open surgery (13 versus 21 days, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in duration of sick leave after operation (laparoscopic group 11 days versus open group 14 days). Postoperative pain (at 24 h, 7 days and 14 days) was less after laparoscopic operations and a functional index 1 week after operation was more favourable in these patients (P < 0.001). Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (60 versus 35 min, P < 0.01). Hospital stay and complications did not differ between the groups. Thirty laparoscopic procedures (12 per cent) were converted to open appendicectomy.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendicectomy is as safe as open appendicectomy and has the advantage of allowing a quicker recovery.

A comparative study of the analgesia requirements following laparoscopic and open fundoplication in children

To introduce a new procedure, careful evaluation of its effects must be undertaken to assess its impact. Laparoscopic procedures in children are a relatively new phenomenon. A reduction in analgesia is a frequently quoted benefit of a laparoscopic procedure. The introduction of laparoscopic fundoplication into our surgical armoury lead us to evaluate the analgesia requirements of a laparoscopic procedure compared to conventional surgery. Comparative analysis of the analgesia requirements of 40 fundoplication procedures (20 laparoscopic, 20 open) was undertaken. All the pain-relief data was prospectively documented by a pain team as part of an ongoing hospital audit. This pain team was unaware of the comparative study, but were assessing the quality of analgesia within the hospital trust. The total amount of morphine analgesia required was similar for both laparoscopic and open surgery (0.432+/-0.28, 0.427+/-0.28 mg/kg). The period for which analgesia was required was significantly less in the laparoscopic group (1.2+/-0.46, 2.7+/-0.67 days; p = 0.03), yet the requirement for morphine during the first 24 hours was greater in the laparoscopic group (0.399+/-0.19, 0.22+0.11 mg/kg, p = 0.02) despite similar NSAID requirements (18+/-17.28, 18+/-20.16 mg/kg, respectively). The benefit of a laparoscopic over an open fundoplication would appear to be in the decreased duration of pain, as indicated by the decreased duration of analgesia following surgery.

[How can pain of surgery be limited?]

Postoperative pain is due to direct stimulation of nociceptors by surgical trauma, and by algogenic substances produced by damaged tissues. Control of surgical pain can be obtained by limiting the extent of damage to tissues as well as the choice of incision. Endoscopic or video-assisted surgery is an effective mean to reduce pain caused by surgical approach. It is widely used in abdominal, thoracic, orthopaedic surgery, and urology. Many studies have shown a reduction of postoperative pain by laparoscopy for gynaecological surgery and cholecystectomy, but for other procedures the potential advantage of laparoscopic surgery has not yet been established. Conventional open surgery is still widely used. It has been suggested that transverse laparotomies are less painful than midline incisions, and that incision by electrocautery was less painful than with scalpel; but this has not been strictly established. Infiltration of wounds or nerves with local anaesthetic agents is a way of clinical research, which merits further investigation. Whether delicacy in surgery is capable of minimising pain by limiting tissue attrition remains to be demonstrated. Finally, drains and catheters, particularly the naso-gastric tube, which are responsible for pain, could be abandoned when not essential.

Laparoscopic appendectomy in children performed using single endoscopic GIA stapler for both mesoappendix and base of appendix

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Similar to open appendectomy (OA), most of the methods described for laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) require two steps: (1) dissection and division of mesoappendix and (2) excision of appendix. Dissection of mesoappendix requires more skill and experience during LA. In single endoscopic GIA stapler laparoscopic appendectomy technique (SESLAT), both mesoappendix and base of appendix may be divided in one step with the application of a single endoscopic GIA stapler.

METHODS

LA was attempted in 18 patients who had acute appendicitis and was successfully performed in 16 patients.

RESULTS

In two patients, the operation was converted to OA. The authors did not need conversion to OA because of complication resulting from the use of the stapler.

CONCLUSIONS

SESLAT is a quick, easy, and versatile method for LA in children that obviates dissection of mesoappendix and related complications. Thus, it enables LA to be performed by inexperienced beginners.

Advances in laparoscopic surgery

After a brief account of the origins of laparoscopy and of its development into an interventional technique thanks to technical improvement, the author gives a dynamic state of the art in laparoscopic surgery, beginning with a description of his original classification method for laparoscopic procedures according to their level of use. Before tackling the highly controversial issue of laparoscopic surgery for cancer, he reviews in detail the various operations successfully performed by laparoscopy for the treatment of nonmalignant abdominal disorders and acute syndromes, all the while checking their results against those obtained with their open counterparts. As the various procedures are described, the interest of the laparoscopic approach becomes clearly visible, based on the excellent view of the operative field that allows diagnostic accuracy, thus avoiding unnecessary operations, and precise dissection with minimal damage. However, the laparoscopic approach is highly dependent on the surgeon's proficiency, itself depending on experience and therefore on the frequency of occurrence of the disorder, and on the progress in and availability of adequate equipments. The last chapter looks into the future of this ever-expanding approach and defines two great trends in its evolution, one accessible to the individual surgeon, the gradual adaptation of open procedures into laparoscopic ones, the other at the institutional level, in view of the huge financial support involved if high technologies are to be systematically integrated in this new surgery. What will the future be like?

[Laparoscopic appendectomy in the adult]

AIM OF THE STUDY

The benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy remain controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of this technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four hundred and forty-eight patients operated on for suspected appendicitis during a 5-year period were analysed in a retrospective study. The preoperative diagnosis was corrected in 21.4% of the cases (8.1% for males and 28.7% for females) and the conversion rate was 9.7%. There were 17 patients with generalized peritonitis and 28 with localized peritonitis. During the past year, this surgical method was introduced in another hospital and a prospective study included 92 consecutive patients operated on for appendicitis. The operating time was 53 minutes and the conversion rate was 7.6%. There were five patients with generalized peritonitis and eight with localized peritonitis.

RESULTS

There were no postoperative deaths. In the first period, the morbidity rate was 2.3% in the laparoscopic group without conversion. After pathological examination, there was a 14.2% rate of normal appendix. The mean hospital stay was 4.3 days. In the second period, there were only three minor complications and the mean hospital stay was 4.19 days.

CONCLUSION

The choice of laparoscopic approach is associated with some advantages: corrections of the diagnosis (mainly in young women) and simplification of the postoperative course, provided that the surgeon has sufficient experience.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a metaanalysis

BACKGROUND

There have been numerous retrospective and uncontrolled series of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), as well as 16 prospective randomized studies published to date. Although most of these have concluded that the laparoscopic technique is as least as good as open appendectomy (OA), there has been considerable controversy as to whether LA is superior. To help clarify this issue, we performed a metaanalysis of the randomized prospective studies.

STUDY DESIGN

A metaanalysis of all formally randomized prospective trials of LA versus OA in adults.

RESULTS

A total of 1,682 patients were analyzed. When compared with OA, LA results in significantly less postoperative pain, earlier resumption of solid foods, a shorter hospital stay, and a faster return to normal activities. The wound infection rate in the LA patients is less than one half the rate in patients undergoing OA. LA, however, requires longer operating times and the incidence of intraabdominal abscess is higher, but this failed to reach statistical significance. There were no differences in complications or hospital charges.

CONCLUSIONS

LA offers considerable advantages over OA, primarily because of its ability to reduce the incidence of wound infections and shorten recovery times. Its widespread acceptance should be considered. The trend toward increased intraabdominal abscess formation is worrisome, however, and demands further investigation.

Laparoscopic or open appendectomy? Critical review of randomized, controlled trials

PURPOSE

A randomized, controlled trial is considered to be the "gold standard" to evaluate a new procedure. Thus, this critical review assessed whether the published randomized trials on laparoscopic appendectomy show that it is superior to the open approach.

METHODS

Twelve original articles involving a randomized, controlled trial on laparoscopic appendectomy in adults published between January 1990 and December 1996 were selected. We studied first whether each trial was positive (a procedure is superior to the other) or negative (no difference). We reviewed for each trial the methodology used and the following outcomes: operating time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, time until resumption of diet, postoperative pain, hospital stay, cost, and quality of life analyses. Postoperative morbidity was considered as the major primary outcome.

RESULTS

There were six positive and six negative trials. Postoperative complication rates were similar, but the two approaches had specific potential complications, wound infections following open appendectomy, and intra-abdominal abscesses following laparoscopic appendectomy. This review failed to show a superiority of the laparoscopy for the other outcomes, particularly postoperative pain.

CONCLUSION

Differences in positive trials concerned subjective and controversial outcomes, and the flaw in negative trials was their lack of power. Thus, nothing is definitively well established, even after 12 randomized trials.

Laparoscopic appendectomy does not change the incidence of postoperative infectious complications

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether the laparoscopic approach does decrease the incidence of postoperative infectious complications after appendectomy.

METHODS

One hundred sixty-nine patients were randomized, 87 with laparoscopic (LA) and 82 with open appendectomy (OA). Patients in the OA group had a McBurney incision; LA was performed in the lithotomy position.

RESULTS

Acute appendicitis was confirmed in 75% of patients. The appendix was perforated in 5 patients of the LA versus 2 patients of the OA group. No conversion to the open procedure was necessary. The median operating time was 35 minutes in the LA group and 31 minutes in the open group (P = 0.58). The median postoperative hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopic than after open surgery (3 days versus 4 days, P = 0.026), whereas the time required for return to work was not significantly different (14 versus 15 days). There were 5 (6%) patients with superficial wound infection following LA and 6 (7%) after OA (P = 0.67). Intra-abdominal fluid collections were found in 2 (2%) patients following LA and 3 (4%) patients following OA (P = 0.60). In the LA group, 3 patients presented with intra-abdominal hemorrhage and another 3 developed a paralytic ileus that was treated conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe and as effective as the open procedure; however, it does not decrease the rate of postoperative infectious complications.

Have the evaluation and treatment of acute appendicitis changed with new technology?

The evaluation and treatment of acute appendicitis remain essentially unchanged for the majority of individuals who present with this disease. Although advancements have been made in laboratory analysis as well as imaging via ultrasonography and CT, nothing can replace careful evaluation by an experienced surgeon. Appendicitis remains a diagnosis based primarily on history and physical examination, with further studies being useful adjuncts in atypical cases--more likely to occur in the very young or very old and most cost effective when ordered by the surgical consultant. Improvement in outcomes has not been demonstrated with routine use of "new technology." The treatment of acute appendicitis continues to be early surgical intervention. Although laparoscopic appendectomy may offer advantages in women of childbearing age and in obese individuals, its routine use is not indicated based upon current reports in the literature. Debate continues regarding the optimal treatment of the periappendiceal mass. Further clinical research regarding early operation compared with intravenous antibiotics with or without drainage, as well as comparison of outcomes with or without interval appendectomy, needs to be performed. With continued research and definition of populations likely to benefit from advances in technology, a more focused application will be possible. This will lead to improved outcomes and decreased overall cost. The issue of delay in treatment, a major determinant of morbidity associated with appendicitis, warrants further evaluation and should be addressed on a population-specific basis. Emphasis should remain on the early clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis with its associated low morbidity and mortality.

The role of minimal access surgery in the acute abdomen

The improvement in surgical decision-making for patients with abdominal pain but an uncertain diagnosis using DL has now been shown to decrease both negative and nontherapeutic laparotomy rates. Once the diagnosis is established, DL can be taken a step further in many cases, as therapeutic intervention via laparoscopy is possible for a number of these conditions without resorting to a laparotomy. Conditions amenable to therapeutic laparoscopy include appendicitis, perforated peptic ulcer, diverticulitis, small bowel obstruction, acute cholecystitis, diaphragmatic rupture, and splenic or hepatic injuries, to name but a few. However, a number of unanswered questions remain such as: Who should perform emergency laparoscopic procedures? What should the selection criteria be? What are the cost implications? and Is patient outcome actually better with laparoscopy? Only randomized controlled trials can answer these questions. Until such data are available, it is important that common sense prevail. Laparoscopy should be incorporated into the general surgeon's armamentarium for the management of patients with abdominal pain as just another tool to be used selectively when indicated. It is also important that new technologies be carefully evaluated in an unbiased manner under strict protocol so that objective data can be obtained which can be used to devise guidelines for safe and effective use of new devices.

Traumatic and nontraumatic perforation of hollow viscera

Hollow viscus injuries are usually managed with few complications. However, if their diagnosis is delayed, or if reparative suture closure should fail, the patient is placed at risk of multiple organ failure. This article presents diagnostic approaches, emphasizing imaging modalities, and therapeutic strategies for three clinical scenarios of hollow viscus perforation: 1) acute appendicitis, 2) gastroduodenal peptic ulcer disease, and 3) trauma.

Should laparoscopic appendectomy be avoided for complicated appendicitis in children?

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic appendectomy is becoming the preferred technique for treating acute appendicitis. However, recent literature on adults suggests that laparoscopic appendectomy may increase the risk for postoperative infectious complications in complicated (gangrenous or perforated) cases. This study was undertaken to compare the results of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis in children.

METHODS

A retrospective review from two institutions was performed for all children treated operatively for complicated appendicitis from January 1994 through November 1996.

RESULTS

Fifty-six cases were identified. Twenty-seven children underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, whereas 22 underwent open appendectomy. Seven children underwent conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery. Operating times and length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the laparoscopic and open groups. Postoperative complications developed in 24 children (42.8%). Complications were more frequent after laparoscopic appendectomy compared with open appendectomy (56% v 18%, P = .002). A postoperative intraabdominal abscess (IAA) developed in 14 children (25%). An IAA occurred in two children after open appendectomy compared with 11 children after laparoscopic appendectomy (9% v 41%, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that laparoscopic appendectomy should be avoided in children who have complicated appendicitis because of the increased risk for postoperative intraabdominal abscesses. The authors propose a prospective, randomized trial to verify this finding.