A prospective randomized trial comparing open versus laparoscopic appendectomy

Insurance status and race represent independent predictors of undergoing laparoscopic surgery for appendicitis: secondary data analysis of 145,546 patients

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown that racial and socioeconomic differences lead to inequality in access to health care. It is unknown whether insurance status and race affect the choice of surgical treatment for patients presenting with appendicitis.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients with primary ICD-9 procedure codes for laparoscopic and open appendectomy were selected from the 1998, 1999, and 2000 Nationwide (US) Inpatient Samples. The primary predictor variables were insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, other) and race (Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, other). Multiple logistic regression models were used to assess whether insurance status and race are associated with the choice of surgical procedure for patients presenting with appendicitis.

RESULTS

Discharge abstracts of 145,546 patients were used for our analyses. There were 32,407 patients (22.3%) who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy and 113,139 patients (77.7%) who had open appendectomy. Although 24.2% of privately insured patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, only 16.9% of Medicare patients, 17.4% of Medicaid patients, and 19.6% of patients in the "other" insurance category were treated using the laparoscopic procedure (p < 0.001). Caucasian patients underwent laparoscopic surgery in 24.8%, African Americans in 18.6%, Hispanics in 19.6%, and other ethnicities in 18.8% of patients (p < 0.001). Compared with the Medicaid subset, and after adjusting for potential confounders such as age, gender, race, patient comorbidity, median ZIP code income, hospital location and teaching status, and presence of abscess or perforation, privately insured patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.26, 95% [CI [1.20, 1.33], p < 0.001) and Medicare patients (OR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.05, 1.30], p = 0.004) were significantly more likely to undergo laparoscopic surgery. Caucasian patients (OR = 1.42, 95% CI [1.33, 1.51], p < 0.001) and Hispanics (OR = 1.12, 95% CI [1.04, 1.20], p = 0.002) were significantly more likely to have laparoscopic appendectomy, compared with African Americans, even after adjusting for the previously mentioned confounders and insurance status.

CONCLUSIONS

Even after adjusting for potential confounders, insurance status and race are marked independent predictors of having laparoscopic surgery in patients treated for appendicitis in this sample.

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 Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch, 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 54 studies, of which 45 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were less likely after LA than after OA (OR 0.45; CI 0.35 to 0.58), but the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses was increased (OR 2.48; CI 1.45 to 4.21). The duration of surgery was 12 minutes (CI 7 to 16) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 9 mm (CI 5 to 13 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Hospital stay was shortened by 1.1 day (CI 0.6 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. Five studies on children were included, but the result 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).

REVIEWERS' 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.

No Clip, No Ligature Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is one of the common procedures being carried out in general surgery. The technique of bipolar coagulation (BC) has been effectively employed in obstetric and gynecologic procedures but has not been used for intestines. We present the technique of LA using BC at our center. The technique consisted of identifying the appendix and coagulating the appendicular stump with bipolar coagulation until there were no bubbles at the cautery site, and a constriction ring formed at the site of coagulation. Sixty patients with acute or recurrent appendicitis underwent the procedure. The median duration of BC was 90 seconds. The median duration of surgery was 25 minutes, postoperative hospital stay was 3 days, and time to oral feeds was 12 hours. The technique of laparoscopic appendectomy by bipolar coagulation is very simple and economical. The duration of surgery is less than for the standard technique of laparoscopic appendectomy; no clip applicators, needle holders or knot pushers are required, and no foreign materials like ligatures or clips are needed.

Laparoscopic appendectomy in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has advantages over open appendectomy (OA) in the treatment of appendicitis. It remains, however, unclear whether LA is indicated in the elderly patient population.

METHODS

Patients with primary International Classification of Diseases, revision 9, procedure codes for LA (n=32406 patients) and OA (n=112884 patients) were selected from the 1998, 1999, and 2000 Nationwide Inpatient Samples. The end points that were under investigation were the length of hospital stay, the rate of routine discharge, and in-hospital morbidity and mortality rates. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the risk-adjusted association between the surgery type and the patient outcomes. Stratified analyses were performed according to age (65 years and older; less than 65 years old) and to the presence of appendiceal perforation or abscess.

RESULTS

After risk adjustment, patients who underwent LA had a significantly shorter mean length of stay (LA, 2.45 days; OA, 3.71 days; P <. 0001), higher rate of routine discharge (odds ratio, 2.80; P <.0001), lower overall complication rate (odds ratio, 0.92; P=.03), and mortality rate (odds ratio, 0.23; P=.001) compared with OA patients. Similar benefits of LA were found in the strata of patients who were less than 65 years old, in elderly patients, and in patients with appendiceal perforation or abscess.

CONCLUSION

LA has statistically significant advantages over OA with respect to the length of hospital stay, the rate of routine discharge, and postoperative morbidity and mortality rates for patients who are less than 65 years old, in elderly patients, and in patients with appendiceal abscess or perforation.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database

OBJECTIVE

To compare length of hospital stay, in-hospital complications, in-hospital mortality, and rate of routine discharge between laparoscopic and open appendectomy based on a representative, nationwide database.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Numerous single-institutional randomized clinical trials have assessed the efficacy of laparoscopic and open appendectomy. The results, however, are conflicting, and a consensus concerning the relative advantages of each procedure has not yet been reached.

METHODS

Patients with primary ICD-9 procedure codes for laparoscopic and open appendectomy were selected from the 1997 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a database that approximates 20% of all US community hospital discharges. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were used to assess the risk-adjusted endpoints.

RESULTS

Discharge abstracts of 43757 patients were used for our analyses. 7618 patients (17.4%) underwent laparoscopic and 36139 patients (82.6%) open appendectomy. Patients had an average age of 30.7 years and were predominantly white (58.1%) and male (58.6%). After adjusting for other covariates, laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with shorter median hospital stay (laparoscopic appendectomy: 2.06 days, open appendectomy: 2.88 days, P < 0.0001), lower rate of infections (odds ratio [OR] = 0.5 [0.38, 0.66], P < 0.0001), decreased gastrointestinal complications (OR = 0.8 [0.68, 0.96], P = 0.02), lower overall complications (OR = 0.84 [0.75, 0.94], P = 0.002), and higher rate of routine discharge (OR = 3.22 [2.47, 4.46], P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy has significant advantages over open appendectomy with respect to length of hospital stay, rate of routine discharge, and postoperative in-hospital morbidity.

Fifty-five consecutive laparoscopic appendectomy procedures without conversion

BACKGROUND

In patients with suspected appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy is gaining increasing acceptance primarily because it is associated with less postoperative pain and a shorter hospital stay. Experience with 55 consecutive laparoscopic appendectomies, performed without conversion by the same surgeon, is herein examined and analyzed.

METHODS

The medical records of 55 consecutive patients with suspected appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic exploration (from 2000 to 2002) were analyzed for demographic information, clinical findings, laboratory/computed tomography scan results, intraoperative diagnosis, clinicopathologic correlation, complications, incidental findings, and operative time.

RESULTS

Twenty-six males (47%) and 24 females (53%) underwent surgery. Mean age was 25.2 years (range, 6 years to 67 years). Computerized tomography scans obtained in 37 cases (74%) had a sensitivity of 86.7% and a specificity of 62.5%. Average length of stay was 2.3 days (median, 1 day). Average operating room time was 69 minutes (range, 40 to 173 minutes). Five patients experienced postoperative complications: 2 had intraperitoneal abscesses, 1 had urinary retention, and 2 had postoperative ileus. No operative conversions or postoperative wound infections occurred.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy confirmed the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis and allowed the safe, effective treatment of both complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis with minimal hospitalization, recovery and convalescent times, and zero open conversion and wound infections. Laparoscopic appendectomy is advocated as the procedure of choice for patients with clinically suspected appendicitis.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: what is the real difference? Results of a prospective randomized double-blinded trial

BACKGROUND

The comparison of laparoscopic to open appendectomy has been reviewed in many retrospective and prospective studies. Some report shorter hospital stays, less postoperative pain, and earlier return to work while others fail to demonstrate such differences. We performed a prospective, randomized double-blinded trial to evaluate this ongoing debate.

METHODS

Fifty-two consecutive men presenting with signs and symptoms suggestive of acute appendicitis were randomized to undergo either laparoscopic appendectomy or open appendectomy. Length of operative times, hospital stay, lost work days, visual analog pain scores, and operative costs were compared.

RESULTS

Length of stay averaged 21.5 h for the laparoscopic group and was not statistically different when compared to the open group. Perceived postoperative pain on postoperative days 1 and 7 were not statistically different between the two groups. Mean time to return to work was 11 days, and there was no statistical difference between groups. Operative costs were >600 dollars greater for the laparoscopic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective randomized double-blinded trial, laparoscopic appendectomy appears to confer no significant advantage over open appendectomy for postoperative pain or lost work days. It does carry an increase in operating room costs and, contrary to other reports, hospital stay is not shortened. Further studies are needed to determine if specific populations, such as the obese or women, may benefit from a minimally invasive approach to appendicitis.

Uptime as a measure of recovery in children postappendectomy

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to objectively measure recovery time after open and laparoscopic appendectomy using an activity monitor (PAL 1).

METHODS

The PAL 1 records the amount of time that the subject is upright (uptime). Children wore the PAL 1 for 10 days continuously, beginning within the first 48 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

Uptime data were collected for 5 or more days for 42 children (open, n = 16; laparoscopic, n = 26). All children had low levels of uptime in the initial postoperative period. There was weak evidence of a quicker recovery rate for children in the laparoscopic group (P =.09). The difference in mean uptime between groups was of statistical significance by day 7 postoperatively with children in the laparoscopic group having a higher mean uptime than those in the open group (difference of 0.7 hours; 95% confidence intervals 0.0 to 1.4 hours in a 24-hour period).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that recovery postappendectomy can be quantified by the measurement of uptime and that children undergoing a laparoscopic procedure may recover marginally more quickly than those undergoing an open procedure.

Pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The benefit of laparoscopy in the treatment of pediatric acute appendicitis continues to be controversial, particularly as it relates to operative time and costs.

METHODS

We reviewed the charts of 200 children who underwent appendectomy for acute appendicitis concurrently over 35 months at a large teaching children's hospital.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic ( n = 105) [corrected] and open ( n = 95) appendectomies were performed. The operative times and postoperative lengths of hospital stay were similar for the two groups. The mean total hospital cost for the laparoscopic group (5,572 dollars) was significantly higher than for the open group (4,472 dollars); ( p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Notably, the results show similar operative times for laparoscopic and open appendectomy. The cost of laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis is higher than for the open procedure. This study challenges health care providers to reduce costs and develop new ways to measure beneficial outcomes in a pediatric population that may reveal laparoscopic benefits.

Factors determining the return to normal activity after appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

The ability of a patient to return to their normal activities is an important outcome of an operation. The present study was designed to identify and rank factors that are important in determining this return to normal activity (RTNA) after appendicectomy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients were identified prospectively following appendicectomy at North Shore Hospital between February and April 2000. Data regarding 25 different factors were obtained by a structured patient interview before and after discharge from hospital and by review of the medical records. Statistical analysis involved analysis of variance and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

There were 98 patients (median age 28, range 15-69 years, male : female ratio 48:50) who had an appendicectomy. An open appendicectomy was performed in 74 patients, a laparoscopic appendicectomy in 22 patients and a laparotomy in two patients. This includes the 16 patients who were converted from laparoscopic to open appendicectomy (conversion rate 42% 16/38). Acute appendicitis was confirmed by histology in 67 (68%) patients. The significant independent variables identified by anova were ranked by logistic regression analysis. The most important determinant for the time to RTNA was what the doctor advised (chi-squared 43.7, P < 0.0001). The other determinants were the physical activity of their primary occupation (chi-squared 21.5, P < 0.017), the need for strong postdischarge analgesia (chi-squared 21.1, P < 0.13), the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) category (chi-squared 13.6, P < 0.018) and the total sick leave obtained (chi-squared 9.6, P < 0.08).

CONCLUSION

It has been shown that the most significant factor in determining the RTNA after appendicectomy was the advice given by the doctor, and that this was more important than the surgical approach, pathology, complications, age or occupation of the patient.

Laparoscopic resection of focal nodular hyperplasia

Focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) is a benign liver lesion incidentally discovered with increasing frequency because of the proliferation of imaging studies. Radiographic characterization can diagnose this pathologic lesion and nonoperative therapy is the standard of care. However, if radiographic studies and fine needle biopsy are inconclusive, operative intervention may be required. Depending on the anatomic location of the lesion, biopsy and/or resection can be performed laparoscopically. A patient with biliary dyskinesia and focal nodular hyperplasia is presented. She underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with excision of the FNH. This paper reviews the case as well as the diagnosis and treatment of FNH.

A prospective, randomized, unicenter study comparing laparoscopic and open treatments of acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy in the course of acute appendicitis is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedure in general surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic and conventional treatments for acute appendicitis in a prospective, randomized, unicenter study.

METHODS

The study involved 200 patients treated for acute appendicitis in the Department of General and Vascular Surgery at Ceynowa Hospital in Wejherowo, Poland.

RESULTS

The mean operative time for open surgery was 36.99 min. For laparoscopic method the operation was longer, requiring 47.75 min. Suction drainage was applied in 23 patients treated conventionally and 50 patients treated laparoscopically ( p < 0.05). The requirement for analgesia, measured by the number of metamizole ampules, was significantly higher in the conventional group. Pain on postoperative days 2 and 7 measured using a visual analog scale, was significantly more severe for the patients treated conventionally. The hospital stay in both groups did not differ significantly: 5.03 days for the conventional group and 4.71 days for the laparoscopic group. The time until return to work and social activities in the laparoscopic group (15.85 days) and was significantly shorter than in the conventional group (19.65 days). Seven complications occurred in the conventional group (6.7%) and nine (9.4%) in the laparoscopic group. The difference was not statistically significant. No deaths occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the conducted study, it may be assumed that laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe procedure, and that postoperative morbidity is comparable with that for a conventional operation. There was less postoperative pain and shorter recovery time after laparoscopic surgery than after the open procedure.

Laparoscopic appendectomy in modern gynecology

Gynecologists frequently manage women with acute or chronic pain in the right iliac fossa. Appendicitis is one of the common conditions encountered in this setting. From the gynecologic perspective, issues regarding the role of laparoscopic appendectomy include radioimaging and laparoscopic diagnosis, operative technique, advantages and disadvantages, and laparoscopic appendectomy in pregnancy and in complicated appendicitis. Most studies are in favor of the procedure, and it seems reasonable to include it in training programs in gynecology.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been proposed to have diagnostic and therapeutic advantages over conventional surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic and therapeutic effects of laparoscopic and conventional 'open' surgery in the treatment of suspected acute appendicitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched for original articles and abstracts published until end of 2000. As main search tools we employed the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, EMBASE and SciSearch. CCTR and MEDLINE searches were repeated until 10 October 2001, all other databases were searched 10 October 2000. We also handsearched the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included clinical trials that assessed either: (1) Therapeutic effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults, (2) Therapeutic effects of LA versus OA in children, (3) Diagnostic effects of diagnostic laparoscopy (LAP) followed by LA or OA if necessary versus immediate OA, (4) Therapeutic effects of diagnostic laparoscopy (LAP) followed by OA if necessary versus immediate OA. We included only randomized studies and excluded those with unconcealed allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed each study's eligibility and quality. One reviewer extracted the data, 10% of which were later cross-checked by a second reviewer. Abstract authors and authors of articles lacking important information on trial design or results were contacted.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies, of which 39 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were about half as likely (Peto OR 0.47; 95%-CI 0.36 to 0.62) after LA than after OA, but intraabdominal abscesses were increased nearly threefold after LA (Peto OR 2.77; 95%-CI 1.61 to 4.77). The duration of surgery was 14 minutes (95%-CI 10 to 19) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 8 mm (95%-CI 3 to 13 mm) on a 100 mm VAS. Hospital stay was reduced by 0.7 days (95%-CI 0.4 to 1.0). Return to normal activity, work, and sport were 6 days (95%-CI 4 to 8), 3 days (1 to 5), and 7 days (3 to 12) earlier after LA than after OA. While the operation costs of LA were significantly higher than that of OA, the costs outside hospital were reduced. Strong heterogeneity was found for most outcomes, but not for wound infections and intraabdominal abscesses. In children, much less data were available, but the result do not seem to be much different when compared to adults. Pain which was measured blindly in two paediatric trials, was similar after LA and OA (-1 mm VAS; 95%-CI -8 to +7 mm). In trials on unselected patients, diagnostic laparoscopy led to large but variable reductions in the rate of negative appendectomies (RR 0.21; 95%-CI 0.13 to 0.33). In parallel, the rate of unestablished diagnoses was significantly decreased after laparoscopy (RR 0.34; 95%-CI 0.22 to 0.53). In fertile women, these effects were even more pronounced: rate of negative appendectomies: RR 0.19; 95%-CI 0.11 to 0.34; rate of patients without a final diagnosis established: RR 0.24; 95%-CI 0.15 to 0.38.

REVIEWER'S 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. In gangrenous or perforated cases, however, LA may possibly carry a higher risk of intraabdominal infections.

Results of laparoscopic vs. conventional appendectomy in complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Although many trials show some advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy, the value of laparoscopic appendectomy is still controversial. Specifically the question of whether there are benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy in complicated appendicitis remains to be answered.

METHODS

Of 1,106 consecutive appendectomies (717 laparoscopic appendectomies, 330 open appendectomies, and 59 conversions) between 1989 and 1999, the results of 299 patients with complicated appendicitis (defined by perforation, abscess, or peritonitis) were analyzed retrospectively to compare the complications of laparoscopic appendectomy and conversion (intention-to-treat group) with those of open appendectomy.

RESULTS

Complicated appendicitis (n = 299) was treated by laparoscopic appendectomy in 171 patients, by open appendectomy in 82 patients, and by conversion in 46 patients. Laparoscopic appendectomy and conversion showed fewer abdominal wall complications than open appendectomy (13/217; 6 percent vs. 15/82; 18.3 percent; P < 0.003), which led to a decrease of the total complication rate in the intention-to-treat group (21/217; 9.7 percent vs. 19/82; 23.1 percent; P = 0.004). The rate of intra-abdominal abscess formation was nearly the same after laparoscopic appendectomy (4.1 percent) and open appendectomy (4.9 percent). The total complication rate was higher in complicated appendicitis than in acute appendicitis (P < 0.005) but was independent of the laparoscopic technique. The conversion rate was higher in complicated appendicitis than in acute appendicitis (21.2 vs. 2.3 percent; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In comparison with open appendectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy (by itself and in an intention-to-treat view) leads to a significant reduction of early postoperative complications in complicated appendicitis and therefore should be considered as the procedure of choice.

Needlescopic, laparoscopic, and open appendectomy: a comparative study

SUMMARY

The benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy appear to be controversial. Since 1994, several abdominal procedures have been completed by using the needlescopic technique, but there appear to be no prospective studies to demonstrate the perceived benefits of needlescopic appendectomy. The authors compared open, laparoscopic, and needlescopic appendectomy in a randomized fashion with regard to duration of surgery, length of hospitalization, analgesic dosage, and surgery-associated complications. From March to July 1998, 75 patients admitted at the emergency station of the authors' hospital with a final diagnosis of acute appendicitis without tumor formation were randomized to receive one of the three treatment categories: open (OA), laparoscopic (LA), and needlescopic (nLA) appendectomy. Laparoscopic and needlescopic appendectomy were performed by using a three-port technique, although the size of the trocar used varied. There were 26 patients in the OA group, 23 in the LA group, and 26 in the nLA group. The mean operation durations for the OA, LA, and nLA groups were 55.4 +/- 28.0 minutes, 69.1 +/- 48.8 minutes, and 62.3 +/- 26.3 minutes, respectively, and these were not significantly different from one another. The mean number of the analgesic doses (Pethidine 1 mg/kg) required was 1.3 +/- 1.2 mg/kg, 0.5 +/- 0.8 mg/kg, and 0.2 +/- 0.6 mg/kg, respectively. Significant differences were noted when comparing the OA with the LA or nLA groups (OA vs. LA, P = 0.02; OA vs. nLA, P = 0.0002; LA vs. nLA, P = 0.06). The mean oral intake durations were 32.2 +/- 16.9 hours, 21.0 +/- 14.6 hours, and 20.8 +/- 16.4 hours, respectively, after surgery for the OA, LA, and nLA groups, and the between-group differences were statistically significant for the OA versus LA group ( P = 0.004) and for the OA versus nLA group ( P = 0.003). The mean durations of hospitalization for the OA, LA, and nLA groups were 3.6 +/-1.8 days, 2.8 +/- 1.4 days, and 2.4 +/- 0.9 days, and difference was detected between the OA and the nLA groups ( P = 0.02). The OA group rendered a greater wound-complication rate and ileus than did the other two groups, but the differences were not detected between the three categories ( P = 0.065, 0.6935). The result of the current study confirmed that the nLA procedure is a feasible and safe one. The nLA procedure provided substantial advantages over the OA procedure in the contexts of diminished postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay without significant increases in postoperative complication rate or surgical time.

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.

Does peer-reviewed publication change the habits of surgeons?

BACKGROUND

From April 1994 to December 1995 a prospective randomized trial was conducted at our institution comparing outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy. It demonstrated no significant advantage to laparoscopic appendectomy. Our current study evaluates whether surgeon's habits at our hospital have been influenced by our previously published study.

METHODS

Charts were reviewed for patients who underwent appendectomy from August 1998 to December 1998. In addition, a formal survey was conducted of all staff surgeons to ascertain their procedure of choice for appendicitis, and the reasons for their preference.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine percent of the appendectomies were attempted laparoscopically. The median operative time was longer for laparoscopic appendectomy, and median hospital charges were higher. Survey results showed that most staff surgeons prefer laparoscopic appendectomy.

CONCLUSION

Despite our own published paper supporting open appendectomy over laparoscopic appendectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy has become the standard of care at our institution for the treatment of appendicitis.

Laparoscopic appendicectomy: safe and useful for training

Debate exists about the benefits of laparoscopic appendicectomy when compared to a conventional open procedure. The majority of appendices are removed by the open route in the UK. We report a series of 132 cases of suspected appendicitis managed laparoscopically: 112 (85%) of the patients had acute appendicitis, the remaining 20 (15%) had non-appendiceal pathology. The median operative time was 30 min and there were no conversions to an open operative procedure. The median postoperative stay was two days. Complications were seen in two patients. The published evidence comparing laparoscopic and open appendicectomy is contradictory. Our series shows that laparoscopic appendicectomy is a safe procedure with low morbidity; it is also an excellent training tool in laparoscopic technique and, with sufficient experience, takes no longer than an open procedure. Negative appendicocecotomies are most common in women of fertile age and can be associated with significant morbidity; therefore, laparoscopy should be used to make the diagnosis and, if appendicitis is the cause, the appendix could safely be removed laparoscopically. However, the choice between open and laparoscopic procedure is a subjective decision for the patient and their surgeon. Laparoscopic appendicectomy cannot be regarded as the gold standard.

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.

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.

A state-wide evaluation of appendectomy in children

BACKGROUND

Traditional management of appendicitis in children involves open appendectomy (OA), an operation that is relatively inexpensive and carries few risks and complications. However, little information is available regarding the use, cost, and complication of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in children.

METHODS

Our initial aim was to determine if LA is frequently performed in children (<15 years). We then compared the surgical results of OA versus LA. In conjunction with the Missouri Department of Health, we evaluated 793 children treated for appendicitis throughout the state between January 1997 and June 1997. The authors were blinded to the patient, surgeon, and hospital; no children were excluded.

RESULTS

LA was infrequently performed in children with advanced disease. Overall, children undergoing LA were older and had a shorter hospitalization but no difference in hospital charge. When separated by child age, LA was associated with a shorter length of stay in all groups (0 to 5, 6 to 10, and 11 to 15 years) but only children in the 6 to 10 year range had a lower hospital charge when compared with patients undergoing OA.

CONCLUSIONS

LA is becoming a common surgical approach for older children with simple appendicitis. Furthermore, these data suggest that LA, independent of individual surgeon or medical center, is associated with a decreased length of hospitalization without a significant difference in hospital charge.

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.

Laparoscopy in the context of lower abdominal pain in young women

The management of lower abdominal pain in young women carries up to 45% chance of diagnostic error. Laparoscopic management may be particularly beneficial in this subset of patients. This study reviews the authors' experience with laparoscopy as a potential diagnostic and therapeutic tool in young women with lower abdominal pain. The authors analyzed 121 consecutive female patients, with a mean age of 30 years, who were evaluated from June 1995 to October 1997. All patients were managed by early laparoscopy within 24 h from the onset of symptoms. Radiographic imaging, including computed tomography and ultrasound, was performed in 79 patients (65.2%). Laparoscopy was diagnostic in all cases. In 58 patients (48%), multiple pathologic conditions were identified. Acute appendicitis was the most common diagnosis (82.6%), and benign gynecologic disorders was the predominant reason for multiple pathologic conditions (clinical evaluation was erroneous in 15% of patients). In 96% of patients, definite surgical treatment was provided laparoscopically. The mean hospitalization time was 2.0 +/- 1 days, and the mean operative time was 59.8 +/- 21 min. The overall complication rate was 2.5%. In young women, early laparoscopy can offer a safe and effective alternative for the definite diagnosis and treatment of lower abdominal pain.

Appendectomy in the pre- and postlaparoscopic eras

The role of laparoscopic appendectomy remains controversial since many authors have suggested that overall morbidity is primarily a function of the degree of appendicitis rather than the operative approach. We have reviewed our appendectomy experience to determine the advantages and/or disadvantages of the laparoscopic technique in cases of acute appendicitis, and furthermore to ascertain whether the extent of disease should affect the surgical approach used. Data were accumulated for all 1158 patients who underwent appendectomy at a single institution during the following three time periods that span the pre- and postlaparoscopic eras: period I (1987 to 1990), period II (1991 to 1993), and period III (1994 to 1997). Cases were categorized with regard to pathologic findings and operative approach (i.e., open or laparoscopic appendectomy). The percentage of appendectomies performed laparoscopically increased with time (0%, 27%, and 79% for periods I, II, and III, respectively). Overall, the total operating room time was slightly shorter for laparoscopic compared to open appendectomy (99 vs. 102 minutes; P<0.05). Operating room times for open appendectomy remained unchanged, but the times for laparoscopic appendectomy decreased from period II to period III (119 to 94 minutes; P<0.001). In cases of gangrenous/perforated appendicitis, the times for laparoscopic appendectomy were significantly shorter than those for open appendectomy (98/115 vs. 120/125 minutes; P<0.001 for both). Overall, the hospital stay was shorter for patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (1.63 vs. 4.21 days; P<0.001), and the difference was maintained in all three time periods. The differences in length of hospital stay for lap-aroscopic vs. open appendectomy were most dramatic in gangrenous/perforated cases (1.8/3.0 vs. 4.0/9.0 days; P<0.001), whereas there was only a slight difference in cases of simple appendicitis, for example, 1.6 vs. 2.1 days (laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy, period III). There was a significant decrease in the percentage of perforated cases in which surgical treatment had been delayed (>8 hours) (21%, 5%, and 5%) over the three time periods, but the rate of "negative" appendectomies was similar (10%, 8%, and 8%). The complication rates following laparoscopic and open appendectomies during period II were 5.4% and 7.5%, respectively (P>0.05). Laparoscopic appendectomy results in a marked decrease in the length of hospital stay and similar postoperative morbidity compared to open appendectomy. In cases of gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy appears to be especially worthwhile in regard to both operating room time and hospital stay.

Laparoscopic surgery in children

The surgeon should be aware of the extensive applications of endoscopic surgery in the pediatric patient. The ability to provide surgical care in association with either outpatient or short-stay hospitalizations appear to be cost-effective and appropriate state-of-the-art medical care. Because the array of surgical instruments continues to evolve, new and innovative endoscopic procedures will continue to become increasingly available.

[Does a means exist for prevention of postoperative pain?]

Postoperative pain can be prevented through pharmacological and non pharmacological means. The influence of the interval between therapy and surgical stimulus, which corresponds to "pre-emptive analgesia" in English-speaking countries (comparison of preoperative administration with pre- and postoperative administration of the same analgesic) has been assessed by numerous studies of good methodological quality. In spite of the initial promising results, most of the results published at present are negative. In an enlarged concept of postoperative pain prevention, various trials have demonstrated the benefits of the choice of the surgical approach, as well as the psychological preparation of the patient for 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 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.

A videolaparoscopia na apendicite aguda na mulher em idade fértil

O diagnóstico de apendicite aguda na mulher em idade fértil é um desafio para o cirurgião devido ao alto índice de explorações cirúrgicas negativas. O objetivo deste trabalho foi estabelecer um índice de probabilidade diagnóstica e o valor da videolaparoscopia nestes casos. Foram analisadas, prospectivamente, 34 mulheres em idade fértil referendadas para o serviço com diagnóstico de apendicite aguda. As pacientes foram submetidas à videolaparoscopia de urgência, e o tratamento cirúrgico, quando indicado, foi realizado por videolaparoscopia sempre que possível. Entre as 34 pacientes, 17 apresentaram apendicite aguda à videolaparoscopia, sendo que 15 delas foram operadas por esta via. As 17 pacientes que apresentaram outro diagnóstico à videolaparoscopia não necessitaram de qualquer tratamento cirúrgico em 13 casos, sendo que quatro pacientes foram submetidas a operação por via aberta. O quadro clínico foi medido por um índice de probabilidade para apendicite aguda, e os resultados videolaparoscópicos foram relacionados a este índice. A conclusão é que a videolaparoscopia é um instrumento importante na abordagem propedêutica e terapêutica do abdome agudo da mulher em idade fértil, possibilitando uma maior precisão diagnóstica nestes casos e evitando laparotomias não terapêuticas.

Laparoscopic surgery in girls and female adolescents

The realm of laparoscopic surgery has extended to include the neonate as well as the pediatric patient. The advent of new and smaller instrumentation has facilitated this goal. Previous procedures exclusively relegated to laparotomy can now be accomplished as outpatient procedures. Removal of the acute appendix, correction of torsion of an adnexa, as well as the appropriate diagnosis and initial treatment of acute pelvic inflammatory disease are now well established laparoscopic procedures. This article provides insight into the laparoscopic evaluation and management of a number of challenging clinical problems for the endoscopic surgeon, thus providing a minimally invasive approach for patients ranging from neonates to adults.

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.