Conventional versus laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis

Conversion rate and risk factors of conversion to open in laparoscopic appendicectomy

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) has several advantages over conventional open appendicectomy (OA). However, about 5% to 10% of LA patients still need to be converted to open surgery. Identifying risk factors that contribute to conversion to OA allows for early identification of patients who may benefit from primary OA. This study aimed to determine the conversion rate of LA to OA and to identify its associated risk factors among patients with acute or perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical records was performed among patients with acute or perforated appendicitis who underwent LA between December 2015 and January 2017. With the use of multivariable logistic regression analyses, the predictors of conversion from laparoscopic to OA were investigated.

RESULTS

Out of 120 patients, 33 cases were converted to OA which gives a conversion rate of 27.5%. Among 33 patients who were converted to OA, 27 patients (81.8%) had perforated appendix, while in the LA group, perforated appendix cases consisted of 34.5% (P<0.001). Histopathology of the appendix was the predictor of conversion from LA to OA (adjusted odds ratio, 8.82; 95% confidence interval, 3.13-24.91; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The result from our study shows that the overall conversion rate for the study period was high. Patients with perforated appendicitis had a higher risk of conversion to OA. Therefore, preoperative diagnosis of perforated appendicitis may be paramount in predicting conversion to OA.

Emergency Laparoscopic Management of Perforative Peritonitis: A Retrospective Study

Background

Peritonitis was previously considered a contraindication for minimally invasive surgery due to the risk of malignant hypercapnia partial pressure of carbon-dioxide (PCO2) and toxic shock syndrome. The objective of this retrospective study was to evaluate the role of laparoscopic surgery (LS) in selected patients with perforative peritonitis and to study its feasibility, safety, and outcomes.

Patients and methods

This was a retrospective study of 25 patients spanning over five years from 2015 to 2020. This study comprised all patients who were diagnosed with perforative peritonitis on preoperative physical/clinical examination, radiological evaluations, and who were stable enough to withstand pneumoperitoneum. Patients were evaluated for causes, operative time, duration of hospital stay, intra-, and postoperative complications, time taken to resume normal activity, and conversion to open surgery. Data was extracted from the hospital electronic medical records, for the above-mentioned parameters.

Results

Twenty-five patients with perforative peritonitis underwent diagnostic and therapeutic LS in our institute. The mean age was 46 years (35-79 years). Ten patients (40%) were diagnosed with gastro-duodenal perforation. Out of these ten patients, ninepatients (90%) were managed totally laparoscopically, while one patient (10%) required conversion to open surgery. There were 15 patients (60%) with small bowel perforation. Thirteen of the 15 patients were managed laparoscopically, with the remaining two requiring conversion to open surgery. The average time taken for the procedure was 90 minutes. The mean time to initiate the postoperative peroral liquid diet was 3.4 days. The mean postoperative stay was 6.9 days. The time taken to resume normal activity was 10-12 days.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic management is feasible and safe for patients with perforative peritonitis. Careful patient selection and the surgeon’s experience with the procedure are critical determinants of success.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The removal of the acute appendix is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Open surgery associated with therapeutic efficacy has been the treatment of choice for acute appendicitis. However, in consequence of the evolution of endoscopic surgery, the operation can also be performed with minimally invasive surgery. Due to smaller incisions, the laparoscopic approach may be associated with reduced postoperative pain, reduced wound infection rate, and shorter time until return to normal activity.This is an update of the review published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) with regard to benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE and Embase (9 February 2018). We identified proposed and ongoing studies from World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials Register (9 February 2018). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA versus OA in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (or standardised mean differences (SMD) if researchers used different scales such as quality of life) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 85 studies involving 9765 participants. Seventy-five trials included 8520 adults and 10 trials included 1245 children. Most studies had risk of bias issues, with attrition bias being the largest source across studies due to incomplete outcome data.In adults, pain intensity on day one was reduced by 0.75 cm on a 10 cm VAS after LA (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.45; 20 RCTs; 2421 participants; low-quality evidence). Wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.51; 63 RCTs; 7612 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses was increased following LA (Peto OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.43; 53 RCTs; 6677 participants; moderate-quality evidence).The length of hospital stay was shortened by one day after LA (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.70; 46 RCTs; 5127 participant; low-quality evidence). The time until return to normal activity occurred five days earlier after LA than after OA (MD -4.97, 95% CI -6.77 to -3.16; 17 RCTs; 1653 participants; low-quality evidence). Two studies showed better quality of life scores following LA, but used different scales, and therefore no pooled estimates were presented. One used the SF-36 questionnaire two weeks after surgery and the other used the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index six weeks and six months after surgery (both low-quality evidence).In children, we found no differences in pain intensity on day one (MD -0.80, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.05; 1 RCT; 61 participants; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal abscesses after LA (Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.22; 9 RCTs; 1185 participants; low-quality evidence) or time until return to normal activity (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.30; 1 RCT; 383 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.42; 10 RCTs; 1245 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and the length of hospital stay was shortened by 0.8 days after LA (MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.62; 6 RCTs; 316 participants; low-quality evidence). Quality of life was not reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Except for a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscesses after LA in adults, LA showed advantages over OA in pain intensity on day one, wound infections, length of hospital stay and time until return to normal activity in adults. In contrast, LA showed advantages over OA in wound infections and length of hospital stay in children. Two studies reported better quality of life scores in adults. No study reported this outcome in children. However, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate and some of the clinical effects of LA were small and of limited clinical relevance. Future studies with low risk of bias should investigate, in particular, the quality of life in children.

Identification of preoperative risk factors associated with the conversion of laparoscopic to open appendectomies

Our goals were to (1) identify risk factors associated with conversion from laparoscopic to open appendectomies and (2) establish criteria that predict the possibility of conversion to an open technique. We did a retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomies during a 5-year period (2004-2008). Preoperative risk factors, intraoperative findings, and postoperative complications were compared. We found that of 763 patients who had undergone laparoscopic appendectomy, 44 patients were converted to open technique (conversion rate of 5.8%). For these 44 patients, the male to female ratio was 2 to 1, and the men were older (45 versus 37 years of age, P < 0.001). Conversion rates decreased with time (8.7% in 2004 versus 3.5% in 2008). Past surgical history was insignificant. However, a duration of symptoms of >5 days as well as a white blood cell count >20,000 were found to have a direct correlation. Incidence of postoperative complications did not increase in converted patients. The conversion rate is highest in male patients above 45 years of age, with over 5 days' duration of symptoms, leukocytosis >20,000, and ruptured appendicitis on computed tomography scan. The presence of 3 to 4 of these risk factors should lower the threshold for consideration of conversion to open appendectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

[Complicated acute apendicitis. Open versus laparoscopic surgery]

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIAL AND METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Training in laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis: a comparison with open appendectomy

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis remains controversial. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy outcomes for children with perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

Over a 36-month period, 111 children with perforated appendicitis were analyzed in a retrospective review. These children were treated with either laparoscopic (n = 59) or open appendectomy. The primary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay, time to adequate oral intake, wound infection, intraabdominal abscess formation, and bowel obstruction.

RESULTS

The demographic data, presenting symptoms, preoperative laboratory values, and operative times (laparoscopic group, 61 +/- 3 min; open group, 57 +/- 3 were similar for the two groups (p = 0.3). The time to adequate oral intake was 104 +/- 7 h for the laparoscopic group and 127 +/- 12 h for the open group (p = 0.08). The hospitalization time was 189 +/- 14 h for the laparoscopic group, as compared with 210 +/- 15 h for the open group (p = 0.3). The wound infection rate was 6.8% for the laparoscopic group and 23% for the open group (p < 0.05). The wounds of another 29% of the patients were left open at the time of surgery. The postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation rate was 13.6% for the laparoscopic group and 15.4% for the open group. One patient in each group experienced bowel obstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy for the children with perforated appendicitis in this study was associated with a significant decrease in the rate of wound infection. Furthermore, on the average, the children who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy tolerated enteral feedings and were discharged from the hospital approximately 24 h earlier than those who had open appendectomy.

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Outcome after intra- and extra-corporeal laparoscopic appendectomy techniques

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the outcome after intracorporeal (IC) and extracorporeal (EC) laparoscopic appendectomy technique in a single institution over a 5-year period.

METHODS

Records of all children ( n = 60) who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at the Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital between February 1997 and March 2002 were retrieved and evaluated. Observations were made regarding operative technique, anesthetic time, intra- and postoperative complications, postoperative analgesic requirement, and postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

There were 30 children in each group who had a similar demographic profile. The magnitude of appendicitis severity in both groups was similar. The mean anesthetic time was 67.8 min for the IC group and 50.7 min for the EC group (p = 0.001). There were no recorded intraoperative complications, although a single case in the EC group required conversion to open procedure. The postoperative analgesic requirement in both groups was similar. The mean postoperative stay was 2.1 days in the IC group and 2.5 days in the EC group. Two postoperative complications were noted in the IC group; one intraperitoneal collection and one postoperative chest infection. Four complications occurred in the EC group; one intraperitoneal collection and three minor port-site wound infections.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' experience shows the EC technique to be significantly quicker, although with a slightly increased complication rate. Either technique can be applied safely for acute appendicitis.

CT predictors of failed laparoscopic appendectomy

PURPOSE

To identify computed tomographic (CT) signs that may help predict possible failure of laparoscopic appendectomy and subsequent conversion to open appendectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Of 234 consecutive patients who underwent preoperative CT and in whom laparoscopic appendectomy was attempted, 26 required conversion to open appendectomy. Conversion was correlated with the following CT findings: appendix location, appendicolith, cecal wall thickening involving the base of the appendix, lymphadenopathy, and appendiceal diameter. The extent of inflammation was graded by using a six-point scale: 0 meant normal appendix; 1, possibly abnormal appendix (6-mm diameter without other abnormality); 2, abnormal appendix (diameter > or = 6 mm with wall enhancement) without adjacent fat stranding; 3, abnormal appendix surrounded by fat stranding; 4, abnormal appendix surrounded by fat stranding and fluid; and 5, inflammatory mass or abscess. Student t and chi2 tests were used for statistical analysis of interval and nominal values, respectively.

RESULTS

Although there was a significant difference in appendiceal diameter between the patients in whom laparoscopic appendectomy was successfully completed (11.3 mm +/- 3.5 [SD]) and those who required conversion (12.9 mm +/- 3.9), no distinct cutoff point was identified. Of the five CT findings evaluated, none was a significant predictor of conversion to open appendectomy. Eleven (7%) of 164 patients with a CT inflammation grade of 0-3 required conversion, whereas 15 (21%) of 70 patients with a grade of 4 or 5 required conversion (P <.04).

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients with appendicitis can be treated with laparoscopic appendectomy. Nevertheless, patients who require conversion to open appendectomy tend to have high CT inflammation grades of 4 or 5, which indicate the presence of periappendiceal fluid or an inflammatory mass or abscess.

Factors associated with conversion to laparotomy in patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been increasingly adopted for its advantages over the open technique, but there is a possibility of conversion to open appendectomy (OA) if complications occur or the extent of inflammation prohibits successful dissection. This study aimed to identify the preoperative predictors for conversion from laparoscopic to open appendectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Medical records of 705 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for suspected appendicitis were reviewed retrospectively. LA was attempted in 595 patients by 25 different surgeons. Factors evaluated were age, gender, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery, previous appendicitis attack, pain, nausea, vomiting, fever, duration of symptoms, local or diffuse tenderness, leukocyte count and surgeon's experience in LA.

RESULTS

Conversion to OA occurred in 58 patients (9.7%). The most common reason for conversion was dense adhesions due to inflammation, followed by localized perforation and diffuse peritonitis. Based on 261 patients evaluated by CT scan preoperatively, significant factors in the final multivariate analysis associated with conversion to OA were age > or = 65 [Odds ratio (OR) = 3.78, 95% CI:1.11-12.84], diffuse tenderness on physical examination (OR = 11.32, 95% CI: 1.32-96.62), and a surgeon with less experience in LA (< or = 10 operations, OR = 3.38, 95% CI:1.02-11.17). The presence of significant fat stranding associated with fluid accumulation, inflammatory mass or localized abscess in CT scan also significantly increased the possibility of conversion (OR = 5.60, 95% CI:2.48-12.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying the potential factors for conversion preoperatively may assist the surgeons in making decisions concerning the management of patients with appendicitis and in the judicious use of LA.

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.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic management of acute peritonitis

BACKGROUND

The presence of peritonitis has previously been considered to be a contraindication for the laparoscopic approach because of the theoretical risk of malignant hypercapnia and toxic shock syndrome. The aim of this retrospective study was to demonstrate that laparoscopy is feasible, safe and efficient in cases of peritonitis.

METHODS

From January 1990 to July 1995, 231 patients had a laparoscopy for acute peritonitis in two centres (91 appendicular peritonitis, 69 gastroduodenal perforated ulcers, 35 perforations of the colon, 36 miscellaneous).

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopic exploration was 84.8 per cent. The clinical preoperative diagnosis was changed by laparoscopic exploration in 25.1 per cent of patients. An unnecessary laparotomy was avoided in 6.5 per cent of patients and the site of traditional incision was modified in 8.7 per cent. Conversion rates were 25 per cent for appendicular peritonitis, 16 per cent for gastroduodenal perforation and 83 per cent (29 of 35 patients) for colonic perforation. The overall mortality rate was 3.9 per cent. No malignant hypercapnia occurred. Two patients (0.9 per cent) had postoperative septic shock but survived.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy is feasible and safe in cases of peritonitis. Laparoscopic treatment is particularly effective in the case of appendicular and gastroduodenal perforation. In the case of colonic perforation, the conversion rate remains high but with growing experience and surgical skill, more of these cases will be treated laparoscopically in the future.

Laparoscopic appendectomy. A comparison with open appendectomy

PURPOSE

As laparoscopy becomes a greater part of a general surgeon's practice, each new application must be analyzed. The purpose of this article is to report a four-year experience with laparoscopic appendectomy, with special attention to complications.

METHODS

All patients undergoing appendectomy by members of the General Surgery Department of Columbia Hospital between December 20, 1990, and December 24, 1994, were included (n = 434). Medical records were reviewed, and data were analyzed using multiple regression analysis, analysis of variance, and Pearson's chi-squared test.

RESULTS

The number of post-operative intra-abdominal abscesses following laparoscopic appendectomy tended to be higher; however, this did not reach statistical significance. Conversely, all other complications combined demonstrated a rate of 4.3 percent for laparoscopic procedures and a rate of 8.5 percent for open procedures. Again this tended toward, but did not reach, statistical significance. Advantage in length of stay was approximately two days, with a mean length of stay for patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy of 3.3 days, whereas that for open appendectomy was 5.7 days.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy has significant advantages in terms of patient comfort and length of stay, and its overall complication rate seems to be lower than with open procedures; however, its rate of intra-abdominal abscess may actually be higher. Further study is recommended.

Laparoscopy not recommended for routine appendectomy in men: results of a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy has now gained wider acceptance in clinical practice, particularly in the treatment of women with right iliac fossa pain. However, the precise role of laparoscopic appendectomy in men is unclear, and this study was therefore undertaken to examine this specific issue in a prospective randomized trial.

METHODS

One hundred men between the ages of 16 and 65 years who had suspected appendicitis were recruited and randomized to undergo either open or laparoscopic appendectomy. Both groups were compared in terms of their clinical parameters, duration of anesthetic and operation times, postoperative pain, duration of ileus, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The histologic confirmation of appendicitis was present in 94% of the cases for both groups of patients. Laparoscopic appendectomy required significantly longer anesthetic time (72.5 minutes versus 55 minutes) and actual operating time (45 minutes versus 25 minutes) compared with open appendectomy. Postoperative pain as measured by visual analog scale on postoperative days 1 and 2 were not significantly different between the patients who underwent laparoscopic and open surgery with values of 4.7 versus 4.4 and 2.1 versus 2.2, respectively. Also no significant difference was seen between the laparoscopic and open appendectomy groups in the recovery of bowel function (24.7 hours versus 21 hours) and in the length of hospital stay (4.9 days versus 5.3 days).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this prospective randomized trial showed that there were no significant advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy for the treatment of male patients with suspected appendicitis. We recommend that the use of laparoscopy be limited to men with atypical pain of uncertain diagnosis and in obese patients.

A clinical outcome and cost analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy are controversial, and the results of recent clinical studies have contradictory conclusions. We performed a cost analysis comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomies to assess potential efficacy of the laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

All patients operated on for suspected acute appendicitis at the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC) from January 1, 1991 through January 1, 1995 were analyzed. Potential benefits of the laparoscopic approach were examined in five major categories: hospital length of stay, total hospital charges, operative time, operating room charges, and postoperative complications. Patients were stratified according to the presence or absence of perforation for outcome analysis.

RESULTS

There were 163 appendectomies performed in 82 men and 81 women. Twenty-seven (17%) patients had laparoscopic evaluation, of which 21 underwent attempted laparoscopic appendectomy. Among nonperforated patients, laparoscopic appendectomy did not reduce hospital stay compared with open appendectomy, but did lead to greater hospital charges ($7760 vs $5064; P < 0.001). Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group (104 vs 74 minutes; P < 0.001) compared with open appendectomies. Operating room charges for laparoscopic appendectomies exceeded charges for the open approach ($4740 vs $1870; P < 0.001). Complication rates were similar (laparoscopic, 19% vs open, 16%; NS). The false diagnostic rate for women was four times greater than for men among patients undergoing open appendectomy (31% vs 8%; P < 0.01). Patients with perforation undergoing a midline incision had a longer hospital stay (9.5 vs 5.9; P < 0.02) than patients operated on through a right lower quadrant incision.

CONCLUSIONS

In our analysis, laparoscopic appendectomy, while safe, was more expensive and was not associated with better clinical outcome compared with open appendectomy patients.

Preoperative administration of antibiotics in patients with suspected acute appendicitis

The effectiveness of administering antibiotics preoperatively to patients with suspected appendicitis was evaluated over a 2-year period in 105 consecutive patients who presented with right lower quadrant (RLQ) tenderness and a white blood cell (WBC) count of over 10,000/mm3 or a temperature of over 37 degrees C. All the patients were preoperatively administered cefazolin (CEZ), cefotiam (CTM), or fosfomycin (FOM) except those with apparent peritonitis, which resulted in the recovery of 41 patients (39%). Of the remaining 64 patients, 14 (13%) had catarrhal appendicitis, 34 (32%), phlegmonous appendicitis, and 16 (15%), gangrenous appendicitis. Preoperatively, there were no significant differences among these groups in the WBC count or temperature. Following the administration of antibiotics, both these parameters decreased significantly in the patients with catarrhal appendicitis, although a slight RLQ tenderness persisted; in those with phlegmonous appendicitis, the WBC count decreased significantly, but the temperature remained elevated, with slight rebound tenderness in the RLQ; and in those with gangrenous appendicitis, there were no significant differences between the pre- and postoperative data in WBC count or temperature, and the abdominal symptoms did not change. These results show the value of administering antibiotics within 24h of the onset of symptoms indicative of acute appendicitis to allow time to evaluate the patients' condition, decide the operative indications, and prevent unnecessary laparotomy.

A prospective trial of open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

An assessment of the value of laparoscopic appendicectomy was performed.

METHODS

During 1993, all patients above the age of 13 years admitted with clinical appendicitis to Box Hill were assigned to an open or laparoscopic procedure depending on whether the surgeon on call was an 'open' or 'laparoscopic' surgeon for the purpose of the study. Ninety-two patients were entered in the study, of whom 57 were in the open group. The rate of histologically proven appendicitis was 73.9%.

RESULTS

No significant difference between the groups was found in the use of narcotic analgesia, length of stay or incidence of wound infection. However, operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendicectomy on an unselected group of patients does not confer many advantages but laparoscopy may be beneficial in certain subgroups.

Clinical presentation of rare appendiculo-omphalic anomalies

The umbilicus is the site of a number of well-recognized and unusual congenital anomalies. The authors report two rare anomalies of the umbilicus, one involving the appendiceal artery and the other the appendix vermiformis.

The E.A.E.S. Consensus Development Conferences on laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and hernia repair. Consensus statements--September 1994. The Educational Committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery

Under the mandate of the Educational Committee of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (E.A.E.S.), three consensus development conferences (CDCs) were performed in order to assess the current status of the endoscopic surgical approaches for the treatment of cholelithiasis, appendicitis, and inguinal hernia. Consensus panels for the different disease states (10-13 members each) selected by the education committee on the basis of members' clinical expertise, academic activity, community influence, and geographical location weighed the evidence on the basis of published results according to the criteria for technology assessment: feasibility, efficacy, effectiveness, economy. Draft statements were prepared, discussed by the panels, and presented at plenary sessions of the 2nd European Congress of the E.A.E.S. in Madrid September 15-17, 1994. Following discussions final consensus statements were formulated to provide specific answers for each topic to a minimum of the following questions: 1. What stage of technological development is the endoscopic surgical procedure at (in September 1994)? 2. Is endoscopic surgery safe and feasible? 3. Is it beneficial to the patients? 4. Who should undergo endoscopic surgery? 5. What are the training recommendations? Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the procedure of choice for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Laparoscopic appendectomy is presently at the efficacy stage of development, because most of the data on feasibility and safety originate from centers with special interest in endoscopic surgery: it is not yet the gold standard for acute appendicitis. Endoscopic hernia repair is presently a feasible alternative for conventional hernia repair if performed by experienced endoscopic surgeons. It appears to be efficacious in the short-term. The full text of the consensus panel's statements is given in this publication.

Laparoscopic versus conventional surgery for suspected appendicitis in women

The diagnosis of appendicitis remains uncertain in female patients and laparoscopy has been suggested as a valid diagnostic tool. The laparoscopic approach has recently also been proposed for the treatment of acute appendicitis, though its real value is still under debate. A clinical and economic prospective evaluation of laparoscopic surgery over a 1-year period in female patients is reported. The study involved 38 patients presenting with signs of appendicitis and assigned to open (18) or laparoscopic surgery (20). The two groups were comparable as regards age and clinical presentation of the disease. The duration of the procedures was similar (60 min). Morbidity was comparable (3 vs 2). The ratio of negative appendectomy (50% vs 44%) was also similar, but the laparoscopic approach enabled a higher number of certain diagnoses (9/10 vs 3/8 p > 0.05). No significant differences were observed in the median postoperative stay (3 days for laparoscopy and 4 for surgery) or in the days needed to return to normal activity (15 vs 18). The cosmetic satisfaction was higher for the laparoscopic patients. The cost of the laparoscopic approach, however, was much higher than for conventional surgery. Our results suggest that laparoscopy is a useful diagnostic tool in female patients, but that laparoscopic appendectomy should be considered with some caution in times of restricted financial resources.

[Laparoscopic appendectomy. A review of the literature]

Laparoscopic methods are becoming increasingly popular in surgery. In the course of a review concerning laparoscopic appendectomy undertaken up to 31 December 1993 all publications were evaluated by computer-assisted research. Out of a total of 90 publications only 14 deal with the comparison of the laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. Two prospective randomized studies are published. Because of the low number of patients the evaluation of the laparoscopic method is not yet definite.

Laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy: prospective randomised trial

Randomised assessment of new laparoscopic surgical techniques is difficult. Surgeons need time to become experienced with the methods and tend, when they have experience, to favour one or other approach. We have carried out a prospective randomised comparison of laparoscopic and conventional appendicectomy done by surgeons of comparable experience in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Postoperative management decisions were made by surgeons other than the operating surgeon. 140 patients were randomly assigned to open (OA) or laparoscopic (LA) appendicectomy (70 each). The age, sex ratio, duration of symptoms, and proportion of patients with histologically confirmed appendicitis was similar in the two groups. Operating time was longer for LA than for OA (mean 70.3 [SD 21.9] vs 46.5 [25.9] min; p < 0.001). There were no major intraoperative complications in either group. 14 (20%) patients in the LA group required conversion to an open operation. No significant differences between the groups were found postoperatively for pain score, analgesic requirement, time to reintroduction of diet, or hospital stay. 46 LA patients and 42 OA patients attended follow-up 3 weeks after surgery. Similar proportions had returned to work (36 [79%] vs 31 [74%]). The frequency of wound complications and wound pain after leaving hospital was lower after LA but not significantly so. We conclude that the postoperative course after LA and conventional OA does not differ significantly.