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

Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Review

Minimally invasive surgery uses several procedures with fewer side effects (bleeding, infections, etc.), a shorter hospital stay, and less discomfort following minimally invasive surgery. Laparoscopy was one of the first forms of minimally invasive surgery. It involves doing surgery while using tiny cameras through one or more small incisions, surgical tools along with tubes. Robotic surgery is another kind of minimally invasive procedure. Along with supporting accurate, flexible, and regulated surgical procedures, it provides the physician with a three-dimensional, enlarged view of the operative site. Minimally invasive surgery continues to advance, making it an advantage for patients with a variety of illnesses. Nowadays, many surgeons prefer it to traditional surgery, which frequently necessitates a longer hospital stay and requires larger incisions. Since then, numerous surgical specialties have greatly increased their use of minimally invasive surgery. A minimally invasive procedure is preferred for the majority of patients who require gastrointestinal surgery. Minimally invasive gastrointestinal procedures are just as successful as open procedures and, in some situations, may result in more effective outcomes. While recovery from open surgeries frequently takes five to ten days in the hospital, minimally invasive surgeries are less painful for patients and hasten recovery. It is safe from the perspective of the patient and has a lower postoperative mortality rate. This procedure involves a learning curve among surgeons.

Association of hospital volume with conversion to open from minimally invasive colectomy in patients with diverticulitis: A national analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the known advantages of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for diverticular disease, the impact of conversions to open (CtO) colectomy remains understudied. The present study used a nationally representative database to characterize risk factors and outcomes associated with CtO in patients with diverticular disease.

METHODS

All elective adult hospitalizations entailing colectomy for diverticulitis were identified in the 2017-2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Annual institutional caseloads of MIS and open colectomy were independently tabulated. Restricted cubic splines were utilized to non-linearly estimate the risk-adjusted association between hospital volumes and CtO. Additional regression models were developed to evaluate the association of CtO with outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Of an estimated 110,281 patients with diverticulitis who met study criteria, 39.3% underwent planned open colectomy, 53.3% completed MIS, and 7.4% had a CtO. Following adjustment, an inverse relationship between hospital MIS volume and risk of CtO was observed. In contrast, increasing hospital open volume was positively associated with greater risk of CtO. On multivariable analysis, CtO was associated with lower odds of mortality (AOR 0.3, p = 0.001) when compared to open approach, and similar risk of mortality when compared to completed MIS (AOR 0.7, p = 0.436).

CONCLUSION

In the present study, institutional MIS volume exhibited inverse correlation with adjusted rates of CtO, independent of open colectomy volume. CtO was associated with decreased rates of mortality compared to planned open approach but equivalence risk relative to completed MIS. Our findings highlight the importance of MIS experience and suggest that MIS may be safely pursued as the initial surgical approach among diverticulitis patients.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy Translates into Less Analgesics and Faster Return to Work in Asia

Background:

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is claimed to require less analgesic and allow for a faster return to work. This study examines whether these benefits hold true in Asian patient populations.

Methods:

A retrospective audit of emergency appendectomies over one year was conducted to study outcomes of postoperative pain, length of stay (LOS), duration of analgesia, and hospitalization leave (HL). A telephone questionnaire evaluated post-discharge analgesic intake, residual symptoms at follow-up, adequacy of HL and opinion on teleconsult reviews.

Results:

Of the 201 patients, 187 (93%) underwent LA. Presurgery symptoms were significantly longer in the open appendectomy (OA) group (mean: OA 3.79, LA 1.81 days; p = 0.026) which also had a higher frequency of perforation (71.4%). LA patients reported less pain compared to OA (LA 3.60 vs. OA 4.14; p = 0.068) but were prescribed the same 2 weeks of analgesics as OA. LOS was significantly less for LA (mean LA 3.09, OA 6.93 days; p = 0.006). Mean HL for LA and OA were 17.9 and 21.8 days respectively (p = 0.05). Nearly 83% patients did not complete the prescribed course of analgesics and 47% patients felt that HL was more than adequate. Seventy-five percent of patients were asymptomatic at hospital follow-up and nearly 41% agreed to teleconsult reviews.

Conclusion:

Majority of LA patients do not need 2 weeks of analgesics and their HL can be shortened for faster return to work thereby realizing the true benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Selected cases can be offered postoperative teleconsultation.

Application of nano-carbon and titanium clip combined labeling in robot-assisted laparoscopic transverse colon cancer surgery

Background

Robot-assisted laparoscopic transverse colon tumor surgery requires precise tumor localization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nano-carbon and titanium clip combination labeling methods in robot-assisted transverse colon tumor surgery.

Methods

From January 2018 to January 2019, the clinical data of 16 patients who come from FuZhou, China underwent preoperative nano-carbon and titanium clip combined with robot-assisted laparoscopic transverse colon cancer surgery were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Of the 16 patients, no signs of abdominal pain, fever, or diarrhea were observed after colonoscopy. Two titanium clips were seen on all of the 16 patients' abdominal plain films. Nano-carbon staining sites were observed during the operation, and no staining disappeared or abdominal cavity contamination. All patients underwent R₀ resection. The average number of lymph nodes harvsted was 18.23 ± 5.04 (range, 9–32). The average time to locate the lesion under the laparoscopic was 3.03 ± 1.26 min (range, 1–6 min), and the average operation time was 321.43 ± 49.23 min (range, 240–400 min). All were consistent with the surgical plan, and there was no intraoperative change of surgical procedure or conversion to open surgery.

Conclusion

Preoperative colonoscopy combined with nano-carbon and titanium clip is safe and effective in robot-assisted transverse colon cancer surgery. A At the same time, the labeling method shows potential in shortening the operation time, ensuring sufficient safety margin and reducing complications.

Computed Tomography Findings Associated with Treatment Failure after Antibiotic Therapy for Acute Appendicitis

OBJECTIVE

To identify the CT findings associated with treatment failure after antibiotic therapy for acute appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Altogether, 198 patients who received antibiotic therapy for appendicitis were identified by searching the hospital's surgery database. Selection criteria for antibiotic therapy were uncomplicated appendicitis with an appendiceal diameter equal to or less than 11 mm. The 86 patients included in the study were divided into a treatment success group and a treatment failure group. Treatment failure was defined as a resistance to antibiotic therapy or recurrent appendicitis during a 1-year follow-up period. Two radiologists independently evaluated the following CT findings: appendix-location, involved extent, maximal diameter, thickness, wall enhancement, focal wall defect, periappendiceal fat infiltration, and so on. For the quantitative analysis, two readers independently measured the CT values at the least attenuated wall of the appendix by drawing a round region of interest on the enhanced CT (HU_post) and non-enhanced CT (HU_pre). The degree of appendiceal wall enhancement (HU_sub) was calculated as the subtracted value between HU_post and HU_pre. A logistic regression analysis was used to identify the CT findings associated with treatment failure.

RESULTS

Sixty-four of 86 (74.4%) patients were successfully treated with antibiotic therapy, with treatment failure occurring in the remaining 22 (25.5%). The treatment failure group showed a higher frequency of hypoenhancement of the appendiceal wall than the success group (31.8% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.005). Upon quantitative analysis, both HU_post (46.7 ± 21.3 HU vs. 58.9 ± 22.0 HU; p = 0.027) and HU_sub (26.9 ± 17.3 HU vs. 35.4 ± 16.6 HU; p = 0.042) values were significantly lower in the treatment failure group than in the success group.

CONCLUSION

Hypoenhancement of the appendiceal wall was significantly associated with treatment failure after antibiotic therapy for acute appendicitis.

Laparoscopically-Assisted Repair of a Small Bowel Perforation Secondary to Multiple Metastases of Undifferentiated Pleomorphic Sarcoma

We present a very rare case of a laparoscopically-assisted repair of a small bowel perforation secondary to multiple metastases of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma from the posterior mediastinum. A 46-year-old man presented with middle to upper abdominal pain during chemotherapy for lung metastases from undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Computed tomography revealed intra-abdominal free air, and emergency laparoscopy was performed. Consequently, a perforation was detected in the jejunum, and partial jejunal resection was performed by mini-laparotomy. Pathological examination demonstrated an ulcerated tumor with perforation and four additional tumors in the resected jejunum. Pathological examination also revealed undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma in all five tumors. To our knowledge, our case is the first report of a laparoscopically-assisted repair of a small bowel perforation secondary to metastasis of undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma. Although the perforation site was unclear preoperatively, laparoscopic observation readily identified the lesion in this patient. Therefore, minimally invasive surgery could be performed successfully with mini-laparotomy following laparoscopic observation. Laparoscopic techniques for the small intestine are viable options, even in acute and uncommon situations, and small bowel perforation secondary to metastasis should be considered in patients with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma and acute abdomen.

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.

Establishing the need for clinical follow-up after emergency appendicectomy in the modern era: Retrospective case series of 145 patients

Introduction

Emergency appendicectomy (EA) is a commonly performed operation, with an increasing number of EAs being performed as day-case. The aim of this study is to establish if there is a need for post-operative follow-up and if this could prevent adverse outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent EA at multiple centres over a six-month period was undertaken. They were contacted by telephone and a standardised questionnaire was used to ascertain post-operative outcomes, including duration of analgesia use, duration before return to normal daily activity (ADLs), surgical site infection rates (SSI) and rates of re-presentation to medical services. Patients were stratified into those who underwent laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy, smokers versus non-smokers, and body mass index (BMI).

Results

A total of 145 patients were included in the study. Patients undergoing open surgery (vs. laparoscopic surgery) required analgesia for significantly longer periods, with a significantly longer return to ADLs. Smokers, when compared to non-smokers experienced a significantly longer return to work/school; and significantly higher risk of SSI and re-presenting to accident & emergency; as did patients with a BMI >30 when compared to those with a BMI <30.

Conclusion

Most patients do not need formal outpatient assessment after EA. However, there is clearly a subset of higher risk patients who may benefit from this - patients who are smokers or obese. They have prolonged recovery times, and are at greater risk of SSI. Earlier surgical outpatient follow-up of these patients could prevent adverse outcomes.

Robotic right colonic resection. Is the robotic third arm a game-changer?

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches have produces relevant advancements in the pre/intra/postoperative outcomes. The conventional laparoscopic approach presents similar oncological results in comparison to laparotomic approaches. Despite these evidences, a considerable part of the colorectal operations are still being performed in an open way. This is in part because traditional laparoscopy may have some hurdles and a long learning curve to reach mastery. The robotic technology may help in increasing the MIS penetrance in colorectal surgery. The use of the R3 can potentially increase the number of surgical options available.

METHODS

In this retrospective case series, after a long robotic colorectal experience connected to a robotic program started by Giulianotti et al. in October 2000, we present our results regarding a subset of colorectal patients who underwent robotic right colonic resections performed, all by a single surgeon (P.C.G.), using the R3 according to our standardized technique.

RESULTS

Out of all the robotic colorectal operations performed, this sub-sample sample included 33 patients: 21 males and 12 females. The age range was between 51 and 95 years old. The Body Mass Index (BMI) was between 21.6 to 43.1. The conversion rate to laparoscopy or to open surgery has been 0%. No intraoperative complications have been registered. The postoperative complications rates are reported in this manuscript. The perfusion check of the anastomosis by Near-infrared ICG (Indocyanine Green) enhanced fluorescence has been used. In 11.2% of the sample, the site of the anastomosis has been changed after ICG-Test. Moreover, when the ICG perfusion test has been performed no leakage occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This subset of patients suggests the potential role of R3 and the benefits correlated to robotic surgery. In fact, the laparoscopic approach uses mostly a medial to lateral mobilization. Indeed, during laparoscopic surgery an early right colon mobilization may create problems in the surgical field visualization. In robotic surgery, R3 can lift upwards the cecum/ascending colon/hepatic flexure exposing, in doing so, the anatomical structures. Hence, we can use also the same approach of the open surgery (where the first step is usually the mobilization of the ascending colon mesentery). In other words, the R3 offers more operative options in terms of surgical pathways maintaining at the same time good perioperative outcomes. However, more studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Surgical technique in robotic right colonic resection. How we do it: operative steps and surgical video

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has produced an important improvement in terms of peri-operative outcomes. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery presents comparable outcomes vs. open approach from an oncological standpoint. However, there are some technical challenges/hurdles that laparoscopy may have. Worldwide there are still too many colonic/rectal operations carried out by the open approach. The robotic technology may be useful in solving some of the potential laparoscopic issues and potentially it may increase the number of procedures performed in a minimally invasive way. This is a description of our standardized operative technique for Robotic Right Colonic Resection. Conceivably, this manuscript may be useful to collect more repeatable data in the future. Moreover, it might be a guide to learn the robotic technique and also for the expert surgeons as an additional tool which they may find useful during their teaching activity. In this manuscript, taking advantage of the long and extensive expertise in minimally invasive colorectal resections, connected to a robotic experience started by Giulianotti in October 2000, we present our standardized technique for the robotic right colonic resection. The currently available literature data have proven that robotic colorectal surgery is safe/feasible. From the literature data, and from our experience as well, we think that these are the following main points: 1) the right colectomy is often an operation which can be performed in a relatively simple way even with traditional laparoscopy. However, the robotic approach is easier to standardize and this operation is very useful from a teaching standpoint in order to master multiple robotic surgical skills (that can be applied in more complex colorectal operations); 2) the robotic surgery may increase the MIS penetrance in this field. 3) the robotic third arm (R3) is an important technical advantage which can potentially increase the range of surgical options available; 4) the robotic technology is relatively recent. Most of the available data are retrospective and there is literature heterogenity (this affects also the conclusions of the currently available meta-analysis results, which sometimes are conflicting); 5) we need more data from prospective randomized well-powered studies (with standardized technique). Achieving a standardized technical approach will be essential in robotic colorectal surgery.

Operative technique in robotic left colonic resection

Minimally invasive techniques have changed the clinical practice in general surgery and provided an improvement of outcomes. Laparoscopic and open surgery have similar oncological outcomes in the colorectal field. Those findings have been proven by prospective randomized multicenter trials and systematic reviews. However, some colorectal operations are still being performed by the open approach. This is partially related to the technical hurdles of the laparoscopic approach (particularly for more complex cases). Robotic surgery can be beneficial in overcoming the laparoscopic hurdles and limitations. Indeed, given the improved dexterity, the 3D stereotactic magnified view (with the camera controlled directly by the surgeon), the tremor filtering technology and the 7 degrees of liberty of the surgical instruments can guarantee a more accurate surgical dissection and tissue manipulation. Herein, after a large robotic experience in this field connected to a robotic program started by Giulianotti et al. in October 2000, we present our approach to robotic left colonic resection with routine splenic flexure mobilization. This approach may be helpful to get more reproducible results, it may be a technical guide and also an additional training tool for surgical residents.

Operative technique in robotic rectal resection

A still too high percentage of the colorectal resections are currently performed by open technique. This in part because laparoscopy has some technical hurdles: not ideal ergonomics, poor control on the traction exerted by the Assistant, long/steep learning curve, confined dexterity, low tactile feedback, hand-tremor and 2D vision with a not completely stable camera. The robotic approach, given the increased surgical dexterity and the better surgical view, may be used to solve the laparoscopic downsides (in particular in the most complex cases). In the present work, after an extensive robotic experience and a robotic program started by Giulianotti et al. in October 2000, we show our operative steps for the robotic rectal resection. The aim is to propose a model to standardize the surgical technique and potentially pave the way for the acquisition of more reproducible data among different centers. This proposal may be also a technical guide to learn the robotic way and also for the expert surgeons as an adjunct in the teaching strategy.

Case study: Laparoscopic appendicectomy requirements and human factors surrounding emergency care

The purpose of this case study is to inform practitioners of the requirements for non-scheduled surgery and the legal, professional and ethical issues surrounding emergencies. Areas for learning include the surgical requirements for appendectomy, evaluation of the differences between scheduled and unscheduled care, and consideration of the vital role that human factors play in emergency situations.

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: How to discourage surgeons using inadequate therapy

Acute appendicitis (AA) develops in a progressive and irreversible manner, even if the clinical course of AA can be temporarily modified by intentional medications. Reliable and real-time diagnosis of AA can be made based on findings of the white blood cell count and enhanced computed tomography. Emergent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is considered as the first therapeutic choice for AA. Interval/delayed appendectomy at 6-12 wk after disease onset is considered as unsafe with a high recurrent rate during the waiting time. However, this technique may have some advantages for avoiding unnecessary extended resection in patients with an appendiceal mass. Non-operative management of AA may be tolerated only in children. Postoperative complications increase according to the patient’s factors, and temporal avoidance of emergent general anesthesia may be beneficial for high-risk patients. The surgeon’s skill and cooperation of the hospital are important for successful LA. Delaying appendectomy for less than 24 h from diagnosis is safe. Additionally, a semi-elective manner (i.e., LA within 24 h after onset of symptoms) may be paradoxically acceptable, according to the factors of the patient, physician, and institution. Prompt LA is mandatory for AA. Fortunately, the Japanese government uses a universal health insurance system, which covers LA.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy (LEOPARD): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Observational cohort studies have suggested that minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is associated with better short-term outcomes compared with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP), such as less intraoperative blood loss, lower morbidity, shorter length of hospital stay, and reduced total costs. Confounding by indication has probably influenced these findings, given that case-matched studies failed to confirm the superiority of MIDP. This accentuates the need for multicenter randomized controlled trials, which are currently lacking. We hypothesize that time to functional recovery is shorter after MIDP compared with ODP even in an enhanced recovery setting.

METHODS

LEOPARD is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, patient-blinded, multicenter, superiority trial in all 17 centers of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic benign, premalignant or malignant disease will be randomly allocated to undergo MIDP or ODP in an enhanced recovery setting. The primary outcome is time (days) to functional recovery, defined as all of the following: independently mobile at the preoperative level, sufficient pain control with oral medication alone, ability to maintain sufficient (i.e. >50%) daily required caloric intake, no intravenous fluid administration and no signs of infection. Secondary outcomes are operative and postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant complications, mortality, quality of life and costs.

DISCUSSION

The LEOPARD trial is designed to investigate whether MIDP reduces the time to functional recovery compared with ODP in an enhanced recovery setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register, NTR5188 . Registered on 9 April 2015.

Impact of minimally invasive surgery on healthcare utilization, cost, and workplace absenteeism in patients with Incisional/Ventral Hernia (IVH)

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia repair is one of the most common general surgery operations being performed today. With the advancement of laparoscopy since the 1990s, we have seen vast improvements in faster return to normal activity, shorter hospital stays and less post-operative narcotic use, to name a few.

OBJECTIVE

The key aims of this review were to measure the impact of minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery on health care utilization, cost, and work place absenteeism in the patients undergoing inpatient incisional/ventral hernia (IVH) repair.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan^® Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. Total of 2557 patients were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Of the patient that underwent IVH surgery, 24.5% (n = 626) were done utilizing minimally invasive surgical (MIS) techniques and 75.5% (n = 1931) were done open. Ninety-day post-surgery outcomes were significantly lower in the MIS group compared to the open group for total payment ($19,288.97 vs. $21,708.12), inpatient length of stay (3.12 vs. 4.24 days), number of outpatient visit (5.48 vs. 7.35), and estimated days off (11.3 vs. 14.64), respectively. At 365 days post-surgery, the total payment ($27,497.96 vs. $30,157.29), inpatient length of stay (3.70 vs. 5.04 days), outpatient visits (19.75 vs. 23.42), and estimated days off (35.71 vs. 41.58) were significantly lower for MIS group versus the open group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

When surgical repair of IVH is performed, there is a clear advantage in the MIS approach versus the open approach in regard to cost, length of stay, number of outpatient visits, and estimated days off.

A Systematic Review of Patient-reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Unplanned General Surgery

Unplanned general surgery represents a major workload and requires comprehensive evaluation with appropriate outcomes. This study aimed to summarize current reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in unplanned general surgery. A systematic review identified RCTs reporting PROs in the commonest six areas of unplanned general surgery. Details of the PRO measures were examined using the CONSORT extension for PRO reporting in RCTs. Extracted information about each PRO domain included the reporting of baseline PROs, rationale for PRO selection and whether PRO findings were used in conjunction with clinical outcomes to inform treatment recommendations. The internal validity of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. 12,519 abstracts were screened and 20 RCTs containing data from 2037 patients included. Included studies used 14 separate PRO measures covering 35 different health domains. A visual analogue assessment of pain was most frequently reported (n = 13). Reporting of baseline PRO data was uncommon (11/35 PRO domains). The rationale for PRO data collection and a PRO-specific hypothesis were provided for 9 (25.7 %) and 5 (14.3 %) domains, respectively. Seventeen RCTs (85.0 %) used the PRO data alongside clinical outcomes to inform treatment recommendations. Of the 116 risk of bias assessments, 77 (66.0 %) were judged as high or unclear. There is a lack of well designed, and conducted RCTs in unplanned general surgery that include PROs. Future work to define relevant PROs and methods for optimal assessment are needed to inform health care decision-making.

Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies

This review focuses on the laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal emergencies and its more recent indications. Laparoscopic surgery has a specific place in elective procedures, but that does not apply in emergency situations. In specific emergencies, there is a huge range of indications and different techniques to apply, and not all of them are equally settle. We consider that the most controversial points in minimally invasive procedures are indications in emergency situations due to technical difficulties. Some pathologies, such as oesophageal emergencies, obstruction due to colon cancer, abdominal hernias or incarcerated postsurgical hernias, are nearly always resolved by conventional surgery, that is, an open approach due to limited intraabdominal cavity space or due to the vulnerability of the bowel. These technical problems have been solved in many diseases, such as for perforated peptic ulcer or acute appendectomy for which a laparoscopic approach has become a well-known and globally supported procedure. On the other hand, endoscopic procedures have acquired further indications, relegating surgical solutions to a second place; this happens in cholangitis or pancreatic abscess drainage. This endoluminal approach avoids the need for laparoscopic development in these diseases. Nevertheless, new instruments and new technologies could extend the laparoscopic approach to a broader array of potentials procedures. There remains, however, a long way to go.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Surgical practice has been changed since the introduction of robotic techniques and robotic colorectal surgery is an emerging field. Innovative robotic technologies have helped surgeons overcome many technical difficulties of conventional laparoscopic surgery. Herein, we review the clinical studies regarding the application of surgical robots in resections for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted for articles published up to September 9, 2012, using the MEDLINE database. The keywords that were used in various combinations were: "surgical robotics," "robotic surgery," "computer-assisted surgery," "colectomy," "sigmoid resection," "sigmoidectomy," and "rectal resection."

RESULTS

Fifty-nine articles reporting on robot-assisted resections of colon and/or rectum were identified and 41 studies were finally included in the analysis. A total of 1635 colorectal procedures were performed: 254 right colectomies, 185 left colectomies/sigmoid resections, 969 anterior resections, 182 abdominoperineal or intersphincteric resections, 34 colectomies (without being specified as right or left), and 11 total/subtotal colectomies. In general, blood loss, conversion rates, and complications were low but the operative time was longer than the open procedures, whereas the duration of hospitalization was shorter. The number of harvested lymph nodes was also quite satisfactory.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic colorectal operations provide favorable results, with acceptable operative times and low conversion rates and morbidity. Surgical robots may provide additional benefits treating challenging pathologies, such as rectal cancer. Further clinical studies and long-term follow-up are required to better evaluate the outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery.

Investigating the collection and assessment of patient-reported outcome data amongst unplanned surgical hospital admissions: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery can be challenging to conduct, and trials in the emergency surgical setting when patients have unplanned hospital admissions are particularly difficult. One area of challenge is capturing baseline patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. This study examined the feasibility and optimal methods for the collection of baseline and follow-up PRO data in the setting of unplanned surgical hospital admissions.

METHODS

Clinically stable adult patients with unplanned admissions through the day and night under the care of general surgeons at two acute NHS trusts were approached during working week days and asked to complete validated PRO measures (European Quality of Life-5 Dimension, Short Form-12, and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index) on admission and 6 weeks following discharge. Feasibility of PRO data collection was determined by the proportions of admitted patients eligible and recruited and by questionnaire-response rates at baseline and follow up. Reasons for non-recruitment and non-completion of questionnaires were sought and recorded.

RESULTS

There were 276 admissions, of whom 235 (85.1 %) were eligible. Reasons for ineligibility were the following: age under 18 years old (n = 5, 1.8 %), non-surgical presenting complaint (n = 6, 2.2 %) and clinical instability (n = 30, 10.9 %). One hundred and sixty-six patients (70.6 %) were recruited (98 female, 59.0 %); median age 53, range 19-100). Common reasons for non-recruitment included patients being discharged home before approached by researchers (n = 29, 12.3 %) or declining participation because they felt unwell (n = 15, 6.4 %). The most common reason for admission to the hospital was abdominal pain (n = 120, 72.3 % recruited patients), of whom 50 (30.1 %) required operative intervention. Baseline PRO data was obtained from 153 patients (93.3 %), and 74 (48.4 %) returned follow-up questionnaires.

CONCLUSIONS

Collection of baseline PRO data amongst unplanned admissions in general surgery is feasible. Methods for optimising retention and follow up are needed.

Gasless transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy as a safe and cost-effective alternative surgical procedure for mild acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

Several reports have demonstrated the effectiveness and feasibility of single incisional transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA). We developed a modified TULAA technique, gasless-TULAA, which involves lifting the abdominal wall with a retractor, without pneumoperitoneum or another incision.

METHODS

We assessed the surgical outcomes of 257 patients treated for appendicitis in our hospital between 2005 and 2013. In a preoperative comprehensive evaluation, appendicitis without abscess was defined as mild appendicitis (mild appendicitis group: MAG), and appendicitis with abscess was defined as severe appendicitis (severe appendicitis group: SAG). The clinical outcomes were compared with those in other published reports. The cost-effectiveness of gasless-TULAA was compared with that of conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CMLA) in our hospital.

RESULTS

In MAG (n = 228), the operation time and postoperative hospital stay were 46.9 ± 22.7 min and 2.6 ± 1.2 days, respectively. The gasless-TULAA was completed without trocars in 91.2 % of patients. The surgical outcomes of SAG were significantly worse than those of MAG (p < 0.001). The surgical cost of gasless-TULAA was significantly lower than that of CMLA (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Gasless-TULAA is a cost-effective, safe, and readily available surgical technique for mild appendicitis, which can obviate the need for specialized equipment.

Laparoscopic approach to appendectomy reduces the incidence of short- and long-term post-operative bowel obstruction: systematic review and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the effect of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) compared to open appendectomy (OA) on short-term and long-term post-operative bowel obstruction.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists were searched. Subset analysis was performed for paediatric patients, patients who presented with perforated appendicitis and studies with long-term follow-up and surveillance for bowel obstruction and with surgery for bowel obstruction.

RESULTS

Overall, 29 studies comprising 159,729 patients (60,875 LA versus 98,854 OA) were included. LA was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of post-operative bowel obstruction in the general population (pooled odds ratio (POR) = 0.43 [95 %C.I. 0.3-0.63]). Subset analysis demonstrated that LA significantly reduced the incidence of post-operative bowel obstruction in paediatric patients (POR = 0.48 [95 %C.I. 0.3-0.78]) and patients with perforated appendicitis (POR = 0.44 [95 %C.I. 0.26-0.74]). Furthermore, LA was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of long-term bowel obstruction (POR = 0.33 [95 %C.I. 0.19-0.56]) and bowel obstruction requiring surgery (POR = 0.31 [95 %C.I. 0.2-0.48]).

DISCUSSIONS

This present meta-analysis provides evidence to clearly demonstrate the benefits of a laparoscopic approach to appendectomy as reflected by a reduction in short- and long-term adhesive bowel obstruction. Important future areas for assessment include the influence of surgical approach on long-term quality of life following appendectomy.

The NOTA Study (Non Operative Treatment for Acute Appendicitis): prospective study on the efficacy and safety of antibiotics (amoxicillin and clavulanic acid) for treating patients with right lower quadrant abdominal pain and long-term follow-up of conservatively treated suspected appendicitis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of antibiotics treatment for suspected acute uncomplicated appendicitis and to monitor the long term follow-up of non-operated patients.

BACKGROUND

Right lower quadrant abdominal pain is a common cause of emergency department admission. The natural history of acute appendicitis nonoperatively treated with antibiotics remains unclear.

METHODS

In 2010, a total of 159 patients [mean AIR (Appendicitis Inflammatory Response) score = 4.9 and mean Alvarado score = 5.2] with suspected appendicitis were enrolled and underwent nonoperative management (NOM) with amoxicillin/clavulanate. The follow-up period was 2 years.

RESULTS

Short-term (7 days) NOM failure rate was 11.9%. All patients with initial failures were operated within 7 days. At 15 days, no recurrences were recorded. After 2 years, the overall recurrence rate was 13.8% (22/159); 14 of 22 patients were successfully treated with further cycle of amoxicillin/clavulanate. No major side effects occurred. Abdominal pain assessed by the Numeric Rating Scale and the visual analog scale; median Numeric Rating Scale score was 3 at 5 days and 2 after 7 days. Mean length of stay of nonoperatively managed patients was 0.4 days, and mean sick leave period was 5.8 days. Long-term efficacy of NOM treatment was 83% (118 patients recurrence free and 14 patients with recurrence nonoperatively managed). None of the single factors forming the Alvarado or AIR score were independent predictors of failure of NOM or long-term recurrence. Alvarado and AIR scores were the only independent predictive factors of NOM failure after multivariate analysis, but both did not correlate with recurrences. Overall costs of NOM and antibiotics were &OV0556;316.20 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics for suspected acute appendicitis are safe and effective and may avoid unnecessary appendectomy, reducing operation rate, surgical risks, and overall costs. After 2 years of follow-up, recurrences of nonoperatively treated right lower quadrant abdominal pain are less than 14% and may be safely and effectively treated with further antibiotics.

Long-term follow-up for adhesive small bowel obstruction after open versus laparoscopic surgery for suspected appendicitis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to compare the frequency of readmissions due to small bowel obstruction (SBO) after open versus laparoscopic surgery performed for suspected acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is a common disease, with a lifetime risk of approximately 7%. Appendectomy is the treatment of choice for most patients. Postoperative adhesions are common after abdominal surgery, including appendectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients, 16 years or older, operated on because of suspected appendicitis at 2 university hospitals between 1992 and 2007 were included. The prime approach was open at one hospital and laparoscopic at the other hospital. Open and laparoscopic procedures were compared retrospectively, reviewing the patients' charts until the middle of 2012. Hospitalization for SBO after index surgery was registered.

RESULTS

A total of 2333 patients in the open group and 2372 patients in the laparoscopic group were included. The frequency of hospitalization for SBO was low in both groups, although a difference between the groups was identified (1.0% in the open group and 0.4% in the laparoscopic group) (P = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalization due to SBO, between open and laparoscopic procedures, in patients operated on because of suspected appendicitis demonstrated a significant difference, favoring the laparoscopic approach. The frequency of SBO after the index surgery was, though, low in both groups.

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

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review, published in Issue 1, 2011, of The Cochrane Library. Acute lower abdominal pain is common, and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal women, as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with symptoms of appendicitis, early pregnancy complications and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

The Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINAHL were searched (October 2013). The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched. No new studies were included in this updated version.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included. Trials were included if they evaluated laparoscopy with open appendicectomy, or laparoscopy with a wait and see strategy. Study selection was carried out by two review authors independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two review authors and the risk of bias assessed. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. A summary of findings table was prepared using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 12 studies including 1020 participants were incorporated into the review. These studies had low to moderate risk of bias, mainly because allocation concealment or methods of sequence generation were not adequately reported. In addition, it was not clear whether follow-up was similar for the treatment groups. The index test was incorporated as a reference standard in the laparoscopy group, and differential verification or partial verification bias may have occurred in most RCTs. Overall the quality of the evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach.Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (seven RCTs, 561 participants; odds ratio (OR) 4.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.50 to 6.71; I(2) = 18%), but no evidence was found of reduced rates for any adverse events (eight RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I(2) = 0%). A meta-analysis of seven studies found a significant difference favouring the laparoscopic procedure in the rate of removal of normal appendix (seven RCTs, 475 participants; OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.24; I(2) = 0%).Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. A significant difference favoured laparoscopy in terms of rate of specific diagnoses (four RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I(2) = 79%), but no evidence suggested a difference in rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I(2) = 0%).  

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that laparoscopy in women with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis led to a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared with open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. No evidence showed an increase in adverse events when any of these strategies were used.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: State of the art. Tailored approach to the application of laparoscopic appendectomy?

Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in developed countries. The treatment of acute appendicitis is either open or laparoscopic appendectomy. The latter has gained wide acceptance in the past years, although the debate on the true merits of laparoscopic appendectomy is still on going. Some authors prefer this approach as the gold standard for all patients, but in our opinion a tailored approach is warranted for specific patient groups. In addition, a standardised guideline on the technical aspects is still lacking. In the current article, open versus laparoscopic appendectomy and several technical aspects, such as stump closure, appendix extraction and single incision are discussed laparoscopic appendectomy are being addressed. In the future perspectives we will briefly discuss the third 'newly' introduced antibiotic treatment.

Acute appendicitis: What is the gold standard of treatment?

McBurney’s procedure represented the gold-standard for acute appendicitis until 1981, but nowadays the number of laparoscopic appendectomies has progressively increased since it has been demonstrated to be a safe procedure, with excellent cosmetic results and it also allows a shorter hospitalization, a quicker and less painful postoperative recovery. The aim of this editorial was to perform a review of the literature in order to address controversial issues in the treatment of acute appendicitis.

Multicentre observational study of performance variation in provision and outcome of emergency appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

Identification of variation in practice is a key step towards standardization of service and determination of reliable quality markers. This study aimed to investigate variation in provision and outcome of emergency appendicectomy.

METHODS

A multicentre, trainee-led, protocol-driven, prospective observational cohort study was performed during May and June 2012. The main outcome of interest was the normal histopathology rate; secondary outcomes were laparoscopy and 30-day adverse event rates. Analysis included funnel plots and binary logistic regression models to identify patient- and hospital-related predictors of outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 3326 patients from 95 centres were included. An initial laparoscopic approach was performed in 66.3 per cent of patients (range in centres performing more than 25 appendicectomies over the study period: 8.7-100 per cent). A histologically normal appendix was removed in 20.6 per cent of patients (range in centres performing more than 25 procedures: 3.3-36.8 per cent). Funnel plot analysis revealed that 22 centres fell below three standard deviations of the mean for laparoscopy rates. Higher centre volume, consultant presence in theatre and daytime surgery were independently associated with an increased use of laparoscopy, which in turn was associated with a reduction in 30-day morbidity (adjusted for disease severity). Daytime surgery further reduced normal appendicectomy rates. Increasing volume came at the cost of higher negative rates, and low negative rates came at the cost of higher perforation rates.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals the extremely wide variation in practice patterns and outcomes among hospitals. Organizational factors leading to this variation have been identified and should be addressed to improve performance.

Meta-analysis of studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus that single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILS-A) is on a par with conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CMLA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of SILS-A when compared with CMLA.

METHODS

A literature search for studies comparing SILS-A and CMLA was performed. Studies were reviewed for the outcome of interest: patient characteristics, operative outcome, postoperative recovery, postoperative morbidity, patient satisfaction, and cosmetic results.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies comparing SILS-A and CMLA were reviewed: two prospective randomized trials, four prospective studies, and seven retrospective studies. Overall, 893 patients were operated on: by SILS-A in 402 cases (45.0%) versus 491 cases (55.0%) by CMLA. Patients in the SILS-A group were significantly younger than those in the CMLA group (31.2 versus 33.5 y). No other differences were found. Patient satisfaction score was impossible to meta-analyze.

CONCLUSIONS

Appendectomy via SILS-A may be considered as an alternative to CMLA. However, these results must be approached with caution as they are based on data from nonrandomized observational studies. The feasibility and safety of SILS-A must be mainly assessed for difficult clinical situations such as severe obesity, localized abscess, or diffuse peritonitis from a ruptured appendix in the setting of new prospective randomized trials.

Transumbilical laparoscopic assisted appendectomy compared with laparoscopic and laparotomic approaches in acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is the most common cause of acute abdominal surgery. Despite nearly three decades comparing laparoscopic with laparotomic appendectomy, the available scientific evidence does not show consensus of opinion about the best access for the treatment of acute appendicitis. The transumbilical laparoscopic assisted appendectomy combines the advantages of laparoscopic access to the simplicity of the laparotomic technique.

AIM

To compare the three technical advantages showing possible tendency to transumbilical laparoscopic assisted appendectomy.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study comparing three series with 1232 patients. Variables were: operative time, hospital stay, early and late postoperative complications, postoperative pain and earlier return to daily activities.

RESULTS

The averaged surgical time was 59.8 min in laparotomic appendectomy, 75.5 min in laparoscopic appendectomy and 51,7 min in transumbilical laparoscopic assisted appendectomy with significant difference. The incidence of postoperative pain, general complications and wound infection were greater in the group submitted to laparotomic appendectomy. The earlier return to daily activities and short hospital stay were observed in groups laparoscopic appendectomy and transumbilical laparoscopic assisted appendectomy.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness and safety of transumbilical laparoscopic assisted appendectomy can make this technique the preferred choice in the initial management of patients with acute appendicitis.

Meta-analysis of the results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic and open surgery for acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for the treatment of patients with acute appendicitis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register for relevant papers published between January 1990 and February 2012. We analyzed 22 outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for acute appendicitis.

RESULTS

We identified 39 papers reporting results from randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for acute appendicitis. Our meta-analysis included 5,896 patients with acute appendicitis; 2,847 had undergone laparoscopic surgery, and 3,049 had undergone open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was associated with longer operative time (by 13.12 min). However, compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis was associated with earlier resumption of liquid and solid intake; shorter duration of postoperative hospital stay; a reduction in dose numbers of parenteral and oral analgesics; earlier return to normal activity, work, and normal life; decreased occurrence of wound infection; a better cosmesis; and similar hospital charges.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery may now be the standard treatment for acute appendicitis.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery of the colon and rectum

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic techniques have induced a tremendous revolution in the field of general surgery. Recent multicenter trials have demonstrated similar patient-oriented and oncologic outcomes for laparoscopic colon and rectal resections compared with their open counterparts. Meanwhile, robotic technology has gradually entered the field of general surgery, allowing increased dexterity, improved operative view, and optimal ergonomics. The objective of this study was to review the current status of clinical robotic applications in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature using the PubMed search engine was undertaken to identify relevant articles. The keywords used in all possible combinations were: surgical robotics, robotic surgery, computer-assisted surgery, colectomy, sigmoid resection, sigmoidectomy, and rectal resection.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine case series or comparative nonrandomized studies were identified. A specific interest for robot-assisted rectal surgery during the past few years was recorded in the literature. The retrieved articles included 13 ileocecal resections, 220 right colectomies, 190 left colectomies/sigmoid resections, 440 anterior resections, 149 abdominoperineal/intersphincteric resections, and 11 total/subtotal colectomies. The clinical application of the da Vinci robotic system in right and left/sigmoid colectomies yielded satisfactory results in terms of open conversion (1.1 and 3.8%, respectively) and operative morbidity (13.4 and 15.1%, respectively). Robot-assisted anterior resection was accompanied by a considerably low conversion rate (0.4%), morbidity (9.7%), and adequate number of harvested lymph nodes (14.3, mean).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic applications in colorectal surgery are feasible with low conversion rates and favorable morbidity. Further studies are required to evaluate its oncologic and patient-oriented outcomes.

Single port laparoscopic appendectomy: are we pursuing real advantages?

Single port appendectomy, due to its cosmetic appeal and to a technique similar to classic laparoscopic appendectomy, is provoking an increasing number of publications and case series to explore its feasibility and effective improvements for patients with acute appendicitis. The margins for improvement are not so large, as laparoscopic appendectomy is, after 20 years from its beginning, still debated. A literature search has been accomplished to investigate the outcomes of the operation. 23 case series or retrospective comparisons with classic laparoscopy have been found. The numbers and low quality of the published data do not permit to draw evidence based conclusions. Still, trends seem to evidence an increase in complications especially in complicated appendicitis, which suggests caution in its dissemination outside clinical trials.

[Pediatric appendicitis : Open or laparoscopic appendicectomy in a specialized visceral surgical clinic?]

Following the first description of open appendicectomy using a lateral incision in the right lower abdomen by McBurney in 1894, this intervention was considered to be the standard method for treatment of appendicitis for nearly 100 years. In 1983 the gynecologist Semm presented a new option for the surgical therapy of appendicitis with the implementation of laparoscopic appendicectomy. Since then the indications for laparoscopic therapy have developed from young adults through elderly patients to children, pregnant women and finally to infants and newborns.

The NOTA study: non-operative treatment for acute appendicitis: prospective study on the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment (amoxicillin and clavulanic acid) in patients with right sided lower abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

Case control studies that randomly assign patients with diagnosis of acute appendicitis to either surgical or non-surgical treatment yield a relapse rate of approximately 14% at one year. It would be useful to know the relapse rate of patients who have, instead, been selected for a given treatment based on a thorough clinical evaluation, including physical examination and laboratory results (Alvarado Score) as well as radiological exams if needed or deemed helpful. If this clinical evaluation is useful, the investigators would expect patient selection to be better than chance, and relapse rate to be lower than 14%. Once the investigators have established the utility of this evaluation, the investigators can begin to identify those components that have predictive value (such as blood analysis, or US/CT findings). This is the first step toward developing an accurate diagnostic-therapeutic algorithm which will avoid risks and costs of needless surgery.

METHODS/DESIGN

This will be a single-cohort prospective observational study. It will not interfere with the usual pathway, consisting of clinical examination in the Emergency Department (ED) and execution of the following exams at the physician's discretion: full blood count with differential, C reactive protein, abdominal ultrasound, abdominal CT. Patients admitted to an ED with lower abdominal pain and suspicion of acute appendicitis and not needing immediate surgery, are requested by informed consent to undergo observation and non operative treatment with antibiotic therapy (Amoxicillin and Clavulanic Acid). The patients by protocol should not have received any previous antibiotic treatment during the same clinical episode. Patients not undergoing surgery will be physically examined 5 days later. Further follow-up will be conducted at 7, 15 days, 6 months and 12 months. The study will conform to clinical practice guidelines and will follow the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved on November 2009 by Maggiore Hospital Ethical Review Board (ID CE09079). Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01096927.