Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: prospective randomized trial

LAPAROSCOPIC APPENDICECTOMY: RISK FACTORS FOR CONVERSION TO LAPAROTOMY

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy is the gold standard surgical procedure currently performed for acute appendicitis. The conversion rate is one of the main factors used to measure laparoscopic competence, being important to avoid wasting time in a laparoscopic procedure and proceed directly to open surgery.

AIMS

To identify the main preoperative parameters associated with a higher risk of conversion in order to determine the surgical method indicated for each patient.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients admitted with acute appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. A total of 725 patients were included, of which 121 (16.7%) were converted to laparotomy.

RESULTS

The significant factors that predicted conversion, identified by univariate and multivariate analysis, were: the presence of comorbidities (OR 3.1; 95%CI; p<0.029), appendicular perforation (OR 5.1; 95%CI; p<0.003), retrocecal appendix (OR 5.0; 95%CI; p<0.004), gangrenous appendix, presence of appendicular abscess (OR 3.6; 95%CI; p<0.023) and the presence of difficult dissection (OR 9.2; 95%CI; p<0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe procedure to treat acute appendicitis. It is a minimally invasive surgery and has many advantages. Preoperatively, it is possible to identify predictive factors for conversion to laparotomy, and the ability to identify these reasons can aid surgeons in selecting patients who would benefit from a primary open appendectomy.

Acute Appendicitis Review: Background, Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Appendicitis is a common occurrence in both the adult and pediatric populations. The condition most commonly occurs between the ages of 10 and 20 years with a lifetime risk of 8.6% and 6.7% for males and females respectively. Its diagnosis focuses on clinical presentation and imaging modalities classified according to scoring systems such as the Alvarado scoring system. A number of imaging modalities can be used, with CT being the most common one. For acute appendicitis, surgical intervention is considered to be the gold standard of treatment. However, recent research has focused on other modalities of treatment including antibiotics and endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) to avoid surgical complications.

A comparison of non-absorbable polymeric clips and staplers for laparoscopic appendiceal stump closure: analysis of 618 adult patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this long-term study was the comparison of appendiceal stump closure with polymeric clips or staplers with respect to perioperative costs and surgical outcome under routine conditions in a university centre.

METHODS

For this retrospective chart review, a total of 618 patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for suspected acute appendicitis between 2010 and 2017 were reviewed: 410 patients in the stapler group and 208 patients in the clip group. The database contained demographic data, operation time, inflammation parameters, closure method of the stump, surgeon status, length of hospital stay, and complications as well as histology reports. The costs were also compared.

RESULTS

Clip application was more likely among younger patients (mean age 33.6 years vs. 41.7 years). Histopathological evidence for appendiceal pathology was found in 96.6% of patients in the clip group and 99.5% of patients in the stapler group. Laparoscopic appendectomy in the clip group was more frequently performed by resident physicians (69.2%) than in the stapler group (57.8%). The mean postoperative stay was 2.9 days in the clip group and 3.7 days in the stapler group. The use of the polymeric clip resulted in considerable cost savings (19.94€ vs. 348.70€).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of polymeric clips for appendiceal stump closure during appendectomy is safe and effective. The base of the appendix is amenable to clipping in 32% of appendectomies in adult patients. This study supports the use of polymeric clips over staplers to decrease cost and environmental impact.

Tales from the Night:: Emergency MR Imaging in Pediatric Patients after Hours

Overnight in-house radiology has rapidly become an important part of contemporary practice models, and is increasingly the norm in pediatric radiology. MR imaging is an indispensable first-line and problem-solving tool in the pediatric population. This has led to increasingly complex MR imaging being performed "after hours" on pediatric patients. This article reviews the factors that have led to widespread overnight subspecialty radiology and the associated challenges for overnight radiologists, and provides an overview of up-to-date imaging techniques and imaging findings of the most common indications for emergent MR imaging in the pediatric population.

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.

Comparison of open appendectomy and laparoscopic appendectomy with laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting and glove endobag techniques: A prospective observational study

Objective

Despite the recent increase in the use of laparoscopic appendectomy procedures to treat acute appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy is not necessarily the best treatment modality. The aim of this study is to examine the value of laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting and glove endobag in terms of various parameters and in terms of reducing the costs related to laparoscopic appendectomy procedures.

Material and Methods

Seventy-two acute appendicitis patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy and open appendectomy surgery were enrolled in the study and were evaluated prospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 was treated with laparoscopic appendectomy using laparoscopic intracorpreal knotting and glove endobag (n=36) and group 2 was treated with open appendectomy (n=36). The two groups were statistically compared in terms of preoperative symptoms and signs, laboratory and imaging findings, operation time and technique, pain score, gas and stool outputs, duration of hospital stay, return to normal activity, and complications.

Results

No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in relation to gender, age, body mass index, or pre-operation findings, which included loss of appetite, vomiting, time when pain started, displacement of pain, defense, rebound, imaging methods, and laboratory and pathology examinations (p>0.05). Moreover, there were no differences between the groups with respect to drain usage, hospital stay time, or complications (p>0.05). In contrast, a statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of operation time, pain scores, gas-stool outputs, and return to normal activity in the laparoscopic appendectomy group (p=0.001).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic appendectomy can be performed in a facile, safe, and cost-effective manner with laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting and glove endobag. By using these techniques, the use of expensive instruments can be avoided when performing laparoscopic appendectomy.

Optimal stump management in laparoscopic appendectomy: A network meta-analysis by the Minimally Invasive Surgery Synthesis of Interventions and Outcomes Network

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy is the predominant method of treatment of acute appendicitis. There is insufficient evidence on the most effective management of the appendix stump. The aim of this study was to investigate the relative effectiveness and provide a treatment ranking of different options for securing the appendix stump.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing ligation methods of the appendix. The primary outcomes were organ/space infection and superficial operative site infection. We performed a network meta-analysis and estimated the pairwise relative treatment effects of the competing interventions using the odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval. We obtained a hierarchy of the competing interventions using rankograms and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

RESULTS

Forty-three randomized controlled trials were eligible and provided data for >5,000 patients. Suture ligation seemed to be the most effective treatment strategy, in terms of both organ/space infection and superficial operative site infection. Statistical significance was reached for the comparisons of clip versus endoloop (odds ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.96) for organ/space infection; and suture versus clip (odds ratio 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.55) and clip versus endoloop (odds ratio 2.22, 95% confidence interval 1.56-3.13) for superficial operative site infection. The network was informed primarily by indirect treatment comparisons.

CONCLUSION

The use of suture ligation of the appendix in laparoscopic appendectomy seems to be superior to other methods for the composite parameters of organ/space and superficial operative site infection.

Comparison the effect of stump closure by endoclips versus endoloop on the duration of surgery and complications in patients under laparoscopic appendectomy: A randomized clinical trial

Background:

Laparoscopic appendectomy is a well-described surgical technique. However, concerns still exist regarding whether the closure of the appendiceal stump should be done with a clip, an endoloop, or other techniques. In this study, the effect of stump closure on duration of surgery and complications by endoclips was compared with endoloop in patients under laparoscopic appendectomy. The study was carried out as a prospective randomized clinical trial between 2013 and 2015 in Shariati Hospital of Tehran.

Materials and Methods:

Seventy-six patients under laparoscopic appendectomy were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either endoclips or endoloop for stump closure. The results in terms of the operating time, length of hospital stay, and the complications were compared and analyzed between two groups. After collecting the essential data by using a checklist and examination of patients, the data were analyzed with SPSS.

Results:

The mean age was 23.13 ± 5.07 years and 44.7% of the patients were male. Moreover, in this study, it was seen that the mean duration of surgery was 23.2 min versus 21.5 min in endoloop and endoclips groups, respectively (P = 0.021). There was no difference between hospital stay among two groups (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the complications were same in two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion:

The effect of stump closure with endoloop versus endoclips is not different for complications, but the duration of surgery was shorter in endoclips method. Both methods could be used based on the opinion of the surgeon without expecting a statistically significant difference in the results.

Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting technique in patients with complicated and noncomplicated acute appendicitis

Background and aim

In our study we aimed to compare laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting technique (base of the appendix was ligated with 20 cm of 2.0 silk) in patients with complicated acute appendicitis (CAA) and noncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Patients and methods

Ninety patients (female/male: 40/50, age ranging from 16 to 60 years, median age and interquartile range [IQR]: 25 [20; 32] years) who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were included in the study. The patients were evaluated for the type of acute appendicitis, duration of operation, duration of hospital stay, and postoperative complications.

Results

The number of cases diagnosed as CAA was 28 (31.1%), and the number of noncomplicated cases was 62 (68.9%). We found that there was no significant difference in postoperative complication rates between complicated and noncomplicated appendicitis cases. Incision site infection was seen in seven cases (7.8%) and ileus was seen in two cases (2.2%). Bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess, and appendix stump leakage were not observed in any of the cases. Median and IQR duration of operation were 42 (35; 52) minutes and median and IQR duration of hospital stay were detected as 2 (1; 2) (range 1–10) days.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting technique may be a safe, effective, and reliable technique as the materials needed for closing the appendix stumps are easily available for both CAA cases and noncomplicated cases.

Should appendectomy be performed laparoscopically? Clinical prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been described in 1983, and its superiority over open appendectomy (OA) is still being debated. Currently, there is no agreement on the advantages of LA. Postoperative pain is reported to be lower along with a faster return to normal activities in LA. However, some studies do not support these findings. In our study, we aimed to compare the outcomes and cost effectiveness of LA and OA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients were prospectively randomized into LA (31 patients) and OA (32 patients) groups. Demographic data, pre- and postoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, white blood cell (WBC) count, duration of surgery and hospitalization, complications, and pain scores (VAS) were recorded. Cost was calculated for both groups. Return to normal activities was evaluated by phone calls at the first and second week and 1 month after surgery.

RESULTS

There was a significant postoperative decrease in WBC count in the LA group (p<0.01). There were no differences between LA and OA groups in terms of postoperative CRP levels (p>0.05). The rates of wound infection and abscess were similar (p>0.05), while post-operative pain and time to return to normal activities were higher in the OA group (p<0.01). There was a positive correlation between BMI and operative time in the LA group (p<0.01), while BMI and operative time did not show a correlation in the OA group (p>0,05). The average cost in the LA and OA groups were 1960.5±339.05 and 687.115±159.5 TL, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LA is an effective method in the treatment of acute appendicitis due to less pain and faster recovery. LA can be the choice of treatment in acute appendicitis, with utilization of re-useable and cheaper vascular sealing devices.

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 complicated appendicitis: a randomized controlled trial to prove safety

BACKGROUND

To date, no randomized control trial has been performed comparing open appendectomy (OA) to laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in complicated appendicitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis in 2010 concluded LA is advantageous to OA with less surgical site sepsis in complicated appendicitis; however, the level of evidence is weak (level 3a). The aim of the study was to determine whether LA is safe in the treatment of complicated appendicitis. Primary outcome included all-cause mortality and procedure-related mortality; secondary outcomes included intra-operative duration, rates of wound sepsis and re-intervention, length of hospital stay and re-admission rates.

METHODS

One hundred and fourteen patients were randomized prospectively to either OA or LA using a computer-generated blind method. Patients who were either less than 12 years of age, had previous abdominal surgery or were pregnant were excluded. A team of senior surgeons capable of doing both OA and LA performed all procedures.

RESULTS

The intra-operative duration, the rate of wound sepsis, the number of re-operations, the length of hospital stay and the rate of re-admissions between the OA and LA groups did not differ statistically.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy is safe in complicated appendicitis. Current Control Trials (ISRCTN92257749).

Laparoscopic repair reduces incidence of surgical site infections for all ventral hernias

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic repair of ventral hernias remains incompletely defined. We hypothesize that laparoscopy, compared to open repair with mesh, decreases surgical site infection (SSI) for all ventral hernia types.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were reviewed to identify studies evaluating outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair with mesh of ventral hernias and divided into groups (primary or incisional). Studies with high risk of bias were excluded. Primary outcomes of interest were recurrence and SSI. Fixed effects model was used unless significant heterogeneity, assessed with the Higgins I square (I(2)), was encountered.

RESULTS

There were 5 and 15 studies for primary and incisional cohorts. No difference was seen in recurrence between laparoscopic and open repair in the two hernia groups. SSI was more common with open repair in both hernia groups: primary (OR 4.17, 95%CI [2.03-8.55]) and incisional (OR 5.16, 95%CI [2.79-9.57]).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic repair, compared to open repair with mesh, decreases rates of SSI in all types of ventral hernias with no difference in recurrence. These data suggest that laparoscopic approach may be the treatment of choice for all types of ventral hernias.

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.

Outcomes and cost analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for treatment of acute appendicitis: 4-years experience in a district hospital

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy is not yet unanimously considered the "gold standard" in the treatment of acute appendicitis because of its higher operative time, intra-abdominal abscess risk, and costs compared to open appendectomy. This study aimed to compare outcomes and cost of laparoscopic and open appendectomy in a district hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 230 patients who underwent appendectomy at the Division of General Surgery of the Civil Hospital of Ragusa, Italy, from May 2008 to May 2012 was performed. The variables analyzed included patients data (age, gender, previous abdominal surgery, preoperative WBC count, duration of symptoms, ASA risk score), rate of uncomplicated or complicated appendicitis, operative time, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and total costs. The patients were divided in two groups according to the surgical approach and compared for each variable. The results were analyzed using the t Student test for quantitative variables, and the Chi-square test with Yates correction and Fisher exact test for categorical.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 139 patients, open appendectomy in 91. Two cases (1.4%) were converted to open procedure and included in the laparoscopic group data. Patient data and rate of complicated appendicitis were similar in the two study groups. There was no statistical difference (p = 0.476) in the mean operative time between the laparoscopic (52.2 min; range, 20-155) and open appendectomy (49.3 min; range, 20-110) groups. The overall incidence of minor and major complications was significantly lower (p = 0.006) after laparoscopic appendectomy (2.9%, 4 cases) than after open appendectomy (13.2%, 12 cases); rate of intra-abdominal abscess were similar. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (p = 0.001) in laparoscopic group (2.75 days; range, 1-8) than in open group (3.87 days; range, 1-19). The mean total cost was 2282 Euro in laparoscopic group and 2337 Euro in open group, with a no significant difference of 55 Euro (p = 0.812).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with fewer complications, shorter hospital stay, and similar operative time, intra-abdominal abscess rate, and total costs, compared with open appendectomy. Therefore, laparoscopic appendectomy can be recommended as preferred approach in acute appendicitis.

Single-incision laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy in children: exteriorization of the appendix is a key component of a simple and cost-effective surgical technique

PURPOSE

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy was recently introduced as a less-invasive surgical technique than existing methods, and is increasingly being performed worldwide. We have started to perform transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) in children. In this study, we assessed its feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness compared with conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (MLA).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all of the patients who underwent MLA or TULAA between August 2009 and December 2012. Patient characteristics, operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, cost-effectiveness, and cosmetic results were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, with MLA in 48 patients and TULAA in 40 patients. TULAA was successful in 36/40 patients. There were no significant differences in mean operative time or mean length of stay between the two groups of patients. There were no postoperative complications in the TULAA group. The cost of TULAA was much lower than that of MLA. TULAA also provided nearly scarless surgery.

CONCLUSION

TULAA, in which the appendix is exteriorized via a combination of open and laparoscopic techniques, is a safe and effective procedure for treating appendicitis in children. TULAA is a cost-effective treatment that provides excellent cosmetic results.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in the management of all stages of acute appendicitis in children: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

We conducted this study in order to evaluate whether laparoscopic appendectomy was an alternative therapeutic tool to open appendectomy for all stages of pediatric appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2000 and November 2004, the charts of 177 children who underwent appendectomy by a single surgeon were reviewed. The patients were divided into open and laparoscopic appendectomy groups. Each group was subdivided into three stages: simple appendicitis, perforated appendicitis, and appendicitis with abscess. The age, gender, white blood cell count, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, operating time, duration of postoperative hospital stay, minor and major complications, and use of intravenous analgesia were recorded. Fisher's exact and Student's t-test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

There were fewer minor complications (9/32 vs. 0/20, p = 0.009) in perforated appendicitis stage and fewer major complications (9/26 vs. 1/24, p = 0.011) in appendicitis with abscess stage between open and laparoscopic appendectomy group. But surgery for each laparoscopic appendectomy group took longer to perform than for the corresponding open appendectomy group in each stage (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in other data between corresponding groups in each stage.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy may be considered a better alternative to open appendectomy for children with perforated appendicitis and appendicitis with abscess.

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.

Comparison of intracorporeal knot-tying suture (polyglactin) and titanium endoclips in laparoscopic appendiceal stump closure: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy is a well-described surgical technique. However, concerns still exist regarding whether the closure of the appendiceal stump should be done with a clip, an endoloop, staples, or other techniques. Therefore, several modifications to the original technique with new materials have been introduced for appendiceal stump closure. The aim of this study was to compare intracorporeal (polyglactin) knot-tying suture with titanium endoclips in appendiceal stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy.

METHODS

The study was carried out as a prospective randomized clinical trial between April 2010 and February 2011. Patients with a presentation of appendicitis were included into the study. Two groups were defined-patients with the titanium endoclip and patients with the knot-tying (polyglactin) suture. The results in terms of operating time, complication rates, and hospital stay were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were enrolled in the titanium endoclip group (n=30) or the knot-tying (polyglactin) suture group (n=31). No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups in terms of the distribution of age, sex percentage, appendix localization, and histopathologic diagnosis (P>0.05). One patient required a second operation on postoperative day 10 because of intraperitoneal abscess. The mean operative time for the endoclip group (41.27 ± 12.2 min) was shorter than that for the knot-tying group (62.81 ± 15.4 min) (P=0.001). No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups in terms of hospital stay, follow-up time, and preoperative and postoperative complications (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In laparoscopic appendectomy, using a titanium endoclip for optimizing and controlling the appendiceal stump closure is safe and is associated with shorter operation time. This also simplifies the procedure, so it can be a useful alternative to intracorporeal knot-tying for appendiceal stump closure.

Laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy: An Indian perspective

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

postoperative adhesions are a significant health problem with major implications on quality of life and health care expenses. The purpose of this review was to investigate the efficacy of preventative techniques and adhesion barriers and identify those patients who are most likely to benefit from these strategies.

METHODS

the National Library of Medicine, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were used to identify articles related to postoperative adhesions.

RESULTS

ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, open colectomy, and open gynecologic procedures are associated with the highest risk of adhesive small-bowel obstruction (class I evidence). Based on expert opinion (class III evidence) intraoperative preventative principles, such as meticulous hemostasis, avoiding excessive tissue dissection and ischemia, and reducing remaining surgical material have been published. Laparoscopic techniques, with the exception of appendicitis, result in fewer adhesions than open techniques (class I evidence). Available bioabsorbable barriers, such as hyaluronic acid/carboxymethylcellulose and icodextrin 4% solution, have been shown to reduce adhesions (class I evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

postoperative adhesions are a significant health problem with major implications on quality of life and health care. General intraoperative preventative techniques, laparoscopic techniques, and the use of bioabsorbable mechanical barriers in the appropriate cases reduce the incidence and severity of peritoneal adhesions.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

The incidence and risk factors of post-laparotomy adhesive small bowel obstruction

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this review was to assess the incidence and risk factors for adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) following laparotomy.

METHODS

The PubMed database was systematically reviewed to identify studies in the English literature delineating the incidence of adhesive SBO and reporting risk factors for the development of this morbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 446,331 abdominal operations were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. The overall incidence of SBO was 4.6%. The risk of SBO was highly influenced by the type of procedure, with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis being associated with the highest incidence of SBO (1,018 out of 5,268 cases or 19.3%), followed by open colectomy (11,491 out of 121,085 cases or 9.5%). Gynecological procedures were associated with an overall incidence of 11.1% (4,297 out of 38,751 cases) and ranged from 23.9% in open adnexal surgery, to 0.1% after cesarean section. The technique of the procedure (open vs. laparoscopic) also played a major role in the development of adhesive SBO. The incidence was 7.1% in open cholecystectomies vs. 0.2% in laparoscopic; 15.6% in open total abdominal hysterectomies vs. 0.0% in laparoscopic; and 23.9% in open adnexal operations vs. 0.0% in laparoscopic. There was no difference in SBO following laparoscopic or open appendectomies (1.4% vs. 1.3%). Separate closure of the peritoneum, spillage and retention of gallstones during cholecystectomy, and the use of starched gloves all increase the risk for adhesion formation. There is not enough evidence regarding the role of age, gender, and presence of cancer in adhesion formation.

CONCLUSION

Adhesion-related morbidity comprises a significant burden on healthcare resources and prevention is of major importance, especially in high-risk patients. Preventive techniques and special barriers should be considered in high-risk cases.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a metaanalysis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

LA has some advantages compared with an open approach.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND/AIM

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Inflammatory response is no different in children randomized to laparoscopic or open appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggest that the inflammatory response after laparoscopic appendectomy is less pronounced than after open surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical course and serum levels of a variety of immunoinflammatory markers in children randomized to either laparoscopic or open appendectomy for nonperforated appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Children with the diagnosis of appendicitis were randomized to either laparoscopicor open appendectomy after informed consent for participation in the study was obtained. Body temperature,leukocyte count, hematocrit and serum levels of the inflammatory markers c-reactive protein, interleukin (IL)-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-, sTNF-R, IL-1Ra, sIL-2R, and IL-8 were determined at six different times: Before anesthesia induction, at skin incision, after wound closure, as well as 12, 24, and 72 hours postoperatively.Length of in-hospital stay was assessed as well. Parameters with normal distribution were compared by Student test for independent samples, all others were compared by the Mann-Whitney U test. P 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients with appendicitis were recruited and randomized. Retrospectively, four patients in the open group and three in the laparoscopic group were excluded from the analysis because perforated appendicitis was described on their histopathologic report, leaving an equal number of patients in each study cohort(n = 20 each). There was no significant difference in demographic variables including age, body weight,and duration of symptoms. There were also no significant differences in body temperature, hematocrit, leukocytecount, or any of the inflammatory markers mentioned above. Average postoperative length of stay without any complications was 6.2 +/-2.5 days in the open group and 4.3 +/- 1.1 days in the laparoscopic group (P 0.01).

CONCLUSION

We found no differences in inflammatory parameters after open and laparoscopic appendectomy for nonperforated appendicitis. However, surgeons send their laparoscopically operated patients home earlier.

Complicated appendicitis in children: is laparoscopic appendectomy appropriate? A comparative study with the open appendectomy--our experience

PURPOSE

Good outcomes have been reported with laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for uncomplicated appendicitis in children, but the use of laparoscopy for complicated appendicitis in children is more controversial. This is related to a higher incidence of postoperative abdominal and wound infections. The purpose of this trial was to retrospectively compare LA and open appendectomy (OA) for complicated appendicitis and evaluate the efficacy of LA in children with complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

The outcome of 128 patients with complicated appendicitis in children was retrospectively analyzed. There were 80 children in the LA group and 48 in the OA group. The appendectomies were performed by a single senior surgeon and his surgical trainees. There was no selection of cases for LA. Data collection included demographics, operative time, resumption of diet, infectious complications (wound infection and intraabdominal abscess), length of hospitalization, and duration of antibiotic use.

RESULTS

There were no cases of LA that required conversion to OA. The operative time for LA (88.5 +/- 28.8 minutes for LA vs 71.8 +/- 30.6 minutes for OA; t = 3.10; P = .002) was longer. Patients in the LA group returned to oral intake earlier (1.8 +/- 0.6 days for LA vs 2.8 +/- 0.8 days for OA; t = -8.04; P < .01) and had a shorter length of hospital stay (6.5 +/- 2.2 days for LA vs 7.8 +/- 2.9 days for OA; t = -2.87; P = .005). The incidence of wound infection (1/80 [1.3%] for LA vs 6/48 [12.5%] for OA; P < .05) and postoperative intraabdominal abscess (2/80 [2.5%] for LA vs 7/48 [14.6%] for OA; P < .05) in LA group was lower. No significant difference was found in the duration of antibiotic administration between the 2 groups (5.8 +/- 1.8 days for LA vs 6.3 +/- 2.3 days for OA; t = -1.37; P = .174). No mortality was observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The minimally invasive laparoscopic technique is feasible, safe, and efficacious for children with complicated appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy should be the initial procedure of choice for most cases of complicated appendicitis in children.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

A critical analysis of laparoscopic appendectomy: how experience with 1,400 appendectomies allowed innovative treatment to become standard in a university hospital

BACKGROUND

Although advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) have not yet been proved, there is increasing evidence that LA provides diagnostic and therapeutic advantages as compared to conventional surgery. This article reports the introduction of LA in a university hospital where LA now represents the standard operative procedure in patients with suspected appendicitis.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with appendectomy were prospectively included in the surgical database from 5/1991 to 10/2005. Operating time skin-to-skin in minutes, conversion from laparoscopy to open appendectomy, and complications requiring reoperation as well as surgical expertise were recorded.

RESULTS

After initial performance of LA by four experienced specialists in laparoscopic surgery between 1991 and 1994, LA was routinely implemented from 1995 to 2005. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 1,012 patients, and conventional appendectomy in 449 patients, with a LA rate of about 90% in recent years. Intraoperative conversion was deemed necessary in 62 patients (6.2 %) by 40 surgeons among the 103 surgeons who performed LA over 14 years with a mean operative time of 57 +/- 2 min. Between 1995 and 2005 about 25%-30% of LAs were performed as the first LA for the respective surgeon. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated overall with a reduced length of stay in the hospital compared to open appendectomy (LA: 4.4 +/- 0.1 days versus 6.6 +/- 0.2 in open appendectomy; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides evidence that LA can be introduced in an university hospital with acceptable results despite low operation numbers per surgeon and a liberal teaching policy. The LA procedure, which is associated with a 2%-4% rate of reoperation, may serve as laparoscopy training for young surgeons.

Inflammatory response is no different in children randomized to laparoscopic or open appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggest that the inflammatory response after laparoscopic appendectomy is less pronounced than after open surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical course and serum levels of a variety of immunoinflammatory markers in children randomized to either laparoscopic or open appendectomy for nonperforated appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Children with the diagnosis of appendicitis were randomized to either laparoscopicor open appendectomy after informed consent for participation in the study was obtained. Body temperature,leukocyte count, hematocrit and serum levels of the inflammatory markers c-reactive protein, interleukin (IL)-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-, sTNF-R, IL-1Ra, sIL-2R, and IL-8 were determined at six different times: Before anesthesia induction, at skin incision, after wound closure, as well as 12, 24, and 72 hours postoperatively.Length of in-hospital stay was assessed as well. Parameters with normal distribution were compared by Student test for independent samples, all others were compared by the Mann-Whitney U test. P 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients with appendicitis were recruited and randomized. Retrospectively, four patients in the open group and three in the laparoscopic group were excluded from the analysis because perforated appendicitis was described on their histopathologic report, leaving an equal number of patients in each study cohort(n = 20 each). There was no significant difference in demographic variables including age, body weight,and duration of symptoms. There were also no significant differences in body temperature, hematocrit, leukocytecount, or any of the inflammatory markers mentioned above. Average postoperative length of stay without any complications was 6.2 +/-2.5 days in the open group and 4.3 +/- 1.1 days in the laparoscopic group (P 0.01).

CONCLUSION

We found no differences in inflammatory parameters after open and laparoscopic appendectomy for nonperforated appendicitis. However, surgeons send their laparoscopically operated patients home earlier.

[Complicated acute apendicitis. Open versus laparoscopic surgery]

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIAL AND METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Outcome of laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic (LA) vs open appendectomy (OA) in patients with perforated appendicitis in our center.

METHODS

Retrospective review from July 2002 to April 2007 (institutional review board-approved), evaluating 281 patients with perforated appendicitis based on surgical approach. We compared demographics, mean operative time, length of stay (LOS), infectious complications, and follow-up in patients with OA (n = 213) and LA (n = 68).

RESULTS

Laparoscopic appendectomy patients were significantly older (12 vs 9.4 years), heavier (51.8 vs 36.6 kg) and more frequently girls (47.8% vs 34.3%). Mean operative time was longer in LA (72.6 vs 50.2 minutes). Median LOS was 5 days in LA and 6 days in OA. Few patients in each group required a drainage procedure for a persistent abscess (LA 4.4%, OA 4.7%; P = 1.000). Laparoscopic appendectomy patients had fewer wound infections (1.5% vs 9.5%; P = .034), and less follow-up visits were needed (>2 clinic visits 4.5% vs 16.4%; P = .013).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy has a shorter median LOS, a trend toward less postoperative infectious complications, and fewer clinic visits than OA, which makes it a safe and effective procedure for patients with perforated appendicitis.

User's guide to the orthopaedic literature: how to use an article about a randomized trial?

Randomized trials, when well conducted, sit atop the hierachy of evidence. By limiting bias through randomization, concealment and blinding, surgeons can conduct high quality trials in orthopaedic surgery. The current article provides an easy, practical approach to critical appraisal of a randomized trial in orthopaedic surgery.

[Surgical site infection rates using a laparoscopic approach: results of the German national nosocomial infections surveillance system]

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to assess the impact of laparoscopy on surgical site infections.

METHODS

An analysis was performed using the data of the German national nosocomial infections surveillance system (Krankenhaus-Infektions-Surveillance-Systems, KISS) collected during the period from January 2001 to June 2006. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to investigate the influence of age, gender, ASA score, duration of surgery, wound contamination class and surgical technique.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

A total of 18,249 appendectomies, 32,912 herniorrhaphies, 42,949 cholecystectomies and 19,523 colon operations were analysed. The overall surgical site infection rate was significantly higher (2.6-fold) for the open approach compared to laparoscopically performed appendectomies. For herniorrhaphies, cholecystectomies and colon operations the corresponding odds ratios were 3.40, 3.22 and 1.20 respectively. Whenever possible a laparoscopic approach should be used.

Transumbilical laparoscopically assisted appendectomy in children: high-tech low-budget surgery

BACKGROUND

Two different laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) techniques, one performed with staplers (LAS) and the other using loops (LAL), were compared with transumbilical laparoscopically assisted appendectomy (TULAA).

METHODS

A total of 72 children, 55 with a diagnosis of uncomplicated acute appendicitis and 17 with recurrent right lower abdominal pain, underwent operation during the period 2003-2006. The procedures used were: 34 LAS, 9 LAL, and 29 TULAA. Measured outcomes were operative time, postoperative complications, need for rescue analgesics, length of hospital stay, and procedure cost reflected by supplies used. The staplers, endoloops, clips, and sutures used to manage appendectomy were listed at current prices, summarized as number consumed per case, and compared. Data were analyzed by Fisher's exact test and the Mann-Whitney U-test where appropriate. Statistical significance was determined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Average price of materials used was 113.5 USD for LAS, 91 USD for LAL, and 14 USD for TULAA. Wound infections were recorded in two patients (4.6%) in the LA group and in four patients (13.7%) in the TULAA group (p = 0.17). One patient in the LAL group developed an abdominal abscess that was managed conservatively. Median operating time was 39 (24-66) min in the LA group versus 33 (25-55) min in the TULAA group (p < 0.05). Rescue analgesia was administered in 19/43 (44%) of LA patients and 9/29 (31%) of TULAA patients (p = 0.19). The length of hospital stay was 3.1 days for LA patients and 3.0 days for TULAA patients (p = 0.43). Two TULAA procedures (6.4%) were finished with additional port/s.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the cost of TULAA is 7.8 times lower than the cost of LA, 8.1 times lower than LAS, and 6.5 times lower than LAL. Higher cost of laparoscopy is solely attributable to the purchase price of the supplies used. Overall postoperative morbidity, the incidence of wound infection, the length of hospitalization, and the need for rescue analgesia did not show a statistical difference in comparing LA/TULAA. Operative time was shorter in the TULAA group. In terms of limited resources, TULAA could be the most appropriate minimally invasive technique for appendectomy in children.