Appendectomy in Germany-an analysis of a nationwide survey 2011/2012

Satisfaction of surgeons with the current state of training in minimally invasive surgery: a survey among German surgeons

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) requires intense education and training with structured supervision and feedback. However, a standardized training structure is lacking in Germany. This nationwide survey aimed to assess the current state of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) training and factors impacting surgeons' satisfaction.

METHODS

Between July and October 2021, an online survey was conducted among general, abdominal, and thoracic surgeons in Germany. The survey collected data on department size, individual operative experience, availability of MIS training equipment and curricula, and individual satisfaction with training. A linear regression analysis was conducted to investigate factors influencing the surgeons' satisfaction with the MIS training.

RESULTS

A total of 1008 surgeons participated in the survey, including residents (26.1%), fellows (14.6%), attendings (43.8%), and heads of departments (15.2%). Of the respondents, 57.4% reported having access to MIS training equipment, 29.8% and 26% had a curriculum for skills lab MIS training and intraoperative MIS training, respectively. In multivariate linear regression analysis, strongest predictors for surgeons' satisfaction with skills lab MIS training and intraoperative training were the availability of respective training curricula (skills lab: β 12.572; p < 0.001 & intraoperative: β 16.541; p < 0.001), and equipment (β 5.246; p = 0.012 & β 4.295; p = 0.037), and experience as a first surgeon in laparoscopy (β 12.572; p < 0.001 & β 3.748; p = 0.007). Additionally, trainees and teachers differed in their satisfaction factors.

CONCLUSION

Germany lacks standardized training curricula and sufficient access to MIS training equipment. Trainees and teachers have distinct factors influencing their satisfaction with MIS training. Standardized curricula, equipment accessibility, and surgical experience are crucial for improving surgeons' satisfaction with training.

The impact of hospital grade, hospital-volume, and surgeon-volume on outcomes for adults undergoing appendicectomy

INTRODUCTION

Acute Appendicitis and appendicectomy are common surgical emergencies worldwide. However, there is a lack of published data on the impact of hospital grade, surgeon- and hospital-volumes on patient outcomes following appendicectomy.

AIM

To establish if hospital grade, hospital-volume, or surgeon-volume impacted patient outcomes following appendicectomy.

METHODS

Using the National Quality Assurance and Improvement System (NQAIS) data for all appendicectomies performed in Ireland between January 2014 and November 2017 were examined. Data relating to patient demographics, type of surgery (open/laparoscopic/laparoscopic converted to open), length of stay (LOS), mortality, admission to critical care and re-admission rates were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

During the study period, 15,896 adult appendicectomies were performed, 14,521 were laparoscopic procedures. Patients treated in district general hospitals (DGHs) had lower LOS (2.96 v 3.37 days, p < 0.0001) than patients treated in tertiary referral hospitals (TRHs), had lower rates of laparoscopic procedures (87.38% v 95.56% p < 0.0001) and higher admission rates to critical care (1.91% v 0.75% p < 0.0001). No significant outcome difference was seen between those treated by high-volume (>62 cases/year) or low volume surgeons (<20 cases/year). Patients treated in high-volume hospitals (>260 cases/year) had higher rates of laparoscopic procedures (94.9% v 83.5%, p < 0.0001), lower rates of admission to critical care (0.85% v 2.25%, p < 0.0001) and lower 7-day re-admission rates (2.54% v 3.55%, p = 0.02) than those operated in low-volume hospitals (<161 cases/year).

CONCLUSION

Patients operated on in high-volume hospitals benefit from higher rates of laparoscopic surgery and fewer critical care admissions. No significant difference in outcome was noted in those patients operated upon by high- or low-volume surgeons or based on hospital grade.

Staplers vs. loop-ligature: a cost analysis from the hospital payer perspective

BACKGROUND

Presently, there is equipoise regarding the surgical technique used to manage the appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendectomy. The purpose of this research was to determine whether the routine use of loop ligature, compared to stapling, is cost effective from a hospital payer perspective.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted amongst patients undergoing emergency laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis at two major academic hospitals. In order to eliminate possible systematic bias arising from one technique being preferentially employed with more complex presentations, patients were divided into study groups based on the technique routinely employed by their surgeon, loop ligature (LLA) versus stapler (LSA). Pediatric patients and open appendectomies were excluded. Costs were determined using a previously published model derived from publicly available data from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative, in conjunction with local cost data for disposable procurement. Secondary outcomes included operating room time, length of stay, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Between Jan 1, 2014 and Dec 31, 2015, 567 adult patients had an emergency laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis. In comparing surgeons who routinely employed LLA to LSA, there was a significant decrease in total mean hospital cost with LLA ($1988 ± $143 vs. $2253 ± $99, p = 0.002). In addition, mean disposable cost was reduced for surgeons using LLA ($310 ± $27 vs. $668 ± $26, p < 0.001). This reduction in cost was not associated with a difference in length of stay (1.5 vs. 1.4 days, p = 0.28) or complication rates (8% vs. 10%, p = 0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that surgeons who routinely use loop ligature to secure the appendiceal base during emergency laparoscopic appendectomy offer more cost-effective care compared to stapler users, saving their institution more than $200 per case with no clear disadvantages. A shift from routine use of staplers to loop ligature should result in significant overall cost savings to the hospital.

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.

Analysis of the First 217 Appendectomies of the German NOTES Registry

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the feasibility and safety of Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) appendectomy, and to analyze separately the transvaginal appendectomy (TVAE) and the transgastric appendectomy (TGAE) procedures.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy has rare but relevant complications, namely incisional hernias and neuralgia at the trocar sites, which can potentially be avoided by the NOTES techniques.

METHODS

The first 217 data sets of the largest NOTES registry worldwide-the German NOTES registry-were analyzed with respect to demographic data, procedural data, and short-term outcomes. Furthermore, TVAEs were compared with TGAEs.

RESULTS

Almost all procedures were performed in hybrid technique (median of percutaneous trocars: 1). Median age (TVAE: 30.5 yrs vs TGAE: 25 yrs; P < 0.017), body mass index (TVAE: 22.8 kg/m vs TGAE: 24.1 kg/m; P < 0.016), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (I/II/III; TVAE: 57.1%/41.8%/1.0% vs TGAE: 27.8%/69.4%/2.8%; P < 0.003) significantly differed between both access techniques. Whereas the median number of percutaneous trocars (TVAE: 1 vs TGAE: 1; P < 0.450), the need of additional trocars (TVAE: 6.6% vs TGAE: 13.9%; P < 0.156), the intra, and also postoperative rate of complications (TVAE: 0%/5.5% vs TGAE: 0%/11.1%; P < 1.000/0.258), and the median postoperative hospital stay (TVAE: 3 d vs TGAE: 3 d; P < 0.152) were comparable; the median procedural time (TVAE: 35 minutes vs TGAE: 96 minutes; P < 0.001) and conversion to laparotomy rate (TVAE: 0% vs TGAE: 5.6%; P < 0.023) were significantly less after TVAE.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluation of the largest patient collective so far indicates that hybrid NOTES appendectomy is a safe procedure, with advantages for the transvaginal technique with respect to procedural time and conversion rate.

[Transvaginal/transumbilical hybrid NOTES appendicectomy : Comparison of techniques in uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis]

BACKGROUND

Appendicectomy (AE), the most frequent emergency surgical procedure, can be performed as a transvaginal hybrid natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) technique (TVAE). The question of feasibility also arises in cases of advanced inflammation with perforation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Since May 2012 all female patients with suspected acute appendicitis were offered a TVAE as an alternative to the standard procedure. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative parameters were registered prospectively.

RESULTS

Until October 2013 a total of 13 TVAEs had been performed. The median age of the patients was 41 years (range 20-76 years), median BMI was 23.1 (range 18.1-28.3 kg/m(2)) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA) distribution (I/II/≥ III) was 8/5/0. Histology revealed three cases of perforated, one hemorrhagic necrotizing and seven phlegmonous appendicitis. Furthermore, there were two findings without inflammation, namely one neurogenic appendicopathy and one neuroendocrine tumor. For the three patients with perforated appendicitis, there was a trend for higher age (67.0 years versus 33.5 years, p=0.063) and a higher C-reactive protein (CRP) level on admission (134.4 mg/l versus 26.4 mg/l, p=0.043). Also, procedural time and hospital stay were longer (64 min versus 47 min, p=0.033 and 14 days versus 3 days, p=0.004, respectively). The former was mostly due to more extensive intraoperative flushing (volume 3000 ml versus 500 ml, p=0.013 and duration 13 min versus 2 min, p=0.011). None of the cases required conversion but two of the three postoperative complications occurred in patients with perforation, which also resulted in the longer hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Technically, TVAE seems feasible also in cases of perforated appendicitis. However, in these cases procedural time is prolonged due to more extensive flushing. Whether or not the longer hospital stay can be attributed to the perforation or if TVAE results in a higher rate of complications in cases of perforated appendicitis needs further evaluation.

Acute appendicitis: position paper, WSES, 2013

Appendectomy is one of the most frequently performed operative procedures in general surgery departments of every size and category. Laparoscopic Appendectomy – LA - as compared to Open Appendectomy – OA - was very controversial at first but has found increasing acceptance all over the World, although the percentage of its acceptance is different in the various single National setting. Various meta-analyses and Cochrane reviews have compared LA with OA and different technical details. Furthermore, new surgical methods have recently emerged, namely, the single-port/incision laparoscopic appendectomy and NOTES technique. Their distribution among the hospitals, however, is unclear. Using laparoscopic mini-instruments with trocars of 2–3.5 mm diameter is proposed as a reliable alternative due to less postoperative pain and improved aesthetics. How to proceed in case of an inconspicuous appendix during a procedure planned as an appendectomy remains controversial despite existing study results. But the main question still is: operate or not operate an acute appendicitis, in the meaning of an attempt of a conservative antibiotic therapy. Therefore, we have done a literature survey on the performance of appendectomies and their technical details as well as the management of the intraoperative finding of an inconspicuous appendix in order to write down – under the light of the latest evidence – a position paper.

Appendicopathy--a clinical and diagnostic dilemma

PURPOSE

The term "neurogenic appendicopathy" has been used for patients operated on for acute appendicitis with their appendices lacking signs of acute inflammation. The aim of this retrospective study was to clarify the presence of potential neurogenic appendicopathies, analyzing patients' clinical symptoms and their corresponding appendiceal specimens.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-one patients were identified showing a histological diagnosis of chronic appendicitis. Eventually, 40 patients qualified for the potential diagnosis "neurogenic appendicopathy." Appendix specimens were immunohistochemically examined for the expression of S-100, vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP), and substance P. Controls consisted of 110 patients with acute appendicitis and 120 patients following appendectomies operated on for other reasons.

RESULTS

Eventually, 40 of 120 patients qualified for the potential diagnosis "neurogenic appendicopathy." Compared to patients with acute appendicitis, there was only little difference in clinical symptoms. Histologically, neuromas, thought of being characteristic of neurogenic appendicopathy, were demonstrated significantly more often in the control group (p = 0.01). S-100 was significantly more expressed in the appendicopathy group (p = 0.0024), but nearly 50% of control specimens showed an intense staining, too. S-100(+) neurofibers were significantly (p = 0.00122) more often found in the mucosa of appendicopathy specimens, but this was true for only 25% of specimens. VIP was more strongly expressed in control specimens (p = 0.0211). Substance P was of no diagnostic value.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study could not confirm the neurogenic origin of appendicopathies. Yet, clinical data strongly suggest the existence of the entity "appendicopathy." Therefore, we suggest removing a macroscopically unaffected appendix in patients with appendicitis-like symptoms if, on laparoscopy, no other cause can be found.

Appendicitis: changing perspectives

Neoplasms are an uncommon finding after appendectomy, with malignant tumors occurring in less than 1% of the surgical specimens, and carcinoid being the most frequent malignancy. A negative or inconclusive ultrasound is not adequate to rule out appendicitis and should be followed by CT scan. For pregnant patients, MRI is a reasonable alternative to CT scan. Nonoperative treatment with antibiotics is safe as an initial treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis, with a significant decrease in complications but a high failure rate. Open and laparoscopic appendectomies for appendicitis provide similar results overall, although the laparoscopic technique may be advantageous for obese and elderly patients but may be associated with a higher incidence of intraabdominal abscess. Preoperative diagnostic accuracy is of utmost importance during pregnancy because a negative appendectomy is associated with a significant incidence of fetal loss. The increased morbidity associated with appendectomy delay suggests that prompt surgical intervention remains the safest approach. Routine incidental appendectomy should not be performed except in selected cases. Interval appendectomy is not indicated because of considerable risks of complications and lack of any clinical benefit. Patients older than 40 years with an appendiceal mass or abscess treated nonoperatively should routinely have a colonoscopy as part of their follow-up to rule out cancer or alternative diagnosis.