Looped suture versus stapler device in pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy: a comparative outcomes and intraoperative cost analysis

Controversies and Future Directions in Management of Acute Appendicitis: An Updated Comprehensive Review

Globally, acute appendicitis has an estimated lifetime risk of 7-8%. However, there are numerous controversies surrounding the management of acute appendicitis, and the best treatment approach depends on patient characteristics. Non-operative management (NOM), which involves the utilization of antibiotics and aggressive intravenous hydration, and surgical appendectomy are valid treatment options for healthy adults. NOM is also ideal for poor surgical candidates. Another important consideration is the timing of surgery, i.e., the role of interval appendectomy (IA) and the possibility of delaying surgery for a few hours on index admission. IA refers to surgical removal of the appendix 8-12 weeks after the initial diagnosis of appendicitis. It is ideal in patients with a contained appendiceal perforation on initial presentation, wherein an initial nonoperative approach is preferred. Furthermore, IA can help distinguish malignant and non-malignant causes of acute appendicitis, while reducing the risk of recurrence. On the contrary, a decision to delay appendectomy for a few hours on index admission should be made based on the patients' baseline health status and severity of appendicitis. Post-operatively, surgical drain placement may help reduce postoperative complications; however, it carries an increased risk of drain occlusion, fistula formation, and paralytic ileus. Furthermore, one of the most critical aspects of appendectomy is the closure of the appendiceal stump, which can be achieved with the help of endoclips, sutures, staples, and endoloops. In this review, we discuss different aspects of management of acute appendicitis, current controversies in management, and the potential role of endoscopic appendectomy as a future treatment option.

Handmade Loop Versus Hem-o-Lok Clip in Closure of Appendiceal Stump During Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Limited Setting in a Peripheral University Hospital

Background: Today, laparoscopy is frequently used in abdominal emergencies such as acute appendicitis. There are several techniques used to close the appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendectomy. We aimed to compare the use of handmade loop and Hem-o-lok used to close the appendiceal stump in public hospitals where resources are limited, in terms of surgical outcomes and cost. Methods: Between January 2020 and December 2022, patients for whom handmade loops and Hem-o-loks were used to close the appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendectomy in our clinic were included in the study. There were a total of 638 patients (mean age: 33 ± 13.5 years, 325 females and 313 males) in the patient cohort. Demographic and clinical data, duration of surgery, complications, hospital stay, pathology reports, mortality, and cost of supplies were compared between the two groups. Results: There were 308 patients in the handmade loop group (160 females, 148 males, mean age: 33.7 years, range: 18-85 years) and 330 patients in the Hem-o-lok group (166 females, 164 males, mean age: 32.5 years, range: 18-89 years). There was no significant difference between the two groups for American Society of Anesthesiologists score, duration of symptom, hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, preoperative laboratory values, histopathological results, mortality, and morbidity (P > .05). The mean operation time was 48.76 ± 16.16 minutes in the handmade loop group and 40.53 ± 11.63 minutes in the Hem-o-lok group (p = 0.001). In terms of cost, the cost per case of Hem-o-lok group was about 25.8 times as much as the group that used sutures ($31 versus $1.2). Conclusions: Both methods can be used safely in laparoscopic appendectomy. The use of Hem-o-lok has no advantage other than shortening the operation time. However, it is costlier. Especially in peripheral hospitals where resources are limited, closing the appendiceal stump using a handmade loop is an easy, safe, and cost-effective method.

In Pursuit of the Most Cost-Effective Laparoscopic Appendicectomy: A Review of the Literature

PURPOSE

To review the literature and identify the most economical techniques for laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) that do not compromise on patient care.

METHODS

We performed a search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar for papers published between January 2001 and January 2021. The outcomes of the included studies were then grouped by theme of cost analysis, with the main areas of focus being the use of disposable equipment, appendiceal stump closure, and retrieval of the appendix.

RESULTS

After screening a total of 254 search results, 40 studies were included, representing 13 285 patient outcomes, having two main areas of focus: the use of reusable or disposable equipment and the different methods of appendiceal stump closure. Use of disposable instruments has been cost effective in LA in 2 studies. However, use of reusable trocars has reduced cost of procedure by €250 in another study. Appendiceal stump closure using ligature, endoloops or Endoclips had been cost-effective compared to Endostaplers in 25 studies. This can save up to €350. Endoscopic specimen bags are single use and represent further disposable equipment costs. The use of a sterile glove to replace this piece of kit can further provide cost benefit as shown in 2 studies.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendicectomy can be performed in a variety of ways with equivocal patient safety. We present the use of extracorporeal ligature of the appendiceal base, combined with the use of a surgical glove retrieval system as the most economic technique in laparoscopic appendicectomy.

Global Surgeon Opinion on the Impact of Surgical Access When Using Endocutters Across Specialties

Background: Despite design enhancements in endocutters, key challenges related to limited surgical access and space can impact stapling and, potentially, surgical outcomes. Objectives: This study aimed to develop consensus statements outlining the clinical value of precise articulation and greater anatomical access in minimally invasive surgery performed by bariatric, colorectal, and thoracic surgeons. Methods: Colorectal, bariatric, and thoracic surgeons from Japan, the United States, United Kingdom, and France participated in a 2-round modified Delphi panel. Round 1 included binary, Likert scale-type, multiple-response, and open-ended questions. These were converted to affirmative statements for round 2 if sufficient agreement was reached. Consensus was set at a predefined threshold of at least 90% of panelists across all surgical specialties and regions selecting the same option ("agree" or "disagree") for the affirmative statements. Results: Of the 49 statements in the round 2 questionnaire, panelists (n=135) reached consensus that (1) tissue slippage outside stapler jaws can occur due to limited access and space; (2) greater jaw aperture could help to manipulate thick or fragile tissue more easily; (3) articulation of an endocutter is clinically important in laparoscopic surgeries; (4) improved access to hard-to-reach targets and in limited space would improve safety; and (5) an endocutter with improved access through greater articulation would become common use. Discussion: By understanding user-specific challenges and needs from both specialty- and region-wide perspectives, endoscopic stapling devices can continue to be refined. In this study, improved articulation and greater jaw aperture were the key design features examined. Improved articulation and greater jaw aperture were key stapler design features identified in this study that may mitigate the risk of instrument clashes and intraoperative complications such as anastomotic leaks. Conclusions: This study gained insights into surgeons' perspective across a variety of specialties and from 3 distinct geographies. Participating surgeons reached consensus that an endocutter with greater jaw aperture and articulation may improve surgical access and has potential to improve surgical outcomes.

Cost containment: an experience with surgeon education and universal preference cards at two institutions

BACKGROUND

As the cost of health care increases in the US, focus has been placed upon efficiency, cost reduction, and containment of spending. Operating room costs play a significant role in this spending. We investigated whether surgeon education and universal preference cards can have an impact on reducing the disposable supply costs for common laparoscopic general surgery procedures.

METHODS

General surgeons at two institutions participated in an educational session about the costs of the operative supplies used to perform laparoscopic appendectomies and cholecystectomies. All the surgeons at one institution agreed upon a universal preference card, with other supplies opened only by request. At the other, no universal preference cards were created, and surgeons were free to modify their own existing preference cards. Case cost data for these procedures were collected for each institution pre- (July 2014-December 2014) and post-intervention (February 2015-November 2017).

RESULTS

At the institution with an education only program, there was no statistically significant change in supply costs after the intervention. At the institution that intervened with the combined education and universal preference card program, there was a statistically significant supply cost decrease for these common laparoscopic procedures combined. This significant cost decrease persisted for each appendectomies and cholecystectomies when analyzed independently as well (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, surgeon education alone was not effective in reducing operating room disposable supply costs. Surgeon education, combined with the implementation of universal preference cards, significantly maintains reductions in operating room supply costs. As health care costs continue to increase in the US and internationally, universal preference cards can be an effective tool to contain cost for common laparoscopic general surgery procedures.

Meta-analysis of unplanned readmission to hospital post-appendectomy: an opportunity for a new benchmark

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is the most common cause of acute abdominal pain requiring surgical intervention. While many studies report readmission, a meta-analysis of readmission post-appendectomy has not been published. This meta-analysis was undertaken to determine rates and predictors of hospital readmission following appendectomy and to potentially provide a metric benchmark.

METHODS

An ethically approved PROSPERO-registered (ID CRD42017069040) meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, using databases PubMed and Scopus, was undertaken for studies published between January 2012 and June 2017. Articles relating to outcomes and readmissions after appendectomy were identified. Those scoring >15 for comparative studies and >10 for non-comparative studies, using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were included in the final analysis. The odds ratios (OR) using random-effects, Mantel-Haenszel method with 95% confidence intervals (CI), were computed for each risk factor with RevMan5.

RESULTS

A total of 1757 articles reviewed were reduced to 45 qualifying studies for a final analysis of 836 921 appendectomies. 4.3% (range 0.0-14.4%) of patients were readmitted within 30 days. Significant preoperative patient factors for increased readmission were diabetes mellitus (OR 1.93, CI 1.63-2.28, P < 0.00001), complicated appendicitis (OR 3.6, CI 2.43-5.34, P < 0.00001) and open surgical technique (OR 1.39, CI 1.08-1.79, P < 0.00001). Increased readmission was not associated with gender, obesity or paediatric versus general surgeons or centres.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis identified that readmission is not uncommon post-appendectomy, occurring in one in 25 cases. The mean readmission rate of 4.3% may act as a quality benchmark for improving emergency surgical care. Targeting high-risk groups with diabetes or complicated appendicitis and increasing use of laparoscopic technique may help reduce readmission rates.

Appendiceal stump closure with polymeric clips is a reliable alternative to endostaplers

Objective

Polymeric (Hem-o-lok) clips represent a novel technique with which to ligate the appendiceal stump following laparoscopic appendectomy. We compared the outcomes of using polymeric clips versus endostaplers for complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis.

Methods

Six hundred seventy-three consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy with polymeric clips or endostaplers for acute appendicitis were assessed. The primary outcome was the incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses. Predictors of postoperative intra-abdominal abscesses were calculated using univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

Polymeric clips were used in 65% of patients and endostaplers were used in 35%. Hem-o-lok clips were not only applied in patients with uncomplicated appendicitis (83%), but also in those with complicated appendicitis (26%). The frequency of intra-abdominal abscesses using polymeric clips and endostaplers was similar in both patients with uncomplicated appendicitis (1% vs. 3%, respectively) and complicated appendicitis (2% vs. 6%, respectively). The univariate and multivariate analyses showed that the stump closure technique was not a risk factor for postoperative abscesses.

Conclusions

Closure of the appendiceal stump using the nonabsorbable Hem-o-lok ligation system in patients with both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis is a safe alternative to the application of endostaplers.

Appendectomy in Switzerland: how is it done?

More than 10,000 appendectomies are performed every year in Switzerland. The aim of this study was to investigate the treatment strategy for appendicitis among Swiss surgeons with particular interest in laparoscopic technique, method of appendiceal stump closure, and abdominal lavage. We performed an anonymous survey among 540 members of the Swiss Surgical Society. Technical details and differences between the surgical procedures in adults and children as well as in complicated and non-complicated appendicitis were investigated. The overall response rate was 45% (n = 243). 78% of the surgeons perform laparoscopic appendectomies in children and 95% in adult patients. Only 3% use a single incision site technique. Surgeons consider pus or stool in the abdomen (94%), an abscess (86%) or perforation of the appendix (82%), but not an inflamed appendiceal base (16%) as complicated appendicitis. 41% of surgeons use endoloops, 36% a stapling device, and 20% polymeric clips in non-complicated appendicitis for appendiceal stump closure. However, 82% of the surgeons use a stapler in complicated appendicitis. Most (76%) of surgeons do not plunge the appendiceal stump. 24% of surgeons lavage the abdomen with > 1 L of fluid independent of the intraabdominal finding. Most Swiss surgeons perform multiport laparoscopic appendectomies. Endoloops and staplers are mostly used for appendiceal stump closures in uncomplicated appendicitis, and staplers in complicated appendicitis. Only a minor part of surgeons plunge the appendiceal stump or perform routine abdominal lavage.

Outcomes and Costs of Common Surgical Procedures at Children's and Nonchildren's Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Variations in the management of pediatric patients at children's hospitals (CHs) and non-CHs (NCHs) have been well described, especially within the trauma literature. However, little is known about the outcomes and costs of common general surgical procedures at NCHs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of CH designation on the outcomes and costs of appendectomy and cholecystectomy.

METHODS

The Kids' Inpatient Database (2003-2012) was queried for patients aged under 18 y who underwent appendectomy or cholecystectomy at CHs and NCHs. Outcomes analyzed included disease severity, complications, laparoscopy, length of stay (LOS), and cost.

RESULTS

Most of appendectomies and cholecystectomies were performed at NCHs. Overall, CHs cared for younger children were more likely to be teaching hospitals, had higher costs, and longer LOS. On multivariate analysis for appendectomies, CHs were associated with higher rates of perforated appendicitis (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.42-1.66, P < 0.001), less complications (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.61-0.75, P < 0.001), increased laparoscopy (OR = 2.93, 95% CI = 2.36-3.64, P < 0.001), longer LOS (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.09-1.17, P < 0.001), and higher costs (exponentiated log $ = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.13-1.24, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis for cholecystectomies revealed that CHs were associated with less laparoscopy (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.50-0.67, P < 0.001), longer LOS (RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.19-1.34, P < 0.001), and higher costs (exponentiated log $ = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.22-1.37, P < 0.001) with similar complications. Independent predictors of LOS and cost included CH designation, negative appendectomy, perforated appendicitis, complications, younger age, black patients, and public insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Variations in surgical management, outcomes, and costs after appendectomy and cholecystectomy exist between CHs and NCHs. CHs excelled in treating complicated appendicitis. NCHs effectively performed cholecystectomies. These differences in outcomes require further investigation to identify modifiable factors to optimize care across all hospitals for these common surgical diseases.

Comparison of Polymeric Clips and Endoscopic Staplers for Laparoscopic Appendectomy

INTRODUCTION

Appendectomy is the most common pediatric surgical procedure. To decrease the cost and environmental impact of single incision pediatric endosurgery (SIPES) appendectomy, we switched from using endoscopic staplers to polymeric clips placed with nondisposable laparoscopic appliers. The aim of this study was to compare the resulting reduction in cost and amount of waste generated per case, as well as to compare the perioperative variables and outcomes in patients in whom clips were used, with those of historical patients in whom staplers were used.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective chart review of SIPES appendectomies was performed and patients in whom clips were used were compared with patients in whom staplers were used. Demographic, operative, and clinical data were collected. t-Test, Mann-Whitney test, and chi squared test were used to analyze the data as appropriate. The cost to the hospital of the clips and staplers was compared. The disposable waste generated from clips and the staplers was weighed.

RESULTS

A total of 246 patients were included: 111 in stapler group and 135 in clip group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, and complications. There were no complications related to use of clips. In the clip group, staplers were used in 10% because base of appendix was too large, gangrenous, or perforated and could not be clipped. Use of polymeric clips was less expensive and generated less waste.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of polymeric clips for appendectomy is safe and effective, and results are comparable with those of stapling. Based on our data, in 90% of appendectomies, the base of appendix is amenable to clipping. This study supports use of clips over staplers to decrease cost and environmental impact.

Cost Effectiveness of Different Methods of Appendiceal Stump Closure during Laparoscopic Appendectomy

There is no standard method for closure of an appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendectomy. This study compares stump closure using a stapler with closure using an Endoloop ligature. The charts of all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at a single tertiary care center over a two-year period were reviewed for demographics, comobidities, operative details and costs, and outcomes. There were 325 patients who underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy. The majority, 250 (77%), underwent stump closure with a stapler. They were equivalent in demographics and postoperative complication rates. Cases using an Endoloop were slightly faster in terms of procedure time and room time, and less expensive in terms of operative supply cost. The price difference is not explained by time saved in the operating room and more likely by the equipment price.