Video-assisted laparoscopic extracorporeal appendectomy versus open appendectomy

Laparoscopic versus Open Appendectomy: A Prospective Comparative Study and 4-Year Experience in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background The aim of this study was to validate the pros of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) over open appendectomy (OA) and to compare various primary outcome measures in the management of acute and recurrent appendicitis.

Study Design Prospective comparative study.

Place and Duration Between June 2015 and October 2019 in JJ Hospital, Mumbai.

Materials and Methods Total of 60 patients with acute and recurrent appendicitis were included in the study. Thirty patients underwent OA and 30 underwent LA. Both groups were comparable clinicopathologically and demographically. Various intraoperative and postoperative parameters were compared. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and categorical variables were expressed as percentages. Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables and chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables. p-Value≤0.001 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results The median age of patients undergoing OA and LA was 24.9 and 25.2 years (p = 0.221), respectively. Female: male ratio in OA and LA was 1.30 and 1.14, respectively (p = 0.795). Mean operative duration in LA and OA group was 47.17 ± 14.39 minutes and 36.9 ± 12.33 minutes (p = 0.001), respectively. Mean length of postoperative stay in LA and OA group was 3.69 ± 0.71 days and 5.28 ± 0.63 days (p = 0.000), respectively. Median visual analogue scale score in LA and OA group was 3.5 and 5 (p = 0.001), respectively. Mean time to return to normal activity in LA and OA group was 8.13 ± 1.33 days and 10.10 ± 2.20 days (p = 0.000), respectively. About 6.66% patients in LA group and 13.33% in OA group had postoperative wound infection (p = 0.652). Mean scar scale scoring done on 30th postoperative day was 4.23 in LA and 8.23 in OA (p = 0.000).

Discussion and Conclusion LA is more promising than OA in the management of acute and recurrent appendicitis. LA offers lesser operative site pain in the postoperative period, shorter postoperative hospital stays, earlier recovery, and return to normal activities and cosmetically better scars on 30th day follow-up. No conversions or significant difference in wound related complications were seen in both groups. Prolonged intraoperative duration was the only drawback of LA.

Mini-Incision Open Appendectomy with Incision Skin Tissue Retractor vs. Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Retrospective Study of the Management of Child Acute Appendicitis

Introduction

This study aims to compare the clinical effects of an incision skin tissue retractor for mini-incision open appendectomy and laparoscopic surgery for pediatric appendicitis.

Methods

From January 2014 to July 2017, a total of 248 patients were included in the present study. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed for 108 cases (LA group), and mini-incision open appendectomy with an incision skin tissue retractor was performed for 140 cases (MOA-ISTR group). Then, medical history, age, gender, operative duration, amount of bleeding during the operation, the determination of whether or not the appendix was perforated during the operation, hospitalization days, total cost of hospitalization, and complications after the operation (incision infection or intestinal obstruction) were compared. The SPSS 20.0 software package was used for the statistical analysis.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in history, age, gender, perioperative perforation of the appendix, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications (incisional infection or intestinal obstruction, P  > 0.05). However, the values for duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss and total hospitalization expense were smaller, when compared with the LA group (P  < 0.05).

Conclusion

Mini-incision open appendectomy with an incision skin tissue retractor has similar efficacy and incision appearance when compared with laparoscopic appendectomy. Furthermore, this approach leads to shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss and less hospitalization time, and is more convenient, especially for perforated appendicitis. Moreover, it can be widely used for pediatric appendicitis, and is more suitable for doctors who are not skilled in basic hospitals and laparoscopy.

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.

Variability in mortality following caesarean delivery, appendectomy, and groin hernia repair in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and analysis of published data

BACKGROUND

Surgical interventions occur at lower rates in resource-poor settings, and complication and death rates following surgery are probably substantial but have not been well quantified. A deeper understanding of outcomes is a crucial step to ensure that high quality accompanies increased global access to surgical care. We aimed to assess surgical mortality following three common surgical procedures--caesarean delivery, appendectomy, and groin (inguinal and femoral) hernia repair--to quantify the potential risks of expanding access without simultaneously addressing issues of quality and safety.

METHODS

We collected demographic, health, and economic data for 113 countries classified as low income or lower-middle income by the World Bank in 2005. We did a systematic review of Ovid, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Scopus from Jan 1, 2000, to Jan 15, 2015, to identify studies in these countries reporting all-cause mortality following the three commonly undertaken operations. Reports from governmental and other agencies were also identified and included. We modelled surgical mortality rates for countries without reported data using a two-step multiple imputation method. We first used a fully conditional specification (FCS) multiple imputation method to establish complete datasets for all missing variables that we considered potentially predictive of surgical mortality. We then used regression-based predictive mean matching imputation methods, specified within the multiple imputation FCS method, for selected predictors for each operation using the completed dataset to predict mortality rates along with confidence intervals for countries without reported mortality data. To account for variability in data availability, we aggregated results by subregion and estimated surgical mortality rates.

FINDINGS

From an initial 1302 articles and reports identified, 247 full-text articles met our inclusion criteria, and 124 provided data for surgical mortality for at least one of the three selected operations. We identified 42 countries with mortality data for at least one of the three procedures. Median reported mortality was 7·9 per 1000 operations for caesarean delivery (IQR 2·8-19·9), 2·2 per 1000 operations for appendectomy (0·0-17·2), and 4·9 per 1000 operations for groin hernia (0·0-11·7). Perioperative mortality estimates by subregion ranged from 2·8 (South Asia) to 50·2 (East Asia) per 1000 caesarean deliveries, 2·4 (South Asia) to 54·0 (Central sub-Saharan Africa) per 1000 appendectomies, and 0·3 (Andean Latin America) to 25·5 (Southern sub-Saharan Africa) per 1000 hernia repairs.

INTERPRETATION

All-cause postoperative mortality rates are exceedingly variable within resource-constrained environments. Efforts to expand surgical access and provision of services must include a strong commitment to improve the safety and quality of care.

FUNDING

None.

Two-trocar appendectomy in children - description of technique and comparison with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy

Background

The aim of the study was to describe the technique of two-trocar laparoscopic appendectomy and compare the outcome between two- and three-trocar techniques in children.

Methods

All children who underwent laparoscopic surgery for suspected appendicitis from 2006 to 2014 in a center for pediatric surgery were included in the study. Converted surgeries and patients with appendiceal abscess or concomitant intestinal obstruction were excluded. A total of 259 children underwent appendectomy with either two (35 %) or three (65 %) laparoscopic trocars according to the surgeons’ preference and intraoperative judgment. Patient demographics, clinical symptoms, surgery characteristics, and complications were reviewed.

Results

The mean age of the children was 10.4 years (range, 1–14 years). The mean follow-up time was 41.2 months (SD ± 29.2). No significant differences in age, gender, weight, or signs and symptoms were found between the two- and three-trocar groups. The mean surgery time was significantly shorter in the two-trocar group (47 min) than in the three-trocar group (66 min; p < 0.001). The rates of surgical complications were 2 % vs. 4 %, (p = 0.501), and the rates of postoperative complications were 0 % vs. 5 % (p = 0.054), in the two- and three-trocar groups. The overall incidence of postoperative wound infection was low (<1 %) and did not differ between groups.

Conclusions

Two-trocar laparoscopic appendectomy seems to be a safe and feasible technique with a low rate of postoperative wound infections. The present findings demonstrate that when the two-trocar technique could be applied, it is a good complement to the conventional three-trocar technique.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a comparison of primary outcome measures

BACKGROUND/AIM

The aim of the study was to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy (OA) in terms of primary outcome measures.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial. Place and duration of the study: Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar, Pakistan, February 2008 to December 2009.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 160 patients were divided into two groups, A and B. Group A patients were subjected to laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), whereas Group B patients were subjected to OA. Data regarding age, gender, and primary outcome measures, such as hospital stay, operative duration, and postoperative complication, were recorded and analyzed. Percentages were calculated for categorical data, whereas numerical data were represented as mean ± SD. Chi-square test and t test were used to compare categorical and numerical variables, respectively. Probability ≤ 0.05 (P ≤ 0.05) was considered significant.

RESULTS

After randomization, 72 patients in group A and 75 patients in group B were analyzed. The mean age of patients in groups A and B was 23.09 ± 8.51 and 23.12 ± 10.42 years, respectively, (P = 0.981). The mean hospital stay was 1.52 ± 0.76 days in group A and 1.70 ± 1.06 days in group B (P = 0.294). The mean operative duration in group A and B were 47.54 ± 12.82 min and 31.36 ± 11.43 min, respectively (P < 0.001). Pain (overall level) was significantly less in group A compared with group B (P = 0.004). The two groups were comparable in terms of other postoperative complications, such as hematoma (P = 0.87), paralytic ileus (P = 0.086), urinary retention (P = 0.504), and wound infection (P = 0.134).

CONCLUSION

LA is an equivalent procedure and not superior to OA in terms of primary outcome measures.

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.