Laparoscopic approach for acute appendicular peritonitis: efficacy and safety: a report of 96 consecutive cases

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Laparoscopic and Open Extensive Resection for Complicated Appendicitis: Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The feasibility and safety of laparoscopic extensive resection (ER) for complicated appendicitis (CA) has not been clarified. We assessed the feasibility of laparoscopic ER versus open ER for CA.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled consecutive 983 patients who underwent emergency surgery for appendicitis, including 91 patients who underwent ER for CA, between April 2007 and October 2019.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients underwent laparoscopic ER, and 58 patients underwent open ER. There were no significant differences in the reasons for performing ER between laparoscopic ER and open ER. The rates of suspicious for malignant tumor did not differ between laparoscopic and open ER [15.2% (5/33) vs. 17.2% (10/58)]. Blood loss was less in laparoscopic ER than in open ER (P=0.028). Superficial surgical site infection was less frequent in laparoscopic ER than in open ER (P=0.047). In addition, laparoscopic ER tended to be associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower rate of postoperative ileus, and higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ER is feasible, and it is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and a lower frequency of postoperative superficial surgical site infection than open ER.

[Laparoscopic surgery for advanced appendicular peritonitis]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the results of laparoscopic treatment of patients with advanced appendicular peritonitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 271 patients with acute appendicitis complicated by peritonitis. The main group consisted of patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy after diagnostic laparoscopy (n=231), the control group - diagnostic laparoscopy followed by conversion to median laparotomy (n=36). Four extremely ill patients were operated through laparotomy and excluded from the further analysis.

RESULTS

Diagnostic laparoscopy was performed in 267 patients with advanced appendicular peritonitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy, debridement and abdominal drainage were performed in 231 (85.2%) patients. Mean age of patients was 44±18.5 years, duration of disease - 36.2±20.3 hours. Diffuse peritonitis was diagnosed in 219 (82%) patients, advanced peritonitis - in 48 (16.5%) cases. Incidence of conversion was 13.5%. Mortality was absent in both groups. Postoperative morbidity was significantly higher in the conversion group (72.2% vs. 29.4%, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic interventions for common appendicular peritonitis are feasible, effective and reduce postoperative morbidity.

The Bucharest ESTES consensus statement on peritonitis

INTRODUCTION

Peritonitis is still an important health problem associated with high morbidity and mortality. A multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with peritonitis may be an important factor to reduce the risks for patients and improve efficiency, outcome, and the cost of care.

METHODS

Expert panel discussion on Peritonitis was held in Bucharest on May 2017, during the 17th ECTES Congress, involving surgeons, infectious disease specialists, radiologists and intensivists with the goal of defining recommendations for the optimal management of peritonitis.

CONCLUSION

This document is an updated presentation of management of peritonitis and represents the summary of the final recommendations approved by a panel of experts.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open appendectomy on wound infection and healing in complicated appendicitis

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of laparoscopic and open surgery on the development of postoperative surgical wound infection and wound healing between complicated appendicitis patients. Patients with complicated appendicitis were divided into those underwent laparoscopic and open surgical procedures according to the surgical method. Patients were followed up with regard to development of any postoperative wound infection, and medical, radiological, and surgical treatment methods and results were recorded. A total of 363 patients who underwent appendectomy were examined, of which 103 (28.4%) had complicated appendicitis. Postoperative wound infection rate in patients who underwent open surgery was 15.9%, while it was 6.8% in the laparoscopic surgery group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of infection development rates (P > .05). The rate of surgical drainage use and rehospitalisation was significantly higher in the group with wound infection than in the group without wound infection. (P < .05). We suggest that in terms of wound infection and wound healing, laparoscopic surgery should be the method of choice for patients with complicated appendicitis. In order to reduce the frequency of wound infection, drains should not be kept for a long time in patients undergoing appendectomy.

Laparoscopic appendicectomy is superior to open surgery for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Over the last three decades, laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) has become the routine treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The role of laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis (gangrenous and/or perforated) remains controversial due to concerns of an increased incidence of post-operative intra-abdominal abscesses (IAA) in LA compared to open appendicectomy (OA). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of LA versus OA for complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Database for randomised controlled trials (RCT) and case-control studies (CCS) that compared LA with OA for complicated appendicitis.

RESULTS

Data from three RCT and 30 CCS on 6428 patients (OA 3,254, LA 3,174) were analysed. There was no significant difference in the rate of IAA (LA = 6.1% vs. OA = 4.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.71-1.47, p = 0.91). LA for complicated appendicitis has decreased overall post-operative morbidity (LA = 15.5% vs. OA = 22.7%; OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.31-0.59, p < 0.0001), wound infection, (LA = 4.7% vs. OA = 12.8%; OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.19-0.36, p < 0.001), respiratory complications (LA = 1.8% vs. OA = 6.4%; OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.13-0.49, p < 0.001), post-operative ileus/small bowel obstruction (LA = 3.1% vs. OA = 3.6%; OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42-1.0, p = 0.048) and mortality rate (LA = 0% vs. OA = 0.4%; OR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04-0.61, p = 0.008). LA has a significantly shorter hospital stay (6.4 days vs. 8.9 days, p = 0.02) and earlier resumption of solid food (2.7 days vs. 3.7 days, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

These results clearly demonstrate that LA for complicated appendicitis has the same incidence of IAA but a significantly reduced morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay compared with OA. The finding of complicated appendicitis at laparoscopy is not an indication for conversion to open surgery. LA should be the preferred treatment for patients with complicated appendicitis.

Laparoscopic Repair for Perforated Peptic Ulcer Disease Has Better Outcomes Than Open Repair

PURPOSE

Over the last 3 decades, laparoscopic procedures have emerged as the standard treatment for many elective and emergency surgical conditions. Despite the increased use of laparoscopic surgery, the role of laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer remains controversial among general surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repair for perforated peptic ulcer.

METHODS

A systemic literature review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Database of all randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared laparoscopic (LR) with open repair (OR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU). Data was extracted using a standardised form and subsequently analysed.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis using data from 7 RCT showed that LR for PPU has decreased overall post-operative morbidity (LR = 8.9% vs. OR = 17.0%) (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.79, p < 0.01), wound infections, (LR = 2.2% vs. OR = 6.3%) (OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.5, p < 0.01) and shorter duration of hospital stay (6.6 days vs. 8.2 days, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in length of operation, leakage rate, incidence of intra-abdominal abscess, post-operative sepsis, respiratory complications, re-operation rate or mortality. There was no publication bias and the quality of the studies ranged from poor to good.

CONCLUSION

These results demonstrate that laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer has a reduced morbidity and total hospital stay compared with open approach. There are no significant differences in mortality, post-operative sepsis, abscess and re-operation rates. LR should be the preferred treatment option for patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease.

Laparoscopy in the acute abdomen

Laparoscopy has become a routine procedure in the management of acute abdominal disease and can be considered both an excellent therapeutic and additional diagnostic tool in selected cases. However, a high level of expertise in laparoscopic and emergency surgery is required. Hemodynamic instability, huge abdominal distension, fecal peritonitis and perforated cancer are relative contraindications for the laparoscopic approach. In recent years, abdominal emergencies have increasingly been managed successfully by laparoscopy. In acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis and perforated peptic ulcer, randomized controlled trials have proven that the laparoscopic approach is as safe and as effective as open surgery, with fewer complications and a quicker postoperative recovery. Other indications such as blunt and penetrating trauma to the abdomen, small bowel occlusion and perforated diverticular disease are under debate, indicating that more randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery are still necessary.

Is laparoscopy a safe approach for diffuse appendicular peritonitis? Feasibility and determination of risk factors for post-operative intra-abdominal abscess

BACKGROUND

Several studies have assessed feasibility and early outcomes of the laparoscopic approach for complicated appendicitis (CA). However, these studies suffer from limitations due to the heterogeneous definitions used for CA. No studies have assessed feasibility and early post-operative outcomes of the laparoscopic approach in the specific management of diffuse appendicular peritonitis (DAP). Consequently, outcomes of the laparoscopic approach for the management of DAP are poorly documented.

METHODS

The laparoscopic approach is the first-line standardised procedure used by our team for the management of DAP. All patients (aged >16 years) who underwent laparoscopy for DAP (CA with the presence of purulent fluid with or without fibrin membranes in at least a hemi abdomen) between 2004 and 2012 were prospectively included. Post-operative outcomes were analysed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Laparoscopy for DAP was performed for 141 patients. Mean age was 39.6 ± 20 (16-92) years. A total of 45 patients (31.9%) had pre-operative contracture. The mean pre-operative leukocyte count was 14,900 ± 4,380 mm(-3). The mean pre-operative C-reactive protein (CRP) serum concentration was 135 ± 112 (2-418) mg/dl. The conversion rate was 3.5%. The mean operative time was 80 ± 27 (20-180) min. There were no deaths. The rate of grade III morbidity was 6.5%. Ten patients (7.1%) experienced intra-abdominal abscess (IAA); seven of these cases were treated conservatively. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.9 ± 5 (2-36) days. A pre-operative leukocyte count >17,000 mm(-3), and CRP serum concentration >200 mg/dl were significant predictive factors for IAA in multivariate analyses [odds ratio (OR) 25.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4-250, p = 0.007 and OR 16.4, 95% CI 1.6-166, p = 0.02, respectively].

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach for DAP is a safe and feasible procedure with a low conversion rate and an acceptable rate of IAA in view of the severity of the disease. Pre-operative leukocyte counts >17,000 mm(-3) and pre-operative CRP serum concentrations >200 mg/dl indicate a high risk of IAA.

Ergonomics and Technical Aspects of Minimal Access Surgery in Acute Surgery

BACKGROUND

Following the general trend in the evolution of minimal access surgery (MAS), the place of laparoscopy for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in the emergency setting is well defined. As for all laparoscopic procedures, the ergonomic and technical aspects of MAS in acute surgery are important issues.

METHODS

Review of the literature.

RESULTS

The ergonomic and technical aspects of emergency laparoscopy include the surgeon's and the patient's position; the operating room setup, including the table, the monitor, and the specific equipment; patient preparation adapted as required to potential changes necessary as adapted to the pathology and conversion; the trocar setup, also adapted to the organ and pathology. Specific needs and variations can be necessary, dependent on the patient status, body build, and the pathology being treated. The operating room used for acute surgery should be adapted to evolving laparoscopic techniques, as well as new intraoperative diagnostic and therapeutic modalities.

CONCLUSION

High-tech equipment and associated procedures have modified the needs for a modern operating room setup. Laparoscopic procedures for emergency surgery must make use of well-known ergonomic principles and be adapted to the patient and the pathology.

Complicated Appendicitis: Laparoscopic or Conventional Surgery?

BACKGROUND

The surgical treatment of complicated appendicitis remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of laparoscopic appendectomy in the treatment of complicated appendicitis in comparison with open surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent an appendectomy for complicated appendicitis between January 2001 and August 2005.

RESULTS

We identified 98 patients with complicated appendicitis. Forty-eight patients underwent open appendectomy, 42 laparoscopic appendectomy, and 8 initial laparoscopy with conversion to open surgery. Older patients, patients with comorbidities, and female patients were more likely to have been offered a laparoscopic appendectomy. Operating time, time to solid oral intake, and time of hospital stay were prolonged in the laparoscopic group but not significantly. There was no mortality observed in either group, and the complication rate was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy is an acceptable procedure for complicated appendicitis, with the same rate of infectious complications as the conventional approach.