Laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for suspected appendicitis: a prospective study

Cohort study of 1241 patients to identify predictors of negative appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

Acute Appendicitis is the most common surgical presentation within Australia. Despite the increasing use of radiological investigations to aid clinical diagnosis, many appendectomies result in a histologically normal appendix. This study examines the histological negative appendicectomy rate (NAR) in a metropolitan hospital and determine factors associated with a negative appendicectomy (NA).

METHODS

Patients who underwent emergency appendicectomy for suspected acute appendicitis at Logan Hospital, Australia, between February 2016 and March 2019 inclusive were included. Clinicopathologic and imaging variables were analysed for associations with NA.

RESULTS

A total of 1241 patients underwent emergency appendicectomy of which 121 patients (9.8%) had a NA. The NAR for clinical diagnosis alone (no imaging) was 9.9%, 14.5% for ultrasonography alone and computed tomography scan alone was 4.9%. Univariate analysis revealed age <27 years (P < 0.001), absence of hypertension (P = 0.008), symptoms >48 hours (P < 0.001), absence of leucocytosis (P < 0.001), undergoing ultrasonography only (P < 0.001), undergoing computed tomography scan only (P < 0.001), macroscopically normal appendix (P < 0.001) and time to operation >24 hours (P < 0.001) were associated with NA. Multivariate analysis identified symptoms >48 h at presentation (odds ratio (OR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-3.24; P = 0.007), absence of leucocytosis (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.52-3.81; P < 0.001) and macroscopically normal appendix (OR 5.70, 95% CI 3.49-9.33; P < 0.001) to be associated with a NA.

CONCLUSION

The NAR reported is lowest in an Australian institution. The identified predictors of NA will be useful in identifying patients who would truly benefit from an appendicectomy versus those would have a higher rate of NA who may be suitable to be treated non-operatively to be spared the unnecessary morbidity of surgery.

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.

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.

Video-assisted laparoscopic extracorporeal appendectomy versus open appendectomy

OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is categorized into intracorporeal appendectomy (ICA) and video-assisted extracorporeal appendectomy (VAECA). This study is conducted to compare feasibility and effectiveness of video-assisted extracorporeal appendectomy (VAECA) with open appendectomy (OA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a comparative descriptive study conducted at the Department of Surgery of Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences (Jamshoro, Pakistan) from June 2003 to November 2007. Two hundred and eighty-three patients of acute appendicitis were included and categorized into two groups: A and B. Group A included 150 (53%) patients operated on by the OA technique, while group B included 133 (47%) patients in whom VAECA was performed. VAECA was accomplished through three ports in the majority of patients (89%), while a few cases (11%) were completed by two ports only. Patients below 10 years of age and with suspected appendicular mass were excluded from the study. Both operative techniques and their merits and demerits were explained to all the patients and, depending upon their choice or by a simple flip of a coin, they were operated on by either of the techniques. A well-informed written consent was also taken from every patient. The results of both the groups were collected on a proforma and were compared in terms of cosmesis, total operative time, operative and postoperative complications, and total duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The mean operating time was much shorter in group B (p < 0.001), compared to group A patients. The incidence of postoperative infection was comparatively higher in OA, compared to VAECA. The rate of operative complications (p < 0.001), postoperative complications (p < 0.01), and duration of hospital stay (p < 0.001) were all significantly lower in the VAECA group. Cosmetic results were excellent in VAECA, compared to OA, as assessed by length of incision and the postoperative scar formation.

CONCLUSION

VAECA can be a good alternate option in simple cases without much adhesions or mass formation.

Stump appendicitis: case report and review

The purpose of this study is to review the medical literature regarding the prevalence of appendicitis in patients with previous appendectomy. Stump appendicitis is a real entity not often considered when evaluating patients with right lower quadrant pain and a history of appendectomy. This leads to delays in diagnosis and treatment. An extensive review of the world literature using Medline, MD Consult, and the references of articles found using these methods to gather information regarding stump appendicitis. Results showed 29 cases of stump appendicitis have been reported in the world literature. Herein we review the literature as well as present a case study. Stump appendicitis is a real, yet probably underreported entity. It can occur after either laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Avoidance of a long appendiceal stump is the only suggested means by which to avoid its occurrence.

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 Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch, 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 54 studies, of which 45 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were less likely after LA than after OA (OR 0.45; CI 0.35 to 0.58), but the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses was increased (OR 2.48; CI 1.45 to 4.21). The duration of surgery was 12 minutes (CI 7 to 16) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 9 mm (CI 5 to 13 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Hospital stay was shortened by 1.1 day (CI 0.6 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. Five studies on children were included, but the result 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).

REVIEWERS' 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.

Outcome after intra- and extra-corporeal laparoscopic appendectomy techniques

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the outcome after intracorporeal (IC) and extracorporeal (EC) laparoscopic appendectomy technique in a single institution over a 5-year period.

METHODS

Records of all children ( n = 60) who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at the Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital between February 1997 and March 2002 were retrieved and evaluated. Observations were made regarding operative technique, anesthetic time, intra- and postoperative complications, postoperative analgesic requirement, and postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

There were 30 children in each group who had a similar demographic profile. The magnitude of appendicitis severity in both groups was similar. The mean anesthetic time was 67.8 min for the IC group and 50.7 min for the EC group (p = 0.001). There were no recorded intraoperative complications, although a single case in the EC group required conversion to open procedure. The postoperative analgesic requirement in both groups was similar. The mean postoperative stay was 2.1 days in the IC group and 2.5 days in the EC group. Two postoperative complications were noted in the IC group; one intraperitoneal collection and one postoperative chest infection. Four complications occurred in the EC group; one intraperitoneal collection and three minor port-site wound infections.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' experience shows the EC technique to be significantly quicker, although with a slightly increased complication rate. Either technique can be applied safely for acute appendicitis.

Factors determining the return to normal activity after appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

The ability of a patient to return to their normal activities is an important outcome of an operation. The present study was designed to identify and rank factors that are important in determining this return to normal activity (RTNA) after appendicectomy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients were identified prospectively following appendicectomy at North Shore Hospital between February and April 2000. Data regarding 25 different factors were obtained by a structured patient interview before and after discharge from hospital and by review of the medical records. Statistical analysis involved analysis of variance and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

There were 98 patients (median age 28, range 15-69 years, male : female ratio 48:50) who had an appendicectomy. An open appendicectomy was performed in 74 patients, a laparoscopic appendicectomy in 22 patients and a laparotomy in two patients. This includes the 16 patients who were converted from laparoscopic to open appendicectomy (conversion rate 42% 16/38). Acute appendicitis was confirmed by histology in 67 (68%) patients. The significant independent variables identified by anova were ranked by logistic regression analysis. The most important determinant for the time to RTNA was what the doctor advised (chi-squared 43.7, P < 0.0001). The other determinants were the physical activity of their primary occupation (chi-squared 21.5, P < 0.017), the need for strong postdischarge analgesia (chi-squared 21.1, P < 0.13), the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) category (chi-squared 13.6, P < 0.018) and the total sick leave obtained (chi-squared 9.6, P < 0.08).

CONCLUSION

It has been shown that the most significant factor in determining the RTNA after appendicectomy was the advice given by the doctor, and that this was more important than the surgical approach, pathology, complications, age or occupation of the patient.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been proposed to have diagnostic and therapeutic advantages over conventional surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic and therapeutic effects of laparoscopic and conventional 'open' surgery in the treatment of suspected acute appendicitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched for original articles and abstracts published until end of 2000. As main search tools we employed the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, EMBASE and SciSearch. CCTR and MEDLINE searches were repeated until 10 October 2001, all other databases were searched 10 October 2000. We also handsearched the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included clinical trials that assessed either: (1) Therapeutic effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults, (2) Therapeutic effects of LA versus OA in children, (3) Diagnostic effects of diagnostic laparoscopy (LAP) followed by LA or OA if necessary versus immediate OA, (4) Therapeutic effects of diagnostic laparoscopy (LAP) followed by OA if necessary versus immediate OA. We included only randomized studies and excluded those with unconcealed allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed each study's eligibility and quality. One reviewer extracted the data, 10% of which were later cross-checked by a second reviewer. Abstract authors and authors of articles lacking important information on trial design or results were contacted.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies, of which 39 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were about half as likely (Peto OR 0.47; 95%-CI 0.36 to 0.62) after LA than after OA, but intraabdominal abscesses were increased nearly threefold after LA (Peto OR 2.77; 95%-CI 1.61 to 4.77). The duration of surgery was 14 minutes (95%-CI 10 to 19) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 8 mm (95%-CI 3 to 13 mm) on a 100 mm VAS. Hospital stay was reduced by 0.7 days (95%-CI 0.4 to 1.0). Return to normal activity, work, and sport were 6 days (95%-CI 4 to 8), 3 days (1 to 5), and 7 days (3 to 12) earlier after LA than after OA. While the operation costs of LA were significantly higher than that of OA, the costs outside hospital were reduced. Strong heterogeneity was found for most outcomes, but not for wound infections and intraabdominal abscesses. In children, much less data were available, but the result do not seem to be much different when compared to adults. Pain which was measured blindly in two paediatric trials, was similar after LA and OA (-1 mm VAS; 95%-CI -8 to +7 mm). In trials on unselected patients, diagnostic laparoscopy led to large but variable reductions in the rate of negative appendectomies (RR 0.21; 95%-CI 0.13 to 0.33). In parallel, the rate of unestablished diagnoses was significantly decreased after laparoscopy (RR 0.34; 95%-CI 0.22 to 0.53). In fertile women, these effects were even more pronounced: rate of negative appendectomies: RR 0.19; 95%-CI 0.11 to 0.34; rate of patients without a final diagnosis established: RR 0.24; 95%-CI 0.15 to 0.38.

REVIEWER'S 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. In gangrenous or perforated cases, however, LA may possibly carry a higher risk of intraabdominal infections.

Randomized clinical trial of early laparoscopy in the management of acute non-specific abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

Abdominal pain of uncertain aetiology (non-specific abdominal pain; NSAP) is the commonest reason for emergency surgical admission. The aim of this study was to examine the role of early laparoscopy in the management of NSAP.

METHODS

Some 120 patients, admitted between November 1995 and October 1998 with acute abdominal pain of uncertain aetiology, were randomized into two groups: group 1 had laparoscopy during the first 18 h of admission and group 2 had close observation, conventional investigation and surgical intervention if signs of peritonism developed. Outcome measures were diagnosis, operative procedures, duration of hospital stay, readmission rate, morbidity and death, patient satisfaction and total number of investigations performed.

RESULTS

Median hospital stay was 2 (range 1-13) days in both groups (P = 0.87). A diagnosis was established in 48 (81 per cent) of 59 patients in group 1 compared with 22 (36 per cent) of 61 in group 2 (P < 0.0001). The morbidity rate was 14 (24 per cent) of 59 in group 1 and 19 (31 per cent) of 61 in group 2 (P = 0.3629). The readmission rate at a median follow-up of 21 (range 1-35) months was 17 (29 per cent) of 59 in group 1 compared with 20 (33 per cent) of 61 in group 2 (P = 0. 6375). Well-being scores improved from 134 on admission to 149 of 177 6 weeks later in group 1 (P = 0.007) and from 132 to 143 of 177 in group 2 (P = 0.089).

CONCLUSION

Early laparoscopy provided a higher diagnostic accuracy and improved quality of life in patients with NSAP.

Insurance and the risk of ruptured appendix in the adult

BACKGROUND

Disparities in medical care related to the insurance status of patients have been reported. A retrospective analysis was performed to examine the insurance-related differences in the risk of appendiceal perforation in the Prince of Wales Hospital (POWH), New South Wales.

METHODS

Computerized data of 1179 patient years who had a diagnosis of appendicitis and were admitted to the POWH over the preceding 10 years were examined. The outcome measure was appendiceal perforation. Patient variables examined were insurance status, sex, age, and socio-economic status (SES). Three hundred patients over the same period were identified who had an appendicectomy but not appendicitis. Multiple logistic regression and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The overall perforation rate in 1179 patients was 17%. The only factor that was related to an increased risk of perforation was age over 50 years (odds ratio (OR) 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-2.53). Sex, insurance status or SES were not associated with a higher risk of perforation. The overall rate of negative appendicectomy was 20% (300 of 1479 patients), and the rate was higher in the uninsured patients (22 vs 17%, P = 0.014, Fisher's exact test).

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of health insurance was not associated with an increased incidence of appendiceal perforation at the POWH. Age over 50 years was identified as the only risk factor for appendiceal perforation. The lower negative appendicectomy rate in the insured group may be because of better diagnostic ability of consultants compared to registrars.

Prospective randomized multicentre study of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

A prospective randomized multicentre study was performed to compare the outcome of laparoscopic and open appendicectomy in patients with suspected acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A total of 523 patients was randomized, but because of 23 withdrawals the outcome in 500 patients is reported, 244 in the laparoscopic group and 256 in the open group.

RESULTS

Patients having laparoscopic appendicectomy recovered more quickly than those having open surgery (13 versus 21 days, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in duration of sick leave after operation (laparoscopic group 11 days versus open group 14 days). Postoperative pain (at 24 h, 7 days and 14 days) was less after laparoscopic operations and a functional index 1 week after operation was more favourable in these patients (P < 0.001). Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (60 versus 35 min, P < 0.01). Hospital stay and complications did not differ between the groups. Thirty laparoscopic procedures (12 per cent) were converted to open appendicectomy.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendicectomy is as safe as open appendicectomy and has the advantage of allowing a quicker recovery.

Stump appendicitis--a potential problem after laparoscopic appendicectomy

Appendicitis is now commonly diagnosed and treated using laparoscopic techniques. Laparoscopic appendicectomy has the potential to result in incomplete removal of the appendix stump and subsequent risk of stump appendicitis. This article reports such a case, requiring laparotomy 5 months after the original appendectomy.

A prospective trial of open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

An assessment of the value of laparoscopic appendicectomy was performed.

METHODS

During 1993, all patients above the age of 13 years admitted with clinical appendicitis to Box Hill were assigned to an open or laparoscopic procedure depending on whether the surgeon on call was an 'open' or 'laparoscopic' surgeon for the purpose of the study. Ninety-two patients were entered in the study, of whom 57 were in the open group. The rate of histologically proven appendicitis was 73.9%.

RESULTS

No significant difference between the groups was found in the use of narcotic analgesia, length of stay or incidence of wound infection. However, operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendicectomy on an unselected group of patients does not confer many advantages but laparoscopy may be beneficial in certain subgroups.