Irrigation Versus Suction Alone During Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis

Wound Irrigation Using Wet Gauze May Reduce Surgical Site Infection Following Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of wet gauze and conventional irrigation after laparoscopic appendectomy to determine whether wet gauze irrigation can help reduce surgical site infection (SSI).

Methods

A total of 308 patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy were included in this study between December 2018 and May 2020. Of these, 132 (42.9%) received gauze irrigation (group 1), and 176 patients (57.1%) received conventional irrigation (group 2). Pre-operative outcomes and complications, including SSI, were compared after propensity score matching (PSM) to adjust for baseline differences and selection bias.

Results

After 1:1 PSM, 92 well-matched patients in each group were evaluated. Regarding perioperative outcomes between groups 1 and 2, the rate of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification grades III, IV, and V), operative time, and readmission rate did not differ between the groups. Superficial/deep SSIs were observed more frequently in group 2 (8/92 cases) than in group 1 (1/92 cases; p = 0.017). The organ/space SSIs rate was not significantly different between the two groups (1/92 group 1 and 0/92 group 2, p = 0.316). However, post-operative hospital stay was significantly longer in group 2 (2.8 ± 1.3 days) than in group 1 (1.6 ± 1.2 days; p < 0.001). In the univariate analyses, wound irrigation using wet gauze was an independent protective factor for superficial or deep SSI (p = 0.044).

Conclusions

Wound irrigation using wet gauze after fascia closure has a significant beneficial effect on reducing post-operative superficial/deep SSI following laparoscopic appendectomy.

Aspiration versus peritoneal lavage in appendicitis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is one of the most frequent abdominal surgical emergencies. Intra-abdominal abscess is a frequent post-operative complication. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare peritoneal irrigation and suction versus suction only when performing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

According to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted and registered into the Prospero register (CRD42020186848). The risk of bias was defined to be from low to moderate.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (9 RCTs and 8 CCTs) were selected, including 5315 patients. There was no statistical significance in post-operative intra-abdominal abscess in open (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.75-2.15; I2 = 74%) and laparoscopic group (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.73-3.13; I2 = 83%). No statistical significance in reoperation rate in open (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.04-2.49; I2 = 18%) and laparoscopic group (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.64-2.49; I2 = 18%). In both open and laparoscopic groups, operative time was lower in the suction group (RR 7.13, 95% CI 3.14-11.12); no statistical significance was found for hospital stay (MD - 0.39, 95% CI - 1.07 to 0.30; I2 = 91%) and the rate of wound infection (MD 1.16, 95% CI 0.56-2.38; I2 = 71%).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review has failed to demonstrate the statistical superiority of employing intra-operative peritoneal irrigation and suction over suction-only to reduce the rate of post-operative complications after appendectomy, but all the articles report clinical superiority in terms of post-operative abscess, wound infection and operative times in suction-only group.

A Novel Suction-and-Irrigation Laparoscopic Surgical Instrument: Internal Design and Preclinical Performance Evaluation

Objective: Laparoscopic instruments with suction and irrigation functions often lead to tissue damage during removal of the aspirated tissues, owing to the presence of aspiration into the side holes of their catheters. To address this problem, we designed a novel irrigation-and-suction catheter and assessed its preclinical efficacy.

Methods: We made structural improvements to the irrigation-suction catheter to prevent tissue aspiration through its side holes. We ran a simulation program to perform experimental assessments before printing out the catheter tip models using a three-dimensional (3D) printer. Model 1 was the control, and Models 2, 3, and 4 were the improved models. Using these, we performed 10 repetitions of 15-s suction followed by 15-s irrigation, for a total of 5 times per model. We recorded the number of aspirations that occurred through the side holes and analyzed each model using nonparametric methods.

Results: Models 2 and 3 showed fewer aspirations because the velocity and pressure around their side holes were lower than those of Model 1; this was statistically significant. On the other hand, Model 4 had a lesser preventive effect against aspiration due to higher velocity and pressure around its side holes.

Interpretation of Results: We confirmed that side-hole aspiration can be prevented with an internal structure that completely separates the irrigation and suction paths. Even if the irrigation and suction paths are not completely separated, adding a septal structure at the distal end of the catheter may prevent aspiration.

Effect and safety of peritoneal lavage for appendectomy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether peritoneal lavage is beneficial for the postoperative outcomes of appendectomy is debatable. This study is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that aimed to determine whether peritoneal lavage leads to improved appendectomy outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published before September 2020. The meta-analysis calculated the pooled effect size by using a random effects model. The primary outcome was the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of surgical-site infection, hospital stay duration, operation time, and readmission incidence.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 1487 patients were reviewed. The lavage group had a nonsignificantly lower incidence of intra-abdominal abscess (risk ratio [RR]: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-1.18) and surgical-site infection (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.31-1.72) than did the nonirrigation group. Furthermore, the lavage group showed a nonsignificantly shorter hospital stay duration and lower readmission incidence than did the nonirrigation group. However, the lavage group required significantly more operation time than did the nonirrigation group (mean difference: 7.59 min; 95% CI: 4.67-10.50).

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that performing peritoneal lavage has no advantage over suction or drainage only in appendectomy. Moreover, peritoneal lavage significantly increased operation time. Consequently, for improving efficiency and reducing operation time, we suggest skipping peritoneal irrigation during appendectomy. However, the available evidence is of variable quality; therefore, high-quality prospective RCTs are required in the future.