Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: Which way to go?

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.

Johan Forceps As a Knot Pusher for Extracorporeal Roeder Knot: An Inexpensive Alternative to an Endoloop Ligature in Laparoscopic Appendicectomy

Background: Securing of the appendix stump is one of the key steps in performing laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA). This can be achieved by a variety of methods including endoloops, stapler, and clips. An alternative technique, previously described by authors, is the use of Johan forceps as a knot pusher, to deploy an extracorporeal Roeder knot at the base of appendix. We aimed to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of our technique. Patients and Methods: A single surgeon's, prospective cohort, and multicenter study was undertaken at three different hospitals in the United Kingdom. We collected data of all patients, who underwent LA by this technique between 2014 and 2019. Demographics, operative findings, postoperative complications and readmissions were recorded and analyzed. Results: In total, 227 appendicectomies were performed. Median age was 24 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 16-58) with 58% male preponderance. Operative findings were 57% (n = 130) acutely inflammatory appendicitis, 16.74% (n = 38) were complicated appendicitis (perforated, gangrenous). Rest of the operative findings were macroscopically normal appendix (with no other pathology in 18.06% (n = 41), and macroscopically normal appendix but with gynecological pathologies in 7.9% (n = 18). Postoperatively, there were no cases to report complication of blow out stumps neither clinically nor radiologically. Surgical site infections rate has been 3.5% (n = 8). One patient had small intra-abdominal abscess (0.4%), treated by IV antibiotics. Mean hospital stay was 1.89 days (standard deviation [SD] 1-5 days). Thirty days readmissions rate was 4.8%. None of the complications or readmissions was related to the surgical technique. There were no deaths recorded in this series. Cost of handmade endoloop was $0.69. Conclusion: Use of Johan forceps as knot pusher for extracorporeal Roeder knot is a safe, feasible, cost-effective, and easily reproducible technique for carrying out LA.

Appendicitis-Like Picture Induced by Foreign Body in a 2-Year-Old Boy

Background and Aim. Appendicitis is unusual in toddlers and foreign body- (FB-) induced appendicitis is rare. We present a FB-induced appendicitis in a toddler with no suggestive history of FB ingestion. Case Presentation. A 2-year-old healthy boy presented to the emergency department with irritability for 3 days duration associated with fever of 39°C, nausea, anorexia, and vomiting. There was no history of foreign body ingestion. The abdomen was distended and diffusely tender. An abdominal ultrasound (US) was suggestive of perforated appendicitis with appendicular mass formation. An abdominal X-ray showed a pin-like foreign body in the abdomen. An emergent appendectomy was performed. Intraoperatively, a sealed small cecal perforation was noticed. A 5 cm pin-like metallic foreign body was found to obstruct the appendicular lumen. The appendix was grossly normal without inflammatory changes. Conclusion. FB-induced perforations or appendicitis albeit in patients with no history of FB ingestion or infants and toddlers need a high clinical suspicion to prevent the delay in diagnosis and the subsequent complications.

Use of minimally invasive surgery in emergency general surgery procedures

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has demonstrated superior outcomes in many elective procedures. However, its use in emergency general surgery (EGS) procedures is not well characterized. The purpose of this study was to examine the trends in utilization and outcomes of MIS techniques in EGS over the past decade.

METHODS

The 2007-2016 ACS-NSQIP database was utilized to identify patients undergoing emergency surgery for four common EGS diagnoses: appendicitis, cholecystitis/cholangitis, peptic ulcer disease, and small bowel obstruction. Trends over time were described. Preoperative risk factors, operative characteristics, outcomes, morbidity, and trends were compared between MIS and open approaches using univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

During the 10-year study period, 190,264 patients were identified. The appendicitis group was the largest (166,559 patients) followed by gallbladder disease (9994), bowel obstruction (6256), and peptic ulcer disease (366). Utilization of MIS increased over time in all groups (p < 0.001). There was a concurrent decrease in mean days of hospitalization in each group: appendectomy (2.4 to 2.0), cholecystectomy (5.7 to 3.2), peptic ulcer disease (20.3 to 11.7), and bowel obstruction (12.9 to 10.5); p < 0.001 for all. On multivariate analysis, use of MIS techniques was associated with decreased odds of 30-day mortality, surgical site infection, and length of hospital stay in all groups (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of MIS techniques in these four EGS diagnoses has increased in frequency over the past 10 years. When adjusted for preoperative risk factors, use of MIS was associated with decreased odds of wound infection, death, and length of stay. Further studies are needed to determine if increased access to MIS techniques among EGS patients may improve outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in adults: randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy did not meet the same acceptance in the setting of perforated appendicitis as in uncomplicated appendicitis in the general surgical community. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of laparoscopic and open appendectomy in perforating appendicitis.

METHODS

A randomized controlled study was conducted on 126 patients presenting with perforated appendicitis. Sixty patients were subjected to laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and 66 patients underwent traditional open appendectomy (OA).

RESULTS

65 (51.6%) patients were female, and 61 (48.4%) patients were male in whom the mean age was 37.6 + 8.5 years. A significant difference was calculated in the domains of postoperative pain, less need for analgesics, hospital stay, and return to daily activities. The mean operative time was shorter in OA 94 ± 10.4 min than LA 120.6 ± 17.7 min. No statistically significant difference between both groups was detected as regard occurrence of intra-abdominal collection.

CONCLUSION

In view of its clinical outcomes, laparoscopy should be considered in the context of perforated appendicitis. The possibility of intra-abdominal collection should not be a barrier against the widespread practice of this surgical procedure amidst laparoscopic surgeons if adequate precautions are employed.

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.

A clinical comparison of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for the treatment of complicated appendicitis: historical cohort study

Background

Appendectomy is one of the most common operations. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is considered first-line treatment, but the use of LA for treatment of complicated appendicitis remains controversial. Here, we performed a retrospective analysis to compare clinical outcomes between patients treated with LA and those who underwent open appendectomy (OA).

Methods

Data for 179 patients who underwent an operation for the treatment of complicated appendicitis at our hospital between 2011 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The selection included 89 patients who underwent a conventional appendectomy and 90 patients who were treated laparoscopically. Outcome measures such as mean operative time, blood loss, time until oral intake duration of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the concurrent effects of the examined factors on the rate of postoperative complications.

Results

The mean ages of patients in the OA and LA groups were 50.17 ± 22.77 and 50.13 ± 25.84 year. Mean operative times were longer in the LA group than OA (10.2.56 ± 44.4 versus 85.4 ± 43.11 min; p = 0.009). The duration of hospital stay was shorter for the LA group (9.61 ± 5.57 versus 12.19 ± 8.4; p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in return to consumption of oral intake between the LA and OA groups (2.03 ± 1.66 versus 2.48 ± 2.17; p = 0.123). Multivariable analysis found that the rate of postoperative complications was significantly reduced for the LA group, in comparison with the postoperative-complication rate of the OA group (16.7% versus 27%; odds ratio 0.376; 95% CI 0.153–0.923; p = 0.0327).

Conclusions

These results suggest that LA is a safe and efficient operative procedure that provides clinically beneficial advantages in comparison with OA. Thus, when possible, appendectomy for complicated appendicitis should be attempted using a laparoscopic approach.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered.

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.

A new right groin incision versus McBurney's incision for open appendectomy: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to introduce a new surgical method for open appendectomy including a right groin incision with adipocutaneous flap and to compare its feasibility, safety, and cosmetic outcomes with classic McBurney's incision.

METHODS

Patients with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis who were candidates for appendectomy surgery at General Surgery Department, Besat Hospital, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Iran, in 2016 and 2017, were enrolled in a randomized controlled clinical study. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups each containing 50 patients. In the case and control groups, patients underwent appendectomy using right groin incision with adipocutaneous flap and traditional McBurney's methods, respectively.

RESULTS

One hundred patients with the mean age of 23.6 years (range = 4-44) old including 65 males were enrolled in the study. Patients' demographics, histopathology, and anatomical location of the appendix were not significantly different in the case and control groups. There was no significant difference in postoperative wound infection, cellulitis, hematoma, and seroma between the two groups. Patients in the case group were significantly more satisfied in terms of cosmesis than in the control group (P < .001); however, the operative time and pain were higher in the case group compared to the control group (P values = 0.016 and 0.033, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The right groin incision for open appendectomy may be safe and feasible and the most cosmetically appealing method especially in children and patients with cosmetic concerns.

Perforated vs. nonperforated acute appendicitis: evaluation of short-term surgical outcomes in an elderly population

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is a common acute surgical abdominal condition and despite the majority of cases are observed in children and young adults, its occurrence in the elderly seems to be increasing, with a higher risk of perforation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes following appendectomy for acute appendicitis in the elderly, making a comparison between perforated and nonperforated groups regarding operative time, hospital stay and postoperative complications.

METHODS

The medical records of 48 patients over the age of 60 years who had a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of acute appendicitis from January 2011 to December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped into those with perforated and those with non-perforated appendicitis (NPA) and a comparison was made between both groups regarding demography, operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

From 48 patients over 60 years diagnosed with acute appendicitis, a PA was removed from 10 patients (20.8%). The PA group consisted of 3 males and 7 females, and their mean age was 71.6 years (range 65-84). The NPA group included 22 males and 16 females, and their mean age was 76.5 years (range 63-96). The mean operative time was 58±18.7 minutes and 43.3±9.9 minutes in the perforated and nonperforated groups respectively, with statistically significant difference (P=0.0013). The mean length of hospital stay was similar in the PA group and in the NPA group, being 6.5±1.8 days and 5.4±1.8 days respectively, but these differences were not statistically significant (P=0.093). The frequency of postoperative complications was similar in both groups as they were observed in 3 patients (30%) of the PA group and 10 patients (26%) of the NPA group (P=0.2488). No postoperative intraabdominal abscess was observed in both groups and there was no death after the surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

PA, despite requiring a longer mean operative time, in our series is not producing a longer hospital stay or more postoperative complications compared to NPA. The non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis is a reasonable option in frail patients in order to avoid the burden of morbidity related to operation, nevertheless surgery remains the standard of care in all age groups.

Role of Laparoscopic Appendectomy Radix Ligation Techniques on the Formation of Inner Abdomen Abscess

Objectives:

Our aim was to study whether laparoscopic appendectomy radix ligation techniques were eutrophic in the development of intra-abdominal abscess.

Methods:

Between September 2009 and April 2017, all emergency cases admitted to our surgery polyclinic were reviewed, and the results of the patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were collected. Appendectomy radix ligation techniques were reviewed from surgical notes on discharge reports. Postoperative controls were also reviewed, and any cases with abscess formation were reported.

Results:

A total of 350 patients were included in the study. Of these cases, 207 were males, and 143 were females. The mean age of the patients was 26.89±4.9 years. One hundred eighty-nine cases were found to have two endoloops placed on top of each other, whereas 161 cases had a 2 mm distance left in between the two endoloops and tied. None of the 189 cases who had endoloops placed on top of each other developed abscess formation. However, of the 161 cases who had endoloops with a 2 mm distance in between, 8 reported with abscess formation in the inner abdomen. Of these eight cases, seven had percutaneous abscess drainage by an interventional radiologist, whereas one was treated with relaparoscopy.

Conclusion:

In the present study, patients who had endoloops placed on top of each other developed no abscess formation, whereas in the literature’s gold standard procedure, those with a 2 mm distance left between two endoloops developed an inner abdominal abscess formation in 8 (4.9%) of the patients. We believe that this 2 mm dead space distance left between the two endoloops contributes to the formation of the abscess.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendicectomy in Adults with Complicated Appendicitis: an Update of the Literature

AIMS

To review and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendicectomy (OA) in complicated appendicitis in adult patients, eight years after the last literature review.

METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to. Pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to search the PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases and extract relevant data. Methodological and quality assessment was undertaken with outcome meta-analysis and subgroup analyses of methodological quality, type of study and year of study. Assessment of clinical and statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was conducted.

RESULTS

Three randomised control trials (RCTs) (154LA vs 155OA) and 23 case-control trials were included (2034LA vs 2096OA). Methodological quality was low to average but with low statistical heterogeneity. Risk of publication bias was low, and meta-regression indicated shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) in more recent studies, Q = 7.1, P = 0.007. In the combined analysis LA had significantly less surgical site infections [OR = 0.30 (0.22,0.40); p < 0.00001] with reduced time to oral intake [WMD = -0.98 (-1.09,-0.86); P < 0.00001] and LOS [WMD = -3.49(-3.70,-3.29); p < 0.00001]. There was no significant difference in intra-abdominal abscess rates [OR = 1.11(0.85,1.45); p = 0.43]. Operative time was longer during LA [WMD = 10.51 (5.14,15.87); p = 0.0001] but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.13) in the RCT subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

LA appears to have significant benefits with improved morbidity compared to OA in complicated appendicitis (level of evidence II).

Acute appendicitis: should the laparoscopic approach be proposed as the gold standard? Six-year experience in an Emergency Surgery Unit

Acute appendicitis is common in an Emergency Surgery Unit. Although the laparoscopic approach is a method accepted for its treatment, no strong data are available for determining how many procedures must an experienced surgeon carry out for obtaining all the advantages of this technique and if this approach can become the gold standard in the activity of a general emergency unit with senior surgeons variously skilled on the basic laparoscopy. 142 patients that underwent appendectomy (90 laparoscopic, 52 conventional) for acute appendicitis were enrolled in this institutional retrospective cohort study. The surgeons were classified with a descriptor-based grading and divided in two groups regarding the skill. The only relevant result of our study was the significant reduction of conversion rate in case of laparoscopic approach. No strong differences were found concerning the duration of the procedure and the hospital stay between the two groups. The rate of complications were very low in both groups. In conclusion, the experienced surgeons can easily perform a laparoscopic approach independently from the specific skill in this approach.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a retrospective cohort study assessing outcomes and cost-effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed in emergency surgery. Because of lack of consensus about the most appropriate technique, appendectomy is still being performed by both open (OA) and laparoscopic (LA) methods. In this retrospective analysis, we aimed to compare the laparoscopic approach and the conventional technique in the treatment of acute appendicitis.

METHODS

Retrospectively collected data from 593 consecutive patients with acute appendicitis were studied. These comprised 310 patients who underwent conventional appendectomy and 283 patients treated laparoscopically. The two groups were compared for operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, complication rate, return to normal activity and cost.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter hospital stay (2.7 ± 2.5 days in LA and 1.4 ± 0.6 days in OA), with a less need for analgesia and with a faster return to daily activities (11.5 ± 3.1 days in LA and 16.1 ± 3.3 in OA). Operative time was significantly shorter in the open group (31.36 ± 11.13 min in OA and 54.9 ± 14.2 in LA). Total number of complications was less in the LA group with a significantly lower incidence of wound infection (1.4 % vs 10.6 %, P <0.001). The total cost of treatment was higher by 150 € in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach is a safe and efficient operative procedure in appendectomy and it provides clinically beneficial advantages over open method (including shorter hospital stay, decreased need for postoperative analgesia, early food tolerance, earlier return to work, lower rate of wound infection) against only marginally higher hospital costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02867072 Registered 10 August 2016. Retrospectively registered.

Severe Complications of Laparoscopic and Conventional Appendectomy Reported to the Finnish Patient Insurance Centre

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy is considered a safe operation, the related complications being minor. Negative exploration is an accepted procedure to avoid complications of appendicitis. Treatment with antibiotics is under debate as a primary treatment for appendicitis. The aim of this study was to collect and analyze detailed information on complications and morbidity related to appendectomy using the information of the nationwide Patient Insurance Association (PIA) database and to study the incidence of patient claims and compensated injuries related to appendectomy in Finland.

METHODS

Patients' claims from 1990 to 2010 were collected from the PIA register. Complications were classified using the accordion severity grading system. Severe complications were selected for more detailed analyses. Laparoscopic and open surgeries were compared. Factors related to compensated claims were assessed. For statistical analysis, Fisher's exact test, logistic multivariate regression, and the Mann-Kendall function were used.

RESULTS

Appendectomy complications leading to a patient insurance claim in Finland are rare (0.2 %). The rate of patients' claims after laparoscopic surgery was higher than after open surgery (p < 0.001), but the rate of compensated claims was equal. During the study period, complications after laparoscopic procedures more often led to additional surgery or organ failure (p = 0.03). Of the patients with a compensated injury, only 57 % had appendicitis. Preoperative computed tomography was used in only 6 % of these cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient injuries and claims regarding severe complications after appendectomy are rare. The complications related to laparoscopic appendectomy were more severe than those of open surgery.

Comparison of clinical outcome of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy is now the treatment of choice in uncomplicated appendicitis. To date its importance in the treatment of complicated appendicitis is not clearly defined.

METHODS

From January 2005 to June 2013 a total of 1762 patients underwent appendectomy for the suspected diagnosis of appendicitis at our institution. Of these patients 1516 suffered from complicated appendicitis and were enrolled. In total 926 (61 %) underwent open appendectomy (OA) and 590 (39 %) underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). The following parameters were retrospectively analyzed: age, sex, operative times, histology, length of hospital stay, 30-day morbidity focusing on occurrence of surgical site infections, intraabdominal abscess formation, postoperative ileus and appendiceal stump insufficiency, conversion rate, use of endoloops and endostapler.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference in operative time was observed between the laparoscopic and the open group (64.5 vs. 60 min; p = 0.002). Median length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.000). Surgical site infections occurred exclusively after OA (38 vs. 0 patients). Intraabdominal abscess formation occurred statistically significantly more often after LA (2 vs. 10 patients; p = 0.002). There were no statistical significances concerning the occurrence of postoperative ileus (p = 0.261) or appendiceal stump insufficiencies (p = 0.076).

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic approach for complicated appendicitis is a safe and feasible procedure. Surgeons should be aware of a potentially higher incidence of intraabdominal abscess formation following LA. Use of endobags , inversion of the appendiceal stump and carefully conducted local irrigation of the abdomen in a supine position may reduce the incidence of abscess formation.

Clinical NOTES appendectomy study: comparison of transvaginal NOTES appendectomy in hybrid technique with laparoscopic appendectomy

PURPOSE

The proposed advantages of NOTES are aimed to assess the comparison with standard procedures. Complications are a major focus of its evaluation. We initiated a prospective comparison between transvaginal hybrid appendectomy versus laparoscopic appendectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

For each, NOTES and laparoscopic appendectomy, 10 consecutive female patients participated in the study with follow-up documentation for 35 days and after 1 year. Transvaginal appendectomy was considered a non-standard medical procedure and required individual patient's consent. Pre- and postoperative gynecological examinations were performed. Questionnaire-based evaluation included issues related to quality of life in addition to objective clinical findings. The study is approved by the ethics committee of the University of Rostock.

RESULTS

All women returned questionnaires for evaluation. Age and BMI are comparable. Overall procedure time was significantly shorter in laparoscopy. The only postoperative complication consisted of an intra-abdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy. One patient of the NOTES group suffered from new abdominal pain 3 weeks postoperatively; a mini-laparoscopy showed a normal situation. Significant differences (p < 0.05) of the questionnaire-based comparison with advantages for the NOTES group were found in following items: reduced activity at day 1-14, postoperative pain at day 1, general health conditions at day 1-3 and quality of life at day 3. NOTES patients wished significantly earlier to be discharged and started significantly earlier with activities, but no differences existed after 4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Transvaginal flexible appendectomy appears to be a safe procedure performed in hybrid technique. Data from the study point to shortened recovery intervals and improved quality of life.

Feasibility of the short hospital stays after laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of short hospital stays after laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The records of 142 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis from January 2010 to December 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. Patients were allocated to an early (<48 hours) or a late (>48 hours) group by postoperative hospital stay. Postoperative complications and readmission rates in the two groups were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

Overall mean patient age was 50.1 (±16.0) years, and mean hospital stay was 3.8 (±2.8) days. Fifty-four patients (group E, 38.0%) were discharged within 48 hours of surgery, and 88 patients (group L, 62.0%) stayed more than 48 hours. Overall complication rates were similar in the two groups (14.8% vs. 21.6%, p=0.318), and wound complications (13.0% vs. 12.5%), postoperative bowel obstruction (1.9% vs. 2.3%), and abdominal pain (1.9% vs. 3.4%) were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Patients that undergo laparoscopic appendectomy due to uncomplicated appendicitis may be safely discharged within 48 hours. Further study should be conducted to determine the optimal length of hospital stay after laparoscopic appendectomy to reduce hospital costs.

Underweight body mass index as a predictive factor for surgical site infections after laparoscopic appendectomy

PURPOSE

Analyses of risk factors associated with surgical site infections (SSIs) after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) have been limited. Especially, the association of an underweight body mass index (BMI) with SSIs has not been clearly defined. This study aimed to identify the impact of underweight BMI in predicting SSIs after LA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The records of a total of 101 consecutive patients aged ≥16 years who underwent LA by a single surgeon between March 2011 and December 2012 were retrieved from a prospectively collected database. The rate of SSIs was compared among the underweight, normal and overweight and obese groups. Also, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with SSIs.

RESULTS

The overall rate of SSIs was 12.8%. The superficial incisional SSI rate was highest in the underweight group (44.4% in the underweight group, 11.0% in the normal group, and 0% in the overweight and obese group, p=0.006). In univariate analysis, open conversion and being underweight were determined to be risk factors for SSIs. Underweight BMI was also found to be a significant predictor for SSIs in multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 10.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.0-49.5; p=0.005).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated underweight BMI as being associated with SSIs after LA. Surgeons should be more cautious to prevent SSIs in patients that are underweight when performing LA.

Role of Drains in Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis at a Busy County Hospital

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has become the treatment of choice for acute appendicitis with equal or better outcomes than traditional open appendectomy (OA). LA in patients with a gangrenous or perforated appendicitis carries increased rate of pelvic abscess formation when compared with OA. We hypothesized routine placement of pelvic drains in gangrenous or perforated appendicitis decreases pelvic abscess formation after LA. Three hundred thirty-one patients undergoing LA between January 2007 and June 2011 were reviewed. Patients with perforated or gangrenous appendicitis were included. Group I had a Jackson-Pratt (JP) drain(s) placed and Group II had no JP drain. Data included patient demographics, emergency department laboratory values and vital signs, and computed axial tomography scan findings, intra-abdominal or pelvic abscess postoperatively, interventional radiology drainage, and length of stay. Clinic follow-up notes were reviewed. One hundred forty-eight patients were identified. Forty-three patients had placement of JP drains (Group I) and 105 patients had no JP drain (Group II). Three patients (three of 43 [6%]) in Group I developed pelvic abscess and 21 of 105 (20%) patients in Group II developed pelvic abscesses requiring subsequent drainage. This was statistically significant. Patient demographics, temperature, and mean white blood count before surgery were similar. Presurgery computed tomography (CT) with appendicolith and CT with abscess were more prevalent in Group I. The use of JP drainage in patients with perforated or gangrenous appendicitis during LA has decreased rates of pelvic abscess. This was demonstrated despite the drain group having appendicolith or abscess on preoperative CT.

Suprapubic single incision laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

The single incision method through the umbilicus is commonly used for laparoscopic appendectomy. To obtain a better cosmetic outcome and less surgical complexity, we have designed a new single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy technique performed above the pubic symphysis.

METHODS

Between January 2011 and January 2012, patients with uncomplicated acute or chronic appendicitis, excluding those with abscess, perforation, peritonitis, and previous pelvic surgery, underwent this innovative laparoscopic appendectomy. During each operation, a multichannel trocar composed of a small wound protector and a size 6 sterile glove was deployed after a 2 cm transverse incision was made 1-2 cm above the pubic hair area.

RESULTS

Of the 42 patients, 24 were male and 18 were female. Their mean age was 30 ± 11 y. The mean operative time was 58 ± 11 min, mean time to first flatus postoperatively was 17 ± 8 h, and mean postoperative length of hospital stay was 3 ± 1 d. No complications occurred during surgery. No patient required conversion to either multiport or open appendectomy. Postoperative wound inflammation was observed in one case (2.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggested that suprapubic single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy seems to be safe and feasible for selected patients, in consideration of cosmetic outcomes.

Laparoscopic appendectomy with hand-made loop

Introduction

Acute appendicitis is the most common abdominal pathology requiring emergent surgical procedure. For treatment, laparoscopic surgery is commonly performed. For appendix stump closure different procedures are used.

Aim

Evaluation of the results of patients in whom the stump of the appendix was closed with a hand-made loop during laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).

Material and methods

Patients in whom the stump of the appendix was closed with a hand-made loop during LA were included in the study. Reports of patients were collected from patient files retrospectively. Laparoscopic appendectomy was applied through 3 ports. Two loops were placed in the stump of the appendix. Loop was a modification of the Roeder loop that has been described in the literature and has been shown to be safe.

Results

Sixty-one patients were included in the study. Twenty-four of them (39%) were female, 37 of them (61%) were male. The age range is from 13 to 60 (average age is 30) years. During the postoperative period, one surgical wound infection and two intraabdominal abscesses were detected. There was no leakage from the stump of the appendix in any patients.

Conclusions

One of the most important components of cost of LA is the technique of closure of the stump. Stapler, endoloop, various clips or a hand-made loop could be used for closure. We recommend using a hand-made loop for closure as an easy, safe and cheap method.

Single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has gained enormous popularity worldwide. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess feasibility, safety, and benefits of SILA as compared with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA).

METHODS

A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcome measures were total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and ileus. Secondary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay, pain scores, conversion rate, reoperation rate, and time to return to normal activity.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs, totaling 1,211 patients (604 for SILA and 607 for CLA), met the inclusion criteria. The incidences of total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and ileus were statistically similar between the SILA and CLA groups. Compared with CLA, SILA was associated with a significantly longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 5.28 min; 95 % confidence interval = 3.61 to 6.94). Time to return to normal activity was shorter in the SILA group (by 0.69 days). Length of hospital stay, pain scores, conversion rate, and reoperation rate were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

SILA is feasible and safe with no obvious advantages over CLA. Therefore, it may be considered as an alternative to CLA.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: quality care and cost-effectiveness for today's economy

BACKGROUND

Open appendectomy (OA) has traditionally been the treatment for acute appendicitis (AA). Beneficial effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for the treatment of AA are still controversial.

AIM

To present our technique for LA and to determine whether LA should be the technique of choice of any case of AA instead of OA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All cases operated for AA (February 2011 through February 2012) by means of LA or OA were prospectively evaluated. Data regarding length of stay, complications, emergency department consultation after discharge or readmission were collected. Patients were classified into four groups depending on the severity of the appendicitis. Economic data were obtained based on the cost of the disposable material. Cost of hospital stay was calculated based on the Ley de Tasas of the Generalitat Valenciana according to the DRG and the length of stay.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-two cases were included. Ninety-nine patients underwent OA and 43 LA. Average length of stay for LA group was 2,6 days and 3,8 for OA. Average cost of the stay for OA was 1.799 euros and 1.081 euros for LA. Global morbidity rate was 16%, 5% for LA and 20% for OA.

CONCLUSIONS

LA is nowadays the technique of choice for the treatment of AA.

Comparison between single-incision and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a meta-analysis from eight RCTs

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA), we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA).

METHODS

RCTs comparing the effects of SILA and CTLA were searched for in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase. Operative time, the pain visual analogue scales scores (VAS scores), dose of analgesics, postoperative complications, hospital charges, and duration of postoperative hospitalization in SILA and CTLA were pooled and compared by meta-analysis. Odds ratios and weighted mean differences (WMDs) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the effect of SILA.

RESULT

Eight original RCTs investigating 760 adults and 684 children, 1,444 patients in total, of whom 721 received SILA only and 723 received CTLA only, met the inclusion criteria. Both in adults and children, the mean operative time was significantly longer in SILA than CTLA (WMD5.45, 95% CI 2.15 to 8.75, p = 0.01). Compared with CTLA, in children, SILA have higher analgesic consumption (WMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.3, p = 0.03) and greater hospital charges (WMD 0.87, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.48, p = 0.005), which was not statistically different in adults (p > 0.05). Pooling the results for SILA and CTLA revealed no significant difference in VAS scores, wound infection rate, overall complications, and postoperative hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

SILA failed to show any obvious advantages over CTLA in perioperative and postoperative outcomes. Therefore, it represents a possible alternative to conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy.

Wound healing after open appendectomies in adult patients: a prospective, randomised trial comparing two methods of wound closure

BACKGROUND

The skin is closed in open appendectomy traditionally with few interrupted nonabsorbable sutures. The use of this old method is based on a suggestion that this technique decreases wound infections. In pediatric surgery, skin closure with running intradermal absorbable sutures has been found to be as safe as nonabsorbable sutures, even in complicated cases. Our purpose was to compare the safety of classic interrupted nonabsorbable skin closure to continuous intradermal absorbable sutures in appendectomy wounds in adult patients.

METHODS

A total of 206 adult patients with clinically suspected appendicitis were allocated to the study and prospectively randomized into two groups of wound closure: the interrupted nonabsorbable (NA) suture and the intradermal continuous absorbable (A) suture group. Primary wound healing was controlled on the first postoperative day, at 1 week clinically and after 2 weeks by means of a telephone interview. Follow-up data were obtained from 185 patients (90 in group NA and 95 in group A).

RESULTS

Continuous absorbable intradermal suturing was as safe as nonabsorbable sutures in regard to wound infections.

CONCLUSION

Continuous, absorbable sutures can be used safely even in complicated appendicectomies without increasing the risk of wound infection. Considering the benefits of absorbable suturing, we recommend this method in all open appendectomies.

Laparoscopic approach in perforated appendicitis: increased incidence of surgical site infection?

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy in the setting of perforated appendicitis remains controversial. A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the early postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) compared to open appendectomy (OA) in patients with perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

A total of 1,032 patients required an appendectomy between January 2005 and December 2009. Among these patients, 169 presented with perforated appendicitis. Operation times, length of hospital stay, overall complication rates within 30 days, and surgical site infection (SSI) rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of the 169 evaluated patients, 106 required LA and 63 OA. Although operation times were similar in both groups (92 ± 31 min for LA vs. 98 ± 45 for OA, p = 0.338), length of hospital stay was shorter in the LA group (6.9 ± 3.8 days vs. 11.5 ± 9.2, p < 0.001). Overall complication rates were significantly lower in the LA group (32.1 vs. 52.4 %, p < 0.001), as were incisional SSI (1.9 vs. 22.2 %, p < 0.001). Organ/space SSI rates were similar in both groups (23.6 % after LA vs. 20.6 % after OA, p = 0.657).

CONCLUSIONS

For perforated appendicitis, LA results in a significantly shorter hospital stay, fewer overall postoperative complications, and fewer wound infections compared to OA. Organ/space SSI rates were similar for both procedures. LA provides a safe option for treating patients with perforated appendicitis.

New detachable occlusion balloon unit for transrectal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Transrectal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) requires a good endoluminal view and adequate intrarectal bacterial clearance in the working area. We developed a new occlusion balloon unit with an easily detachable inflation device, which allows the surgeon a clear working area distal to the balloon.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The effectiveness of the sealing balloon and the extent of macroscopic and histopathological injury to the bowel wall at the site of balloon placement were examined in 12 pigs.

RESULTS

The mean time to place and inflate the balloon unit was 12.0 ± 3.5 min, effective air-tightness lasted for 21.0 ± 12.0 min. There was no leakage of dye (methylene blue) past the balloon when pressure was maintained >6.70 ± 0.08 kPa (6.62-6.78 kPa). After gut irrigation, good visibility was maintained in the working area for six hours, and adequate bacterial clearance was maintained for three hours. There were no macroscopic signs of intestinal wall damage at the site of balloon placement. Histopathological examination showed only patchy mucosal damage and submucosal thrombus at the site of balloon placement.

CONCLUSION

This newly-developed occlusion balloon unit helps to establish good visibility and adequate bacterial clearance for endoluminal surgical procedures.

Tailoring the operative approach for appendicitis to the patient: a prediction model from national surgical quality improvement program data

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is increasingly being performed in the United States, despite controversy about differences in infectious complication rates compared with open appendectomy (OA). Subpopulations exist in which infectious complication rates, both surgical site and organ space, differ with respect to LA compared with OA.

STUDY DESIGN

All appendectomies in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were analyzed with respect to surgical site infection (SSI) and organ space infection (OSI). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified independent predictors of SSI or OSI. Probabilities of SSI or OSI were determined for subpopulations to identify when LA was superior to OA.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2009, there were 61,830 appendectomies performed (77.5% LA), of which 9,998 (16.2%) were complicated (58.7% LA). The risk of SSI was considerably lower for LA in both noncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Across all ages, body mass index, renal function, and WBCs, LA was associated with a lower probability of SSI. The risk of OSI was considerably greater for LA in both noncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. In complicated appendicitis, OA was associated with a lower probability of OSI in patients with WBC >12 cells × 10(3)/μL. In noncomplicated appendicitis, OA was associated with a lower probability of OSI in patients with a body mass index <37.5 when compared with LA.

CONCLUSIONS

Subpopulations exist in which OA is superior to LA in terms of OSI, however, SSI is consistently lower in LA patients.

Cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy: a multilevel approach with propensity score matching

OBJECTIVE

To compare postoperative complications and cost of treatment of laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) and to identify the most cost-effective treatment method.

METHODS

Patients treated for appendectomy in US veterans health administration (VHA) hospitals in 2005 were included into our study. Direct medical cost and postoperative complications during hospitalization were used as outcomes. Propensity score matching was employed to adjust for baseline imbalances between treatment groups. It was adjusted for the severity of appendicitis, comorbidities according to Charlson Comorbidity Index, and demographic variables. 1:1 optimal matching with replacement was performed. Based on the matched samples, we estimated generalized linear mixed regression models for costs (gamma model) and postoperative complications (logit model). Besides patients' covariates, predictors of hospital resource use and quality of care at the hospital level were considered as explanatory variables.

RESULTS

The total study population comprised of 1,128 patients (370 LA, 758 OA) from 95 VHA hospitals. Type of appendectomy had a significant influence on total costs (P=0.005), with predicted costs for LA being 17.1% lower in comparison to OA (OA: 10,851 US$ [95%CI: 9,707 US$; 12,131 US$] vs. LA: 8,995 US$ [95%CI: 8,073 US$; 10,022 US$]). Differences in the predicted overall postoperative complication were not significant between LA and OA (P=0.6311). Severity of appendicitis had a significant impact on costs and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Predicted costs for LA were 1,856 US$ lower than for OA while the postoperative complication rate did not differ significantly. Thus, LA is the treatment of choice from a provider's perspective.

Late caecal fistula after laparoscopic appendectomy managed mini-invasively - case report

Laparoscopic appendectomy is being performed increasingly, worldwide. The laparoscopic approach is associated with a lower complication rate and a shorter period of disability but some major complications still occur. We present a case of a 22-year-old woman who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis. In 3 weeks time after surgery, after physical activity the patient presented acute abdomen. Exploratory laparoscopy revealed peritonitis caused by caecal fistula. Laparoscopic lavage and drainage of the peritoneal cavity with formal caecostomy was performed. The postoperative course was uneventful. The stoma was closed in 6 months’ time without other complications. In our opinion laparoscopy is proven to be a safe and good option for diagnostics and treatment of some complications of appendectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for appendicitis in elderly patients

Purpose

The appendectomy is the most common emergent surgical procedure in elderly patients. The increasing number of elderly persons has been accompanied by an increase in the number of cases of acute appendicitis in the elderly. In order to understand the clinical significance of a laparoscopic appendectomy for elderly patients with appendicitis, we investigated the results of a laparoscopic appendectomy for treating patients over 60 years of age with appendicitis and compared them with the results for an open technique.

Methods

We studied retrospectively patients over 60 years of age who underwent an appendectomy with either a laparoscopic (LA) or open (OA) technique for appendicitis between July 2007 and December 2009. There were 30 patients in the LA group and 47 patients in the OA group. The demographic data, operative time, length of the hospital stay, bowel movement, pain control, cost, complications and pre-existing disease were assessed.

Results

There were no significant differences between the LA and the OA groups with respect to pre-existing diseases, gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and the number of cases of complicated appendicitis, operative time, length of hospital stay, and times of analgesics use. However, the proportion of early gas out (within POD #2) was significantly greater in the LA group (80% vs. 57%, P < 0.05), and postoperative complications were significantly lower in the LA group (7% vs. 32%, P < 0.01). The costs for the two groups were not significantly different.

Conclusion

A laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and effective procedure in elderly patients and is not associated with any increase in morbidity. It can be recommended for routine use in treating elderly patients with appendicitis.

[Single-port access cholecystectomy : current status]

Single-port access surgery (SPA), the most recent development in laparoscopic surgery allows operations to be carried out through only a single incision using special multichannel ports. By the use of a smaller access tissue trauma and access-related complications, such as wound infections, adhesions and incisional hernias can be decreased considerably. Because of less postoperative pain earlier mobilization of patients can also be achieved. By placing the access transumbilically, e.g. in SPA cholecystectomy (SPA-CHE), the scar is perfectly covered achieving an optimal cosmetic result. Meanwhile various so-called single ports and camera systems have been developed. Great importance is attached to the development of special (double) bended and/or articulating instruments because with these instrument triangulation is possible through only one incision. Nevertheless the stereoscopic situation in SPA-CHE implicates some factors related to retraction, exposition and release of the gallbladder but some difficult situations can be managed safely with some tips and tricks.Because of the already worldwide spread of SPA-CHE this technique will soon become an established minimally invasive technique. However, appropriate studies confirming the clear advantages of the technique are still lacking.

Economics of appendicitis: cost trend analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy from 1998 to 2008

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has become more acceptable for the treatment of appendicitis over the last decade; however, its cost benefit compared to open appendectomy (OA) remains under debate. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utilization of LA and its cost effectiveness based on total hospital charges stratified by complexity of disease and complications compared to OA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Nationwide Inpatient Sample data from 1998 to 2008 with the principal diagnosis of appendicitis were included. Appendicitis cases were divided by simple and complex (peritonitis or abscess) and subdivided by OA, LA, and lap converted to open (CONV). Total charges (2008 value), length of stay (LOS), and complications were assessed by disease presentation and operative approach.

RESULTS

Between 1998 and 2008, 1,561,518 (54.3%) OA, 1,231,643 (42.8%) LA, and 84,662 (2.9%) CONV appendectomies were performed. LA had shorter LOS (2 d) than OA (3 d) and CONV (5 d) (P<0.001). CONV (7.4%) cases had more complications than OA (3.7%) and LA (2.6%). LA ($19,978) and CONV ($28,103) are costlier than OA ($15,714) based on normalized cost for simple and complex diseases (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

LA is more prevalent but its cost is higher in both simple and complex cases. Cost and complications increase if the case is converted to open. OA remains the most cost effective approach for patients with acute appendicitis.

Laparoscopy or not: a meta-analysis of the surgical effects of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy

Both open appendicectomy and laparoscopic appendicectomy have their own advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of our meta-analysis is to compare the surgical effects of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. In our study, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Only prospective randomized controlled trials that compared the 2 methods of operation were included. Evaluation indexes in our study involved are operating time, complications, hospital stay, time to return to normal activities, time to return to normal diet, and the overall cost. Results showed that operating time of laparoscopic appendicectomy was significantly longer [weighted mean difference (WMD) 7.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.03-9.17 min; P<0.00001]. Time of hospital stay (WMD -0.82; 95% CI: -0.93 to -0.70 d), time to return to normal activities (WMD -6.85; 95% CI: -7.62 to -6.09 d), and diet (WMD -0.61; 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.36 d) were significantly decreased in the laparoscopic appendicectomy group (all P<0.00001). There is no convincing difference in complications (odds ratio 0.99; 95% CI: 0.80-1.22; P=0.92) and death rates (odds ratio 0.97; 95% CI: 0.29-3.25; P=0.96). In conclusion, laparoscopic appendicectomy may have advantages over open appendicectomy in hospital stay and postoperative recovery.

Should the macroscopically normal appendix be removed during laparoscopy for acute right iliac fossa pain when no other explanatory pathology is found?

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis remains the most common surgical emergency and although diagnosis should be made on clinical grounds, sometimes this can be difficult. Laparoscopy has gained increasing favour as a method of both investigating right iliac fossa pain and treating the finding of appendicitis. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of intraoperative diagnosis of appendicitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Records of all patients who underwent laparoscopy for possible appendicitis at the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital over a 1-year period were reviewed. Notes of those patients who underwent an open appendicectomy were also reviewed for comparison. Intraoperative findings were recorded, as were the subsequent pathologic findings.

RESULTS

Over the 1-year period from September 2005 to September 2006, 355 operations for suspected appendicitis were performed. In 277 (78%) cases, these were performed laparoscopically. Seventy-three out of 78 open appendectomies were confirmed as appendicitis. Only 1 of these was not macroscopically evident to the surgeon. The appendix was removed in 259 of the 277 laparoscopic procedures. Correct intraoperative diagnosis was made in 217 (84%) of removed appendices, 12 (29%) of the appendices thought to be macroscopically normal and removed were found to be appendicitis after histologic examination. Eighteen patients undergoing the laparoscopic procedure had their appendix left in situ due to normal appearance; none had represented at 6 months postsurgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy may aid in the diagnosis of acute right iliac fossa pain. However, intraoperative diagnosis is not easy with almost one-third of apparently normal appendices being inflamed histologically. We would therefore advocate the removal of a normal looking appendix in the absence of other explanatory pathology.

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 conventional appendectomy--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Although laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.

Methods

A meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.

Results

Forty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).

Conclusion

LA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.

Prevention of infectious complications after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis--the role of routine abdominal drainage

PURPOSE

Complicated acute appendicitis is still associated with an increased morbidity. If laparoscopy has been accepted as a valid approach, some questions remain concerning intra-abdominal abscess formation. Routine prophylactic drainage of the abdomen has been proposed. However, this practice remains a matter of debate, poorly validated in the literature. With the present study, we investigated the impact of drainage in laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

METHOD

This is a case match study of consecutive patients operated on by laparoscopy in a single institution. One hundred and thirty patients operated for complicated appendicitis (local peritonitis without perforation, with perforation, or with periappendicular abscess) with prophylactic intraperitoneal drainage were matched one by one to 130 patients operated without drainage. Uncomplicated appendicitis and generalized peritonitis were excluded. Primary endpoint was surgical complications and secondary endpoints were transit recovery time and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Patients without drain had significantly less overall complications (7.7% vs. 18.5%, p = 0.01). Moreover, the absence of drainage was of significant benefit for transit recovery time (2.5 vs. 3.5 days, p = 0.0068) and length of hospital stay (4.2 vs. 7.3 days, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

No benefits were observed for prophylactic drainage of the abdominal cavity during emergency laparoscopic treatment of complicated appendicitis. For this reason, this practice may be abandoned.

Robotic-assisted ileovesicostomy: initial results

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted ileovesicostomy in treating patients with a neurogenic bladder that is unsuitable for clean intermittent self-catheterization.

METHODS

Robotic-assisted ileovesicostomy was performed using a 5-port approach for patients with a neurogenic bladder unable to tolerate clean intermittent or chronic bladder catheterization. Intraperitoneal operative steps included the creation of a full thickness U-shaped posterior bladder wall flap, intracorporeal harvesting of 15 cm of terminal ileum for use as a urinary conduit, and intracorporeal enterovesical anastomosis. Then, a counter incision was made over the marked stoma site on the abdominal wall, and bowel continuity was restored through an extracorporeal side-side anastomosis by the stomal incision. Ileovesicostomy stoma maturation was then completed.

RESULTS

Eight robotic ileovesicostomies were performed. The median patient age was 53 years, body mass index was 29.0 kg/m(2), and preoperative bladder compliance was 5.7 mL/cm/H(2)O. The median blood loss was 100 mL. The median operative time was 330 minutes (range 240-420). No intraoperative complications occurred. Four patients had postoperative complications, including urethral incontinence (2) and ileus (2). No wound complications occurred. Bowel function returned after a median of 4.8 days after surgery, and median hospital stay was 7.7 days. Over a median 14-month follow-up, all patients had a functioning ileovesicostomy, and median postoperative residual bladder volume was 10 mL.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first to describe the robotic ileovesicostomy procedure. Robotic ileovesicostomy appears to be safe and effective, with low morbidity.

Incidental appendectomy during endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The first laparoscopic appendectomy was performed over 25 years ago, and yet controversy still exists over the open method vs. the laparoscopic approach, and whether an incidental appendectomy is warranted. This study aimed to evaluate our experience in performing a laparoscopic incidental appendectomy and to address these issues.

METHODS

A total of 772 laparoscopic appendectomies were performed and analyzed and statistically evaluated.

RESULTS

Mean age of the patients was 30.8+/-7.0 years. Mean operating time for an incidental appendectomy was 12.3+/-4.5 minutes. Most common pathology result was adhesions, and the rarest was endometriosis. Of patients with confirmed appendicitis, 75.8% did not have an initial preoperative diagnosis of appendicitis. When warranted, 103 (13.3%) patients underwent a second-look laparoscopy: 75.5% had no adhesions, 23.5% had mild adhesions, 2% had moderate adhesions. Backward elimination logistic regression revealed that endometriosis (P=0.016), endometrioma (P=0.039), pelvic or abdominal adhesions (P=0.015) were associated with a reduced likelihood of encountering appendicitis on pathology examination. The complication rate was 0.13%. Anesthesia cost was lower for an incidental appendectomy compared with an urgent one.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic incidental appendectomy is safe and quick to perform. Due to the complex nature of confirming the diagnosis of pelvic and abdominal pain, this study supports the routine performance of an incidental appendectomy in the female patient.