Laparoscopic appendectomy in complicated appendicitis: Is it safe?

Intra and Postoperative Advantages of Laparoscopy in the Treatment of Complicated Appendicitis

Aim: To determine and define the advantages of the laparoscopic appendectomy in the treatment of complicated appendicitis by comparing it with the open appendectomy. Material and Methods: In this prospective interventional clinical study we compared the intraoperative data and the postoperative outcome of 77 patients presented with complicated appendicitis, operated with open and laparoscopic appendectomy within a period of 20 months. One surgeon performed all of the laparoscopic procedures and two other senior surgeons performed the open procedures. Results: Operative time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.033). Conversion rate was 2.3%. Overall postoperative morbidity was 25.97%. There was one operative revision due to postoperative small bowel obstruction in the laparoscopic group. Appendicular stump leakage occurred in one patient in the open group. One intra-abdominal abscess occurred in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.38). Wound infection occurred only in the open group (p = 0.018). Length of stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.0052). One patient from the laparoscopic group was readmitted. Conclusions: Laparoscopy is a reliable method in the treatment of complicated appendicitis. It offers a shorter operative time, low conversion rate, an acceptable rate of major postoperative complications and a shorter length of stay.

Surgical Site Infection Post-appendectomy in a Tertiary Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Appendectomy considered at the top of emergency surgical procedures worldwide, and surgical site infection (SSI) is not an uncommon complication postoperatively. Many factors may be contributed to SSI occurrence; either during preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative periods. No recent studies focusing on SSI post-appendectomy and the related factors in our region. So, we aim to find the prevalence and detect the factors that may lead to SSI in post-appendectomy patients at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH) between 2013 and 2017.

METHODS

This is a retrospective chart review study. Data were collected by data collection sheet from (KAUH) patient's database, as we include: patients' demographics, blood investigations, operation details, co-morbidities, and hospitalization time. All patients who underwent appendectomy between 2013 and 2017 were included. We used frequencies, Mann-Whitney U test, and binary logistic regression tests for data analysis.

RESULT

SSI post-appendectomy was found in 31 patients out of 433. SSI was statistically significant related more with an open technique of appendectomy (p=0.0001), longer duration of the surgery (p=0.0001), perforated type of appendicitis (p=0.002), more hospitalization time (p=0.0004), postoperative lab results of high WBC count (p=0.004), and low albumin (p=0.011). Other factors including demographics and clinical characteristics, intraoperative, perioperative, and hemoglobin level showed no significant relations.

CONCLUSION

Controlling the high rate of SSI by using the optimal technique of approach, decreasing the duration of the surgery, and early intervention may help more in reducing SSI post-appendectomy. Taking into consideration the other perioperative factors will lead to better outcomes for the patients.

Improving Access to Laparoscopy in Low-Resource Settings

Laparoscopy has numerous clinical benefits compared to laparotomy. However, a functional laparoscopy program requires significant investment and, as a result, remains unavailable for the majority of the world’s population in low- and middle-income countries. The effort to bring laparoscopy to low-resource settings has produced variable outcomes resulting from the challenges inherent to a complex surgical program. This paper highlights these shortcomings and identifies opportunities to improve future laparoscopy programs.

Comparison of Open Appendectomy and Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Perforated Appendicitis

Introduction Laparoscopic appendectomy for nonperforated appendicitis is associated with improved outcomes. This study compares laparoscopic appendectomy and open appendectomy in cases of a perforated appendix by assessing surgical site infection, mean operating time, and length of hospital stay. Materials and methods This study was a prospective randomized study conducted at the Department of Surgery, Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, from January 2016 to January 2017, by randomly allotting the laparoscopic or the open appendectomy technique to 130 patients by the lottery method. Patients having a perforated appendix were included after they provided informed consent. Data were entered and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, US). Results The frequency of wound site infection was significantly higher in open appendectomy (27.69%) than in the laparoscopic approach (10.77%; p=0.01). Mean hospital stay was slightly longer in the laparoscopic approach (4.38 ± 1.09 days) than in open appendectomy (4.18 ± 0.77 days; p=0.23). Mean operating time for laparoscopic appendectomy and open appendectomy was 46.98 ± 2.99 minutes and 53.02 ± 2.88 minutes, respectively (p<0.000). Conclusion Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with fewer surgical site infections and shorter mean operating time than an open appendectomy.

Laparoscopic appendicectomy is superior to open surgery for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Efficacy of emergency laparoscopic appendectomy in treating complicated appendicitis for elderly patients

To assess the therapeutic effects of emergency laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in treating complicated appendicitis (CA) for elderly patients (defined as age 65 years and above). Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 115 elderly patients with CA who underwent surgical therapy in the Affiliated Huizhou Hospital of Sun Yat-Sun University, Huizhou, Guangdong Province, China between September 2014 and August 2016. Of these, 59 patients consented to open appendectomy (OA), and LA was performed in the other 56 patients. The perioperative and follow-up variables of the 2 groups were analyzed. Results: The operative time in the LA group was longer than the OA group (LA: 70.5±16.0 min versus [vs.] OA: 59.3±12.0 min, p greater than 0.001). The LA group had lower chances of incision infections (LA: 8.9% vs OA: 28.8 %, p=0.007) and shorter hospital stay (LA: 6.1± 2.5 days vs. OA: 9.6±3.5 days, p greater than 0.001). Return to soft diet (LA: 1.4 ± 0.8 days vs OA: 3.0 ± 1.6 days, p greater than 0.001) and time to out of bed (LA: 1.3±0.5 days vs OA: 2.5±0.9 days, p greater than 0.001) was faster in the LA group. The incidence of complications and 30-day readmission rate in the LA group was much lower than the OA group. Conclusion: Emergency LA in treating elderly patients with CA has the advantages of less trauma, definite curative effect, low complication rates, and fast recovery when compared with OA.

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).

Emergency laparoscopy: Role and implementation

Laparoscopic surgery has emerged over the past two decades as the surgical approach of choice in the treatment of many digestive disorders. Laparoscopy has its place in the management of abdominal surgical emergencies since it provides the same benefits: less postoperative pain and shorter length of hospital stay when compared to laparotomy. However, its role in the management of abdominal emergencies has not yet been fully clarified. In this review, we focus on what has been validated concerning the role of emergency laparoscopy in the management of abdominal diseases.

Systematic review of laparoscopic surgery in low- and middle-income countries: benefits, challenges, and strategies

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy may prove feasible to address surgical needs in limited-resource settings. However, no aggregate data exist regarding the role of laparoscopy in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study was designed to describe the issues facing laparoscopy in LMICs and to aggregate reported solutions.

METHODS

A search was conducted using Medline, African Index Medicus, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and the LILACS/BIREME/SCIELO database. Included studies were in English, published after 1992, and reported safety, cost, or outcomes of laparoscopy in LMICs. Studies pertaining to arthroscopy, ENT, flexible endoscopy, hysteroscopy, cystoscopy, computer-assisted surgery, pediatrics, transplantation, and bariatrics were excluded. Qualitative synthesis was performed by extracting results that fell into three categories: advantages of, challenges to, and adaptations made to implement laparoscopy in LMICs. PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed.

RESULTS

A total of 1101 abstracts were reviewed, and 58 articles were included describing laparoscopy in 25 LMICs. Laparoscopy is particularly advantageous in LMICs, where there is often poor sanitation, limited diagnostic imaging, fewer hospital beds, higher rates of hemorrhage, rising rates of trauma, and single income households. Lack of trained personnel and equipment were frequently cited challenges. Adaptive strategies included mechanical insufflation with room air, syringe suction, homemade endoloops, hand-assisted techniques, extracorporeal knot tying, innovative use of cheaper instruments, and reuse of disposable instruments. Inexpensive laboratory-based trainers and telemedicine are effective for training.

CONCLUSIONS

LMICs face many surgical challenges that require innovation. Laparoscopic surgery may be safe, effective, feasible, and cost-effective in LMICs, although it often remains limited in its accessibility, acceptability, and quality. This study may not capture articles written in languages other than English or in journals not indexed by the included databases. Surgeons, policymakers, and manufacturers should focus on plans for sustainability, training and retention of providers, and regulation of efforts to develop laparoscopy in LMICs.

Single incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) in comparison with conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CMLA) has not been conclusively determined.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SILA with CMLA were carried out by RevMan 5.0 software.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs comparing SILA and CMLA were included. Overall, 1,216 patients were operated on: 611 cases by SILA versus 605 cases by CMLA. Compared with CMLA, SILA was associated with increased procedural difficulty, prolonged procedural duration, shorter length of hospital stay, earlier return to normal activity and better cosmesis. There were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores and complication rates between SILA and CMLA.

CONCLUSION

The current best evidence shows SILA holds the promise of improving postoperative recovery and cosmetic result with equal efficacy and safety, whereas it is associated with higher surgical difficulty with longer surgical time when compared with CMLA.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for complicated appendicitis: a randomized controlled trial to prove safety

BACKGROUND

To date, no randomized control trial has been performed comparing open appendectomy (OA) to laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in complicated appendicitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis in 2010 concluded LA is advantageous to OA with less surgical site sepsis in complicated appendicitis; however, the level of evidence is weak (level 3a). The aim of the study was to determine whether LA is safe in the treatment of complicated appendicitis. Primary outcome included all-cause mortality and procedure-related mortality; secondary outcomes included intra-operative duration, rates of wound sepsis and re-intervention, length of hospital stay and re-admission rates.

METHODS

One hundred and fourteen patients were randomized prospectively to either OA or LA using a computer-generated blind method. Patients who were either less than 12 years of age, had previous abdominal surgery or were pregnant were excluded. A team of senior surgeons capable of doing both OA and LA performed all procedures.

RESULTS

The intra-operative duration, the rate of wound sepsis, the number of re-operations, the length of hospital stay and the rate of re-admissions between the OA and LA groups did not differ statistically.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy is safe in complicated appendicitis. Current Control Trials (ISRCTN92257749).

New strategy during complicated open appendectomy: Convert open operation to laparoscopy

AIM: To introduce a new strategy during complicated open appendectomy - converting open operation to laparoscopy.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed databases at two institutions between October 2010 and January 2013, identifying 826 patients who had undergone complicated appendectomy for histologically confirmed acute or chronic appendicitis. They included 214 complicated appendectomies: 155 lengthened-incision open appendectomies (LIA group) and 59 open appendectomies with conversion to laparoscopy (OACL group).

RESULTS: A total of 214 patients with complicated appendectomies were included in the study, including 155 cases of LIA and 59 cases of OACL. No major complication leading to death occurred in the study. Patient characteristics of the two groups were similar. Several parameters showed a significant difference between the two groups. For the OACL vs LIA groups they were, respectively: incision length (3.8 ± 1.4 cm vs 6.2 ± 3.5 cm, P < 0.05); time to flatus recovery (2.3 ± 0.6 d vs 4.2 ± 0.8 d, P < 0.05), drainage rate (61.0% vs 80.0%, P < 0.05); pain level (3.6 ± 1.8 vs 7.2 ± 2.4, P < 0.05); hospital stay (5.1 ± 2.7 d vs 8.7 ± 3.2 d, P < 0.05); complication rate (8.5% vs 14.7%, P < 0.05). Other factors showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSION: Lengthened-incision open appendectomy increases the incidence of complications and prolongs the hospital stay. Conversion of open to laparoscopic appendectomy is feasible and efficient in complicated cases. It decreases the rate of incisional and abdominal infections, allows faster return of bowel movements, and shortens the hospital stay.