Laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy: An Indian perspective

Assessment of laparoscopic instrument reprocessing in rural India: a mixed methods study

Background

Laparoscopy is a minimally-invasive surgical procedure that uses long slender instruments that require much smaller incisions than conventional surgery. This leads to faster recovery times, fewer post-surgical wound infections and shorter hospital stays. For these reasons, laparoscopy could be particularly advantageous to patients in low to middle income countries (LMICs). Unfortunately, sterile processing departments in LMIC hospitals are faced with limited access to equipment and trained staff which poses an obstacle to safe surgical care. The reprocessing of laparoscopic devices requires specialised equipment and training. Therefore, when LMIC hospitals invest in laparoscopy, an update of the standard operating procedure in sterile processing is required. Currently, it is unclear whether LMIC hospitals, that already perform laparoscopy, have managed to introduce updated reprocessing methods that minimally invasive equipment requires. The aim of this study was to identify the laparoscopic sterile reprocessing procedures in rural India and to test the effectiveness of the sterilisation equipment.

Methods

We assessed laparoscopic instrument sterilisation capacity in four rural hospitals in different states in India using a mixed-methods approach. As the main form of data collection, we developed a standardised observational checklist based on reprocessing guidelines from several sources. Steam autoclave performance was measured by monitoring the autoclave cycles in two hospitals. Finally, the findings from the checklist data was supported by an interview survey with surgeons and nurses.

Results

The checklist data revealed the reprocessing methods the hospitals used in the reprocessing of laparoscopic instruments. It showed that the standard operating procedures had not been updated since the introduction of laparoscopy and the same reprocessing methods for regular surgical instruments were still applied. The interviews confirmed that staff had not received additional training and that they were unaware of the hazardous effects of reprocessing detergents and disinfectants.

Conclusion

As laparoscopy is becoming more prevalent in LMICs, updated policy is needed to incorporate minimally invasive instrument reprocessing in medical practitioner and staff training programmes. While reprocessing standards improve, it is essential to develop instruments and reprocessing equipment that is more suitable for resource-constrained rural surgical environments.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13756-021-00976-x.

Minimal access surgery in children:a 5 year study

Over a period of 5 years, we analyzed our data on outcome, feasibility, and safety of Minimal Access Surgery (MAS) in 211 children. The outcome was compared objectively with age matched controls with similar diagnosis undergoing open surgery over the same period. There was no significant difference between mortality, morbidity, re-exploration rates and analgesic requirement between MAS and open surgery. There was a significant difference in the length of stay in hospital, in favour of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy, nephrectomy, splenectomy, surgery for intra-abdominal testis compared to open surgery but not for children undergoing surgery for appendicular perforation and intestinal pathology. All parents preferred the cosmetic outcome of minimal access surgery.

Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy, being the most common surgical procedure performed in general surgery, is still being performed by both open and laparoscopic methods due to a lack of consensus as to which is the most appropriate method. Because further trials are necessary and few such studies have been performed in developing countries, we decided to evaluate the outcomes of the 2 procedures to share our experience with the international community.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with suspected acute appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic (LA) (n=48) and open (n=52) appendectomy (OA) over a period of 3 years were studied. Clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups in relation to operative time, analgesia used, length of hospital stay, return to work, resumption of a regular diet, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Mean age of patients was 25.8 years in the laparoscopic and 25.5 years in the open group. Patient demographics were similar in both groups (P>0.05). There was significantly less need for analgesia (1.0+/-0.5 in LA and 1.5+/-0.6 doses in OA), a short hospital stay (1.4+/-0.7 in LA and 3.4+/-1.0 days in OA), early return to work (12.6+/-3.3 in LA and 19.1+/-3.1 days in OA), and less time needed to return to a regular diet (20.1+/-2.9 in LA and 22.0+/-4.7, P<0.05 in OA) in the laparoscopic appendectomy group. Operative time was significantly shorter (54.9+/-14.7 in LA and 13.6+/-12.6 minutes in OA) in the open group. Total number of complications was less in the laparoscopic group; however, there was no statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic technique is a safe and clinically beneficial operative procedure. It provides certain advantages over open appendectomy, including short hospital stay, decreased requirement of postoperative analgesia, early food tolerance, and earlier return to normal activities. Where feasible, laparoscopy should be undertaken as the initial procedure of choice for most cases of suspected appendicitis.

Laparoscopic appendicectomy versus open appendicectomy: a comparative study of clinical outcome and cost analysis - Institutional experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendicetomy had not gained importance against open appendicectomy and it remains controversial in Indian perspective.

AIM

Compare the clinical outcome and cost effectiveness of Laparoscopic Appendicectomy (LA) versus Open Appendicectomy (OA).

METHODS

A prospective study for a period of 21 months from Oct. 2005 to June 2007, 249 patients underwent appendicectomy and 200 patients were included in the study. 114 underwent Open appendicectomy and 86 underwent laparoscopic appendicectomy. Duration of surgery, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative pain and requirement of analgesia, resumption of oral feeds, cost of hospital stay and return to normal activities was compared and noted.

RESULT

Laparoscopic appendicectomy was better than open appendiectomy with respect to the wound infection rate, early resumption of oral feeds, postoperative pain, lesser use of analgesics, postoperative hospital stay (3.13 days after LA, 4.36 days after OA, P < 0.0001) and return to normal activities (LA group to OA group; 13.86 days to 19.44 days P< 0.0001). Although above mentioned advantages were at the cost of slightly increased duration of surgery (58.29 min in OA group to 74.13 min in LA group P < 0.0001HS) and cost of surgery {LA: OA Rs.4225.81: Rs.5560.92 (P <0.0001)}.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendicectomy was better than open appendiectomy with respect to wound infection rate, early resumption of oral feeds, postoperative pain, lesser use of analgesics, postoperative hospital stay and return to normal activities. Although above mentioned advantages were at the cost of slightly increased duration of surgery and cost of surgery.

Minimally invasive appendicectomy using the cystoscope

The value of minimally invasive appendicectomy is widely recognised. We report an alternative, and less invasive, method than the customary laparoscopic method.