Endoscopic appendectomy

These newly developed endoscopic methods in gynaecology for haemostasis during surgical pelviscopy (Endocoagulation Roeder-loop ligation, endoligature, endo-suture with intra- and extracorporeal knotting) make it possible to carry out appendectomy by endoscopy for any of the following indications: Postoperative adhesion of the appendix especially in "sterility" patients, elongated appendix extending into the small pelvis, endometriosis of the appendix, subacute and chronic appendicitis. The instrument-set employed in this method permits the performance of all the usual classical operative steps (purse-string suture, and Z-suture acc. to McBurney and Sprengel). The point for resection has to be sterilized over 20-30 sec. at 212 degrees F using the crocodile forceps (endocoagulation procedure) before division and extraction of the appendix is effected.

Appendiceal neoplasms and pseudomyxoma peritonei: a population based study

BACKGROUND

Pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) is a rare disease with an estimated incidence of 1 per million per year, and is thought to originate usually from an appendiceal mucinous epithelial neoplasm. However it is not known exactly how often these neoplasms lead to PMP. The aim of this study is to investigate the incidence of both lesions and their relation.

METHODS

The nationwide pathology database of the Netherlands (PALGA) was searched for the incidence of all appendectomies, the incidence of primary epithelial appendiceal lesions and the incidence and pathology history of patients with PMP. All regarded the 10-year period of 1995-2005.

RESULTS

In the 10-year period 167,744 appendectomies were performed in the Netherlands. An appendiceal lesion was found in 1482 appendiceal specimens (0.9%). Nine percent of these patients developed PMP. Coincidentally, an additional epithelial colonic neoplasm was found in 13% of patients with an appendiceal epithelial lesion. A mucinous epithelial neoplasm was identified in 0.3% (73% benign, 27% malignant) of appendiceal specimens and 20% of these patients developed PMP. For mucocele and non-mucinous neoplasm the association with PMP was only 2% and 3%, respectively. From the nationwide database 267 patients (62 men and 205 women) with PMP were identified, which demonstrates an incidence of PMP in the Netherlands approaching 2 per million per year. The primary site was identified in 68% and dominated by the appendix (82%).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary epithelial lesions of the appendix are rare. One third of these lesions are mucinous epithelial neoplasms and especially these tumours may progress into PMP. The incidence of PMP seems to be higher than thought before. Furthermore there is a considerable risk of an additional colonic epithelial neoplasm in patients with an epithelial neoplasm at appendectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database

OBJECTIVE

To compare length of hospital stay, in-hospital complications, in-hospital mortality, and rate of routine discharge between laparoscopic and open appendectomy based on a representative, nationwide database.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Numerous single-institutional randomized clinical trials have assessed the efficacy of laparoscopic and open appendectomy. The results, however, are conflicting, and a consensus concerning the relative advantages of each procedure has not yet been reached.

METHODS

Patients with primary ICD-9 procedure codes for laparoscopic and open appendectomy were selected from the 1997 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a database that approximates 20% of all US community hospital discharges. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were used to assess the risk-adjusted endpoints.

RESULTS

Discharge abstracts of 43757 patients were used for our analyses. 7618 patients (17.4%) underwent laparoscopic and 36139 patients (82.6%) open appendectomy. Patients had an average age of 30.7 years and were predominantly white (58.1%) and male (58.6%). After adjusting for other covariates, laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with shorter median hospital stay (laparoscopic appendectomy: 2.06 days, open appendectomy: 2.88 days, P < 0.0001), lower rate of infections (odds ratio [OR] = 0.5 [0.38, 0.66], P < 0.0001), decreased gastrointestinal complications (OR = 0.8 [0.68, 0.96], P = 0.02), lower overall complications (OR = 0.84 [0.75, 0.94], P = 0.002), and higher rate of routine discharge (OR = 3.22 [2.47, 4.46], P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy has significant advantages over open appendectomy with respect to length of hospital stay, rate of routine discharge, and postoperative in-hospital morbidity.

Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015

Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis.

A prospective, randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy. Laparoscopic Appendectomy Study Group

BACKGROUND

While the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy are clear, the benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) are more subtle. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to evaluate whether LA is deserving of more widespread clinical application than it has yet received.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred fifty-three patients with a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized into three groups. LA with an endoscopic linear stapler (LAS) (U.S. Surgical Corp., Norwalk, Connecticut) was performed on 78 patients, LA with catgut ligatures (LAL) on 89, and open appendectomy (OA) on 86. LA was performed with a three-trocar technique. OA was accomplished through a right lower-quadrant transverse incision. Data with normal distributions were analyzed by analysis of variance. Nonparametric data were analyzed with either the Kruskal-Wallis H test or Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

The mean operative times for the procedures were 66 +/- 24 minutes (LAS), 68 +/- 25 minutes (LAL), and 58 +/- 27 minutes (OA). The relative brevity of OA compared to LAS and LAL was statistically significant (P < 0.01). Conversion to open procedures was approximately as frequent in the LAS group (n = 5) and the LAL (n = 6). One OA, 2 LAS, and 11 LAL patients experienced vomiting postoperatively (P < 0.05). Two intra-abdominal abscesses occurred in LAS, 4 in LAL, and 0 in OA patients (P = NS). Wound infections were more common following OA (n = 11) than LAL (n = 4) or LAS (n = 0) (P < 0.05, < 0.001). The mean length of postoperative hospital stay was 2.16 +/- 3.2 days (LAS), 2.98 +/- 2.7 days (LAL), and 2.83 +/- 1.6 (OA) (P < 0.05 OA versus LAS). The number of days patients required pain medications overall was not different between groups, but a subgroup analysis of 134 patients who rated their postoperative pain on a visual analogue scale revealed a significantly lower mean level among patients undergoing LA (LAS and LAL) versus OA (P < 0.001). Patients undergoing LA resumed regular activities sooner than those undergoing OA (9 +/- 9 days versus 14 +/- 11 days, P < 0.001). Rates of readmission to the hospital were similar for all procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy appears to have distinct advantages over open appendectomy. The laparoscopic procedures produced less pain and allowed more rapid return to full activities, and LAS required shorter hospital stays. The only disadvantages to the laparoscopic approach were slightly increased operative time for both procedures, and increased emesis following LAL.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis has been proposed to have advantages over conventional surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic and therapeutic effects of laparoscopic and conventional 'open' surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CNKI, SciSearch, study registries, and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults or children. Studies comparing immediate OA versus diagnostic laparoscopy (followed by LA or OA if necessary) were separately identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Missing information or data was requested from the authors. We used odds ratios (OR), relative risks (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies, of which 56 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were less likely after LA than after OA (OR 0.43; CI 0.34 to 0.54), but the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses was increased (OR 1.87; CI 1.19 to 2.93). The duration of surgery was 10 minutes (CI 6 to 15) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 8 mm (CI 5 to 11 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Hospital stay was shortened by 1.1 day (CI 0.7 to 1.5). Return to normal activity, work, and sport occurred earlier after LA than after OA. While the operation costs of LA were significantly higher, the costs outside hospital were reduced. Seven studies on children were included, but the results do not seem to be much different when compared to adults. Diagnostic laparoscopy reduced the risk of a negative appendectomy, but this effect was stronger in fertile women (RR 0.20; CI 0.11 to 0.34) as compared to unselected adults (RR 0.37; CI 0.13 to 1.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In those clinical settings where surgical expertise and equipment are available and affordable, diagnostic laparoscopy and LA (either in combination or separately) seem to have various advantages over OA. Some of the clinical effects of LA, however, are small and of limited clinical relevance. In spite of the mediocre quality of the available research data, we would generally recommend to use laparoscopy and LA in patients with suspected appendicitis unless laparoscopy itself is contraindicated or not feasible. Especially young female, obese, and employed patients seem to benefit from LA.

One-trocar appendectomy in pediatric surgery

Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe alternative to open appendectomy to treat appendicitis. The author reports his experience in performing laparoscopic appendectomy with the use of only one trocar in pediatric patients. Between 1 January 1994 and 30 October 1995 at the Department of General and Pediatric Surgery, Division of Pediatric Surgery of the "Federico II" University of Naples, we performed 51 laparoscopic appendectomies. Patient age varied from 4 to 16 years with a mean age of 7 years. In the last 25 patients of our series we performed the one-trocar appendectomy, positioning only one trocar infraumbilically with the use of a 10-mm operative telescope. The appendix is identified, dissected when necessary, grasped laparoscopically with a 450-mm operative atraumatic instrument introduced through the operative channel of the laparoscope, and then exteriorized through the umbilical cannula. The appendectomy was performed using traditional method outside the abdominal cavity. We had no intra- or perioperative mortality or morbidity. The mean overall hospitalization time was 2 days (1-4 days). At a maximal follow-up of 20 months the children have no clinical problems nor any visible scar related to the laparoscopic appendectomy. In conclusion, the author considers the one-trocar appendectomy an appropriate alternative procedure to other techniques of laparoscopic appendectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a metaanalysis

BACKGROUND

There have been numerous retrospective and uncontrolled series of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), as well as 16 prospective randomized studies published to date. Although most of these have concluded that the laparoscopic technique is as least as good as open appendectomy (OA), there has been considerable controversy as to whether LA is superior. To help clarify this issue, we performed a metaanalysis of the randomized prospective studies.

STUDY DESIGN

A metaanalysis of all formally randomized prospective trials of LA versus OA in adults.

RESULTS

A total of 1,682 patients were analyzed. When compared with OA, LA results in significantly less postoperative pain, earlier resumption of solid foods, a shorter hospital stay, and a faster return to normal activities. The wound infection rate in the LA patients is less than one half the rate in patients undergoing OA. LA, however, requires longer operating times and the incidence of intraabdominal abscess is higher, but this failed to reach statistical significance. There were no differences in complications or hospital charges.

CONCLUSIONS

LA offers considerable advantages over OA, primarily because of its ability to reduce the incidence of wound infections and shorten recovery times. Its widespread acceptance should be considered. The trend toward increased intraabdominal abscess formation is worrisome, however, and demands further investigation.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to use meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy in a pediatric population.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Meta-analysis is a statistical tool that can be used to evaluate the literature in both qualitative and quantitative ways, accounting for variations in characteristics that can influence overall estimate of outcomes of interest. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a pediatric population has not previously been performed.

METHODS

Comparative studies published between 1992 and 2004 of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children were included. Endpoints were postoperative pyrexia, ileus, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess formation, operative time, and postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies including 6477 children (43% laparoscopic, 57% open) were included. Wound infection was significantly reduced with laparoscopic versus open appendectomy (1.5% versus 5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.75), as was ileus (1.3% versus 2.8%; OR = 0.5, 95% CI, 0.29-0.86). Intra-abdominal abscess formation was more common following laparoscopic surgery, although this was not statistically significant. Subgroup analysis of randomized trials did not reveal significant difference between the 2 techniques in any of the 4 complications. Operative time was not significantly longer in the laparoscopic group, and postoperative stay was significantly shorter (weighted mean difference, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.31). Sensitivity analysis identified lowest heterogeneity when only randomized studies were considered, followed by prospective, recent, and finally large studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that laparoscopic appendectomy in children reduces complications. However, we also see the need for further high-quality randomized trials comparing the 2 techniques, matched not only for age and sex but also for obesity and severity of appendicitis.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The value of laparoscopy in appendicitis is not established. Studies suffer from multiple limitations. Our aim is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a prospective randomized double blind study.

METHODS

Two hundred forty-seven patients were analyzed following either laparoscopic or open appendectomy. A standardized wound dressing was applied blinding both patients and independent data collectors. Surgical technique was standardized among 4 surgeons. The main outcome measures were postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures included evaluation of pain and activity scores at base line preoperatively and on every postoperative day, as well as resumption of diet and length of stay. Activity scores and quality of life were assessed on short-term follow-up.

RESULTS

There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (18.5% versus 17% in the laparoscopic and open groups respectively), but some early complications in the laparoscopic group required a reoperation. Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (80 minutes versus 60 minutes; P = 0.000) while there was no difference in the pain scores and medications, resumption of diet, length of stay, or activity scores. At 2 weeks, there was no difference in the activity or pain scores, but physical health and general scores on the short-form 36 (SF36) quality of life assessment forms were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Appendectomy for acute or complicated (perforated and gangrenous) appendicitis had similar complication rates, regardless of the technique (P = 0.181).

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike other minimally invasive procedures, laparoscopic appendectomy did not offer a significant advantage over open appendectomy in all studied parameters except quality of life scores at 2 weeks. It also took longer to perform. The choice of the procedure should be based on surgeon or patient preference.

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Despite many randomized controlled trials, the merits of laparoscopic appendectomy remain unclear. A meta-analysis may provide insights not evident from any individual studies.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic literature search yielded 17 trials (1,962 subjects) of true randomized design with usable statistical data comparing laparoscopic and conventional appendectomy in adults. The effect sizes for operating time, hospitalization, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, wound infection, and intra-abdominal abscess were calculated, using the random effects model to allow for heterogeneity. An estimate of the robustness of all positive findings was also calculated.

RESULTS

Modest but statistically significant effect sizes were found for four of the six outcome measures. Laparoscopic appendectomy takes 31% longer to perform, but results in less postoperative pain, faster recovery (by 35%), and lower wound infection rates (by 60%).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy offers significant improvement in postoperative outcomes at the cost of a longer operation.

Is it safe to delay appendectomy in adults with acute appendicitis?

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether delayed surgical intervention in adult patients with acute appendicitis is safe by correlating the interval from onset of symptoms to operation (total interval) with the degree of pathology and incidence of postoperative complications.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Prompt appendectomy has long been the standard of care for acute appendicitis because of the risk of progression to advanced pathology. This time-honored practice has been recently challenged by studies in pediatric patients, which suggested that acute appendicitis can be managed in an elective manner once antibiotic therapy is initiated. No such data are available in adult patients with acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 1081 patients who underwent an appendectomy for acute appendicitis between 1998 and 2004 was conducted. The following parameters were monitored and correlated: demographics, time from onset of symptoms to arrival at the emergency room (patient interval) and from arrival to the emergency room to the operating room (hospital interval), physical, computed tomography (CT scan) and pathologic findings, complications, length of stay, and length of antibiotic treatment. Pathologic state was graded 1 (G1) for acute appendicitis, 2 (G2) for gangrenous acute appendicitis, 3 (G3) for perforation or phlegmon, and 4 (G4) for a periappendicular abscess.

RESULTS

The risk of advanced pathology, defined as a higher pathology grade, increased with the total interval. When this interval was <12 hours, the risk of developing G1, G2, G3, and G4, was 94%, 0%, 3%, and 3%, respectively. These values changed to 60%, 7%, 27%, and 6%, respectively, when the total interval was 48 to 71 hours and to 54%, 7%, 26%, and 13% for longer than 71 hours. The odds for progressive pathology was 13 times higher for the total interval >71 hours group compared with total interval<12 hours (95% confidence interval = 4.7-37.1). Although both prolonged patient and hospital intervals were associated with advanced pathology, prehospital delays were more profoundly related to worsening pathology compared with in-hospital delays (P < 0.001). Advanced pathology was associated with tenderness to palpation beyond the right lower quadrant (P < 0.001), guarding (P < 0.001), rebound (P < 0.001), and CT scan findings of peritoneal fluid (P = 0.01), fecalith (P = 0.01), dilation of the appendix (P < 0.001), and perforation (P < 0.001). Increased length of hospital stay (P < 0.001) and antibiotic treatment (P < 0.001) as well as postoperative complications (P < 0.001) also correlated with progressive pathology.

CONCLUSION

In adult patients with acute appendicitis, the risk of developing advanced pathology and postoperative complications increases with time; therefore, delayed appendectomy is unsafe. As delays in seeking medical help are difficult to control, prompt appendectomy is mandatory. Because these conclusions are derived from retrospective data, a prospective study is required to confirm their validity.

A prospective randomized trial comparing open versus laparoscopic appendectomy

OBJECTIVE

The authors determined whether there was an advantage to laparoscopic appendectomy when compared with open appendectomy. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND DATA: The advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy were questioned because the recovery from open appendectomy is brief.

METHODS

From January 15, 1992 through January 15, 1993, 75 patients older than 9 years were entered into a study randomizing the choice of operation to either the open or the laparoscopic technique. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon test.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients were assigned to the open appendectomy group and 38 patients were assigned to the laparoscopic appendectomy group. Two patients were converted intraoperatively from laparoscopic appendectomies to open procedures. Thirty-one patients (81%) in the open group had acute appendicitis, as did 32 patients (84%) in the laparoscopic group. Mean duration of surgery was 65 minutes for open appendectomy and 87 minutes for laparoscopic appendectomy (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in length of hospitalization, interval until resumption of a regular diet, or morbidity. Duration of both parenteral and oral analgesic use favored laparoscopic appendectomy (2.0 days versus 1.2 days, and 8.0 days versus 5.4 days, p < 0.05). All patients were instructed to return to full activities by 2 weeks postoperatively. This occurred at an average of 25 days for the open appendectomy group versus 14 days for the laparoscopic appendectomy group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomies have a shorter duration of analgesic use and return to full activities sooner postoperatively when compared with patients who underwent open appendectomies. The authors consider laparoscopic appendectomy to be the procedure of choice in patients with acute appendicitis.

Computed tomography and ultrasonography do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis

HYPOTHESIS

Computed tomography (CT) and ultrasonography (US) do not improve the overall diagnostic accuracy for acute appendicitis.

DESIGN

Retrospective review.

SETTING

University tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

Seven hundred sixty-six consecutive patients undergoing appendectomy for suspected appendicitis from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1999.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Epidemiology of acute appendicitis and the roles of clinical assessment, CT, US, and laparoscopy.

RESULTS

The negative appendectomy rate was 15.7%, and the incidence of perforated appendicitis was 14.6%. A history of migratory pain had the highest positive predictive value (91%), followed by leukocytosis greater than 12 x 10(9)/L (90.1%), CT (83.8%), and US (81.3%). The false-negative rates were 60% for CT and 76.1% for US. Emergency department evaluation took a mean +/- SD of 5.2 +/- 5.4 hours and was prolonged by US or CT (6.4 +/- 7.4 h and 7.8 +/- 10.8 h, respectively). The duration of emergency department evaluation did not affect the perforation rate, but patients with postoperative complications had longer evaluations (mean +/- SD, 8.0 +/- 12.7 h) than did those without (4.8 +/- 3.3 h) (P =.04). Morbidity was 9.1%, 6.4% for nonperforated cases and 19.8% for perforated cases. Seventy-six patients had laparoscopic appendectomy, with a negative appendectomy rate of 42.1%, compared with 15.4% for open appendectomy (P<.001). Laparoscopy, however, had minimal morbidity (1.3%) and correctly identified the abnormality in 91.6% of patients who had a normal-appearing appendix.

CONCLUSIONS

Migratory pain, physical examination, and initial leukocytosis remain reliable and accurate in diagnosing acute appendicitis. Neither CT nor US improves the diagnostic accuracy or the negative appendectomy rate; in fact, they may delay surgical consultation and appendectomy. In atypical cases, one should consider the selective use of diagnostic laparoscopy instead.

Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy. A prospective randomized comparison

OBJECTIVE

The authors compare open and laparoscopic appendectomy in a randomized fashion with regard to length of operation, complications, hospital stay, and recovery time.

METHODS

Adult patients (older than 14 years of age) with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized to either open or laparoscopic appendectomy over a 9-month period. All patients received preoperative antibiotics. The operative time was calculated as beginning with the incision and ending when the wound was fully closed. Patients that were converted from laparoscopic to open appendectomy were considered a separate group. Return to normal activity and work were determined by questioning during postoperative clinic, telephone, or mailed questionnaire.

RESULTS

There was a total of 169 patients randomized, 88 to the open and 81 to the laparoscopic group. The groups were similar demographically. Of the 81 laparoscopic patients, 13 (16%) were converted to open. In the open group, 70 patients (79.5%) had acute appendicitis and 21 (23.9%) had perforative appendicitis. In the laparoscopic group, 62 patients (76.5%) had acute appendicitis and 10 (12.3%) had perforative appendicitis. There was no statistical difference in the return to activity or work between the laparoscopic and open groups. The operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (102.2 minutes vs. 81.7 minutes, p < 0.01). The hospital stay of 2.2 days in the laparoscopic group and 4.3 days in the open group was statistically (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the hospital stay for those with acute appendicitis (1.89 days vs. 2.61 days, p = 0.067) compared with those with a normal appendix but with pelvic inflammatory disease (1.1 days vs. 2.3 days, p = 0.11). There was a significant difference in patients with perforative appendicitis (1.5 days vs. 9.5 days, p < 0.01). The hospital cost for patients having laparoscopic appendectomy was $6077 and for an open appendectomy $7227 (p = 0.164). There were no increased complications associated with the laparoscopic technique.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy is comparable to open appendectomy with regard to complications, hospital stay, cost, return to activity, and return to work. There was a greater operative time involved with the laparoscopic technique. Laparoscopic appendectomy does not offer any significant benefit over the open approach for the routine patient with appendicitis.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: prospective randomized trial

A prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy in patients with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis was conducted between October 1992 and April 1994. Of the 158 patients randomized, 7 patients were excluded because of protocol violations (conversion to laparotomy in 4, appendix not removed in 3). The 151 patients randomized to either a laparoscopic (n = 79) or an open appendectomy (n = 72) showed no difference in sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) rating, or previous abdominal surgery. The histologic classification of normal, catarrhal, inflamed, suppurative, and gangrenous appendicitis was not different between the two groups. Conversion from laparoscopic to open appendectomy was necessary in seven patients (9%) who had advanced forms of appendiceal inflammation. When compared to open appendectomy the laparoscopic group had a longer median operating time (63 minutes versus 40 minutes), fewer wound infections (2% versus 11%), less requirement for narcotic analgesia, and an earlier return to normal activity (median 7 days versus 14 days). There was no difference in morbidity, and both groups had a median time to discharge of 3 days. Laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe as open appendectomy; and despite the longer operating time, the advantages such as fewer wound infections and earlier return to normal activity make it a worthwhile alternative for patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy in patients with a clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis has not gained wide acceptance, and its use remains controversial.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy, 583 of 828 consecutive patients consented to participate. Three hundred and one patients were allocated to open appendicectomy and 282 patients to laparoscopy, 65 of whom required conversion to open appendicectomy. Length of stay in hospital was the primary endpoint, while operating time, postoperative morbidity, duration of convalescence and cosmesis were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analysis revealed an equally short hospital stay in the two groups (median 2 days). The median time to return to normal activity (7 versus 10 days) and work (10 versus 16 days) was significantly shorter following laparoscopy. Laparoscopy was associated with fewer wound infections (P < 0.03) and improved cosmesis (P < 0.001), but the operating time was longer (60 versus 40 min). Laparoscopy was associated with more intraperitoneal abscesses (5 versus 1 per cent) but, adjusted for a greater number of gangrenous or perforated appendices in this group, the difference failed to reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Hospital stay was equally short, whereas laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with fewer wound infections, faster recovery, earlier return to work and improved cosmesis.

Intra-abdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis

HYPOTHESIS

The incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess is higher after laparoscopic compared with open appendectomy for perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

A historical cohort study of pediatric patients operated on for suspected appendicitis by open appendectomy or laparoscopic appendectomy compares the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess for each procedure.

SETTING

A tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

Five hundred thirty-eight pediatric patients were operated on for suspected appendicitis at our institution between 1974 and 1999. Of these, 453 were included in the study. Of the excluded patients, 9 had incomplete medical records, 69 had normal or interval appendectomies, and 7 had appendixes removed by methods other than laparoscopy or right lower quadrant incision.

INTERVENTIONS

Open appendectomy performed through a right lower quadrant incision or laparoscopic appendectomy performed through a 3-trocar approach by 1 of 3 pediatric surgeons at our institution.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess after laparoscopic vs open appendectomy.

RESULTS

In perforated appendicitis (170 patients), the incidence of postoperative abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy was 24% vs 4.2% after open appendectomy. The relative risk ratio of developing a postoperative abscess after perforated appendicitis was 5.6 (confidence interval, 2.1-16.0) after laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. The results remained significant when controlled for age, sex, intraoperative irrigation, and preoperative antibiotics. Postoperative abscess in all acute, gangrenous, and perforated appendicitis after laparoscopic appendectomy was 6.4% vs 3.0% after open appendectomy. This was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

There is a significant increase in the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess with perforated appendicitis after laparoscopic compared with open appendectomy in pediatric patients.

Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy conducted intracorporeally with the aid of a transabdominal sling suture

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is becoming popular for the treatment of acute and perforated appendicitis. Since it was first described, LA has been modified various times. We present the results of a new technique of LA conducted through a single port without exteriorizing the appendix to perform the operation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Single-port LA was attempted in 38 patients (23 boys, 15 girls). Under general anesthesia, an 11-mm port with two 5-mm working channels or an 11-mm port through which a 10-mm scope (0 degrees) with a parallel eyepiece and a 6-mm working channel was inserted through the umbilicus. The appendix was grasped and dissected from the surrounding tissues with a single dissector or grasper. With a percutaneously inserted suture from the right lower quadrant into the peritoneal cavity, the appendix was pulled toward the abdominal wall after passing the suture through the mesoappendix. After mesenteric dissection with hook cautery, the base of the appendix was ligated with 2-0 polyglactin with a fisherman knot. The appendix was withdrawn into the trocar and extracted from the abdomen together with the trocar.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic appendectomy was completed in 35 patients through a single port. A second port insertion was required in 3 patients. No peroperative and postoperative complications were encountered. Average duration of the procedure was 38 +/- 5.6 minutes.

CONCLUSION

This unique method further improves the minimal invasiveness of LA because a single port is used. Single-port intracorporeal appendectomy procedure is a safe, highly minimal invasive procedure with excellent cosmetic results.

Prospective Observational Study on acute Appendicitis Worldwide (POSAW)

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most common surgical disease, and appendectomy is the treatment of choice in the majority of cases. A correct diagnosis is key for decreasing the negative appendectomy rate. The management can become difficult in case of complicated appendicitis. The aim of this study is to describe the worldwide clinical and diagnostic work-up and management of AA in surgical departments.

METHODS

This prospective multicenter observational study was performed in 116 worldwide surgical departments from 44 countries over a 6-month period (April 1, 2016-September 30, 2016). All consecutive patients admitted to surgical departments with a clinical diagnosis of AA were included in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 4282 patients were enrolled in the POSAW study, 1928 (45%) women and 2354 (55%) men, with a median age of 29 years. Nine hundred and seven (21.2%) patients underwent an abdominal CT scan, 1856 (43.3%) patients an US, and 285 (6.7%) patients both CT scan and US. A total of 4097 (95.7%) patients underwent surgery; 1809 (42.2%) underwent open appendectomy and 2215 (51.7%) had laparoscopic appendectomy. One hundred eighty-five (4.3%) patients were managed conservatively. Major complications occurred in 199 patients (4.6%). The overall mortality rate was 0.28%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study confirm the clinical value of imaging techniques and prognostic scores. Appendectomy remains the most effective treatment of acute appendicitis. Mortality rate is low.

Trocar and Veress needle injuries during laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

Inadvertent lesions of the intraabdominal organs and vessels caused by trocars and Veress needles are rare but serious complications of laparoscopic surgery. Establishing the pneumoperitoneum is believed to be the most dangerous step.

METHODS

The Swiss Association for Laparoscopic and Thoracoscopic Surgery (SALTS) prospectively collected the data on 14,243 patients undergoing various standard laparoscopic procedures between 1995 and 1997. This database was investigated with special regard to intraabdominal complications caused by trocars and Veress needles.

RESULTS

There were 22 trocar and four needle injuries (incidence, 0.18%). Nineteen lesions involved visceral organs; the remaining seven were vessel injuries. The small bowel was the single most affected organ (six cases), followed by the large bowel and the liver (three cases each). All vascular lesions, except for one laceration of the right iliac artery, occurred as venous bleeding of either the greater omentum or the mesentery. Fourteen trocars were inserted under direct vision. Nineteen trocar injuries were recognized intraoperatively; diagnoses of two small bowel and one bladder injuries were made postoperatively. Needle injuries were all diagnosed intraoperatively. Only five injuries could be repaired laparoscopically; the remaining lesions were repaired openly. Four patients underwent an open reoperation, and another patient needed five reoperations. There was one death (4.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Trocar and needle injuries are rare complications of laparoscopy. However, if not recognized intraoperatively and repaired immediately, they induce increased morbidity and mortality. Both open and closed establishment of the pneumoperitoneum are related to a potential danger of perforating lesions, but inserting the first trocar under direct vision allows early recognition and immediate repair.

Randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open appendicectomy

A study was carried out of 137 patients with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis who were randomized to either laparoscopic or open appendicectomy. Patients found to have perforated or normal appendices at histological examination were excluded. Fifty-two patients undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy and those receiving 57 open procedures were analysed. Laparoscopic appendicectomy took no longer than the open procedure (mean 43 versus 40 min). The number of doses of pethidine (1 mg per kg body-weight) required in the immediate postoperative period did not differ between the two groups but the mean number of doses of oral analgesic (naproxen sodium 550 mg twice daily) required was less in patients undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy (2.8 versus 5.0, P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between time to resumption of fluid and diet intake and length of hospital stay. There were five (9 per cent) wound infections after open appendicectomy compared with none after the laparoscopic operation (P < 0.01). Patients who underwent laparoscopy returned to full home (17 versus 30 days, P < 0.01) and social (19 versus 32 days, P < 0.05) activities earlier than those who underwent open operation. Laparoscopic appendicectomy may allow reduction in the number of wound infections and earlier return to normal activities.

Complications of laparoscopic surgery

The potential complications of a laparoscopic procedure include those related to laparoscopy and those related to the specific operative procedure. The majority of these complications occur during the early learning phase for laparoscopy. They also may occur, however, during procedures performed by surgeons who have considerable laparoscopic experience. As new applications for laparoscopy continue to emerge, it is important for the surgeon to be familiar with the possible complications associated with the various laparoscopic procedures. Only through an appreciation of the potential complications of a procedure can their overall incidence be reduced to a minimum.

Laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy

In the last decade, operative laparoscopic procedures are performed increasingly in both gynecology and general surgery. The major advantages of this newer minimally invasive approach are: decreased postoperative morbidity, less pain and decreased need for analgesics, early normal bowel function, shorter hospital stay, and early return to normal activity. With the advancement of laparoscopic surgery, its use during pregnancy is becoming more widely accepted. The most commonly reported laparoscopic operation during pregnancy is laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Other laparoscopic procedures commonly performed during pregnancy include: management of adnexal mass, ovarian torsion, ovarian cystectomy, appendectomy, and ectopic pregnancy. The possible drawbacks of laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy may include injury of the pregnant uterus and the technical difficulty of laparoscopic surgery due to the growing mass of the gravid uterus. Also, the potential risk of decreased uterine blood flow secondary to the increase in intraabdominal pressure and the possible risk of carbon dioxide absorption to both the mother and fetus should be taken into account. To date, data on laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy are insufficient to draw conclusions on its safety and exact complication rate. This is due to the few cases reported and the lack of prospective studies. Furthermore, there is a common tendency to underreport unsuccessful cases. Finally, most reports in the literature come from centers and surgeons with special interest, experience, and skills in laparoscopy, and their results may not reflect the real complication rates. We have reviewed the pertinent English literature from the last decade. The cumulative experience suggests that laparoscopic surgery may be performed safely during pregnancy, although more studies are needed to establish its exact rate of adverse events.