Results of laparoscopic vs. conventional appendectomy in complicated appendicitis

Post-Operative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Acute Complicated Appendicitis: A Single Center Study

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis (AA) is a surgical emergency because of inflammation in the appendix leading to swelling, whereas acute complicated appendicitis is characterized by a gangrenous or perforated appendix with or without periappendicular abscess, peritonitis, and an appendicular mass. The laparoscopic approach in complicated acute appendicitis is a viable alternative method but is not practiced in all cases because of technical difficulties and unpredictable complications. Thus, the present study aimed to evaluate the primary and secondary outcome predictors of laparoscopic appendectomy in complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

A single-center prospective observational study was carried out after the approval of the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC). A total of 87 complicated acute appendicitis patients were included in the study. Clinico-demographic features such as age, gender, duration of surgery, post-operative pain, and hospital stay were monitored in different age groups of <20, 20-39, and >40 years, and the primary and secondary outcomes of laparoscopic surgery in acute complicated appendicitis were measured.

RESULT

Acute complicated appendicitis cases were observed mostly in people older than 42 years in the total study population. Laparoscopic appendectomy was conducted in all 87 acute complicated appendicitis patients, and the major surgical outcome predictors were monitored, such as mean operating time (87.9 minutes), post-operative pain (3.9 scores), and post-operative stay (6.7 days). Post-operative complications such as drain site infection (1.14%), enterocutaneous fistula (2%), and intra-abdominal abscess (7%) were observed.

CONCLUSION

Based on our observations, a laparoscopic appendectomy can be considered a viable alternative with an acceptable complication rate. Operative time varies from 84 to 94 minutes in different age groups and with the extent of the disease.

Circulating fibrocyte percentage and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio are accurate biomarkers of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) may be treated nonoperatively in cases of UA. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of circulating fibrocyte percentage (CFP), white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in diagnosing uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty consecutive adult patients presenting with suspected appendicitis were recruited in a cohort-based prospective study between June 2015 and February 2016 at University Hospital Limerick in Ireland. Peripheral venous samples were obtained at the presentation. Clinical, biochemical, radiological, and histopathological parameters were recorded. The CFP was determined by dual-staining for CD45 and collagen-I using flow cytometry analysis and correlated with histopathological diagnoses.

RESULTS

Of the 46 patients who underwent appendicectomy, 34 (73.9%) had histologically proven acute appendicitis. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of biomarkers demonstrated the CFP had the highest diagnostic accuracy for UA (area under the curve=0.83, sensitivity=72.7%, specificity=83.3%, P=0.002). The NLR had the highest diagnostic accuracy in relation to complicated appendicitis (area under the curve=0.84, sensitivity=75.5%, specificity=83.3%, P=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

CFP and NLR are accurate biomarkers of UA and complicated appendicitis.

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.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Patients With Perforated Appendicitis

Introduction

Acute appendicitis can lead to perforation which can be lethal. The present study assessed the outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy in patients with perforated appendicitis.

Methodology

A comparative study was conducted at the Department of Surgery, Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences (LUMHS), between March 2, 2019 and July 7, 2020. The inclusion criteria consisted of a diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. Exclusion criteria consisted of intellectual disability hindering the procurement of informed consent, pediatric patients < 15 years of age, patients with an appendicular mass or abscess unsuited for laparoscopic appendectomy, severe sepsis or septic shock on presentation, and pregnant women. Patients were allocated to either open appendectomy (Group A) or laparoscopic appendectomy (Group B). The data gathering proforma recorded demographics, surgical findings, operating room (OR) time, length of inpatient care, requirement of analgesic, and any adverse events following surgery. All of the surgeries were conducted by an experienced surgical consultant with an experience of at least five years.

Results

A total of 85 patients were included in the laparoscopic appendectomy group, while 101 cases were included in the open appendectomy group. The use of analgesics thrice a day to manage the postoperative pain was significantly associated with the open appendectomy (p < 0.0001). Moreover, the postoperative length of hospitalization was substantially greater in patients who underwent open appendectomy than those who underwent laparoscopic procedure (p < 0.0001). Wound-related complications were considerably lower in patients who had laparoscopic appendectomy as compared to those who had open appendectomy (23.53% versus 40.5%; p = 0.013). 

Conclusion

The length of stay was significantly lower in patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. Moreover, laparoscopic appendectomy was also associated with a lower rate of wound infection postoperatively, thus giving the former an edge over the latter. Despite the finding that the postoperative pain was not considerably different between the two groups, patients who underwent open appendectomy group required significantly more painkillers to manage the postoperative pain. 

Emergency appendectomy versus elective appendectomy following conservative treatment for acute appendicitis: a multicenter retrospective clinical study by the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine

PURPOSE

To establish the best treatment strategy for acute appendicitis.

METHODS

We collected data on 2142 appendectomies performed in 2017 and compared the backgrounds and surgical outcomes of patients who underwent early surgery (ES) (< 48 h) with those managed with non-ES (> 48 h). We performed a risk factor analysis to predict postoperative complications and subgroup analysis to propose a standard treatment strategy.

RESULTS

The incidence of postoperative complications was significantly higher in the ES group than in the non-ES group, and significantly lower in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the laparotomy group. Surgical outcomes, including the incidence of postoperative complications, were comparable after acute surgery (< 12 h) and subacute surgery (12-48 h), following antibiotic treatment. The risk factors for postoperative complications in the ES group were a higher age, history of abdominal surgery, perforation, high C-reactive protein level, histological evidence of gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, a long operation time, and intraoperative complications. The risk factors for postoperative complications in the non-ES group were perforation and unsuccessful conservative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-early appendectomy is feasible for acute appendicitis but should be applied with care in patients with risk factors for postoperative complications or failure of pretreatment, including diabetes mellitus, abscess formation, and perforation.

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe procedure for beginners to perform: experience from 1948 cases

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SIL-A) has recently become an option for treating appendicitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and surgical outcomes of SIL-A by residents and surgeons during the learning period.

METHODS

A total of 1948 consecutive patients who underwent SIL-A from May 2008 to November 2014 were studied retrospectively. Surgeries were performed by residents and eight surgeons. Prior to the first case, surgeons and residents had been trained in a training protocol during the learning period. Three initial cases of SIL-A were performed under the supervision of experienced surgeons. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1 (learning period, n = 483), the first 40 cases by each surgeon and resident; and group 2 (experienced period, n = 1465), cases after the 40th procedure performed by each surgeon. Surgical results were compared between the two groups by performing propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in patient demographics and characteristics of appendicitis between the two groups. The operating time was longer in group 1 than in group 2 (45.3 ± 18.0 vs. 33.9 ± 16.1 min, p < 0.001). The morbidity rate (7.0% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.795) was similar between the two groups. Readmission rate (2.1% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.414) and reoperation rate (0.8% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.348) were also similar between the two groups. However, the rate of incisional hernia occurrence (0.6% vs. 0%, p = 0.066) tended to be larger in group 1 than in group 2 without showing a significant difference.

CONCLUSION

SIL-A is a technically feasible and safe procedure when it is performed by residents and surgeons during learning period under an appropriate training protocol. However, residents and surgeons in the learning period should perform it carefully to prevent incisional hernias.

The Bucharest ESTES consensus statement on peritonitis

INTRODUCTION

Peritonitis is still an important health problem associated with high morbidity and mortality. A multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with peritonitis may be an important factor to reduce the risks for patients and improve efficiency, outcome, and the cost of care.

METHODS

Expert panel discussion on Peritonitis was held in Bucharest on May 2017, during the 17th ECTES Congress, involving surgeons, infectious disease specialists, radiologists and intensivists with the goal of defining recommendations for the optimal management of peritonitis.

CONCLUSION

This document is an updated presentation of management of peritonitis and represents the summary of the final recommendations approved by a panel of experts.

Single-Port Needlescopic Appendectomy in Children Using a Mediflex Needle: A New Simplified Technique

Background: Laparoscopic appendectomy is among the most common surgical procedures. Needlescopic appendectomy (NA) is an acceptable, safe technique in children, but with many drawbacks such as a high conversion rate and long operative time. We present a new technique for NA in children using only a single port, Mediflex^® facial closure needle, and vascular access cannula (VAC). Patients and Methods: Single-port NA was attempted in 117 patients (51 boys, 66 girls). Under general anesthesia, a 5-mm camera port was inserted through the umbilicus. Two Mediflex needles and a 14-gauge VAC were introduced. The appendix was grasped and dissected from the surrounding tissues using Mediflex needles. In case of a mobile cecum, the appendix was pulled through the umbilical port, then an extracorporeal appendectomy was performed. In cases with a fixed cecum or severely inflamed appendix, a complete intracorporeal appendectomy was done. The suture was knotted in a sliding reef knot using a single instrument. Results: NA was completed in 117 patients (51 boys, 66 girls) with an average age of 10 years. Thirty patients underwent extracorporeal appendectomy. Eighty seven patients were treated by intracorporeal appendectomy. The mean operative time was 15 ± 3 and 25 ± 4 minutes for extracorporeal and intracorporeal appendectomy respectively. The hospital stay was 1.2 days on average (ranging 8 hours to 2 days). There was no single case of conversion. Family satisfaction was achieved in 97% of cases. Conclusion: The presented unique method for single-port NA using Mediflex^® appears to be a safe, acceptable technique for appendectomy in children that allows for excellent cosmetic results.

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.

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.

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).

Minimally Invasive Treatment for Appendiceal Mass Formed After Acute Perforated Appendicitis

The optimal treatment for appendiceal mass formed after appendiceal rupture due to acute appendicitis is surrounded with controversy. The treatment strategy ranges from open surgery (emergency or interval appendectomy), laparoscopic appendectomy, and image-guided drainage, to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics. Nonsurgical treatment (including conservative and drainage treatment), followed by interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence, is the traditional management of these patients. The need for interval appendectomy after a successful conservative or/and image-guided drainage treatment, has recently been questioned as the risk of recurrence is relatively small. Several authors consider that even in cases involving only ambulatory follow-up observation, without interval surgery after conservative management, the recurrence rate and risks of missing underlying pathologies were not high. This article evaluates the minimally invasive treatment modalities in the management of appendiceal mass, risk of undetected serious disease, and the need for interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence.

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.

Is laparoscopic appendectomy feasible for complicated appendicitis ?A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

laparoscopic appendectomy(LA) has proved to be a safe alternative to open appendectomy(OA) in uncomplicated appendicitis; however, the feasibility of LA for complicated appendicitis(CA) has not been conclusively determined.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility and safety of LA for CA through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

A literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and web of Science was performed for eligible studies published from the inception of the databases to January 2016. All studies comparing LA and OA for CA were reviewed. After literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently, and meta-analysis was conducted using Revman software, vision 5.2.

RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 retrospective cohort studies(RCSs) were finally identified. Our meta-analysis showed that LA for CA could reduce the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) (OR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.25 to0.31, P < 0.00001), but LA did not increase the rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess(IAA) (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.34, P = 0.40). The results showed that the operating time in the LA groups was much longer than that in the OA groups (WMD = 13.78, 95% CI: 8.99 to 18.57, P < 0.00001). However, the length of hospital stays in the LA groups were significantly shorter than those in the OA groups (WMD = -2.47, 95%CI: -3.75 to -1.19, P < 0.0002), and the time until oral intake(TTOI) was much earlier in the LA groups than in the OA groups (WMD = -0.88, 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.55, P < 0.00001). No significant difference was observed in the times of postoperative analgesia between the two groups(P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LA was feasible and safe for complicated appendicitis, and it not only could shorten the hospital stays and the time until oral intake, but it could also reduce the risk of surgical site infection.

Retrospective Multicenter Study on Risk Factors for Surgical Site Infections after Appendectomy for Acute Appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSI) are seen in up to 5% of patients after appendectomy for acute appendicitis. SSI are associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased costs. The aim of this multicenter study was to identify factors associated with SSI after appendectomy for acute appendicitis.

METHODS

Patients who underwent appendectomy for acute appendicitis between June 2014 and January 2015 in 6 teaching hospitals in the southwest of the Netherlands were included. Patient, diagnostic, intra-operative and disease-related factors were collected from the patients' charts. Primary outcome was surgical site infection. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors for SSI.

RESULTS

Some 637 patients were included. Forty-two patients developed a SSI. In univariable analysis body temperature >38°C, CRP>65 and complex appendicitis were associated with SSI. After multivariable logistic regression with stepwise backwards elimination, complex appendicitis was significantly associated with SSI (OR 4.09; 95% CI 2.04-8.20). Appendiceal stump closure with a stapler device was inversely correlated with SSI (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.24-0.97) Conclusions: Complex appendicitis is a risk factor for SSI and warrants close monitoring postoperatively. The use of a stapler device for appendiceal stump closure is associated with a reduced risk of SSI.

The evolving management of the appendix mass in the era of laparoscopy and interventional radiology

AIM

An appendix mass is the result of a walled-off perforation of the appendix which localises, resulting in a mass and it is encountered in up to 7% of patients presenting with acute appendicitis. However, its management is controversial due to the lack of high level evidence. This review article sets out a rationale diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for the appendix mass based upon up-to-date available evidence.

METHODS

A literature review of the investigation and management of appendix mass/complicated appendicitis was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

No prospective studies were identified. The great majority of recent evidence supports a conservative management approach avoiding urgent appendicectomy because of the high risk of major complications and bowel resection. Appendix abscesses over 5 cm in diameter and persistent abscesses should be drained percutaneously along with antibiotics. Appendix phlegmon should be treated with antibiotics alone. Surgery is reserved for patients who fail conservative treatment. Routine interval appendicectomy is not recommended, but should be considered in the context of persistent faecolith, ongoing right iliac fossa pain, recurrent appendicitis and appendix mass persistent beyond 2 weeks. Clinicians should be particularly wary of patients with appendix mass aged over 40 and those with features suggesting malignancy.

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.

Could laparoscopic appendectomy in pregnant women affect obstetric outcomes? A multicenter study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the perioperative and obstetric outcomes of pregnant women between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery and to evaluate the predictive factors for overall obstetric outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of pregnant women who underwent appendectomy between January 2008 and June 2015 at six hospitals affiliated to Hallym University.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were evaluated. Twenty-four underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and 56 underwent open appendectomy (OA). There were no significant differences in the patients' characteristics and gestational age at surgery between the two groups. Operation time, time to flatus, and time to soft food intake were similar in both groups. The length of stay was shorter in the LA group than in the OA group (5.1 vs 8.1 days, P = 0.044). Gestational age at delivery, birth weight, and delivery type were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in overall obstetric poor outcome (20.8 vs 14.3 %, P = 0.516), including preterm delivery (8.3 vs 7.1 %, P = 1.000) and fetal loss (12.5 vs 7.1 %, P = 0.350). Multivariable analysis revealed that fever >38 °C (P = 0.022) and maternal age (P = 0.044) were independent predictors for the overall poor outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

LA was associated with shorter length of stay compared with OA, but perioperative and obstetric outcomes were similar with both procedures. LA can be safely performed in pregnant women in any trimester.

Does Conversion Adversely Impact the Clinical Outcomes for Patients with Complicated Appendicitis?

BACKGROUND

Although the feasibility of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in complicated appendicitis (CA) has been demonstrated, LA is typically underused in CA due to its high conversion rate. However, little is known regarding the clinical course of conversion in CA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2005 and April 2012, 1699 patients older than 16 years underwent an appendectomy at our institution. Of these, 207 were confirmed to have CA, which was defined as operative findings of gangrenous or perforated appendix, with or without abscess formation. Patients were divided into the following three groups: open group (OG), laparoscopy group (LG), and converted group (CG). Perioperative outcomes were compared between the three groups.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients underwent open surgery. Among the 169 patients for whom laparoscopic surgery was originally attempted, 20 (11.8%) were converted. Operation time was significantly longer and estimated blood loss was higher in the CG than in the other groups. Fewer overall complications were observed and the length of hospital stay (LOH) was shorter in the LG than in the OG and CG. However, no significant differences were observed between the OG and CG regarding the overall complication rate or LOH. Operation method was the only factor associated with postoperative morbidity in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

While completion by laparoscopy was associated with better outcomes than the other two procedures at all levels, open conversion did not increase the overall morbidity or LOH compared with open appendectomy. Laparoscopic approach could be a viable option even in the management of CA.

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.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy Is Safe: Influence of Appendectomy Technique on Surgical-site Infections and Intra-abdominal Abscesses

PURPOSE

Surgical-site infections (SSIs) and intra-abdominal abscesses (IAAs) are the most frequent complications of appendectomy. The role of laparoscopy in the treatment of appendicitis remains controversial concerning the complication rate. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare open and laparoscopic appendectomy for SSI and IAA.

METHODS

All patients undergoing appendectomy between January 1, 2007 and May 31, 2010 were included in the study. Perioperative data and data on postoperative complications were collected from patient files. A questionnaire was used to assess complications after discharge. Main outcome parameters were SSI and IAA. Open appendectomy (OAG) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LAG) were compared with univariate and multivariate analyses for the outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty patients were included in the study. SSI (all: 10.6%, OAG: 11.7%, LAG: 7.5%, P=0.293) and IAA (all: 2.8%, OAG: 2.4%, LAG: 3.8%, P=0.506) were not significantly different between OAG and LAG. Risk factors for SSI were age (P=0.003), body mass index (P=0.017), ASA score (P=0.001), the intraoperative grade of inflammation (P=0.004), and the histologic grade of inflammation (P=0.015). The only risk factor for IAA was the intraoperative grade of inflammation (P=0.028). ASA score (odds ratio: 1.992, P=0.032) and the intraoperative grade of inflammation (odds ratio: 1.573, P=0.006) remained significant in the multivariate analysis for SSI.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher ASA score correlates with SSI. A higher grade of intraoperative inflammation correlates with SSI and IAA. Laparoscopy has no impact on SSI and IAA in appendectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open approach in the management of appendicitis complicated exclusively with peritonitis: a single center experience

BACKGROUND

Controversial evidence exists regarding the laparoscopic approach in patients with acute appendicitis complicated with peritonitis due to a higher rate of surgical complications. The aim of this study was to compare post-operatory outcomes in patients with acute appendicitis complicated exclusively with peritonitis approached by laparoscopy versus open surgery.

METHODS

Single center retrospective analysis of clinical records of patients with appendicitis complicated with peritonitis operated from January 2003 until October 2013. Demographic data, intra-operative variables, length of stay, surgical complications, mortality, readmissions and reoperations were retrieved.

RESULTS

227 patients were identified, 43% males, mean age 39±17 years (range: 12-85 years). Ninety-seven patients (43%) underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, 13 of them were converted to open surgery (13%). Ninety-four patients presented with diffuse peritonitis (41.4%). Laparoscopic appendectomy showed longer operative time but shorter hospital stay (p<0.05). There were no differences in post-operatory complications (intra-abdominal abscess, surgical site infection and prolonged ileus). Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with lower odds for developing any surgical complication in the multivariate analysis (OR 0.301, p=0.036).

CONCLUSION

Both approaches showed no differences in complications in the management of appendicitis complicated exclusively with peritonitis. In our experience, laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe approach in cases of appendicitis complicated exclusively with peritonitis.

Preoperative C-reactive protein predicts the severity and likelihood of complications following appendicectomy

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic laparoscopy with appendicectomy (LA) has become the accepted method of investigation and treatment of appendicitis. However, concerns remain in cases of complicated appendicitis when many advocate conversion to an open procedure (LCOA) owing to the risk of complications. The aim of this study was to look for factors that could predict complications occurring in patients undergoing appendicectomy.

METHODS

Data inclusive of all consecutive appendicectomies over a two-year period were retrieved from the computerised theatre database. Clinical details including admission inflammatory markers, complications, severity (final pathology) and length of stay were collected from the discharge letter. Readmissions were identified as those hospital identifiers had a second set of admission dates and/or a second discharge letter.

RESULTS

During the 2-year study period, 517 appendicectomies were performed. Of these, 429 patients (83%) had LA and the remaining 88 (17%) had LCOA. The LA group had a mean age of 28 years (range: 2-86 years) and a mean C-reactive protein (CRP) level of 71 mg/l (range: 0-480 mg/l) while the LCOA group had a mean age of 46 years (range: 11-92 years) and a mean CRP level of 162 mg/l (range: 3-404 mg/l). These differences in age and CRP were significant (p<0.001). LA patients were less likely to have complications overall (22% vs 52%, p=0.015). Complications were independently more than twice as common with established inflammation with a CRP level of >150 mg/l (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A high preoperative CRP level predicts an increased rate of postoperative complication due to established inflammation and/or infection. This raises the question of whether we should be offering primary open appendicectomies to patients with a CRP level of >150 mg/l.

Cost is not a drawback to perform laparoscopic appendectomy in an academic hospital

Appendectomy is the most frequently performed emergent surgical procedure in western countries. There is still controversy about which alternative is clinically and economically superior: open or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Our aim was to determine clinical outcomes and cost of both procedures in our academic institution. A retrospective comparative study was performed including patients undergoing appendectomy from January to December 2011. Demographic data, operating room occupancy time, hospital length of stay, complications, and economic data were obtained. A total of 116 appendectomies were performed along the time of study, 23.27% laparoscopic and 76.72% open. Groups were similar in terms of demographics and intraoperative findings. Operating room occupancy time was longer in laparoscopic group and hospital stay was shorter. No significant differences were found respecting to postoperative complications rate. Cost minimization analysis showed that LA saved 1561.08&OV0556; per patient. In our teaching setting, LA may have clinical and economic advantages over open appendectomy.

Single institution's experience in laparoscopic appendectomy as a suitable therapy for complicated appendicitis

PURPOSE

Although laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for acute appendicitis (AA) is widely performed, the value of LA for the treatment of complicated appendicitis (CA) is still controversially discussed.

METHODS

In a retrospective study, we analyzed the clinical records of 404 patients who underwent LA or conversion (intention-to-treat group) or open appendectomy (OA) for AA or CA at the Alfried Krupp Hospital Essen-Rüttenscheid, Germany between January 2007 and December 2010.

RESULTS

AA was treated in 64.2 % by LA and in 35.8 % by OA; the LA-to-OA conversion rate amounts to 3.7 %. CA was treated in 56 % by LA and in 44 % by OA. The LA-to-OA conversion rate here is 13.1 %, and compared to AA, it is significantly (P < 0.01) higher. Comparing LA with OA in both patient groups, we find no significant difference in the overall complication rate, the rate of postoperative intraabdominal abscesses and postoperative ileus. However, in both patient groups, the wound infection rate was significantly lower in patients who had undergone LA (AA P < 0.05 versus CA P < 0.01). In contrast to patients suffering from AA, patients with CA needed significantly less resurgery when treated by LA as compared to OA (P < 0.001). While the duration of surgery for the treatment of AA and CA was similar, the hospitalization time was significantly shorter with LA than with OA (AA P < 0.05 versus CA P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggest that LA is advantageous not only in the treatment of AA, but also in the therapy of CA. Thus, LA may become a proper and safe routine method if performed by an experienced surgeon.

Laparoscopic submucosal appendectomy for difficult and adherent cases: a novel technique to minimize complications

BACKGROUND

Recurrent appendicitis with the appendix tip in the subhepatic area and late presentations of perforated appendicitis sometimes test the skills of the surgeon. Because of dense adhesions and distorted anatomy, trying to do retrograde appendectomy or looking for the appendicular artery may lead to troublesome bleeding and injure the adjacent intestine. Submucosal appendectomy could be an answer in these situations.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

From October 7, 2005 to July 31, 2011, 1589 laparoscopic appendectomies were performed, of which 239 were recurrent or perforated or formed a mass. In 19 of these cases no plane could be established between the appendix and adjacent structures. So an incision was made on the anti-mesenteric wall of the appendix, and the mucosal sleeve was pulled out, leaving the muscular wall. The base was then ligated flush with the cecum and divided distally, leaving the muscular tube. Postoperative management was similar to usual appendectomies.

RESULTS

Out of 19 cases 13 were male. Ages ranged from 3 to 14 years. Seven cases were perforated, and 12 were recurrent. Submucosal appendectomy was done in all these 19 cases. There was no intraoperative complication. Average operating time was 51 minutes. In 16 cases feeding was tolerated early, and 3 cases suffered from prolonged ileus. Average postoperative hospital stay was 3.47 ± 2.34 days. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 5 years. Two cases reported occasional abdominal pain, which required re-admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Submucosal appendectomy minimizes complications, obviates the need for conversion, and is a safe option for difficult cases during laparoscopy.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in the management of all stages of acute appendicitis in children: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

We conducted this study in order to evaluate whether laparoscopic appendectomy was an alternative therapeutic tool to open appendectomy for all stages of pediatric appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2000 and November 2004, the charts of 177 children who underwent appendectomy by a single surgeon were reviewed. The patients were divided into open and laparoscopic appendectomy groups. Each group was subdivided into three stages: simple appendicitis, perforated appendicitis, and appendicitis with abscess. The age, gender, white blood cell count, absolute neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, operating time, duration of postoperative hospital stay, minor and major complications, and use of intravenous analgesia were recorded. Fisher's exact and Student's t-test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

There were fewer minor complications (9/32 vs. 0/20, p = 0.009) in perforated appendicitis stage and fewer major complications (9/26 vs. 1/24, p = 0.011) in appendicitis with abscess stage between open and laparoscopic appendectomy group. But surgery for each laparoscopic appendectomy group took longer to perform than for the corresponding open appendectomy group in each stage (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in other data between corresponding groups in each stage.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy may be considered a better alternative to open appendectomy for children with perforated appendicitis and appendicitis with abscess.

[Typical intraoperative complications in laparoscopic surgery]

For all common laparoscopic procedures (e. g. cholecystectomy, appendectomy, inguinal hernia repair, fundoplication and colorectal resection) it has been possible to demonstrate in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that they produce better results in terms of perioperative outcome than open surgery. Accordingly, there are very few publications that report on intraoperative complications and their management. In this respect a distinction must be made between positioning complications, access complications and complications related to the pneumoperitoneum, which can manifest in all laparoscopic procedures, as well as the specific complications associated with individual procedures.The main focus of any consideration of intraoperative complications must of course be on strategies to prevent the occurrence. If intraoperative complications have occurred, the most important aspect is the diagnosis and control with prime importance accorded to which complications can still be controlled using a laparoscopic approach and when an open procedure must be used. In general a switch to open surgery should be made in the event of serious complications. Only a highly experienced laparoscopic surgeon will be able to safely manage complications once they have occurred without putting the patient at further risk. In doubtful situations the approach that poses least risk is open surgery for complications that have already occurred.

Prophylactic surgery prior to extended-duration space flight: is the benefit worth the risk?

This article explores the potential benefits and defined risks associated with prophylactic surgical procedures for astronauts before extended-duration space flight. This includes, but is not limited to, appendectomy and cholecystesctomy. Furthermore, discussion of treatment during space flight, potential impact of an acute illness on a defined mission and the ethical issues surrounding this concept are debated in detail.

Short- and long-term results of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Clinical advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy have been shown in numerous trials and reviews. Most of these advantages are small and of limited clinical relevance, while laparoscopic operation costs are reported to be higher. The present study compares short- and long-term results of conventional appendectomy with or without diagnostic laparoscopy (OA), and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).

METHODS

All adult patients who underwent appendectomy in our institution from 1995 to 2005 were included retrospectively. Patient data were retrieved from medical records, questionnaires sent by mail, and records of general practitioners. Primary outcome parameters were long-term complications, readmissions, and reinterventions (>30 days postoperatively). Secondary outcome parameters were short-term complications, readmissions, and reinterventions (≤30 days postoperatively).

RESULTS

A total of 755 patients were included, 545 of whom underwent OA, with the remaining 210 undergoing LA. In the long term there were few complications noted, and there were no significant differences in complications between the two groups. Within 30 days postoperatively, LA was associated with a significantly higher incidence of abdominal abscesses with consequent diagnostic investigations, interventions, and readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although laparoscopic appendectomy is known to deliver clinical advantages, it is associated with a higher incidence of abdominal abscesses. Because the procedure is about to become the standard of care, future research must be directed at solving this issue. The expected lower incidence of incisional hernia and small bowel obstruction after laparoscopic appendectomy was not shown in the present study.

Consensus conference on laparoscopic appendectomy: development of guidelines

AIM

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is not yet unanimously considered the gold standard treatment for appendicitis, despite the increasing use of advanced laparoscopic operations and the high incidence of the disease.

METHOD

Due to the results of an audit which classified LA as widespread in Italy, a Consensus Conference was organized, in order to give evidence-based answers to the most debated problems regarding the operation. After researching the literature, a panel of 20 experts were selected and interviewed on hot topics; a subsequent discussion using the Delphi methodology was utilized in the course of the consensus conference and submitted to the evaluation of an audience of surgeons.

RESULTS

Checkpoint statements were formulated whenever an agreement was reached. A level of evidence was then assigned to single statements and the process revised by two external reviewers.

CONCLUSION

Consensus development guidelines are herein reported and regard diagnostic pathway, diagnostic laparoscopy, indications, behaviour in case of innocent appendix, technical aspects, learning curve; however, some questions remain unsolved due to the lack of evidence.

Appendix Diameter: A Predictor of Wound Infection after Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Our aim was to investigate whether appendix diameter is an independent risk factor for wound infection in laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Patients who underwent LA (n = 582) were grouped into those with wound infections and those without. Possible factors associated with wound infection were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. When the diameter of the appendix was greater than 15 mm, patients were 2.32 times as likely to have a wound infection (95% CI, 1.02 to 5.29; P = 0.045) than if the appendix was less than 10 mm in diameter. Patients with perforated appendices were 2.51 times as likely to have a wound infection (95% CI, 1.25 to 5.02; P = 0.010) than if the appendix was not perforated. Wound infection was associated with longer operation time, return to oral intake, and hospital stay. Appendix diameter may predict postoperative wound infection after laparoscopic appendectomy.

Competitive edge of laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy: a subgroup comparison analysis

BACKGROUND

With the advances in laparoscopic instruments and surgical techniques, the use of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been increasing rapidly in recent years. In this retrospective analysis, we aimed to determine the competitive edge of LA versus open appendectomy (OA) in different settings of disease complexity, gender, and age difference.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis at Changhua and Chang-Bing Show-Chwan Memorial Hospitals from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2009 was conducted. Trend and indication of OA and LA were recorded, combined with a comparison of medical costs, complication rates, wound infection rates, and hospital stays in different settings of disease complexity, gender, and age group.

RESULTS

A total of 1366 appendicitis patients were enrolled, and the rate of LA use increased rapidly, from 8.1% in 2004 to 90.3% in 2009. The increased use of LA was seen in both the uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis patients and in both gender and age groups (pediatric, adult, and elderly). Compared with OA, LA was associated with a lower complication rate (9.5% versus 5.8%; P = .013), a lower wound infection rate (8.6% versus 4.2%; P = .001), and a shorter hospital stay (4.60 ± 3.64 versus 4.06 ± 1.84 days; P = .001), but a higher mean cost (32,670 ± 28,568 versus 37,567 ± 12,064 New Taiwan dollars). In the subgroup analysis, the patients with complicated appendicitis, female patients, and pediatric and elderly patients benefited from a reduced hospital stay. LA is about 15% more expensive than OA.

CONCLUSIONS

LA is as safe and effective as OA in many settings of appendicitis and may be selectively advantageous in patients with complicated appendicitis and in elderly subgroups.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults with complicated appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The goal of the present study was to critically review and identify the strength of available evidence in the literature on the use of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in complicated appendicitis (CA).

METHODS

The Cochrane Library and Controlled Trials Registry, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Web of knowledge, and SCOPUS databases were electronically searched, using the keywords "appendectomy," "laparoscopy," "appendicitis." "complicated appendicitis." "gangrenous appendicitis," "perforated appendicitis," with English language as a limit. Backward chaining was also employed. The NHS Public Health Resource Unit Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Tools were used for critical appraisal.

RESULTS

Twelve retrospective case-control studies were included in the review. Overall methodological quality was moderate to poor, with heterogeneity, absence of randomization and blinding, and presence of important methodological flaws. Meta-analysis showed that LA in CA has reduced surgical site infection (SSI) rates compared to open appendectomy (OA), odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.14-0.37 (level 3a evidence), and no difference with regard to intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) complication rates OR: 1.02, 95% CI 0.56-1.86 (level 3a evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared to OA, laparoscopic appendectomy is advantageous in CA with regard to SSIs, with no significant additional risk of IAA (level 3a evidence).

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.

Pediatric advanced appendicitis: open versus laparoscopic approach

PURPOSE

Optimal surgical approach for advanced pediatric appendicectomy remains controversial. We compare the open versus the laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

Retrospective case notes review of children operated on for advanced appendicitis between January 2005 and July 2006 was undertaken for length of hospital stay, operating time, wound complications, need for further surgery, and hospital readmission.

RESULTS

Forty children were included, 17 were treated with open approach and 23 with laparoscopic approach. There was no conversion from laparoscopic to open approach. Overall complication rate, length of hospital stay, and need for further surgery were similar in both groups. The mean operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group. Wound complications occurred more in the open group. Readmission for gastrointestinal obstruction was noted in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approach is safe for advanced appendicitis in children. The outcomes are comparable in both study groups.

Comparison of outcomes after laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 222 ACS NSQIP hospitals

BACKGROUND

The benefit of laparoscopic (LA) versus open (OA) appendectomy, particularly for complicated appendicitis, remains unclear. Our objectives were to assess 30-day outcomes after LA versus OA for acute appendicitis and complicated appendicitis, determine the incidence of specific outcomes after appendectomy, and examine factors influencing the utilization and duration of the operative approach with multi-institutional clinical data.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database (2005-2008), patients were identified who underwent emergency appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 222 participating hospitals. Regression models, which included propensity score adjustment to minimize the influence of treatment selection bias, were constructed. Models assessed the association between surgical approach (LA vs OA) and risk-adjusted overall morbidity, surgical site infection (SSI), serious morbidity, and serious morbidity/mortality, as well as individual complications in patients with acute appendicitis and complicated appendicitis. The relationships between operative approach, operative duration, and extended duration of stay with hospital academic affiliation were also examined.

RESULTS

Of 32,683 patients, 24,969 (76.4%) underwent LA and 7,714 (23.6%) underwent OA. Patients who underwent OA were significantly older with more comorbidities compared with those who underwent LA. Patients treated with LA were less likely to experience an overall morbidity (4.5% vs 8.8%; odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.68) or a SSI (3.3% vs 6.7%; OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.50-0.65) but not a serious morbidity (2.6% vs 4.2%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.01) or a serious morbidity/mortality (2.6% vs 4.3%; OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.01) compared with those who underwent OA. All patients treated with LA were significantly less likely to develop individual infectious complications except for organ space SSI. Among patients with complicated appendicitis, organ space SSI was significantly more common after laparoscopic appendectomy (6.3% vs 4.8%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05-1.73). For all patients with acute appendicitis, those treated at academic-affiliated versus community hospitals were equally likely to undergo LA versus OA (77.0% vs 77.3%; P = .58). Operative duration at academic centers was significantly longer for both LA and OA (LA, 47 vs 38 minutes [P < .0001]; OA, 49 vs 44 minutes [P < .0001]). Median duration of stay after LA was 1 day at both academic-affiliated and community hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Within ACS NSQIP hospitals, LA is associated with lower overall morbidity in selected patients. However, patients with complicated appendicitis may have a greater risk of organ space SSI after LA. Academic affiliation does not seem to influence the operative approach. However, LA is associated with similar durations of stay but slightly greater operative times than OA at academic versus community hospitals.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in complicated appendicitis: a review of the NSQIP database

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been an established treatment method for uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Controversy still exits regarding the superiority of either laparoscopic or open technique for the treatment of complicated appendicitis.

OBJECTIVE

To examine for benefits in postoperative morbidity comparing laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) dataset between 2005 and 2007. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing either open or laparoscopic appendectomy, and had complicated appendicitis. Patients with negative appendectomies and age less than 18 y old were excluded. The primary outcome variable was postoperative complications. Multivariate analysis was performed adjusting for demographics and standard NSQIP comorbidities.

RESULTS

We identified 2,790 complicated appendicitis cases treated with laparoscopic or open appendectomy. The majority were male (56.6%), White (70.3%), and 39.1% were younger than 40 y of age. On unadjusted analyses, the mean length of stay was significantly shorter for LA cases (3.97 d) than OA cases (5.13 d) (P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, superficial surgical site infection was 70% less likely to occur in LA (OR 0.304 P = 0.000), organ space infection was 2-fold more likely to occur in LA (OR 2.19 P = 0.003), and dehiscence was 78% less likely to occur in LA (OR 0.22 P = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

In cases of complicated appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy is superior in terms of superficial and deep wound infections; however, it is associated with an increased incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess.

Ergonomics and Technical Aspects of Minimal Access Surgery in Acute Surgery

BACKGROUND

Following the general trend in the evolution of minimal access surgery (MAS), the place of laparoscopy for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in the emergency setting is well defined. As for all laparoscopic procedures, the ergonomic and technical aspects of MAS in acute surgery are important issues.

METHODS

Review of the literature.

RESULTS

The ergonomic and technical aspects of emergency laparoscopy include the surgeon's and the patient's position; the operating room setup, including the table, the monitor, and the specific equipment; patient preparation adapted as required to potential changes necessary as adapted to the pathology and conversion; the trocar setup, also adapted to the organ and pathology. Specific needs and variations can be necessary, dependent on the patient status, body build, and the pathology being treated. The operating room used for acute surgery should be adapted to evolving laparoscopic techniques, as well as new intraoperative diagnostic and therapeutic modalities.

CONCLUSION

High-tech equipment and associated procedures have modified the needs for a modern operating room setup. Laparoscopic procedures for emergency surgery must make use of well-known ergonomic principles and be adapted to the patient and the pathology.

[Laparoscopic appendectomy. The new standard?]

Since the introduction of laparoscopic appendectomy by Semm in 1983, the role of this minimally invasive surgical technique has been the focus of controversial discussion. Meta-analyses have identified its advantages as having significantly lower wound infection rates, less postoperative pain and earlier resumption of normal everyday activities. The disadvantages are higher rates of intra-abdominal abscesses, longer operating times and higher inpatient treatment costs. However, some of the advantages identified by meta-analyses have been called into question by the results obtained from research into aspects of care. These discrepancies are attributable to the different surgeons involved in the various studies. The results are greatly influenced by the qualifications and experience of the surgeons. Therefore conventional appendectomy using a right lower lateral McBurney incision should continue to be the gold standard. Surgeons who have extensive experience in the field of laparoscopic surgery can achieve better results with minimally invasive appendectomy than with open surgery. This also holds true for specific situations such as complicated appendicitis and for morbidly obese patients. However, the operating costs incurred for laparoscopic appendectomy are higher because it has been shown that removal of the appendix with a linear stapler is the most reliable method.

Complicated appendicitis in children: is laparoscopic appendectomy appropriate? A comparative study with the open appendectomy--our experience

PURPOSE

Good outcomes have been reported with laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for uncomplicated appendicitis in children, but the use of laparoscopy for complicated appendicitis in children is more controversial. This is related to a higher incidence of postoperative abdominal and wound infections. The purpose of this trial was to retrospectively compare LA and open appendectomy (OA) for complicated appendicitis and evaluate the efficacy of LA in children with complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

The outcome of 128 patients with complicated appendicitis in children was retrospectively analyzed. There were 80 children in the LA group and 48 in the OA group. The appendectomies were performed by a single senior surgeon and his surgical trainees. There was no selection of cases for LA. Data collection included demographics, operative time, resumption of diet, infectious complications (wound infection and intraabdominal abscess), length of hospitalization, and duration of antibiotic use.

RESULTS

There were no cases of LA that required conversion to OA. The operative time for LA (88.5 +/- 28.8 minutes for LA vs 71.8 +/- 30.6 minutes for OA; t = 3.10; P = .002) was longer. Patients in the LA group returned to oral intake earlier (1.8 +/- 0.6 days for LA vs 2.8 +/- 0.8 days for OA; t = -8.04; P < .01) and had a shorter length of hospital stay (6.5 +/- 2.2 days for LA vs 7.8 +/- 2.9 days for OA; t = -2.87; P = .005). The incidence of wound infection (1/80 [1.3%] for LA vs 6/48 [12.5%] for OA; P < .05) and postoperative intraabdominal abscess (2/80 [2.5%] for LA vs 7/48 [14.6%] for OA; P < .05) in LA group was lower. No significant difference was found in the duration of antibiotic administration between the 2 groups (5.8 +/- 1.8 days for LA vs 6.3 +/- 2.3 days for OA; t = -1.37; P = .174). No mortality was observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The minimally invasive laparoscopic technique is feasible, safe, and efficacious for children with complicated appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy should be the initial procedure of choice for most cases of complicated appendicitis in children.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: burden or benefit? A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is now a common practice, it has not yet become the standard of care because it has no clear advantage when compared to open appendectomy (OA), especially in cases of complicated appendicitis. Moreover, the literature reports an increased incidence of postoperative infections with LA.

AIM

To review our center's experience with LA and to compare it to the literature.

METHODS

All LAs performed between January 2004 and October 2007 were retrospectively reviewed for age, gross operative findings, pathology reports, operating time, length of hospital stay (LOS), and the time to resume regular diet and reach afebrile status. All patients who presented with phlegmonous appendicitis were treated medically and had a secondary appendectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 151 children underwent LA during this period (60 girls, 91 boys); the mean age was 10.4 years (range, 4-16). Forty-five patients (29.8%) presented with perforated appendicitis (PA). Nine patients had normal appendix on pathology. The mean operative time was 58.7 minutes (56.1 minutes for simple appendicitis [SA] and 64.8 minutes for PA). The mean intravenous narcotic analgesia duration was 12.2 hours for SA and 15.1 hours for PA. LOS was 2.82 days for SA and 3.8 days for PA. Regular diet was tolerated 1.47 days postoperatively for SA and 2.4 days for PA. The latter patients remained febrile for an average of 1.9 days. None of the patients presented with intra-abdominal infection postoperatively. Seven patients (4.6%) presented a trocar site infection. Since the introduction of a routine LA in 2004, the operating room time decreased from 66.4 minutes to 51 minutes.

CONCLUSION

This series confirms the safety of LA in almost all cases. The absence of intra-abdominal infections and the low rate of wound infections noted with LA compare favorably with the open approach. This approach is not only advantageous for cosmesis but also allows satisfying parents' requests, helps developing surgeons' laparoscopic skills, and is cost-effective.