Laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: a comparison with open appendectomy

Clinical Outcomes of Single-incision Laparoscopic Appendectomy Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Adult Acute Appendicitis

Objectives

Laparoscopic surgery is widely performed for acute appendicitis. We started conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) in 1995 and introduced single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) in 2009. This study compared perioperative outcomes between SILA and CLA to evaluate the usefulness of SILA.

Design

Retrospective observational study.

Methods

The study included 568 patients who underwent emergency or semi-emergency surgery for acute appendicitis (327 by CLA and 241 by SILA) at our hospital between January 2009 and December 2020. Perioperative outcomes were compared between SILA and CLA after adjusting for patient demographics by propensity score matching (PSM).

Results

PSM gave a matched sample of 224 patients in each of the CLA and SILA groups. There were significant differences between the two groups in time to initiation of oral intake, frequency of postoperative analgesic use, and length of postoperative hospital stay. Time to oral intake was significantly shorter in the SILA group (p = 0.02). Frequency of use of all analgesics, flurbiprofen axetil, and loxoprofen sodium was significantly higher in the SILA group (p < 0.01, p = 0.04, p < 0.01, respectively). The length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the SILA group (p < 0.01). The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ significantly between the two groups.

Conclusions

Although SILA required significantly more postoperative analgesics than CLA, pain could be controlled by oral analgesics, and patients could be discharged earlier. Postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups. SILA was a safe and feasible procedure for adult acute appendicitis.

Challenges to implement laparoscopic appendectomy as the first-line treatment for acute appendicitis: a fifteen-year experience in a tertiary hospital in Brazil

BACKGROUND

the barriers to implement emergency laparoscopy in public teaching hospitals involve issues such as resident learning curves and resource costs and availability. This study was designed to describe the issues facing the implementation of laparoscopic approach for acute appendicitis over 15 years in a single academic center in Brazil.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

retrospective study of patients undergoing emergency appendectomy from 2004 to 2018. Clinical data were compared to four major actions implemented in the emergency surgical service: minimally invasive surgery training for residents (2007), laparoscopic stump closure using metal clips (2008), 24/7 availability of laparoscopic instruments for emergency surgeries (2010), and third-party contract for maintenance of the laparoscopic instruments and implementation of polymeric clips for stump closure (2013). We evaluated the increase in laparoscopic appendectomy after the implementation of those major changes.

RESULTS

we identified 1168 appendectomies during the study period, of which 691 (59%), 465 (40%), and 12 (1%) were open, laparoscopic, and converted, respectively. The implementation of the major changes since 2004 resulted in an increase of laparoscopic appendectomies from 11% in 2007 to 80% in 2016. These actions were decisive in the widespread use of laparoscopy for acute appendicitis (p<0.001). The standardization of the hem-o-lok clip in the treatment of the appendiceal stump made the procedure more feasible, reducing the surgical time using laparoscopic access and increasing the team's adherence, so that this became the route of choice in about 85% of cases in the period from 2014 to 2018, 80% performed by 3rd year resident physicians. No intraoperative complications were noted related to laparoscopic access, even in more complicated appendicitis. There was no mortality reported, no reoperations or readmissions to hospital during a 30-day postoperative period.

CONCLUSION

the development of a feasible, reproducible, and safe technical standardization, associated with continuous cost optimization, are the cornerstones for a consistent and viable change in the current practice for appendectomies in middle and lower-income countries.

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.

Machine learning prediction model for postoperative outcome after perforated appendicitis

Purpose

Appendectomy for acute appendicitis is one of the most common operative procedures worldwide in both children and adults. In particular, complicated (perforated) cases show high variability in individual outcomes. Here, we developed and validated a machine learning prediction model for postoperative outcome of perforated appendicitis.

Methods

Retrospective analyses of patients with clinically and histologically verified perforated appendicitis over 10 years were performed. Demographic and surgical baseline characteristics were used as competing predictors of single-patient outcomes along multiple dimensions via a random forest classifier with stratified subsampling. To assess whether complications could be predicted in new, individual cases, the ensuing models were evaluated using a replicated 10-fold cross-validation.

Results

A total of 163 patients were included in the study. Sixty-four patients underwent laparoscopic surgery, whereas ninety-nine patients got a primary open procedure. Interval from admission to appendectomy was 9 ± 12 h and duration of the surgery was 74 ± 38 min. Forty-three patients needed intensive care treatment. Overall mortality was 0.6 % and morbidity rate was 15%. Severe complications as assessed by Clavien-Dindo > 3 were predictable in new cases with an accuracy of 68%. Need for ICU stay (> 24 h) could be predicted with an accuracy of 88%, whereas prolonged hospitalization (greater than 7–15 days) was predicted by the model with an accuracy of 76%.

Conclusion

We demonstrate that complications following surgery, and in particular, health care system-related outcomes like intensive care treatment and extended hospitalization, may be well predicted at the individual level from demographic and surgical baseline characteristics through machine learning approaches.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-022-02456-1.

The management of appendicular abscesses in a Tunisian Tertiary Care Hospital

BACKGROUND

This study aims to describe the epidemiological, clinical, and radiological features of appendicular abscesses, compare the different approaches, and assess the safety and utility of laparoscopy in its management.

METHODS

This descriptive retrospective study was carried out over 3 years extending from January 2017 to December 2019, reporting 150 appendicular abscesses cases. Data were collected from the register of the general surgery department B of the Rabta hospital. Cases with appendicular abscess were included. Files concerning patients with early appendicitis, non-appendicular abscesses or generalized appendicular peritonitis were excluded. Data were analysed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. In univariate analysis, we used the chi2 test, the Fischer test, the Student t test. The factors retained by the univariate analysis were introduced into a logistic regression model. The significance level was set to 0.05.

RESULTS

The mean age was 40.51 years. The gender ratio in patients with appendicular abscesses was M:F 1.94:1. Pain in the right iliac fossa associated with fever was the most common symptom (78% of cases). Clinical examination showed tenderness in the right iliac fossa in 38% of cases, rebound and guarding were found in 77 patients (51.3%), and a palpable mass was noted in 4 cases (4.2%). Imaging was done to confirm diagnosis; 46 patients underwent ultrasonogram and this confirmed the diagnosis in 26 patients (56%), while among the 71 patients who underwent CT abdomen confirmatory diagnosis was made in 65 patients (91.55%). An appendectomy was performed in 148 patients (98.6%) via laparoscopic approach in 94 patients, open Mac burney procedure in 32 cases (21.3%) and midline incision in 24 cases (16%). Two patients had an ileocecal resection. The appendix was most commonly located retrocecally (55.3%) in our cohort. The laparoscopic approach was performed in 94 patients (62.6%), and we had to convert in 44 patients due to dissection difficulties (46.8%). Among patients who underwent laparascopic approach 7 had developed peritonitis.. There were only 2 deaths. The mortality rate was 0,013%. The median duration of outpatient followup was 6 months (4-24 weeks) and was uneventful.

CONCLUSION

Appendicular abscess is a disease of young adults more common in men. Location of the appendix in our case series was mostly retroceacal. Laparoscopy was associated with good outcomes; peritonitis was uncommon and mortality was rare. The laparoscopic approach is a safe surgical technique for treating appendicular abscess and it can be considered as the routine approach for this condition In developing countries with limited technical resources, laparoscopy guarantees the absence of recurrence, reduces healthcare costs and decreases the risk of treating a severe disease conservatively.

Is pneumoperitoneum necessary for single-incision laparoscopy-assisted appendectomy for pediatric appendicitis?

INTRODUCTION

Several studies have reported the treatment of pediatric appendicitis with single-incision laparoscopy-assisted appendectomy using a muscle hook without pneumoperitoneum to lift the abdominal wall. However, very few studies have investigated the advantages of this procedure. We examined the utility of this procedure in our department.

METHODS

This study included 33 children with appendicitis who underwent single-incision laparoscopy-assisted appendectomy at our hospital from April 2011 to March 2018. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether they underwent the procedure with pneumoperitoneum: the no pneumoperitoneum group (n = 12) and the pneumoperitoneum group (n = 21). The clinicopathological factors and surgical costs were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In the pneumoperitoneum group, the procedure was initiated in four patients by lifting the abdominal wall but was changed to include a pneumoperitoneum because of difficulty. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to age, sex, or pathological severity. CT revealed a significant difference in the distance from the appendicular root to the umbilicus between the groups. There was a significant difference in the operative duration, but not in estimated blood loss or length of postoperative hospital stay. Complications were observed in one patient in each group. There was a significant difference in cost between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-incision laparoscopy-assisted appendectomy without pneumoperitoneum is less expensive because certain supplies and CO₂ are not required. Because there were no differences in the length of postoperative hospital stay or complications, this procedure may be safe in cases that are expected to be mild.

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.

Exploring geographic variation in acute appendectomy in Ireland: results from a national registry study

OBJECTIVE

To explore geographic variations in Irish laparoscopic and open appendectomy procedures.

DESIGN

Analysis based on 2014-2017 administrative hospital data from public hospitals.

SETTING

Counties of Ireland.

PARTICIPANTS

Irish residents with hospital admissions for an appendectomy as the principal procedure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Age and gender standardised laparoscopic and open appendectomy rates for 26 counties. Geographic variation measured with the extremal quotient (EQ), coefficient of variation (CV) and the systematic component of variation (SCV).

RESULTS

23 684 appendectomies were included. 77.6% (n= 18,387) were performed laparoscopically. An EQ of 8.3 for laparoscopy and 10.0 for open appendectomy was determined. A high CV was demonstrated with a value of 36.7 and 80.8 for laparoscopic and open appendectomy, respectively. An SCV of 14.2 and 124.8 for laparoscopic and open appendectomy was observed. A wider variation was determined when children and adults were assessed separately.

CONCLUSIONS

The geographic distribution in rates of appendectomy varies considerably across Irish counties. Our data suggest that a patient's likelihood of undergoing a laparoscopic or open appendectomy is associated with their county of residence.

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 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.

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).

Comparison of open appendectomy and laparoscopic appendectomy with laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting and glove endobag techniques: A prospective observational study

Objective

Despite the recent increase in the use of laparoscopic appendectomy procedures to treat acute appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy is not necessarily the best treatment modality. The aim of this study is to examine the value of laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting and glove endobag in terms of various parameters and in terms of reducing the costs related to laparoscopic appendectomy procedures.

Material and Methods

Seventy-two acute appendicitis patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy and open appendectomy surgery were enrolled in the study and were evaluated prospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 was treated with laparoscopic appendectomy using laparoscopic intracorpreal knotting and glove endobag (n=36) and group 2 was treated with open appendectomy (n=36). The two groups were statistically compared in terms of preoperative symptoms and signs, laboratory and imaging findings, operation time and technique, pain score, gas and stool outputs, duration of hospital stay, return to normal activity, and complications.

Results

No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in relation to gender, age, body mass index, or pre-operation findings, which included loss of appetite, vomiting, time when pain started, displacement of pain, defense, rebound, imaging methods, and laboratory and pathology examinations (p>0.05). Moreover, there were no differences between the groups with respect to drain usage, hospital stay time, or complications (p>0.05). In contrast, a statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of operation time, pain scores, gas-stool outputs, and return to normal activity in the laparoscopic appendectomy group (p=0.001).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic appendectomy can be performed in a facile, safe, and cost-effective manner with laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting and glove endobag. By using these techniques, the use of expensive instruments can be avoided when performing laparoscopic appendectomy.

Laparoscopic Procedure is Not Independently Associated With the Development of Intra-Abdominal Abscess After Appendectomy: A Multicenter Cohort Study With Propensity Score Matching Analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify independent risk factors for postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) after appendectomy for patients with acute appendicitis.

BACKGRAOUND

Although laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been performed universally, whether LA is associated with an increased incidence of postoperative IAA compared with open appendectomy (OA) remains controversial, which causes some surgeons' increasing concerns.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 6805 consecutive adult patients with acute appendicitis who underwent LA or OA at 7 general hospitals in China. Patient characteristics, operative variables, and surgical outcomes were collected and compared between patients who underwent LA and OA. Propensity score matching analysis was used to minimize the bias in patient selection differing from various procedure of appendectomy. Independent risk factors associated with the development of postoperative IAA after appendectomy were identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis in the propensity matched cohort.

RESULTS

Over a 3-year period, 2710 (39.8%) and 4095 (60.2%) patients underwent LA and OA respectively. Patients who underwent OA had more males, American Society of Anesthesiologists score 2-3, preoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and perforated appendicitis than those who underwent LA (all P<0.01). Propensity score matched analysis created 2542 pairs of patients. Univariate analysis revealed that patients who underwent LA had a higher incidence of postoperative IAA than patients who underwent OA (6.7% vs. 5.3%; P=0.039). However, multivariate logistic regression analysis identified LA not to be an independent risk factor associated with the development of postoperative IAA (odds ratio, 1.053; 95% confidence interval, 0.922-1.657; P=0.216).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study identified that laparoscopic procedure was not an independent risk factor associated with the development of postoperative IAA after appendectomy of acute appendicitis. Therefore, concerns of increased incidence of IAA because of laparoscopic procedure are unwarranted.

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.

Wound classification in pediatric surgical procedures: Measured and found wanting

PURPOSE

Surgical wound classification has emerged as a measure of surgical quality of care, but scant data exist in the era of minimally invasive procedures, especially in children. The aim of this study is to examine the surgical site infection (SSI) rate by wound classification during common pediatric surgical procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the 2013 Pediatric-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (Peds-NSQIP) dataset was conducted. Patients undergoing pyloromyotomy, cholecystectomy, ostomy reversal, and appendectomy were included. Wound classification, SSI rate, reoperation, and readmission were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 10,424 records were included. Pyloromyotomy, a clean case, had a 0.7% SSI rate, while ostomy reversal, a clean contaminated case, had an SSI in 6.9% of cases. Appendectomy for nonperforated acute appendicitis and laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystitis, both contaminated cases, had SSI rates of 2.1% and <1%, respectively. Appendectomy for perforated appendicitis, a dirty procedure, had a 9.1% SSI rate, below the expected >40% for dirty cases. Reoperations and readmission rates ranged from <1% to 9% and increased with case complexity.

CONCLUSION

Current wound classifications systems do not reflect surgical risk in children and remain questionable tools for benchmarking surgical care in children. Role of readmissions and reoperations as quality of care indices needs further investigation.

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 versus open surgery for complicated appendicitis in adults: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess whether laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for complicated appendicitis (CA) effectively reduces the incidence of postoperative complications and improves various measurements of postoperative recovery in adults compared with open appendectomy (OA).

METHODS

This single-center, randomized controlled trial was performed in the Nagoya Daini Red Cross Hospital. Patients diagnosed as having CA with peritonitis or abscess formation were eligible to participate and were randomly assigned to an LA group or an OA group. The primary study outcome was development of infectious complications, especially surgical site infection (SSI), within 30 days of surgery.

RESULTS

Between October 2008 and August 2014, 81 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned with a 1:1 allocation ratio (42, LA; 39, OA). All were eligible for study of the primary endpoint. Groups were well balanced in terms of patient characteristics and preoperative levels of C-reactive protein. SSI occurred in 14 LA group patients (33.3 %) and in 10 OA group patients (25.6 %) (OR 1.450, 95 % CI 0.553-3.800; p = 0.476). Overall, the rate of postoperative complications, including incisional or organ/space SSI and stump leakage, did not differ significantly between groups. No significant differences between groups were found in hospital stay, duration of drainage, analgesic use, or parameters for postoperative recovery except days to walking.

CONCLUSION

These results suggested that LA for CA is safe and feasible, while the distinguishing benefit of LA was not validated in this clinical trial.

Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting technique in patients with complicated and noncomplicated acute appendicitis

Background and aim

In our study we aimed to compare laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting technique (base of the appendix was ligated with 20 cm of 2.0 silk) in patients with complicated acute appendicitis (CAA) and noncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Patients and methods

Ninety patients (female/male: 40/50, age ranging from 16 to 60 years, median age and interquartile range [IQR]: 25 [20; 32] years) who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were included in the study. The patients were evaluated for the type of acute appendicitis, duration of operation, duration of hospital stay, and postoperative complications.

Results

The number of cases diagnosed as CAA was 28 (31.1%), and the number of noncomplicated cases was 62 (68.9%). We found that there was no significant difference in postoperative complication rates between complicated and noncomplicated appendicitis cases. Incision site infection was seen in seven cases (7.8%) and ileus was seen in two cases (2.2%). Bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess, and appendix stump leakage were not observed in any of the cases. Median and IQR duration of operation were 42 (35; 52) minutes and median and IQR duration of hospital stay were detected as 2 (1; 2) (range 1–10) days.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting technique may be a safe, effective, and reliable technique as the materials needed for closing the appendix stumps are easily available for both CAA cases and noncomplicated cases.

Surgical site infection after laparoscopic and open appendectomy: a multicenter large consecutive cohort study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been rapidly applied worldwide recently. The issue of surgical site infection (SSI) after appendectomy needs to be re-investigated and analyzed along with this trend. This study aimed to identify risk factors of SSI after appendectomy in recent years.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted among patients with acute appendicitis who underwent either laparoscopic or open appendectomy (OA) at 7 general hospitals in China from 2010 to 2013. The incidence of SSI, classified as incisional SSI and organ/space SSI, was investigated. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to assess independent risk factors associated with overall, incisional, and organ/space SSI, respectively.

RESULTS

Among 16,263 consecutive patients, 3,422 (21.0 %) and 12,841 (79.0 %) patients underwent LA and OA, respectively. The incidences of overall, incisional, and organ/space SSI were 6.2, 3.7, and 3.0 %, respectively. The proportion of LAs among both procedures increased yearly from 5.3 to 46.5 %, while the incidences of overall and incisional SSI after appendectomy simultaneously decreased yearly from 9.6 to 4.5 % and from 6.7 to 2.2 %, respectively. In comparison with OA, LA was associated with lower incidences of overall and incisional SSI (4.5 vs 6.7 %, P < 0.001; and 1.9 vs 4.2 %, P < 0.001), but a similar incidence of organ/space SSI (3.0 vs 3.0 %, P = 0.995). After multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed, LA was found to be independently associated with a decrease in development of overall SSI [odds ratio (95 % confidence interval) OR (95 % CI), 1.24 (1.03-1.70); P = 0.04] or incisional SSI [OR (95 % CI), 1.32 (1.10-1.68); P = 0.01].

CONCLUSION

With the increasing application trends of laparoscopic procedure, the incidence of SSI after appendectomy declined accordingly. Compared with OA, LA was independently associated with a significantly lower incidence of incisional SSI, but a similar incidence of organ/space SSI.

Suprapubic single incision laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Perioperative CRP quantification for appendectomy: Clinically useful or a waste of money?]

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy is the most frequently performed non-elective surgical procedure in general surgery. Despite the questionable benefit, inflammatory markers, such as leukocyte count and C-related protein (CRP) are often determined before and after the surgical procedure. Clinicians are not infrequently confronted with the question whether a patient can be discharged despite an increase in inflammatory laboratory parameters.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current study was to retrospectively evaluate the clinical course of patients after appendectomy and the correlation with inflammatory laboratory findings.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 969 patients underwent a surgical procedure due to clinically suspected acute appendicitis. All clinical, laboratory and histopathological data were obtained from the patient records and a quality control database. Laboratory results were correlated with clinical and histopathological data (e.g. t-test, χ (2)-test, regression analysis and ROC curves).

RESULTS

In patients without acute appendicitis operative trauma caused an increase in CRP up to a median of 31 mg/dl on the first postoperative day and up to 47 mg/dl on postoperative day 2. The overall morbidity was 6.2%. The strongest predictive parameter for complications was a CRP of more than 108 mg/l on the first postoperative day with an odds ratio of 16.6 (96% CI 6.4/42.8, p < 0.001, specificity 88% and sensitivity 69%). Patients with CRP values below the threshold suffered from complications in 1.1 % of cases in contrast to patients above the threshold in 16.8% of cases (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A moderate postoperative elevation of CRP values is not a general contraindication for discharge; however, postoperative determination of CRP serum values after appendectomy might be an effective predictor for complications and should therefore be measured in the clinical routine.

Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy versus conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) and conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy (3-port LA) for appendectomy.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Springer link, and the Cochrane library databases up to April, 2014, for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were pooled by weighted mean differences (WMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We found 11 RCTs, with a collective total of 731 patients treated with SILA and 725 patients treated with 3-point LA. Results indicated no significant differences between SILA and 3-port LA in primary outcomes, including wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative ileus, and total postoperative complications, and some secondary outcomes, including postoperative pain scores and length of hospital stay. However, SILA was associated with significantly longer operative times (WMD = 6.78, 95% CI = 3.78-9.79, P < 0.00001) and higher doses of analgesia (WMD = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.45-1.47, P = 0.0002) than the 3-port LA.

CONCLUSION

Although there was no significant difference in the safety of SILA vs. that of 3-port LA, our findings do not support the application of SILA because of its significantly longer operative times and the higher doses of analgesia required compared with those for 3-point LA.

Laparoscopic treatment of perforated appendicitis

The use of laparoscopy has been established in improving perioperative and postoperative outcomes for patients with simple appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with less wound pain, less wound infection, a shorter hospital stay, and faster overall recovery when compared to the open appendectomy for uncomplicated cases. In the past two decades, the use of laparoscopy for the treatment of perforated appendicitis to take the advantages of minimally invasiveness has increased. This article reviewed the prevalence, approaches, safety disclaimers, perioperative and postoperative outcomes of the laparoscopic appendectomy in the treatment of patients with perforated appendicitis. Special issues including the conversion, interval appendectomy, laparoscopic approach for elderly or obese patient are also discussed to define the role of laparoscopic treatment for patients with perforated appendicitis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons learned with laparoscopic management of complicated grades of acute appendicitis

Background

Laparoscopy has not been consolidated as the approach of first choice in the management of complicated appendicitis. Methodological flaws and absence of disease stratification criteria have been implicated in that less evidence. The objective is to study the safe and effectiveness of laparoscopy in the management of complicated appendicitis according to laparoscopic grading system.

Method

From January 2008 to January 2011, 154 consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis were evaluated in the prospective way. The patient’s age ranged from 12 to 75 years old (31.7 ± 13.3) and 58.3% were male. Complicated appendicitis refers to gangrenous and/or perforated appendix and were graded as 3A (segmental necrosis), 3B (base necrosis), 4A (abscess), 4B (regional peritonitis) and 5 (diffuse peritonitis). The outcomes including operative time, infection complication, operative complications and conversion rate were chosen to evaluate the procedure.

Results

The grade 3A was the most frequent with 50 (32.4%) patients. The mean operative time was 69.4 ± 26.3 minutes. The grade 4A showed the highest mean operative time (80.1 ± 26.7 minutes). The wound and intra-abdominal infection rates were 2.6 and 4.6%, respectively. The base necrosis was the most important factor associated with the conversion (5.2%). The grades 4A and 5 were associated with greater possibility of intra-abdominal collection. There were no operative complications.

Conclusion

The laparoscopic management of all complicated grades of acute appendicitis is safe and effective and should be the procedure of first choice. The laparoscopic grading system allows us to assess patients in the same disease stage.

Is laparoscopy a safe approach for diffuse appendicular peritonitis? Feasibility and determination of risk factors for post-operative intra-abdominal abscess

BACKGROUND

Several studies have assessed feasibility and early outcomes of the laparoscopic approach for complicated appendicitis (CA). However, these studies suffer from limitations due to the heterogeneous definitions used for CA. No studies have assessed feasibility and early post-operative outcomes of the laparoscopic approach in the specific management of diffuse appendicular peritonitis (DAP). Consequently, outcomes of the laparoscopic approach for the management of DAP are poorly documented.

METHODS

The laparoscopic approach is the first-line standardised procedure used by our team for the management of DAP. All patients (aged >16 years) who underwent laparoscopy for DAP (CA with the presence of purulent fluid with or without fibrin membranes in at least a hemi abdomen) between 2004 and 2012 were prospectively included. Post-operative outcomes were analysed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Laparoscopy for DAP was performed for 141 patients. Mean age was 39.6 ± 20 (16-92) years. A total of 45 patients (31.9%) had pre-operative contracture. The mean pre-operative leukocyte count was 14,900 ± 4,380 mm(-3). The mean pre-operative C-reactive protein (CRP) serum concentration was 135 ± 112 (2-418) mg/dl. The conversion rate was 3.5%. The mean operative time was 80 ± 27 (20-180) min. There were no deaths. The rate of grade III morbidity was 6.5%. Ten patients (7.1%) experienced intra-abdominal abscess (IAA); seven of these cases were treated conservatively. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.9 ± 5 (2-36) days. A pre-operative leukocyte count >17,000 mm(-3), and CRP serum concentration >200 mg/dl were significant predictive factors for IAA in multivariate analyses [odds ratio (OR) 25.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4-250, p = 0.007 and OR 16.4, 95% CI 1.6-166, p = 0.02, respectively].

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach for DAP is a safe and feasible procedure with a low conversion rate and an acceptable rate of IAA in view of the severity of the disease. Pre-operative leukocyte counts >17,000 mm(-3) and pre-operative CRP serum concentrations >200 mg/dl indicate a high risk of IAA.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

Appendiceal stump closure by metal endoclip in the management of complicated acute appendicitis

Background

Closure of appendicular stump has been performed in different ways; however, the use of the metal endoclip in complicated grades of acute appendicitis, has not been evaluated yet in a prospective way.

Objective

To establish the effectiveness of appendiceal stump closure by metal endoclip for complicated appendicitis.

Method

From January 2009 to January 2011 were evaluated 131 consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis. From those, 118 underwent appendiceal stump closure by metal endoclip. The patient’s age ranged from 12 to 75 years old (31.7 ± 13.3) and 52.7% were male. Complicated appendicitis refers to gangrenous and/or perforated appendix, which may lead to abscess formation and degrees of peritonitis. The outcomes viability, operative time, infection complication, operative complications, and conversion rate were chosen to evaluate the procedure.

Results

The appendiceal stump closure by metal endoclip was used in 90% of cases. The presence of appendix base necrosis was the most important factor involved in failure of the procedure. Laparoscopic knot (1.5%), laparoscopic endo-suture (3.8%) and video assisted laparotomy (4.7%) were the alternatives used in difficult cases. The mean operative time was (67.54 ± 28.13 minutes). The wound and intra-abdominal infection rates were 2.54% and 5.08%, respectively. There were no operative complications and the conversion rate was 0.85%.

Conclusion

The appendiceal stump closure by metal endoclip, in complicated grades of acute appendicitis, is a safe and effective procedure. In patients with appendix base necrosis it should be avoided in favor of other alternatives.

Reduced port surgery for appendectomy: Early experience and surgical technique

AIM: To evaluate our experience and surgical technique of laparoscopic appendectomy via reduced port surgery (LARPS).

METHODS: Sixteen patients (8 men and 8 women; median age: 31.0 years) who underwent LARPS between November 2009 and May 2012 were included in the present study. We performed LARPS, in which access devices were inserted through an umbilical skin incision with 1 additional skin incision in the left lower abdomen. After setting access devices, pneumoperitoneum was maintained at 10 mmHg using CO₂ and a 3 mm trocar was positioned (or direct puncture was performed by the Endo Relief system) under laparoscopic guidance. The mesoappendix was dissected using an ultrasonically activated device. After mesoappendix dissection, ligation was performed near the appendix base and the appendix was dissected using an ultrasonically activated device. The appendix was then removed. At the end of surgery, we administered local anesthesia with ropivacaine 1% (10 mL) for the skin incisions. The outcomes were evaluated in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, length of postoperative hospital stay and surgical complications.

RESULTS: Our surgical procedure allowed operators to use instruments as in conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. The basic principle of triangulation of instrumentation was maintained to some degree. LARPS was performed in 9 patients with catarrhal appendicitis, 5 with phlegmonous appendicitis, and 2 with gangrenous appendicitis. The median surgery time was 60 min and the median intraoperative blood loss was 1.2 mL. The median length of postoperative hospitalization was 4 d. There were no conversions to open surgery, no operation-related complications or mortality.

CONCLUSION: Our experience and surgical technique suggest that LARPS is a safe and feasible procedure for patients with appendicitis.

Prevalence of endometriosis diagnosed by laparoscopy in adolescents with dysmenorrhea or chronic pelvic pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND Endometriosis associated with pain symptoms in adolescents has been extensively reported, but the exact prevalence is unclear because pain symptoms may be atypical and endometriosis can only be diagnosed by laparoscopy. The aim of this paper is to provide a systematic review of the prevalence of endometriosis diagnosed by laparoscopy in adolescents. METHODS A systematic literature search was carried out for relevant articles published between 1980 and 2011 in the databases PUBMED and EMBASE, based on the keywords 'endometriosis', 'laparoscopy', 'adolescents' and 'chronic pelvic pain (CPP)'. In addition, the reference lists of the selected articles were examined. RESULTS Based on 15 selected studies, the overall prevalence of visually confirmed endometriosis was 62% (543/880; range 25-100%) in all adolescent girls undergoing laparoscopic investigation, 75% (237/314) in girls with CPP resistant to treatment, 70% (102/146) in girls with dysmenorrhea and 49% (204/420) in girls with CPP that is not necessarily resistant to treatment. Among the adolescent girls with endometriosis, the overall prevalence of American Society of Reproductive Medicine classified moderate-severe endometriosis was 32% (82/259) in all girls, 16% (17/108) in girls with CPP resistant to treatment, 29% (21/74) in girls with dysmenorrhea and 57% (44/77) in girls with CPP that is not necessarily resistant to treatment. Due to the quality of the included papers an overestimation of the prevalence and/or severity of endometriosis is possible. CONCLUSIONS About two-thirds of adolescent girls with CPP or dysmenorrhea have laparoscopic evidence of endometriosis. About one-third of these adolescents with endometriosis have moderate-severe disease. The value of early detection of endometriosis in symptomatic adolescents and the indications for laparoscopic investigation in adolescents require more research.

A prospective randomized comparison of single-port laparoscopic procedure with open and standard 3-port laparoscopic procedures in the treatment of acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

This prospective randomized study aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) comparing with open appendectomy (OA) and standard 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SLA) in the treatment of acute appendicitis (AA).

METHODS

Adult patients older than 18 years presenting with AA were randomized into 3 groups to undergo OA, SLA, and SILA from September 2010 to May 2011. The groups were compared with regard of patient's characteristics, perioperative findings/complications, operative time, pain severity, analgesic requirement, time to oral tolerance and flatus, length of hospital stay, and cosmetic results.

RESULTS

A total of 75 consecutive patients enrolled in the study. Each group included 25 patients. The groups showed no significant differences in patient's characteristics. The mean operative time was significantly longer in SILA than OA with a mean difference of 7 minutes (P < 0.05). Postoperative pain after OA were significantly higher than SLA and SILA (P < 0.05). The average time to oral tolerance and flatus was significantly higher in OA than the laparoscopic groups with a mean difference of 1 and 2.5 hours (P = 0.04 and 0.023, respectively). The length of hospital stay in SLA and SILA was significantly lower than OA with a mean difference of 0.8 days (P < 0.05). There was no difference in overall complications between the groups. There was no difference between SLA and SILA in terms of surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Either SLA or SILA offer patients faster recovery period with acceptable complications than OA. Hence, laparoscopic approach might be considered as first option in the treatment of AA. However, all 3 techniques provide equivalent clinical outcomes despite the significant findings. Therefore, technique selection is based on surgeon's decision, experience, and availability of laparoscopic instruments.

Appendectomy in Germany-an analysis of a nationwide survey 2011/2012

INTRODUCTION

Although appendectomies are frequently performed and new procedural techniques have emerged, no nationwide analysis exists after the cessation of the German quality control in 2004.

METHODS

One thousand eight hundred seventy surgical hospitals in Germany were asked to answer questions anonymously concerning the size of the department, applied procedural techniques, various technical details, as well as the approach to the intraoperative finding of an inconspicuous appendix.

RESULTS

We received 643 questionnaires (34.4 %) for evaluation. Almost all hospitals (95.5 %) offer laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), 15.4 % offer single-port (SPA), and 2.2 % (hybrid-) NOTES technique (NA). LA is the standard procedure in 85.2 % of male and in 89.1 % for female patients. In an open procedure (OA), the appendix and mesoappendix are mostly ligated (93.8 and 91.5 %). A Veress needle and open access are employed equally for LA. In 66.6 % of LA, the appendix is divided using an Endo-GIA, the mesoappendix in 45.5 % with bipolar coagulation. Almost half of the hospitals routinely flush the site in OA and LA. In open surgery with an inconspicuous appendix but a pathological finding elsewhere in the abdomen, it is resected "en principe" in 64.7 % and in the absence of any pathological finding in 91.2 %. For laparoscopic procedures, the numbers are 54.8 and 88.4 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Most German hospitals perform appendectomies laparoscopically regardless of patients' gender. Usage of an Endo-GIA is widely established. SPA has not gained much acceptance, nor is NA widely used yet. In the absence of any pathological findings in particular, the macroscopically inconspicuous appendix results in an appendectomy "en principe" in most German hospitals.

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.

Single-incision versus conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy: a single centre experience

PURPOSE

To compare the short-term outcomes of single-incision and conventional three-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) at a single surgical unit.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study comparing the operative outcomes of two LA techniques between January 2009 and November 2010.

RESULTS

LA was performed successfully in 44 patients: through a single incision in 27 patients and through three incisions in 17 patients. The time taken to resume oral intake was slightly less in the single-incision group than in the three-incision group, at 1.1 versus 1.5 days, respectively (P = 0.0419). However, blood loss and hospital stay were not significantly different, at 7.2 versus 6.4 ml (P = 0.6244) and 3.7 versus 3.8 days (P = 0.8565), respectively. The cosmetic result was better in the single-incision group, because of the well-concealed scar.

CONCLUSION

Both single-incision and conventional LA are effective and minimally invasive, and should be performed according to the experience of the surgeon. Single-incision LA results in faster recovery, but larger studies are required to confirm this and to determine if these techniques can be used safely for all indications of appendectomy.

Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy in management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Several studies have demonstrated the superiority of the laparoscopic approach in uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis with conflicting results. As a result the role of laparoscopy in the management of appendicitis in general and complicated or perforated appendicitis, in particular, is still undefined.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational study design was used to analyze multicenter outcomes using the University HealthSystem Consortium database. A 3-year discharge data of all open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) procedures from 2006 to 2008 in adult patients older than 18 years for complicated or uncomplicated appendicitis was accessed using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes. Data on several surgical outcome measures such as observed mortality, overall patient morbidity, intensive care unit admission rate, 30-day readmission rate, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs were collected from the University HealthSystem Consortium database. Stratification by University HealthSystem Consortium-specific severity of illness groups and disease diagnosis of complicated or perforated and uncomplicated appendicitis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 40,337 appendectomy procedures performed during 2006 to 2008 in adult patients were included in the study. Laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis resulted in significantly better surgical outcomes. However, surprisingly, these outcomes resulted in comparable but not significantly reduced hospital costs (7825 ± 6,009 for LA vs 7841 ± 13,147 for OA; P > 0.05). Laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated or perforated appendicitis showed lower mortality, reduced overall morbidity (17.43% for LA vs 26.68% for OA; P < 0.001), relatively less 30-day readmission rate, fewer intensive care unit admissions, significantly shorter length of hospital stay (4.34 ± 4.84 days for LA vs 7.31 ± 9.43 for OA; P < 0.001), and reduced hospital costs (12,125 ± 14,430 for LA vs 17,594 ± 28,065 for OA; P < 0.001) compared with patients undergoing OA. On stratification for severity of illness in both complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy resulted in a greater or comparable clinical benefit than open appendectomy. Comparable clinical benefit was observed in minor severity patients and moderate and major/extreme severity patients showed vastly improved surgical outcomes with the laparoscopic approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy is superior or comparable to open appendectomy in terms of several surgical outcome measures for both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, across most illness severity groups. Thus, laparoscopic appendectomy may be the preferred technique, irrespective of appendicitis diagnosis or disease severity.

A Clinical Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis

Purpose

Although laparoscopic appendectomies (LAs) are performed universally, a controversy still exists whether the LA is an appropriate surgical approach to complicated appendicitis (CA). We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomies for CA.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 60 consecutive patients who were diagnosed as having CA from July 2009 to January 2011. Outcomes such as operative time, time to soft diet, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were analyzed.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in operative time between the LA and the open appendectomy (OA) groups. Return to soft diet was faster in the LA group (2.1 ± 1.2 vs. 3.5 ± 1.5 days; P = 0.001). Length of hospital stay was shorter for the LA group (4.4 ± 2.3 vs. 5.8 ± 2.9 days; P = 0.045). The overall complication rates showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. In cases involving a periappendiceal abscess, the LA had a significantly higher incidence of intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) and postoperative ileus (PI; P = 0.028).

Conclusion

The LA showed good results in terms of the time to soft diet, the length of hospital stay, and surgical site infection (SSI) whereas the overall complication rates were similar for the two groups. However, the LA was associated with significantly higher incidence of IAA and PI for the cases with a periappendiceal abscess. Therefore, when using a LA, the surgeon must take great care to minimize the incidence of IAA and PI if a periappendiceal abscess is present.

Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES): patients' perceptions and attitudes

BACKGROUND

Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) has generated a surge of enthusiasm among researchers by virtue of its challenge to the dogma and potential benefits. However, no data is available in the medical literature about NOTES' acceptance by patients in Asia. The aim of the study is to survey patients' perceptions and attitudes towards NOTES.

METHODS

It is a questionnaire-based multi-center study on inpatient subjects with various gastrointestinal disorders from 14 hospitals in 12 cities of China. Procedural details with the benefits and risks of NOTES, laparoscopic surgery, and conventional surgery were explained to all registered candidates. They were required to choose and cite reasons for adopting one of the above three surgical techniques as the preferred mode of treatment. The reasons for selection of the surgical treatment were: safety, efficacy, cost, postoperative pain, abdominal wounds, and scarring.

RESULTS

There were 1,797 cases, including 976 (54.3%) males and 821 females (45.7%). Based on their comprehension of the procedure, 802 (44.6%) patients opted for NOTES, 757 (42.1%) for laparoscopic surgery, and 238 (13.2%) for conventional surgery. NOTES was mainly selected by the young and educated persons, especially females and by those with past exposure to laparoscopy or conventional surgery. The choice of treatment was significantly correlated with age (P=0.0021), education (P=0.0209), past medical history (laparoscopy, P=0.0134; open surgery, P<0.0001), and department of admission (P=0.0173). The preference for NOTES was based on safety (37.3%), cost (17.6%), elimination of postoperative scars (16.1%), abdominal wounds (16.0%), and efficacy (13.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of patients prefer mini-invasive surgery to conventional surgery. The potential recipients of NOTES are educated and younger age groups. However, a few consider NOTES as a safe and effective intervention at present.

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).

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

PURPOSE

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Establishment and application of a scoring system for predicting the difficulty level of laparoscopic appendectomy

AIM: To analyze the risk factors influencing the difficulty level of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) based on clinical data and to establish a scoring system for predicting the difficulty level of LA.

METHODS: The clinical data for 1 276 patients who underwent LA at our hospital from July 2001 to August 2009 were analyzed retrospectively. Multiple logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors that were subsequently scored. A scoring system for predicting the difficulty level of LA was then established. The value of this scoring system was evaluated using ROC curve analysis. The scoring system was then used in 122 patients undergoing LA at our hospital from September 2009 to May 2010 to compare with the real situation of each operation.

RESULTS: The risk factors influencing the difficulty level of LA included age ≥60, body mass index (BMI) ≥28, a history of lower abdominal operation, peritonitis in right lower abdomen, white blood cell (WBC) count ≥12 × 10⁹/L, the time from onset to operation ≥24 h, the highest body temperature ≥38.0 ℃, severe adhesion, and appendiceal diameter ≥1 cm. According to the scoring system established, a higher score is associated with a more difficult operation. The area below ROC curve was 0.952, with a stand error of 0.007. When the scoring system was used in 122 patients undergoing LA, the total coincidence ratio was 87.7% between predicted and actual difficulty.

CONCLUSION: The scoring system established in this study is simple and practical and has important clinical value.

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.

Current analysis of endoloops in appendiceal stump closure

BACKGROUND

An inadequate closure of the appendix stump leads to intra-abdominal surgical site infection. The effectiveness of various appendiceal stump closure methods, for instance, staplers or endoloops, was evaluated. Many analyses show that the use of a stapler for transection and closure of the appendiceal stump lowers the risk of this infection but a statistically significant risk of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess or wound infection was not considered in any randomized study. The aim of this study was to evaluate the complications after using endoloops in a high-volume center.

METHODS

The data of 1,790 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy between January 1998 and December 2006 and a single center was prospectively acquired. The standard procedure used was an appendiceal stump closure using endoloops and a selective use of staplers. The outcome criteria for inclusion in the study were intra-abdominal abscess formations, other specific intraoperative and postoperative complications, and the different costs of the operation.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 1,790 (80.8%) patients and open appendectomy in 425 (19.2%) patients. Conversion to open surgery occurred in 74 (4.13%) patients. Laparoscopic appendectomy with stump closure using endoloops was performed in 1,670 (97.3%) patients and stump closure using a stapler in 46 (2.7%) patients. Among 851 patients with acute appendicitis, 284 patients with perforated appendicitis, and 535 patients with other or no pathology, the rate of intra-abdominal abscess after using an endoloop or a stapler was not significantly different (1.5 vs. 0%, p = 0.587; 3.5 vs. 4.2%, p = 0.870; 0.7% vs. 0, p = 0.881, respectively). There were no significant differences between the endoloop group and the stapler group with respect to the other specific intraoperative and postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

This study shows the safety of the endoloop for clinical daily routine. A selective procedure for stump closure has been established. Appendiceal stump closure using an endoloop is an easy, safe, and cost-effective procedure.

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.

The laparoscopic approach for perforated appendicitis, including cases complicated by abscess formation

BACKGROUND

Although the laparoscopic approach for perforated appendicitis is commonly performed, there is some controversy over its use because of postoperative complications. These may be associated with various types of disease entities, from gangrenous change to diffuse peritonitis with abscess formation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and benefits of the laparoscopic approach for perforated appendicitis, including cases complicated by abscess, compared to open.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1747 patients underwent treatment for appendicitis over a period of 3 years. The diagnosis of perforated appendicitis was made by radiology, operative finding, and pathology. Of our five attending surgeons, three performed open surgery for perforated appendicitis, while two performed laparoscopy.

RESULTS

There were 474 patients (27%) with perforated appendicitis without abscess (156 underwent laparoscopy, 318 underwent open) and 113 patients (6.4%) with perforated appendicitis and abscess (44 underwent laparoscopy, 69 underwent open). The duration for resumption of diet and hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopy group than in the open group. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between patients who had no abscess with laparoscopy and those with open: 5 intra-abdominal abscesses and 10 wound infections versus 11 intra-abdominal abscesses and 25 wound infections (P = 0.88, 0.12), and between patients who had abscesses with laparoscopy and those with open: 4 intra-abdominal abscesses and 3 wound infections versus 6 intra-abdominal abscesses and 6 wound infections (P = 0.94, 0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic approach may be a safe, effective treatment for perforated appendicitis, even in the presence of an abscess.

[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.