Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective comparative study of 227 patients

Surgical approach for appendicitis in neutropenia: a case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is a common abdominal pathology, particularly in younger patients presenting with abdominal pain. The clinical presentation is typically characterized by right lower quadrant pain (with local peritonitis) accompanied by fever and nausea. In neutropenic patients it is challenging to diagnose acute appendicitis. It is much more challenging because the characteristic symptoms are different, and diagnosis may be delayed or missed.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present the case of a 33-year-old Caucasian male patient with fever, abdominal pain, and an absolute granulocyte count of 0 × 10⁹/L. Abdominal CT demonstrated an uncomplicated acute appendicitis. We initiated a conservative in-hospital treatment with intravenous antibiotic therapy and simultaneous bone marrow stimulation, with close monitoring. On day three, there was evidence of monocyte increase, one of the first signs of bone marrow regeneration, and delayed laparoscopic appendectomy was performed. The perioperative and postoperative course was uneventful.

CONCLUSION

We discuss the different treatment strategies in patients with neutropenia presenting with acute appendicitis (i.e., conservative management, delayed appendectomy, and immediate appendectomy) based on our experience and a review of the literature. In summary, delayed laparoscopic appendectomy at the onset of granulocyte regeneration under antibiotic and G-CSF therapy represents a viable surgical option for adults as well as for children and should be discussed compared with conservative therapy.

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

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULT

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

CONCLUSION

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

[Laparoscopic surgery for advanced appendicular peritonitis]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the results of laparoscopic treatment of patients with advanced appendicular peritonitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 271 patients with acute appendicitis complicated by peritonitis. The main group consisted of patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy after diagnostic laparoscopy (n=231), the control group - diagnostic laparoscopy followed by conversion to median laparotomy (n=36). Four extremely ill patients were operated through laparotomy and excluded from the further analysis.

RESULTS

Diagnostic laparoscopy was performed in 267 patients with advanced appendicular peritonitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy, debridement and abdominal drainage were performed in 231 (85.2%) patients. Mean age of patients was 44±18.5 years, duration of disease - 36.2±20.3 hours. Diffuse peritonitis was diagnosed in 219 (82%) patients, advanced peritonitis - in 48 (16.5%) cases. Incidence of conversion was 13.5%. Mortality was absent in both groups. Postoperative morbidity was significantly higher in the conversion group (72.2% vs. 29.4%, p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic interventions for common appendicular peritonitis are feasible, effective and reduce postoperative morbidity.

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.

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.

Operative management of appendicitis

Appendectomy has been the standard of care for appendicitis since the late 1800s, and remains one of the most common operations performed in children. The advent of data-driven medicine has led to questions about every aspect of the operation-whether appendectomy is even necessary, when it should be performed (timing), how the procedure is done (laparoscopic variants versus open and irrigation versus no irrigation), length of hospital stay, and antibiotic duration. The goal of this analysis is to review the current status of, and available data regarding, the surgical management of appendicitis in children.

Hospital preference of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: Effects on outcomes in simple and complicated appendicitis

PURPOSE

We hypothesize that laparoscopic (LA) or open appendectomy (OA) outcomes are associated with hospital procedure preference.

METHODS

We queried Kids' Inpatient Database (1997-2009) for simple (ICD-9-CM 540.9) and complicated (540.0, 540.1) appendicitis.

RESULTS

On PS-matched analysis of simple appendicitis (91,118 LA vs. 97,496 OA), LA had increased transfusion (1.7) rates, but lower wound infection (0.6) and perforation/laceration (0.3) rates. LA had shorter length of stay (LOS; 1.7 vs. 2.1days), but higher total charges (TC; 19,501 vs. 13,089 USD) and cost (7121 vs. 5968) vs. OA. For complicated appendicitis (28,793 LA vs. 30,782 OA), LA had increased nausea/vomiting rates (1.9), but lower wound infection (0.5) and transfusion (0.6) rates. LA had shorter LOS (5.1 vs. 5.9), but higher TC (32,251 vs. 28,209). MVA demonstrated shorter LOS (0.9) for LA at laparoscopic-preferring hospitals vs. open-preferring hospitals for simple appendicitis. For complicated appendicitis, higher complication rates (1.1) were associated with OA at laparoscopic-preferring hospitals. Laparoscopic-preferring hospitals had higher TC in all categories.

CONCLUSION

Complications and resource utilization for appendicitis are associated with surgical technique and hospital procedure preference. Laparoscopic-preferring hospitals had higher complication rates with OA for complicated appendicitis and higher charges regardless of appendectomy technique or appendicitis type.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2c, Outcomes Research.

National trends in approach and outcomes with appendicitis in children

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Appendicitis is one of the most common surgical conditions in children. Laparoscopy has become the standard approach to appendectomy over the past decade. Some critics cite a lack of evidence documenting clear advantages to laparoscopy. To define the pattern of approach compared to outcomes in the United States, we analyzed the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database to document the impact on outcomes with the rise in laparoscopy.

METHODS

After IRB approval, we queried the PHIS database for all patients over 12 years. The percentages of cases performed open (OA) and laparoscopically (LA) were established for each year. Annual complication percentages were identified for wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, subsequent laparotomy, and obstruction. For each complication, trend comparisons between LA and OA were made with generalized linear models.

RESULTS

There were 111,194 appendectomies with a positive trend in percentage of laparoscopy from 1999 (22.2%) to 2010 (90.8%), P<0.0001. Over 12 years, there were significant differential trends between LA and OA in rates of wound infection, abscesses, bowel obstructions, and laparotomies within 30 days (P<0.0001 for each). There was no trend in wound infection rates within OA over time (P=0.31), while there was a decrease in infection rates within LA over time (P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of a national database analysis, laparoscopy has increased for appendectomy in children over the past 12 years and is associated with a significant decrease in post-operative complications.

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis is more favorable for patients with comorbidities, the elderly, and those with complicated appendicitis: a nationwide population-based study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is not routinely performed for appendicitis because the costs associated with that procedure are higher than those for open appendectomy (OA). However, few studies have investigated the economic influence of LA and OA on specific subpopulations including the elderly, patients with comorbidities, and patients with complicated appendicitis. This population-based study was designed to investigate determinants of costs and hospital length of stay (LOS) for patients undergoing appendectomy. Furthermore, the differences in costs and LOS were compared between LA and OA for various subpopulations.

METHODS

Inpatients who underwent LA or OA for appendicitis during the period 2001-2008 were identified from claims data obtained from Taiwan's National Health Insurance program. Costs and LOS were evaluated by multiple linear regression models for various subpopulations stratified according to age, number of comorbidities, and severity of appendicitis.

RESULTS

Between 2001 and 2008, 22,252 patients (13.3%) underwent LA and 14,4438 (86.7%) had OA. Age, comorbidity, and severity of appendicitis were determinants of costs and LOS for both LA and OA. Although the costs and LOS for appendectomy increased with age and number of comorbidities, a sharper increase was noted for OA patients. Laparoscopic appendectomy mildly decreased LOS at the expense of significantly higher costs for young patients, those without comorbidities, and patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. In contrast, compared with OA, LA was associated with comparable costs and reduced LOS for the elderly, patients with comorbidities, and those with complicated appendicitis. In addition, hospital mortality and readmission rates for postoperative complications did not differ significantly between LA and OA.

CONCLUSION

Considering costs and LOS, patients older than 65 years, patients with comorbidities, and patients with complicated appendicitis benefit more from the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of appendicitis.

Incidence of postoperative intraabdominal abscesses in open versus laparoscopic appendectomies

BACKGROUND

Risk for intraabdominal abscess (IAA) after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) remains controversial. A 2008 Cochrane Review suggests almost a threefold increase in the incidence of IAA after LA compared with open appendectomy (OA).

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective chart review of all appendicitis patients 18 years and older undergoing appendectomy from 1996 to 2007 at one military treatment facility and one civilian hospital in Hawaii. Data collection included demographics, procedure, presence of complicated appendicitis (defined as perforated or gangrenous appendicitis at surgical or pathologic assessment), and presence of postoperative IAA on computed axial tomography (CAT) scan.

RESULTS

The review identified 2,464 patients with appendicitis. A total of 1,924 LAs (78%) and 540 OAs (22%) were performed. The comparison of laparoscopic and open appendectomies showed no significant differences in the number of postoperative abscesses (2.2% vs 1.9%; p = 0.74). The patients with a diagnosis of complicated appendicitis were significantly associated with a higher incidence of postoperative abscess formation (67% vs 25%; p < 0.01), which had an unadjusted odds ratio of 6.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4-11.0; p < 0.01). No significant difference in the development of abscess in patients with complicated appendicitis could be found between LA and OA (5.9% vs 4.1%; p = 0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference in the occurrence of IAA after LA versus OA was found. The patients with complicated appendicitis experienced a greater number of IAA than the patients with uncomplicated appendicitis.

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.

Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Video-assisted laparoscopic extracorporeal appendectomy versus open appendectomy

OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is categorized into intracorporeal appendectomy (ICA) and video-assisted extracorporeal appendectomy (VAECA). This study is conducted to compare feasibility and effectiveness of video-assisted extracorporeal appendectomy (VAECA) with open appendectomy (OA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a comparative descriptive study conducted at the Department of Surgery of Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences (Jamshoro, Pakistan) from June 2003 to November 2007. Two hundred and eighty-three patients of acute appendicitis were included and categorized into two groups: A and B. Group A included 150 (53%) patients operated on by the OA technique, while group B included 133 (47%) patients in whom VAECA was performed. VAECA was accomplished through three ports in the majority of patients (89%), while a few cases (11%) were completed by two ports only. Patients below 10 years of age and with suspected appendicular mass were excluded from the study. Both operative techniques and their merits and demerits were explained to all the patients and, depending upon their choice or by a simple flip of a coin, they were operated on by either of the techniques. A well-informed written consent was also taken from every patient. The results of both the groups were collected on a proforma and were compared in terms of cosmesis, total operative time, operative and postoperative complications, and total duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The mean operating time was much shorter in group B (p < 0.001), compared to group A patients. The incidence of postoperative infection was comparatively higher in OA, compared to VAECA. The rate of operative complications (p < 0.001), postoperative complications (p < 0.01), and duration of hospital stay (p < 0.001) were all significantly lower in the VAECA group. Cosmetic results were excellent in VAECA, compared to OA, as assessed by length of incision and the postoperative scar formation.

CONCLUSION

VAECA can be a good alternate option in simple cases without much adhesions or mass formation.

Laparoscopic appendicectomy using endo-ring applicator and fallope rings

BACKGROUND/AIM

Wider adoption of laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) is limited by problems in securing the appendiceal base as well as the cost and the duration compared with the open procedure. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and efficacy of a new method for securing the appendiceal base in LA, so as to make the entire procedure simpler and cheaper, and hence, more popular.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients who were candidates for appendicectomy (emergency as well as elective) and willing for the laparoscopic procedure were selected for this study. Ports used were 10 mm at the umbilicus, 5 mm at the lower right iliac fossa, and 10 mm at the left iliac fossa. Extremely friable, ruptured, or turgid organs of diameters larger than 8 mm were excluded from the study. The mesoappendix was divided close to the appendix by diathermy. Fallope rings were applied to the appendiceal base using a special ring applicator, and the appendix was divided and extracted through the lumen of the applicator.

RESULTS

The procedure was successful in 23 (92%) cases, and the mean duration of the procedure was 20 minutes (15-32 minutes). There were no procedural complications seen during a median follow-up of two weeks. The equipment and rings were cheaper when compared with that of the standard methods of securing the base of the appendix.

CONCLUSION

LA using fallope rings is a safe, simple, easy-to-learn, and economically viable method.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy in a Patient with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia with Neutropenia

The management of acute myelogenous leukemia is often complicated by infections due to neutropenia, but the appendix is not a common site of infection in adult patients with acute myelogenous leukemia. The diagnosis of acute appendicitis may be delayed or even missed because of the lack of characteristic signs and symptoms associated with acute appendicitis in neutropenic patients. Moreover, urgent surgery may lead to high postoperative complications and mortality rates in these patients. The case presented here is of a 33-year-old Hispanic man with acute myelogenous leukemia who developed severe diffuse acute abdominal pain with positive signs of rebound tenderness, fever, and hypotension ten days after receiving reinduction chemotherapy. The patient was at his nadir, with a white blood cell count of 0.2 x 10(9)/L, platelet count of 20 x 10(9)/L, and hemoglobin of 7 g/dL. A computed tomography scan of the abdomen was suspicious for acute appendicitis. The patient underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy that revealed gangrenous appendicitis. No perioperative complications occurred. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 7 and his chemotherapy was continued as scheduled. Laparoscopic appendectomy may be considered a primary approach in neutropenic patients because it can be associated with less postoperative infection, hemorrhagic complications, and a lower mortality rate.

Complicated Appendicitis: Laparoscopic or Conventional Surgery?

BACKGROUND

The surgical treatment of complicated appendicitis remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of laparoscopic appendectomy in the treatment of complicated appendicitis in comparison with open surgery.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent an appendectomy for complicated appendicitis between January 2001 and August 2005.

RESULTS

We identified 98 patients with complicated appendicitis. Forty-eight patients underwent open appendectomy, 42 laparoscopic appendectomy, and 8 initial laparoscopy with conversion to open surgery. Older patients, patients with comorbidities, and female patients were more likely to have been offered a laparoscopic appendectomy. Operating time, time to solid oral intake, and time of hospital stay were prolonged in the laparoscopic group but not significantly. There was no mortality observed in either group, and the complication rate was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy is an acceptable procedure for complicated appendicitis, with the same rate of infectious complications as the conventional approach.

Diagnosis and management of diverticulitis and appendicitis

Diverticulitis and appendicitis are common infections of the gastrointestinal tract that require urgent medical and surgical attention. Successful management of these conditions requires a multidisciplinary approach among primary care providers, gastroenterologists, surgeons, and radiologists. The diagnosis of appendicitis, in particular, can be difficult. Advances in radiographic imaging have improved the diagnostic accuracy in these infections. Minimally invasive surgical techniques have improved the patient's postoperative recovery when surgery is necessary in the management of these conditions.

Role of appendectomy in laparoscopic training

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate whether laparoscopic appendectomy is suitable for training residents to become proficient in laparoscopic surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1574 laparoscopic appendectomies were performed at En-Chu-Kong Hospital between January 1998 and December 2003 (788 men and 786 women). These cases were divided into three groups: 543 cases (in 1998-1999) performed by 5 attending surgeons during the learning and trial stage; 536 cases (in 2000-2001) performed by 5 attending surgeons assisted by 2 senior residents with prior experience in open appendectomy; and 495 cases (in 2002-2003) done by these 2 senior residents, supervised by the attending surgeons. Demographic data, intraoperative findings, operative time, conversion rate, frequency of analgesic injection, timing of oral intake, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in the operations performed by attending surgeons (mature stage) vs. senior residents in terms of intraoperative findings, operative time (60.1 +/- 60.4 minutes vs. 56.3 +/- 25.6 minutes), conversion rate (1.12% vs. 0.81%), frequency of analgesic injection (0.57 +/- 1.37 times/stay vs. 0.43 +/- 0.94 times/stay), timing of oral intake (23.7 +/- 30.2 hours vs. 20.8 +/- 27.5 hours), hospital stay (73.9 +/- 61.8 hours vs. 70.3 +/- 51.6 hours), morbidity, or mortality (0% vs. 0.2%).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy can be safely incorporated into the training of surgical residents under the supervision of experienced surgeons. Laparoscopic appendectomy also provides knowledge of the basics of laparoscopic technique before going on to more complex operations.

Laparoscopic appendectomy in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is a safe, effective, and beneficial procedure for the treatment of acute appendicitis. However, limited data are available regarding the safety and feasibility of LA during pregnancy.

METHODS

Between January 2001 and August 2004, 1235 patients with clinically suspected appendicitis underwent laparoscopic surgery at our hospital. Eleven patients (0.9%) were pregnant women (mean age, 25 years; age range, 19-37 years; range of gestational age, 4-30 weeks). Clinical data collected retrospectively included demographic information; preoperative, procedural, and postoperative information; and outcome of the pregnancy.

RESULTS

All 11 pregnant women underwent laparoscopic surgery without need of conversion. Ten patients underwent LA and were found to have acute appendicitis on histologic analysis. One patient had torsion of the right fallopian tube and a healthy-looking appendix; she underwent detorsion of the fallopian tube and incidental appendectomy. Mean operative time was 50.5 minutes (range, 20-135 minutes). Length of postoperative hospital stay averaged 4.2 days (range, 1-11 days). One patient had a surgical wound infection, which was managed conservatively. Mean follow-up period was 14 months (range, 2-46 months). Seven pregnant women delivered healthy term infants, 2 had planned abortions, and 1 experienced fetal loss due to uterine infection and premature contractions 1 month after LA. Another patient had normal results at prenatal examination.

CONCLUSION

Our data support the accumulating evidence that LA is a safe and feasible procedure for the treatment of acute appendicitis in all trimesters of pregnancy. Close maternal and fetal monitoring is essential during and after the operation.

Can we afford to do laparoscopic appendectomy in an academic hospital?

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have shown laparoscopic appendectomy to be safe for both acute and perforated appendicitis, but there have been conflicting reports as to whether it is superior from a cost perspective. Our academic surgical group, who perform all operative cases with resident physicians, has been challenged to reduce expenses in this era of cost containment. We recognize resident training is an expensive commodity that is poorly reimbursed, and hypothesized laparoscopic appendectomy was too expensive to justify resident teaching of this procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine if laparoscopic appendectomy is more expensive than open appendectomy.

METHODS

From April 2003 to April 2004, all patients undergoing appendectomy for presumed acute appendicitis at our university-affiliated teaching hospital were reviewed; demographic data, equipment charge, minutes in the operating room (OR), hospital length of stay, and total hospital charge were analyzed. OR minute charges were gradated based on equipment use and level of skilled nursing care. Conversions to open appendectomy were included in the laparoscopic group for analysis.

RESULTS

During the study period, 247 patients underwent appendectomy for preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis, with 152 open (113 inflamed, 37 perforated, 2 normal), 88 laparoscopic (69 inflamed, 12 perforated, 7 normal), and 7 converted (2 inflamed, 4 perforated, 1 normal) operations performed. The majority were men (67%) with a mean age of 31.4 +/- 2.2 years. Overall, there was significant difference (P < .05) in intraoperative equipment charge (125.32 dollars +/- 3.99 dollars open versus 1,078.70 dollars +/- 24.06 dollars lap), operative time charge (3,022.16 dollars +/- 57.51 dollars versus 4,065.24 dollars +/- 122.64 dollars), and total hospital charge (12,310 dollars +/- 772 dollars versus 16,773 dollars +/- 1,319 dollars) but no significant difference in operative minutes (56.3 +/- 1.3 versus 57.4 +/- 2.3), operating room minutes (90.5 +/- 1.7 versus 95.7 +/- 2.5), or hospital days (2.6 versus 2.2). In subgroup analysis of patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, open and laparoscopic groups had equivalent hospital days (1.47 versus 1.49) but significantly different hospital charges (9,632.44 dollars versus 14,251.07 dollars).

CONCLUSIONS

Although operative time was similar between the 2 groups, operative and total hospital charges were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group. Unless patient factors warrant a laparoscopic approach (questionable diagnosis, obesity), we submit open appendectomy remains the most cost-effective procedure in a teaching environment.

Laparoscopic appendectomy using the LigaSure Vessel Sealing System

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy is increasingly being employed to treat acute appendicitis. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the LigaSure Vessel Sealing System (Valleylab, Boulder, CO) in laparoscopic appendectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed using the LigaSure system in 15 patients who had a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

RESULTS

In two patients, the operation was converted to open appendectomy. The mean operative time was 47 minutes (range, 22-120 minutes). There was no evidence of any complications related to the use of the LigaSure system. Neither surgical endoclips nor an endostapler were used in any patient.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy using the LigaSure system is a safe and efficient procedure for acute appendicitis. Use of the LigaSure system in laparoscopic appendectomy may simplify the operative procedure and reduce the operative time.

Laparoscopic versus Open Appendectomy: Is the Postoperative Infectious Complication Rate Different?

Despite the reported advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), there is debate about the postoperative infectious complication rate. Our study attempts to determine if the infectious complication rate between LA and open appendectomy (OA) is different. A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent appendectomy at Kern Medical Center between 1999 and 2003. Age, sex, white blood cell count, temperature, pathology, and postoperative complications were identified. Fifty-seven patients underwent LA, and 159 patients underwent OA. The groups were well matched for demographics, white blood cell count, temperature, and percent perforated appendicitis. There was an overall 9.3 per cent complication rate. The infectious complication rate in OA versus LA group was statistically different (6.3% vs 17.6%, P = 0.04). The infectious complication rate in the LA group was significantly higher than in the OA group. Further large randomized trials are necessary to confirm our findings and to identify if LA is appropriate for a subset of appendicitis patients.

Comparison of surgical stress between laparoscopic and open appendectomy in children

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to evaluate laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in comparison with conventional open appendectomy (OA) in children, with special emphasis on the extent of surgical trauma after LA and OA, and to assess whether LA had any clear advantages compared with conventional OA.

METHODS

A total of 160 patients with a median age of 7.9 years (range 3-15 years) were studied. Sixty-nine of them underwent LA, and the remaining 91 underwent OA. Serum interleukin (IL) 6 and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels which are thought to play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of surgical trauma and can also be used to monitor the magnitude of surgical trauma were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay before surgery and 12 hours after surgery. In addition, we compared operating time, hospital stay, incidence of wound infection, and incidence of intra-abdominal infection.

RESULTS

The operative time of normal and suppurative appendix in the laparoscopic group was significantly shorter than that in the open group, respectively, but the operative time of gangrenous appendix was not different between the laparoscopic group and open group. The hospital stay in the laparoscopic group was also significantly shorter than that in the open group. Postoperatively, 1 patient had port-site infection in the laparoscopic group, whereas 10 had wound infection in the open group; this difference was highly significant (chi2 = 4.19, P < .05). Three patients in the open group and 2 patients in the laparoscopic group had intra-abdominal infection, and the difference had no statistically significant difference (chi2 = 0.10, P < .05). Preoperative IL-6 levels were not different between the 2 groups, but the rise (preoperative vs postoperative) of IL-6 in the laparoscopic group was remarkably less than that in the open group. Similar results were obtained for CRP; serum CRP levels in the basal state were not different between the 2 groups, but the rise (preoperative vs postoperative) of CRP in the laparoscopic group was also substantially less compared with that in the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

LA for children was as safe and effective as the open procedure and had significant advantages over OA because of less operating time, less postoperative complications, less surgical trauma, and more rapid postoperative recovery.

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 Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch, 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 54 studies, of which 45 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were less likely after LA than after OA (OR 0.45; CI 0.35 to 0.58), but the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses was increased (OR 2.48; CI 1.45 to 4.21). The duration of surgery was 12 minutes (CI 7 to 16) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 9 mm (CI 5 to 13 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Hospital stay was shortened by 1.1 day (CI 0.6 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. Five studies on children were included, but the result 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).

REVIEWERS' 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.

The impact of a resident?s seniority on operative time and length of hospital stay for laparoscopic appendectomy: outcomes used to measure the resident?s laparoscopic skills

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) frequently is performed by residents during calls. This study aimed at evaluating residents' surgical skills using parameters of operating time, length of hospital stay (LOS), and conversion rate in correlation with the operating team's level of seniority. In addition, this study compared the operating time for LA with that for open appendectomy performed by the same teams, and identified deterministic factors that have an impact on such parameters.

METHODS

All records of patients undergoing appendectomy performed by residents alone during a 32-month period were reviewed retrospectively. Eight residents were assigned to two levels of seniority: juniors <or=3 years (J) and seniors >3 years (S). Operating time and LOS were compared between the three surgical teams, namely, J/J, J/S, and S/J as operating and assistant surgeons, respectively. Operating time, conversion rates, and LOS were compared for the same team combinations.

RESULTS

Residents alone performed 341 (151 laparoscopic and 190 open) appendectomies during on-call hours. Four of the residents had been 3 years or less in residency (J), and four had been in residency more than 3 years (S). The overall mean operating time was 1.33 +/- 0.48 h for LA and 1.2 +/- 0.5 h for open appendectomy (p = 0.016). The operating time correlated with the level of training for both LA (J/J, 1.6 +/- 0.38 h; J/S, 1.41 +/- 0.37 h; S/J, 1. 25 +/- 0.4 h; p = 0.03, ANOVA) and open appendectomy (J/J, 1.53 +/- 0.89 h; J/S, 1.4 +/- 0.63 h; S/J, 0.86 +/- 0.45 h; p = 0.023, ANOVA). The mean LOS was 2.9 +/- 3.1 days for open appendectomy and 2.1 +/- 2.8 days for LA (p = 0.065), and was not different after operation by any of the teams (J/J, J/S, S/J) for either the open or the laparoscopic procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a distinct difference in the surgical skills of residents according to level of seniority, as primarily reflected by operating time. Laparoscopic appendectomy requires longer time to perform in a teaching setting, but the most deterministic factor that dictates operating time is the composition of the surgical team rather than the laparoscopic approach.