Endoloop versus endostapler: what is the best option for appendiceal stump closure in children with complicated appendicitis? Results of a multicentric international survey. Surg Endosc. 2018;32:3570-3575. [PMID: 29404732 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-018-6081-8]

Risk-Benefit Comparison Between Endoloop and Endostapler Devices for the Closure of Appendiceal Stumps in Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Introduction Acute appendicitis is a common cause of acute abdomen and the most frequent surgical emergency in the world. Since the nineteenth century, surgical resolution has been the most accepted treatment worldwide, and laparoscopic appendectomy is currently preferred as the treatment of choice because it has several benefits. The closure of the appendiceal stump is the most crucial step during appendectomy since its inadequate management can cause post-surgical complications. Throughout recent years, several methods have been proposed to perform this closure. This study was performed to compare the post-surgical outcomes of the use of endoloop and endostapler devices. Methods This is a retrospective study of 290 patients aged 18 to 83 who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy between 2016 and 2020. Demographic data, clinical history, tomographic findings, and laboratory data were collected, as well as appendicular base management technique, severity degree of appendicitis at hospital admission, postoperative complications at 30 days, hospital readmission, and in-hospital stay. Statistical tests and binary logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors, with a significance level of p<0.05. Results Demographic data and clinical history did not show statistically significant differences. The presence of a pre-surgical abscess with tomography was 1.58 times higher in the endostapler group. Post-surgical results showed that the use of endostapler devices represented a 2.7 times higher risk of post-surgical abscess. The endostapler group was also found to have 1.87 times the risk of post-surgical sepsis. Conclusion Our study shows that the use of an endoloop reduces the risk of postoperative abscess by 16.5% and protects against the development of post-surgical sepsis by 30%.

Effect of endoscopic loop ties in acute appendicitis on wound infection rate: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis study to measure the consequence of endoscopic loop ties (ELT) in acute appendicitis (AA) on wound infection rate. A comprehensive literature inspection till February 2023 was applied and 2765 interrelated studies were reviewed. The 27 chosen studies enclosed 15 093 subjects with AA in the chosen studies' starting point, 7141 of them were ELT, and 7952 were open surgery. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compute the value of the effect of ELT in AA on wound infection rate by the dichotomous and continuous styles and a fixed or random model. Open surgery had a significantly higher postoperative surgical site wound infection (SSWI). (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.09-1.83, P = 0.009) with low heterogeneity (I2  = 34%) compared to ELT in AA subjects. Although no significant difference was detected between open surgery and ELT in intra-abdominal abscess rate (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.56-1.40, P = 0.59) with moderate heterogeneity (I2  = 51%) in AA subjects. Open surgery had a significantly higher postoperative SSWI, however, no significant difference was found in intra-abdominal abscess rate compared to ELT in AA subjects. However, caused by the small sample sizes of several chosen studies for this meta-analysis, care must be exercised when dealing with its values.

Appendiceal stump closure in laparoscopic appendectomy: one endoloop vs. two endoloops vs. two endoclips-does it matter?

PURPOSE

Appendiceal stump leak rate after laparoscopic appendectomy is extremely low. Various methods are used to close the appendiceal stump. This study aimed to compare the outcome of three appendiceal stump closure methods.

METHODS

A retrospective study comparing stump closure methods and postoperative outcomes was conducted from January 2018 to June 2020. Patient data included demographics, pre-operative data, surgical technique, findings, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Out of 1021 appendectomy patients, 733 underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis utilizing one of the three compared appendiceal stump closure methods. Consequently, 360 appendixes were ligated with one endoloop (1EL group), 300 appendixes had two endoloops (2EL group), and 73 appendixes were ligated with two endoclips (2EC group). All groups used a LigaSure for resection. The rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess was 1% (4 patients) in 1EL group vs. 1% (3 patients) in 2EL group vs. none in 2EC group (p = 0.43). There were no reported appendiceal stump leaks. Overall complication rates were 4% (14 patients), 3% (9 patients), and 0 (p = 0.15), and the mean operative length was 43 ± 21, 54 ± 22, and 43 ± 20 mins for the 1EL, 2EL, and 2EC, respectively (p < 0.01). Average cost of one endoloop is 110$, and one endoclip cartridge is 180$.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the methods were found clinically superior over the others. Considering the low and mild complication rate, it appears reasonable to prefer one method simply by cost. The use of a single endoloop may result in substantial cost reduction. Medical centers may advise surgeons to use a single-endoloop technique.

Association between appendiceal stump closure method and post-operative bowel obstruction after laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy is one of the most common urgent pediatric surgical operations. Endoscopic surgical staplers and pre-tied endoloop ligatures are both routinely used for closure of the appendiceal stump in children. Practice patterns vary for a number of reasons, including cost, size, and ease of use. While stapling is standard for some pediatric surgeons, others believe that staples can act as a nidus for small bowel obstruction (SBO). However, studies comparing closure methods have been conflicting in their results and limited in size. Therefore, we aim to determine if there is an association between appendiceal stump closure method and SBO using a national comparative pediatric database.

METHODS

We queried the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) for patients ages 3-18 years who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis between 1/1/2016 - 12/31/2020. We included hospitals that had greater than 50 patients with billing data and excluded patients with inflammatory bowel disease and simultaneous abdominal operations. We used billing data for the patient's appendectomy to determine if a stapler or a suture ligature was used during the case. Our primary outcome of interest was post-operative SBO or reoperation for lysis of adhesion or intestinal surgery within the first 30 post-operative days. Multivariable regression analyses were used to estimate the association between stump closure method and post-operative SBO or reoperation in addition to cost while adjusting for patient demographics and appendiceal perforation.

RESULTS

In total, 49,191 patients from 37 hospitals were included, of which, 29,733 (60.44%) were male, 21,403 (43.51%) were non-Hispanic white, and 18,291 (37.18%) had a diagnosis of complicated appendicitis. The median [IQR] age of the cohort was 11 [8-14] years. A surgical stapler was used during laparoscopic appendectomy in 35,788 (72.75%) patients, and early SBO or reoperation occurred in 653 (1.33%) patients. In adjusted analysis controlling for demographics and complicated appendicitis there was no statistically significant difference in the odds of SBO or reoperation between the two groups. (OR 1.17; 99% CI 0.86 - 1.6). Complicated appendicitis was the factor most associated with post-operative SBO or reoperation (OR 4.4; 99% CI 3.01 - 6.44). Median cumulative cost was slightly higher on unadjusted analysis in the stapler group ($10,329.3 vs $9,569.2). However, there was no significant difference on adjusted analysis.

CONCLUSION

SBO or reoperation following laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis is uncommon. Complicated appendicitis is the most predictive factor of this outcome. Adjusting for available patient, disease, and hospital characteristics, use of a surgical stapler does not appear to be meaningfully associated with the development of acute SBO or reoperation. Surgeon preference remains the mainstay for safe appendiceal stump closure method.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective Comparative Study.

Proper use of appendiceal stump closure methods for surgical site infection in laparoscopic appendectomy

INTRODUCTION

Although some studies have reported on the relationship between appendiceal stump closure methods and postoperative complications, there is no fixed method for this procedure. This study aimed to compare treatment outcomes of the existing procedures.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 200 patients who underwent urgent laparoscopic surgeries and investigated whether the difference in the appendiceal stump closure method was a risk factor for surgical site infection. The patients were divided into the Endoloop and endostapler groups, and 45 propensity score-matched patients were included. The treatment outcomes of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The patients with high body temperature showed significantly developed surgical site infection in multivariate analysis (P = .036). There was no significant difference in the appendix stump methods (Endoloop vs endostapler). Regarding postoperative complications, superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection, organ/space surgical site infection, ileus, and complications of Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or higher; there was no significant difference between the endoloop and endostapler groups after propensity score matching (P = .725, 1.000, .645 and .557, respectively).

CONCLUSION

By properly using the Endoloop and endostapler according to the severity of inflammation, the Endoloop can be safely performed in many cases. Inexpensive Endoloop as an option for stump closure methods should positively impact medical costs.

Acute appendicitis-advances and controversies

Being one of the most common causes of the acute abdomen, acute appendicitis (AA) forms the bread and butter of any general surgeon's practice. With the recent advancements in AA's management, much controversy in diagnostic algorithms, possible differential diagnoses, and weighing the management options has been generated, with no absolute consensus in the literature. Since Alvarado described his eponymous clinical scoring system in 1986 to stratify AA risk, there has been a burgeoning of additional scores for guiding downstream management and mortality assessment. Furthermore, advancing literature on the role of antibiotics, variations in appendicectomy, and its adjuncts have expanded the surgeon's repertoire of management options. Owing to the varied presentation, diagnostic tools, and management of AA have also been proposed in special groups such as pregnant patients, the elderly, and the immunocompromised. This article seeks to raise the critical debates about what is currently known about the above aspects of AA and explore the latest controversies in the field. Considering the ever-evolving coronavirus disease 2019 situation worldwide, we also discuss the pandemic's repercussions on patients and how surgeons' practices have evolved in the context of AA.

Purse-string suture after ligating by endoloop for closing of the appendiceal stump is an alternative for endostapler in selected cases: A propensity score-matched study

INTRODUCTION

The closure of the appendiceal stump is a crucial part of a laparoscopic appendectomy, and an endoloop or endostapler is generally used. The endoloop can be more cost effective than the endostapler. However, reports have shown that the endoloop has a higher postoperative abdominal abscess rate than the endostapler in complicated appendicitis. At our institution, we perform a purse-string suture after ligating by endoloop to reduce postoperative abdominal abscess risk. This study aimed to clarify whether this method could reduce the incidence of postoperative abdominal abscess compared with the endostapler.

METHODS

Patients with acute appendicitis were classified into the purse-string suture group (n = 149) and the endostapler group (n = 82). Postoperative outcomes were compared after propensity score matching (n = 47).

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of the patient characteristics and postoperative complications, including abdominal abscess. However, the purse-string suture group had more drain placement and a shorter hospital stay than the endostapler group (P = .04 and P = .02, respectively). In patients with complicated appendicitis, there was less drain placement and a shorter hospital stay in the purse-string suture group than in the endostapler group (P < .01 and P < .01, respectively). This might have reflected the difficulty of the operation. All postoperative abdominal abscesses occurred in complicated appendicitis cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoloop with additional purse-string suture had a lower incidence of abscess than previous reports of using endoloop alone. Moreover, the postoperative abdominal abscess rate is similar between the two closure methods.

Is the use of endoloops safe and efficient for the closure of the appendicular stump in complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis?

INTRODUCTION

There is still controversy regarding the ideal technique to close the appendicular stump in laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). The objective of this study was to determine the safety and efficiency of the use of an endoloop (EL) and endostapler (ES) in complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing LA from February 2013 to December 2019. Acute uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis were analysed separately, establishing two groups according to the stump closure technique: EL or ES. Seven hundred-nine patients were included (535 uncomplicated and 174 complicated). In uncomplicated appendicitis, an EL was used in 447 of the patients (83.55%) and an ES was used in 88 patients (16.45%). In complicated appendicitis, an EL was used in 85 patients (48.85%) and an ES was used in 89 patients (51.15%). An analysis of effectiveness and a cost analysis of each technique were performed.

RESULTS

In uncomplicated appendicitis, we found no differences with respect to global complications, although there were significant differences in the total mean hospital stay (EL group 1.55 (SD 1.48) days; ES group 2.21 (SD 1.69) days; p = 0.046). This meant a savings of 514.12€ per patient using the EL p < 0.001). In complicated appendicitis, the reoperations classified as Clavien-Dindo IIIB in the EL group (6.4%) were greater than in the ES group (0%) (p = 0.012), although the rate of postoperative abscesses (p = 0.788) and the mean volume of abscesses (p = 0.891) were similar.

CONCLUSION

The systematic use of an EL could reduce costs in uncomplicated appendicitis, while in complicated cases, both options are valid. Prospective studies with a greater number of patients are needed to observe differences in postoperative complications.

Endostapler vs Endoloop closure of the appendiceal stump in laparoscopic appendectomy: Which has better outcomes?

BACKGROUND

In laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), closure of the appendiceal stump can be achieved using either an endostapler or endoloop. We compared outcome data from utilizing either technique.

METHOD

Data was collected for all adult patients who underwent LA for appendicitis at a single institution over a 4-year period. Demographic data, complications, length of stay and hospital charges were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 501 patients underwent LA in the 4-year period. There were no differences in age, gender or BMI. Additionally, there were no differences in procedure length, readmission rates, complication rates (including intra-abdominal abscess) or hospital charges. There was a slightly shorter length of stay in the endoloop closure group (1.22 days) vs endostapler (1.38 days), p = 0.002.

CONCLUSION

Neither technique of appendiceal stump closure demonstrated a unique advantage. These findings may have relevance in low resource environments that may not have routine access to surgical staplers.

Comparison of stump closure techniques during laparoscopic appendectomies for complicated appendicitis - results from Pol-LA (Polish laparoscopic appendectomy) multicenter large cohort study

Background: In general, the three main options for stump closure in laparoscopic appendectomy are clips, endoscopic staplers and endoloops. However, there is no gold standard, especially regarding complicated acute appendicitis which is generally associated with worse outcomes.Objectives: We aimed to assess the outcomes of different stump closure techniques during laparoscopic appendectomies for complicated appendicitisMethods: Our multicenter observational study of 18 surgical units assessed the outcomes of 1269 laparoscopic appendectomies for complicated appendicitis that used the three main stump closure techniques: clips, staplers and endoloops. Groups were compared in terms of peri- and postoperative outcomes.Results: Staplers were superior in terms of overall morbidity (9.79 vs. 3.29% vs. 7.41%, p = .017) and length of stay (4 vs. 3 vs. 4 days, p < .001) respectively for clips, staplers and endoloops. However, no differences in major complication rates, postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation, reintervention rates and readmission rates were found.Conclusion: Although our results show some clinical benefits of staplers for appendix stump closure, they are based on a non-randomized group of patients and are therefore prone to selection bias. Further well-designed trials taking into consideration not only the clinical benefits, but also, the economic aspects of the surgical treatment of complicated acute appendicitis are needed to confirm our results.

Evaluation of a pre-tied ligature loop for canine total lung lobectomy

OBJECTIVE

To determine the ability of a pre-tied ligature loop (PLL) to create a seal against physiological airway pressures after total lung lobectomy and report outcomes in dogs requiring lung lobectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Ex vivo experimental randomized study and clinical case study.

SAMPLE POPULATION

Thirty cadaveric canine lung lobes and 5 client-owned dogs.

METHODS

Thirty canine lung lobes from dogs weighing 22.5-35 kg were randomized to lobectomy with stapler, PLL, or suture ligation. After lobectomy, each bronchial stump was submerged in water, and the mainstem airway pressure was increased to 80 mm Hg. Leakage was compared between techniques. The PLL was subsequently used in 5 dogs (17-25 kg) with neoplastic disease requiring total lung lobectomy.

RESULTS

Two stapled and 4 sutured bronchial stumps leaked at supraphysiological pressures >15 mm Hg. One stapled bronchial stump failed at a physiological airway pressure (5 mm Hg). None of the PLL lobectomies leaked. The incidence of bronchial stump failures did not differ among techniques (P = .15). Lung lobectomy was performed successfully with the PLL in 5 clinical cases with no intraoperative or postoperative complications; median follow-up time was 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Bronchial ligation with the PLL reliably resisted physiological airway pressures and performed comparably to current standard techniques in cadavers. The PLL provided an adequate air and vascular seal in 5 clinical cases undergoing total lung lobectomy.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Pre-tied ligature loops provide an alternative method for total lung lobectomy in dogs.

Outcomes of Open and Laparoscopic Appendectomy With Single Endoloop Stump Closure

Background and Objectives:

Although laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been used for 35 years, the open approach (OA) is preferred worldwide. Widespread access to instrumentation in a number of centers has reduced economic and logistical obstacles. The aim of this work is to compare the results for patients with suspected appendicitis treated using an OA versus patients treated using LA.

Methods:

A retrospective study of all patients (N = 290) who underwent operation due to suspected appendicitis in the General Surgery Department from 2014 to 2017 was conducted. LA was performed in 91 patients, and OA was performed in 199 patients.

Results:

Average surgery duration was 67.8 minutes in the LA group and 62.9 minutes in the OA group (P =.082). It was necessary to perform 3 conversions (3.3%) from LA to OA. Wound infections occurred in 2.2% of patients in the LA group and in 12.6% of patients in the OA group (P = .007). A reduced duration of hospitalization was noted in the LA group (3.3 days) compared with the OA group (4.7 days) (P < .001).

Conclusion:

The duration of LA is not considerably longer than that of OA. LA in patients with suspected appendicitis reduces the number of operation site infections compared with OA. LA with single endoloop stump closure is a safe method and may be recommended for wider applications.

Post-appendectomy pelvic abscess with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producing Escherichia coli: A case report and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis, the inflammation of the appendix, is the most common abdominal surgical emergency requiring expedient surgical intervention. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) are bacterial enzymes that catalyse the degradation of the beta-lactam ring of penicillins and cephalosporins (but without carbapenemase activity), leading to resistance of these bacteria to beta-lactam antibiotics. Recent increases in incidence of ESBL-producing bacteria have caused alarm worldwide. Proportion estimates of ESBL-Enterobacteriaceae hover around 46% in China, 42% in East Africa, 12% in Germany, and 8% in the United States.

CASE SUMMARY

The impact of ESBL-producing bacteria on appendiceal abscesses and consequent pelvic abscesses are yet to be examined in depth. A literature review using the search words “appendiceal abscesses” and “ESBL Escherichia coli (E. coli)” revealed very few cases involving ESBL E. coli in any capacity in the context of appendiceal abscesses. This report describes the clinical aspects of a patient with appendicitis who developed a postoperative pelvic abscess infected with ESBL-producing E. coli. In this report, we discuss the risk factors for contracting ESBL E. coli infection in appendicitis and post-appendectomy pelvis abscesses. We also discuss our management approach for post-appendectomy ESBL E. coli pelvic abscesses, including drainage, pathogen identification, and pathogen characterisation. When ESBL E. coli is confirmed, carbapenem antibiotics should be promptly administered, as was done efficaciously with this patient. Our report is the first one in a developed country involving ESBL E. coli related surgical complications in association with a routine laparoscopic appendectomy.

CONCLUSION

Our report is the first involving ESBL E. coli and appendiceal abscesses, and that too consequent to laparoscopic appendectomy.