Introducing diagnostic laparoscopy for patients with suspected acute appendicitis

Diagnosis and Management of Intraabdominal Infection: Guidelines by the Chinese Society of Surgical Infection and Intensive Care and the Chinese College of Gastrointestinal Fistula Surgeons

The Chinese guidelines for IAI presented here were developed by a panel that included experts from the fields of surgery, critical care, microbiology, infection control, pharmacology, and evidence-based medicine. All questions were structured in population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes format, and evidence profiles were generated. Recommendations were generated following the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system or Best Practice Statement (BPS), when applicable. The final guidelines include 45 graded recommendations and 17 BPSs, including the classification of disease severity, diagnosis, source control, antimicrobial therapy, microbiologic evaluation, nutritional therapy, other supportive therapies, diagnosis and management of specific IAIs, and recognition and management of source control failure. Recommendations on fluid resuscitation and organ support therapy could not be formulated and thus were not included. Accordingly, additional high-quality clinical studies should be performed in the future to address the clinicians' concerns.

Laparoscopy in the acute abdomen

Laparoscopy has become a routine procedure in the management of acute abdominal disease and can be considered both an excellent therapeutic and additional diagnostic tool in selected cases. However, a high level of expertise in laparoscopic and emergency surgery is required. Hemodynamic instability, huge abdominal distension, fecal peritonitis and perforated cancer are relative contraindications for the laparoscopic approach. In recent years, abdominal emergencies have increasingly been managed successfully by laparoscopy. In acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis and perforated peptic ulcer, randomized controlled trials have proven that the laparoscopic approach is as safe and as effective as open surgery, with fewer complications and a quicker postoperative recovery. Other indications such as blunt and penetrating trauma to the abdomen, small bowel occlusion and perforated diverticular disease are under debate, indicating that more randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery are still necessary.

Consensus conference on laparoscopic appendectomy: development of guidelines

AIM

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Evaluating routine diagnostic imaging in acute appendicitis

AIM

To evaluate the impact of selective imaging on clinical management of patients who present with symptoms suggesting acute appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During a two-and-half year period, 941 consecutive patients with right lower quadrant pain were analyzed. Patients who underwent selective imaging were compared to those treated without further imaging.

RESULTS

In 650 (69%) patients with right lower quadrant pain, diagnosis was based on medical history, physical and laboratory examination only. The diagnostic accuracy was 84%. Another 291 patients (31%) underwent selective imaging reaching a diagnostic accuracy of 71%. Ultrasound was conducted in 277 patients (sensitivity: 59%; specificity: 91%). CT scan was conducted in 43 patients (sensitivity: 100%; specificity: 95%).

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that, in the majority of patients, appendicitis acuta can be diagnosed without the aid of imaging studies. In all these cases, high diagnostic accuracy rates and low morbidity rates were achieved. In all the other cases when clinical diagnosis is uncertain, further evaluation should include imaging. In our series ultrasound is of limited value; CT scan or diagnostic laparoscopy seems superior.

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for confirmed appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is safe for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. This study compared recovery after laparoscopic (LA) and open appendicectomy (OA) for confirmed appendicitis, carried out by experienced surgeons in an educational setting.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-three patients with laparoscopically confirmed appendicitis suitable for LA were randomized prospectively to either LA or OA in a blinded fashion. The primary endpoint was time to full recovery. Secondary endpoints were operating time, complications, hospital stay and functional status.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between LA and OA in time to full recovery (9 and 11 days respectively; P = 0.225). Operating time was 55 min in the LA group and 60 min in the OA group (P = 0.416). The complication rate was 8.6 and 11.0 per cent respectively (P = 0.696), and median hospital stay was 2 days in both groups (P = 0.192). Functional status was significantly better in the LA group 7-10 days after operation (P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in time to full recovery after LA and OA in patients with laparoscopically confirmed appendicitis. A trend towards better physical activity was noted after the laparoscopic procedure.

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute and recurrent appendicitis: retrospective analysis of a single-group 5-year experience

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Twenty years after the first report of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), its role in the treatment of appendicitis is still under debate. We report herein a retrospective analysis of our cases of LA in the last 5 years, during which we adopted a policy of an almost uniform laparoscopic approach on a rather selected population composed mainly of women with acute or recurrent lower quadrant abdominal pain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed on 33 male and 98 female patients. The mean age at operation was 25.7+/-11.4 years (range 11-59 years). Acute appendicitis with localized or diffuse peritonitis was present in 34 cases. In the remaining 97 patients, the operation was performed for acute or recurring symptoms of lower quadrant abdominal pain.

RESULTS

There were no conversions to open surgery. The operating time was 45+/-17 minutes (range 30-110 minutes). The pathology examination of the removed appendices showed acute appendicitis in 34 cases and chronic inflammation in the remaining 97 patients. In one case, histology revealed a coexisting mucinous carcinoid that extended to the perivisceral fat, and a completion right hemicolectomy was performed. Complications were minor in most cases. Reoperation for deep abdominal abscess or hematoma was required in three cases. The mean hospital stay was 2.59+/-1.58 days (range 24 hours-11 days).

CONCLUSION

In our hands, LA has proven to be safe and effective. The laparoscopic operation has significant advantages in terms of lower invasiveness and better diagnostic capability. It is especially useful in women of child-bearing age, in whom it may be considered the procedure of choice.