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

The impact of minimally invasive surgical approaches on surgical-site infections

We performed a literature review to describe the risk of surgical-site infection (SSI) in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to standard open surgery. Most studies reported decreased SSI rates among patients undergoing MIS compared to open procedures. However, many were observational studies and may have been affected by selection bias. MIS is associated with reduced risk of surgical-site infection compared to standard open surgery and should be considered when feasible.

Acute Appendicitis Treatment Strategies and Mortality Based on Critical Illness on Admission: An Observational Study

Background: Trials have shown non-inferiority of non-operative management (NOM) for appendicitis, although critically ill patients have been often excluded. The purpose of this study is to evaluate surgical versus NOM outcomes in critically ill patients with appendicitis by measuring mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS). Patients and Methods: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's (HCUP) Database was utilized to analyze data from 10 states between 2008 and 2015. All patients with acute appendicitis by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes over the age of 18 were included. Negative binomial and logistic regression were used to determine the association of acute renal failure (ARF), cardiovascular failure (CVF), pulmonary failure (PF), and sepsis by treatment strategy (laparoscopic, open, both, or no surgery) on mortality and hospital LOS. Results: Among 464,123 patients, 67.5%, 23.3%, 8.2%, and 0.8% underwent laparoscopic, open, NOM, or both laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Patients who underwent surgery had 58% lower odds of mortality and 34% shorter hospital LOS compared with NOM patients. Patients with ARF, CVF, PF, and sepsis had 102%, 383%, 475%, and 666% higher odds of mortality and a 47%, 46%, 71%, and 163% longer hospital LOS, respectively, compared with patients without these diagnoses on admission. Conclusions: Critical illness on admission increases mortality and hospital LOS. Patients who underwent laparoscopic, and to a lesser extent, open appendectomy had improved mortality compared with those who did not undergo surgery regardless of critical illness status.

The Outcome of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy in Childhood

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy in children is performed either lapa - roscopically (LA) or by open surgery (OA). We studied whether, and how, the outcome is affected by the technique used and by the intraoperative conversion of LA to OA.

METHODS

We analyzed routine data from children and adolescents in three age groups (1-5 years, 6-12 years, and 13-17 years) who were insured by the AOK statutory health insurance carrier in Germany and who underwent appendectomy in the period 2017-2019. General surgical complications and reoperations within 90 days were assessed with relevant indicators. Associations between the surgical technique and these indicators were studied with logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 21 541 patients included in the study, general surgical complications were observed in 2.1% and reoperations in 1.8% overall. Broken down by age group, the corresponding figures were 5.4% and 4.4% (age 1 to 5), 2.5% and 1.8% (age 6 to 12), and 1.5% and 1.6% (age 13 to 17). The main risk factors for complications and reoperations were acute complicated appendicitis and conversion from LA to OA. Regression analysis revealed similar outcomes with OA compared to LA in the 1-to-5 age group, (odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals: 1.1 [0.6; 2.1] for general surgical complications and 1.5 [0.8; 2.7] for reoperations), but worse outcomes with OA in the other two age groups (age 6 to 12: 1.9 [1.2; 2.9] and 2.1 [1.5; 2.9]; age 13 to 17: 1.7 [1.0; 2.9] and 2.2 [1.4; 3.6]). When conversions were assigned to the LA group, the odds ratio (OA compared to LA) for reoperation across all age groups was 3.5 [2.8; 4.4] in patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis and 4.2 [3.4; 5.3] in patients with complicated appendicitis. Complicated appendicitis also increased the rate of general surgical complications and the length of stay in hospital.

CONCLUSION

Among children in the two older age groups, LA was followed by fewer general surgical complications and reoperations than OA. These differences were less pronounced when conversions were counted as belonging to the LA group. Children aged 1-5 appear to benefit the least from the lapa - roscopic technique.

Early surgery for perforated appendicitis: Are we moving the needle on postoperative abscess?

BACKGROUND

Perforated appendicitis is often managed nonoperatively though upfront surgery is becoming more common. We describe postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing surgery at their index hospitalization for perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

We used the 2016-2020 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify patients with appendicitis who underwent appendectomy or partial colectomy. The primary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI).

RESULTS

132,443 patients with appendicitis underwent immediate surgery. Of 14.1% patients with perforated appendicitis, 84.3% underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. Intra-abdominal abscess rates were lowest after laparoscopic appendectomy (9.4%). Open appendectomy (OR 5.14, 95% CI 4.06-6.51) and laparoscopic partial colectomy (OR 4.60, 95% CI 2.38-8.89) were associated with higher likelihoods of SSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Upfront surgical management of perforated appendicitis is now predominantly approached by laparoscopy, often without bowel resection. Postoperative complications occurred less frequently with laparoscopic appendectomy compared to other approaches. Laparoscopic appendectomy during the index hospitalization is an effective approach to perforated appendicitis.

Perforated appendicitis treated with laparoscopic appendicectomy or open appendicectomy: A meta-analysis

Aim

This analysis compared the impact of laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) and open appendicectomy (OA) on treating adult perforated appendicitis (PA).

Methods

Articles relating to LA and OA in treating PA were retrieved from databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase since their founding to January 2022. These articles were independently filtered based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two investigators. The quality of these articles was assessed and article data were extracted. Dichotomous data were presented in the form of odd's ratio (OR), whereas continuous data were in the form of weighted mean difference (WMD). The included articles reported at least one of the following outcomes: intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), wound infection, operative time, hospital stay and complications.

Results

Three randomised control trials (198 LA cases vs. 205 OA cases) and 12 case - control trials (914 LA cases vs. 2192 OA cases) were included. This analysis revealed that although the IAA formation rate was similar in the LA and OA groups (OR: 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-1.88), the wound infection rate was lower in the LA group (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.28-0.51). Furthermore, LA was associated with shorter hospital stay (WMD: -1.43 days, 95% CI: -2.33--0.52) and fewer complications than OA (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.57).

Conclusion

LA has significant benefits in treating PA and is associated with better post-operative outcomes such as shorter hospital stay, lower incidence of wound infection and other complications. However, more studies with randomised and large-sample populations are still required to determine the clinical benefit of LA in treating PA.

Capturing Surgical Data: Comparing a Quality Improvement Registry to Natural Language Processing and Manual Chart Review

INTRODUCTION

Collecting accurate operative details remains a limitation of surgical research. Surgeon-entered data in clinical registries offers one solution, but natural language processing (NLP) has emerged as a modality for automating manual chart review (MCR). This study aims to compare the accuracy and efficiency of NLP and MCR with a surgeon-entered, prospective registry data in determining the rate of gross bile spillage (GBS) during cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Bile spillage rates were abstracted from an institutional, surgeon-entered clinical registry from July 2018 to January 2019. These rates were compared to those documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) using NLP and MCR to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency of each approach.

RESULTS

Of the 782 registry entries, 191 cases (24.4%) had surgeon-reported bile spillage. MCR identified bile spillage in 121 cases (15.6%); however, bile spillage information was either missing or ambiguous in 454 cases (58.1%). NLP identified 99 cases (12.7%) of bile spillage. Data abstraction times for the registry, NLP, and MCR were 3 min, 5 min, and 12 h, respectively. When compared to the registry, MCR was 45% sensitive and 94% specific, while NLP was 27.2% sensitive and 92% specific for detecting bile spillage. These differences were significant (X² = 19.446, P =  < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Operative details, such as GBS, may not be abstracted by NLP or MCR if not clearly documented in the EMR. Clinical registries capture operative details, but they rely on surgeons to input the data.

Prophylactic Drainage after Appendectomy for Perforated Appendicitis in Adults: A Post Hoc Analysis of an EAST Multi-Center Study

Background: We sought to assess the efficacy of prophylactic abdominal drainage to prevent complications after appendectomy for perforated appendicitis. Methods: In this post hoc analysis of a prospective multi-center study of appendicitis in adults (≥ 18 years), we included patients with perforated appendicitis diagnosed intra-operatively. The 634 subjects were divided into groups on the basis of receipt of prophylactic drains. The demographics and outcomes analyzed were surgical site infection (SSI), intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), Clavien-Dindo complications, secondary interventions, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Multivariable logistic regression for the cumulative 30-day incidence of IAA was performed controlling for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), antibiotic duration, presence of drains, and Operative American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Grade. Results: In comparing the Drain (n = 159) versus No-Drain (n = 475) groups, there was no difference in the frequency of male gender (61% versus 55%; p = 0.168), weight (87.9 ± 27.9 versus 83.8 ± 23.4 kg; p = 0.071), Alvarado score (7 [6-8] versus 7 [6-8]; p = 0.591), white blood cell (WBC) count (14.8 ± 4.8 versus 14.9 ± 4.5; p = 0.867), or CCI (1 [0-3] versus 1 [0-2]; p = 0.113). The Drain group was significantly older (51 ± 16 versus 48 ± 17 years; p = 0.017). Drain use increased as AAST EGS Appendicitis Operative Severity Grade increased: Grade 3 (62/311; 20%), Grade 4 (46/168; 27%), and Grade 5 (51/155; 33%); p = 0.007. For index hospitalization, the Drain group had a higher complication rate (43% versus 28%; p = 0.001) and longer LOS (4 [3-7] versus 3 [1-5] days; p < 0.001). We could not detect a difference between the groups in the incidence of SSI, IAA, or secondary interventions. There was no difference in 30-day emergency department visits, re-admissions, or secondary interventions. Multi-variable logistic regression showed that only AAST Grade (odds ratio 2.7; 95% confidence interval7 1.5-4.7; p = 0.001) was predictive of the cumulative 30-day incidence of IAA. Conclusions: Prophylactic drainage after appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in adults is not associated with fewer intra-abdominal abscesses but is associated with longer hospital LOS. Increasing AAST EGS Appendicitis Operative Grade is a strong predictor of intra-abdominal abscess.

[Recommendations on treatment of acute appendicitis : Recommendations of an expert group based on the current literature]

The paradigm shift in the treatment concept for acute appendicitis is currently the subject of intensive discussions. The diagnosis and differentiation of an uncomplicated from a complicated appendicitis as well as the selection of an adequate treatment is very challenging, especially since nonoperative treatment models have been published. The laparoscopic appendectomy is still the standard for most cases. Guidelines for the treatment of acute appendicitis do not exist in Germany. Therefore, a group of experts elaborated 21 recommendations on the treatment of acute appendicitis after 3 meetings. After initial definition of population, intervention, comparison and outcome (PICO) questions, recommendations have been finalized through the Delphi voting system. The results were evaluated according to the current literature. The aim of this initiative was to define a basic support for decision making in the clinical routine for treatment of acute appendicitis.

Obesity and appendicitis: Laparoscopy versus open technique

Objectives

The clinical results of obese patients who have undergone open or laparoscopic appendectomy, whether one technique is superior to the other is still not clearly known.In our study, we compared the clinical results of obese patients operated with laparoscopic or open technique for acute appendicitis.

Material and Methods

We performed retrospective analyses of patients operated for acute appendicitis between the dates of July 2016 and July 2019 at Istinye University Faculty of Medicine Bahcesehir Liv Training and Research Hospital and Liv Hospital Ankara. Of the 241 patients whose height and weight information was accessible, 57 had a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or higher. Eighteen of these patients underwent open surgery while the other 39 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The primary result criterion was complication ratio. Secondary criteria were operation time and length of hospital stay.

Results

Upon comparison of laparoscopic and open techniques in terms of intraoperative-postoperative complications (p= 0.01), operation time (p= 0.02) statistically significant differences were found between the groups. However the mean length of hospital stay (p= 0.181) was similar in both groups.

Conclusion

In obese appendicitis patients, the laparoscopic technique proved to be superior to the open technique in criteria such as perioperative-postoperative complications, operation time, and etc. Length of hospital stay was determined to be similar between the groups.

[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.

The value of post-operative antibiotic therapy after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase III study (ABAP study)

BACKGROUND

Approximately 30% of appendectomies are for complicated acute appendicitis (CAA). With laparoscopy, the main post-operative complication is deep abscesses (12% of cases of CAA, versus 4% for open surgery). A recent cohort study compared short and long courses of postoperative antibiotic therapy in patients with CAA. There was no significant intergroup difference in the post-operative complication rate (12% of organ/space surgical site infection (SSI)). Moreover, antibiotic therapy is increasingly less indicated for other situations (non-complicated appendicitis, post-operative course of cholecystitis, perianal abscess), calling into question whether post-operative antibiotic therapy is required after laparoscopic appendectomy for CAA.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is a prospective, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized (1:1), double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase III non-inferiority study with blind evaluation of the primary efficacy criterion. The primary objective is to evaluate the impact of the absence of post-operative antibiotic therapy on the organ/space surgical site infection (SSI) rate in patients presenting with CAA (other than in cases of generalized peritonitis). Patients in the experimental group will receive at least one dose of preoperative and perioperative antibiotic therapy (2 g ceftriaxone by intravenous injection every 24 h up to the operation) and metronidazole (500 mg by intravenous injection every 8 h up to the operation) and, in the post-operative period, a placebo for ceftriaxone (2 g/24 h in one intravenous injection) and a placebo for metronidazole (1500 mg/24 h in three intravenous injections, for 3 days). In the control group, patients will receive at least one dose of preoperative and perioperative antibiotic therapy (2 g ceftriaxone by intravenous injection every 24 h up to the operation) and metronidazole (500 mg by intravenous injection every 8 h up to the operation) and, in the post-operative period, antibiotic therapy (ceftriaxone 2 g/24 h and metronidazole 1500 mg/24 h for 3 days). In the event of allergy to ceftriaxone, it will be replaced by levofloxacin (500 mg/24 h in one intravenous injection, for 3 days). The expected organ space SSI rate is 12% in the population of patients with CAA operated on by laparoscopy. With a non-inferiority margin of 5%, a two-sided alpha risk of 5%, a beta risk of 20%, and a loss-to-follow-up rate of 10%, the calculated sample size is 1476 included patients, i.e., 738 per group. Due to three interim analyses at 10%, 25%, and 50% of the planned sample size, the total sample size increases to 1494 patients (747 per arm).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Ethical authorization by the Comité de Protection des Personnes and the Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament: ID-RCB 2017-00334-59. Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03688295) on 28 September 2018.

Evaluation of Surgical Site Infection in Mini-invasive Urological Surgery

Surgical Site Infection (SSI) is the most frequent source of infection in surgical patients and the second most frequent cause of hospital-acquired infection. The primary aim of this prospective study was to compare SSI occurrences between minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open urological surgery. Secondly, perioperative outcomes were evaluated in two different approaches.

A consecutive group of 60 patients undergoing urological surgery were prospectively enrolled in a single high-volume center between May and October 2018. We included procedures that were performed by minimally invasive or traditional techniques. We evaluated and compared the incidence of SSI and perioperative outcomes in terms of intraoperative bleeding, post-operative complications, postoperative pain, patient satisfaction with the analgesic treatment, time to flatus, time of oral intake and mobilization, and length of hospital stay. The two groups were homogeneous with regard to demographic data.

Superficial incisional SSIs were diagnosed in 10% of cases (3/30) in the second group and 0% in the first (p<0.05); space/organ SSIs developed in 4 patients, which were diagnosed by ultrasound scan and confirmed by abdominal CT: 1 patient (3.3%) in group 1 showed an infected lymphocele, whereas 1 case of infected lymphocele and 2 cases of pelvic abscess were detected in group 2 (10%, p<0.05). All the perioperative outcomes as well as were overall complication rate favored MIS (p<0.05). The use of minimally invasive techniques in urological surgery reduced the risk of SSI by comparison with a traditional approach. In addition, MIS was associated with better perioperative outcomes and a lower overall complication rate.

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.

Preoperative high C-reactive protein level is associated with an increased likelihood for conversion from laparoscopic to open appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis

Background: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been increasingly adopted for its advantages over the open appendectomy, but there are possibilities of conversion from laparoscopic to open appendectomy (CA) if the patients had complicated appendicitis concurrently, or when the extent of inflammation prohibits successful procedure. In this retrospective study, we aimed to clarify the preoperative predictors for CA.

Patients and methods: From January 2010 to April 2016, medical records of 93 consecutive patients who underwent LA for suspected appendicitis were reviewed retrospectively. Factors evaluated were age, gender, body mass index, C-reactive protein (CRP), white cell count, albumin, Neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, preoperative CT imaging (abscess formation: yes/no, appendicolith: yes/no), operative factors (time to operation, amount of bleeding), length of hospital stay, period until oral intake after surgery, and period from initial symptoms to surgery.

Results: CA occurred in nine patients (9.7%). The reason for conversion was severe dense adhesion in two cases, inadequate exposure of appendix in two cases, uncompleted appendectomy in two cases, perforated appendicitis in one case, gangrenous appendicitis in one case, and abscess formation in one case. Based on 93 patients evaluated by preoperative CT scan, significant factors in the final multivariate analysis associated with CA was CRP [odds ratio=1.13, 95% CI:1.00–1.28, p=0.04].

Conclusion: Identifying the potential factors for conversion preoperatively may assist the surgeons in making decisions concerning the management of patients with appendicitis and in the judicious use of LA.

Retrospective Analysis of Post-Operative Antibiotics in Complicated Appendicitis

Background: There is no consensus regarding the ideal post-operative antibiotic strategy for surgically managed complicated appendicitis. The goal of this study was to investigate different antibiotic regimens used for this purpose at our institution and their association with post-operative outcomes. Methods: The 1,102 patients underwent appendectomy from 2012 to 2016. A detailed chart review was performed on the 188 with complicated appendicitis based on standardized definitions. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze post-operative antibiotic use and complications. Results: Of the 188 cases of complicated appendicitis, 143 (76%) were classified as perforated by the operative surgeon. These patients were significantly more likely to be started on antibiotics after appendectomy (83.9% versus 33.3%; p < 0.001) and have a greater length of stay (LOS) (p = 0.006). The development of a surgical site infection (SSI) was significantly associated with a clinical diagnosis of diabetes (p = 0.04); the presence of free fluid, abscess, or perforation on pre-operative imaging (p = 0.002, 0.039, and 0.012, respectively); and a decision by the surgeon to leave a drain (p = 0.001). On multiple logistic regression analysis adjusted for free fluid on pre-operative imaging and an intra-operative decision to leave a drain, patients receiving one day or three or more days of antibiotics had higher odds of developing an SSI than patients who did not receive any post-operative antibiotics. Conclusions: In this cohort, operative surgeons accurately identified patients with complicated appendicitis who did not require post-operative antibiotics. For patients deemed to require them, two days of treatment was associated with reduced odds of SSI compared with shorter or longer antibiotic courses. The optimal course of antibiotics remains to be identified, but these findings suggest that longer post-operative courses do not avert SSI compared with two days of antibiotics. A prospective trial could clarify the optimal duration and route of antibiotic therapy in the setting of surgical complicated appendicitis.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy in the Setting of Clinical Prediction Rules

PURPOSE

Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most frequent surgical entity in the emergency department, but its correct diagnosis remains challenging. To improve diagnosis, clinical prediction rules (CPRs) have been created to establish objective scores for the probability of suffering AA. In this study, we establish scores indicating whether laparoscopy would be superior to clinical observation or repeat diagnostic test.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted with 433 patients submitted to surgery for suspected AA using a laparoscopic approach. The Alvarado, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis, appendicitis inflammatory response, and adult appendicitis score scales were applied in each case to establish a high, medium, or low probability of suffering AA.

RESULTS

Of the 433 patients analyzed, 381 (88.0%) had AA. Twelve (2.8%) were converted to open surgery, and complications were observed in 54 (12.5%) cases. The CPRs studied showed statistically significant differences between AA and negative appendectomies. However, in patients with intermediate probability scores, the diagnostic accuracy of the CPRs evaluated was not adequate.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery can serve as a diagnostic tool for patients with intermediate AA probability scores because of its low associated morbidity and mortality and because it affords a direct diagnosis of the problem, allowing determination of the appropriate treatment.

Perforated vs. nonperforated acute appendicitis: evaluation of short-term surgical outcomes in an elderly population

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is a common acute surgical abdominal condition and despite the majority of cases are observed in children and young adults, its occurrence in the elderly seems to be increasing, with a higher risk of perforation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes following appendectomy for acute appendicitis in the elderly, making a comparison between perforated and nonperforated groups regarding operative time, hospital stay and postoperative complications.

METHODS

The medical records of 48 patients over the age of 60 years who had a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of acute appendicitis from January 2011 to December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped into those with perforated and those with non-perforated appendicitis (NPA) and a comparison was made between both groups regarding demography, operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

From 48 patients over 60 years diagnosed with acute appendicitis, a PA was removed from 10 patients (20.8%). The PA group consisted of 3 males and 7 females, and their mean age was 71.6 years (range 65-84). The NPA group included 22 males and 16 females, and their mean age was 76.5 years (range 63-96). The mean operative time was 58±18.7 minutes and 43.3±9.9 minutes in the perforated and nonperforated groups respectively, with statistically significant difference (P=0.0013). The mean length of hospital stay was similar in the PA group and in the NPA group, being 6.5±1.8 days and 5.4±1.8 days respectively, but these differences were not statistically significant (P=0.093). The frequency of postoperative complications was similar in both groups as they were observed in 3 patients (30%) of the PA group and 10 patients (26%) of the NPA group (P=0.2488). No postoperative intraabdominal abscess was observed in both groups and there was no death after the surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

PA, despite requiring a longer mean operative time, in our series is not producing a longer hospital stay or more postoperative complications compared to NPA. The non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis is a reasonable option in frail patients in order to avoid the burden of morbidity related to operation, nevertheless surgery remains the standard of care in all age groups.

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).

Population-level outcomes of early versus delayed appendectomy for acute appendicitis using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of appendectomy for acute appendicitis has been analyzed with mixed results. We hypothesized that delayed appendectomy would be associated with increased 30-d morbidity and mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for all patients undergoing nonelective appendectomy from 2012 to 2015 with a postoperative diagnosis of appendicitis. Patients were grouped based on hospital day (HD) of operation. Primary outcomes included 30-d mortality and major complications. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of major morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

From 2012 to 2015, 112,122 patients underwent appendectomy for acute appendicitis. Appendectomies performed on HD 3 had significantly worse outcomes as demonstrated by increased 30-d mortality (0.6%) and all major postoperative complications (8%) in comparison with operations taking place on HD 1 (0.1%; 3.4%) or HD 2 (0.1%, P < 0.001; 3.6%, P < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, open operations had significantly higher mortality and major postoperative complications, including organ/space surgical site infections (4.6% open versus 2.1% laparoscopic; P < 0.001). Patients with decreased baseline physical status by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status class had the worst outcomes (1.5% mortality; 14% major complications) when operation was delayed to HD 3. Logistic regression revealed higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status class and open operations as predictors of major complications; however, HD was not (P = 0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program demonstrate similar outcomes of appendectomy for acute appendicitis when the operation is performed on HD 1 or 2; however, outcomes are significantly worse for appendectomies delayed until HD 3. Increased complications in this group are likely not attributable to HD of operation, but rather decreased baseline health status and procedure type.

Introduction to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee Guideline for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common type of health-care-associated infection (HAI) and adds considerably to the individual, social, and economic costs of surgical treatment. This document serves to introduce the updated Guideline for the Prevention of SSI from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). The Core section of the guideline addresses issues relevant to multiple surgical specialties and procedures. The second procedure-specific section focuses on a high-volume, high-burden procedure: Prosthetic joint arthroplasty. While many elements of the 1999 guideline remain current, others warrant updating to incorporate new knowledge and changes in the patient population, operative techniques, emerging pathogens, and guideline development methodology.

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.

Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015

Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis.

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.

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.

Risk factors for the development of complicated appendicitis in adults

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the patient's history and physical examination information to find out risk factors associated with complicated appendicitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two hundred patients who were admitted with complicated appendicitis (including abscess, phlegmon, and generalized peritonitis) were retrieved from our database. Two hundred patients with non-complicated acute appendicitis were randomly selected from the same period. These two groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, past medical history, and presenting symptoms. We made a multivariate analysis model using binary logistic regression and backward stepwise elimination.

RESULTS

Based on multivariate analysis, risk factors for complicated appendicitis included presenting with epigastric pain (OR=3.44), diarrhea (OR=23.4) or malaise (OR=49.7), history of RLQ pain within the past 6 months (OR=4.93), older age (OR=1.04), being married (OR=2.52), lack of anorexia (OR=4.63) and longer interval between onset of symptoms and admission (OR=1.46). Conversely, higher (academic) education was associated with decreased odds for complicated appendicitis (OR=0.26).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that a surgeon's clinical assessment is more reliable to make a judgment. "Bedside evaluation" is a useful, cheap, quick and readily available method for identifying those at risk for developing complicated acute appendicitis.

Appendectomy in women. Is the laparoscopic approach always better than the "open" approach in uncomplicated appendicitis?

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is the most common emergency in abdominal surgery, but remains a continuing controversy regarding the most appropriate method of removing the inflamed appendix.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2002 to December 2012, 1037 women underwent appendectomy (average age: 25±15.7 y; range: 6 to 91 y). Of these, 519 underwent open appendectomy (OA) and 518 underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). For all the patients we determined the postoperative hospital stay, the eventual readmissions within 30 days after discharge, the length of surgical procedures (data were available only for the period from January 2008 to December 2012), the costs for the OA and LA, and the rate of negative appendicitis.

RESULTS

In our cohort of patients, 189 women (18.2%) had a negative appendectomy. Considering the postoperative hospital stay (average: 4.2±3.6 d; range: 1 to 32 d in OA group and average: 3.9±3.1 d; range: 1 to 21 d in LA group; P=0.15) there were no statistical differences between 2 groups. The average length of surgical procedures in LA group was 42.3±18.4 minutes (range: 8 to 135 min) and 43.2±19 minutes in the OA group (range: 10 to 135 min) (P=0.63). The average net cost of LA was 1203.61 euros, whereas for OA it was 95.18 euros. In this study, we considered only the surgical materials.

CONCLUSIONS

LAs are not associated with a lower complication rate than the OAs and, above all, LAs are more expensive than OAs. Also we believe that laparoscopic approach should be used only in case of unclear abdominal pain and not for the treatment of clear acute and uncomplicated appendicitis.

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.

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.

Intra-abdominal Infections

Intra-abdominal infections are multifactorial, but all require prompt identification, diagnosis, and treatment. Resuscitation, early antibiotic administration, and source control are crucial. Antibiotic administration should initially be broad spectrum and target the most likely pathogens. When cultures are available, antibiotics should be narrowed and limited in duration. The method of source control depends on the anatomic site, site accessibility, and the patient's clinical condition. Patient-specific factors (advanced age and chronic medical conditions) as well as disease-specific factors (health care-associated infections and inability to obtain source control) combine to affect patient morbidity and mortality.

Do Postoperative Antibiotics Prevent Abscess Formation in Complicated Appendicitis?

Recent studies have shown that postoperative antibiotics in nonperforated appendicitis do not reduce infectious complications; however, there is no consensus on patients with complicated appendicitis. The aim of this study is to determine whether postoperative antibiotic administration in complicated appendicitis prevents intra-abdominal abscess formation. We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing appendectomy from 2007 to 2012 at our institution. Patients with complicated appendicitis (perforated, gangrenous, or periappendiceal abscess) were identified and data collected including details of postoperative antibiotic administration and rates of postoperative abscess development. Of 444 charts reviewed, 52 patients were included. Forty-four patients received greater than 24 hours and eight patients received 24 hours or less of postoperative antibiotics. In those receiving greater than 24 hours of antibiotics, nine of 44 (20.5%) developed a postoperative abscess, and in those receiving 24 hours or less of antibiotics, two of eight (25.0%) developed a postoperative abscess ( P = 1.0000). There is no significant difference in postoperative abscess development among those with complicated appendicitis who received greater than 24 hours of postoperative antibiotics compared with those who did not. Postoperative antibiotics may not provide an appreciable clinical benefit for preventing intra-abdominal abscesses; however, larger sample sizes and prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Different urinalysis appearances in children with simple and perforated appendicitis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine whether routine urinalysis may serve as a tool in discriminating between acute appendicitis and perforated appendicitis in children.

BASIC PROCEDURES

We prospectively collected 357 patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis. Urinalysis was performed in patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis before surgical intervention. Routine urinalysis is composed of 2 examinations: chemical tests for abnormal chemical constituents and microscopic tests for abnormal insoluble constituents. Receiver operating characteristic curves for urine white blood cell (WBC) counts and urine red blood cell (RBC) counts in distinguishing between patients with simple appendicitis and patients with perforated appendicitis were also analyzed.

MAIN FINDINGS

Urine ketone bodies, leukocyte esterase, specific gravity, pH, WBC, and RBC counts were all significant parameters among patients with normal appendices, simple appendicitis, and perforated appendicitis (all P < .05). Based on multivariate logistic regression analysis, positive urine ketone bodies and nitrate were significant parameters in predicting perforated appendicitis (P = .002 and P = .008, respectively). According to the results of receiver operating characteristic curves, the appropriate cutoff values were 2.0/high-power field for urine RBC counts and 4.0/high-power field for urine WBC counts in predicting perforated appendicitis in children.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

Routine urinalysis may serve to aid in discriminating between simple and perforated appendicitis. Clinically, we believe that these urine parameters may aid primary emergency physicians with decision making in patients with clinically suspected appendicitis.

Risk factors of converting to laparotomy in laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis

Purpose

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for acute appendicitis has several advantages over open appendectomy (OA). In cases of complicated appendicitis, LA is converted to OA at a constant rate, though converting appendectomy (CA) has several disadvantages. We retrospectively determined preoperative risk factors for failure of LA and subsequent conversion to OA.

Methods

Consecutive cases of preoperative computed tomography (CT) and attempted LA were retrieved from our hospital database and grouped by procedure (LA versus CA). Patients with negative appendectomies (n = 28), opened appendectomy (n = 210), delayed interval appendectomy (n = 3), or who were <14 years of age were excluded.

Results

Average patient age, preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) level, and diffuse peritonitis were significantly different between the groups. CT inflammation and occurrence of complicated appendicitis were significantly higher in CA than LA. Conversion to OA was mostly because of dense adhesions, diffuse peritonitis, and difficulties in excision of the appendix due to perforation or severe inflammation from surgical point of view. Postoperative complications were significantly lower in LA than CA, although the rate of intraoperative abscess was not different.

Conclusion

Most patients with acute appendicitis can be successfully treated with LA. We identified the following significant risk factors of CA: CT inflammation grade 4 or 5; complicated appendicitis; higher preoperative CRP level; and diffuse peritonitis.

Meta-analysis of studies comparing single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy and conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus that single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILS-A) is on a par with conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CMLA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of SILS-A when compared with CMLA.

METHODS

A literature search for studies comparing SILS-A and CMLA was performed. Studies were reviewed for the outcome of interest: patient characteristics, operative outcome, postoperative recovery, postoperative morbidity, patient satisfaction, and cosmetic results.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies comparing SILS-A and CMLA were reviewed: two prospective randomized trials, four prospective studies, and seven retrospective studies. Overall, 893 patients were operated on: by SILS-A in 402 cases (45.0%) versus 491 cases (55.0%) by CMLA. Patients in the SILS-A group were significantly younger than those in the CMLA group (31.2 versus 33.5 y). No other differences were found. Patient satisfaction score was impossible to meta-analyze.

CONCLUSIONS

Appendectomy via SILS-A may be considered as an alternative to CMLA. However, these results must be approached with caution as they are based on data from nonrandomized observational studies. The feasibility and safety of SILS-A must be mainly assessed for difficult clinical situations such as severe obesity, localized abscess, or diffuse peritonitis from a ruptured appendix in the setting of new prospective randomized trials.

Laparoscopic approach in perforated appendicitis: increased incidence of surgical site infection?

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy in the setting of perforated appendicitis remains controversial. A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the early postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) compared to open appendectomy (OA) in patients with perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

A total of 1,032 patients required an appendectomy between January 2005 and December 2009. Among these patients, 169 presented with perforated appendicitis. Operation times, length of hospital stay, overall complication rates within 30 days, and surgical site infection (SSI) rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of the 169 evaluated patients, 106 required LA and 63 OA. Although operation times were similar in both groups (92 ± 31 min for LA vs. 98 ± 45 for OA, p = 0.338), length of hospital stay was shorter in the LA group (6.9 ± 3.8 days vs. 11.5 ± 9.2, p < 0.001). Overall complication rates were significantly lower in the LA group (32.1 vs. 52.4 %, p < 0.001), as were incisional SSI (1.9 vs. 22.2 %, p < 0.001). Organ/space SSI rates were similar in both groups (23.6 % after LA vs. 20.6 % after OA, p = 0.657).

CONCLUSIONS

For perforated appendicitis, LA results in a significantly shorter hospital stay, fewer overall postoperative complications, and fewer wound infections compared to OA. Organ/space SSI rates were similar for both procedures. LA provides a safe option for treating patients with perforated appendicitis.

Conventional Laparoscopic Appendicectomy and Laparoscope-Assisted Appendicectomy: a Comparative Study

Laparoscopic procedures for removal of the appendix by the three-port technique as an alternative to conventional appendicectomy have gained wide popularity, but they have been criticized for technical difficulty, more time consumption, and high cost. We have compared conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) and laparoscope-assisted appendicectomy (LAA). In period from August 2010 to January 2012, 77 patients underwent appendicectomy by a minimally invasive procedure (39 LA and 38 LAA), at Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata. All the 39 cases of LA were completed successfully, but of the 38 cases, LAA could be completed only in 32 cases. Of the six cases where LAA could not be completed, five were converted to LA [three because of excessive body mass index (BMI) and two because of bleeding]. One case had to be converted to open appendicectomy because of excessive bleeding. In LA, the mean duration of surgery was less than that in LAA (18.18 versus 24.39 min). Wound infections were more common in LAA compared to LA (six versus two). Severe postoperative pain was present in eight cases in LAA compared to two in LA. On day 2, 79.487 % patients undergoing LA were discharged compared to 28.947 % in LAA. LA is better as a minimally invasive procedure. LAA can only be done in patients with lower BMI, is more time consuming, has more complications, more incidence of postoperative pain, wound infections, and longer hospital stay.

Appendicitis: changing perspectives

Neoplasms are an uncommon finding after appendectomy, with malignant tumors occurring in less than 1% of the surgical specimens, and carcinoid being the most frequent malignancy. A negative or inconclusive ultrasound is not adequate to rule out appendicitis and should be followed by CT scan. For pregnant patients, MRI is a reasonable alternative to CT scan. Nonoperative treatment with antibiotics is safe as an initial treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis, with a significant decrease in complications but a high failure rate. Open and laparoscopic appendectomies for appendicitis provide similar results overall, although the laparoscopic technique may be advantageous for obese and elderly patients but may be associated with a higher incidence of intraabdominal abscess. Preoperative diagnostic accuracy is of utmost importance during pregnancy because a negative appendectomy is associated with a significant incidence of fetal loss. The increased morbidity associated with appendectomy delay suggests that prompt surgical intervention remains the safest approach. Routine incidental appendectomy should not be performed except in selected cases. Interval appendectomy is not indicated because of considerable risks of complications and lack of any clinical benefit. Patients older than 40 years with an appendiceal mass or abscess treated nonoperatively should routinely have a colonoscopy as part of their follow-up to rule out cancer or alternative diagnosis.

Analysis of intracorporeal knotting with invaginating suture versus endoloops in appendiceal stump closure

Introduction

Laparoscopic appendectomy is a well-described surgical technique and has gained wide clinical acceptance. Laparoscopic appendectomy offers fewer wound infections, faster recovery and an earlier return to work in comparison to open surgery. However, concerns still exist regarding the appendiceal stump closure.

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the overall incidence and specific intraoperative and postoperative complications after application of intracorporeal knotting with invaginating suture versus endoloops for stump closure in laparoscopic appendectomy.

Material and methods

One hundred fifty two consecutive patients according to the following inclusion criteria were included in the study: 1. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed during the study period; 2. Acute phlegmonous or gangrenous appendicitis without perforation was diagnosed during operation. Exclusion criteria - patients with acute perforated appendicitis and local or diffuse peritonitis. Data was grouped according to the appendiceal stump closure technique, with either endoloops – 112 patients (73.7 percent) or intracorporeal knotting with invaginating suture – 40 patients (26.3 per cent). The primary outcome measure was the rate of intraabdominal surgical-site infection, defined as post-operative intra-abdominal abscess. Secondary outcome variables were intraoperative and postoperative complications, duration of operation, hospital stay.

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall intraoperative and postoperative complications rate and in hospital stay. The median duration of operation was significantly shorter when the endoloop was used. The use of intracorporeal knotting with invaginating suture instead of endoloop to close the appendiceal stump decreased the total cost of laparoscopic appendectomy.

Conclusions

According our study results, intracorporeal knotting with invaginating suture appendiceal stump closure technique is acceptable laparoscopic procedure, which intraoperative and postoperative results do not differ from endoloops technique. The total cost of this procedure is 80 € cheaper then endoloops technique.

Tailoring the operative approach for appendicitis to the patient: a prediction model from national surgical quality improvement program data

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is increasingly being performed in the United States, despite controversy about differences in infectious complication rates compared with open appendectomy (OA). Subpopulations exist in which infectious complication rates, both surgical site and organ space, differ with respect to LA compared with OA.

STUDY DESIGN

All appendectomies in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were analyzed with respect to surgical site infection (SSI) and organ space infection (OSI). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified independent predictors of SSI or OSI. Probabilities of SSI or OSI were determined for subpopulations to identify when LA was superior to OA.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2009, there were 61,830 appendectomies performed (77.5% LA), of which 9,998 (16.2%) were complicated (58.7% LA). The risk of SSI was considerably lower for LA in both noncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Across all ages, body mass index, renal function, and WBCs, LA was associated with a lower probability of SSI. The risk of OSI was considerably greater for LA in both noncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. In complicated appendicitis, OA was associated with a lower probability of OSI in patients with WBC >12 cells × 10(3)/μL. In noncomplicated appendicitis, OA was associated with a lower probability of OSI in patients with a body mass index <37.5 when compared with LA.

CONCLUSIONS

Subpopulations exist in which OA is superior to LA in terms of OSI, however, SSI is consistently lower in LA patients.

Predictors of postdischarge complications: role of in-hospital length of stay

BACKGROUND

Surgical length of stay (LOS) has been correlated with quality of care, with shorter stays implying better care. The relationship between LOS and postdischarge complications (PDCs) has not been evaluated effectively.

METHODS

The 2005 to 2007 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data were queried for patients undergoing elective colectomies. The outcome of interest was the development of a PDC. Multivariate analysis was then performed adjusting for demographics, surgical approach, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

A total of 12,956 colectomies were analyzed with an overall PDC of 8.7%. LOS was not associated with increased odds of developing a PDC. The laparoscopic approach reduced the risk of PDCs by 30% (odds ratio = .70, 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.81). Body mass index, female sex, the presence of diabetes mellitus, and prolonged operative time increased the odds of developing a PDC.

CONCLUSIONS

A shorter LOS did not correlate with a reduction in the likelihood of PDCs. Further investigation into the role of LOS as a measure of quality care is needed.

[Laparoscopic apendicectomy vs open approach for the treatment of acute appendicitis]

BACKGROUND

There is no international consensus on the approach of choice for performing appendectomy.

AIMS

To analyze and compare open and laparoscopic approaches in the surgical treatment of acute appendicitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out on patients over 14-years-old operated on for suspected acute appendicitis between January 2007 and December 2009. Variables were: age, sex, body mass index, specialized surgeon or resident in training, progression duration, conversion rate, use of drains, abdominal cavity irrigation, macroscopic appearance of the appendix, onset time of anesthesia, ASA classification, postoperative hospital stay, resumption of intake of liquids, and complications. The patients were divided into two groups: laparoscopic approach (LA) and open approach (OA).

RESULTS

A total of 533 patients were enrolled (290 LA and 243 OA). Onset time of anesthesia was 75 min (30-190 min) in LA vs 55 min (20-160 min) in OA (p<0,0001).

COMPLICATIONS

intraabdominal abscesses in 17 LA cases vs 13 OA cases (p=0,79); surgical wound alterations in 16 LA cases vs 47 OA cases (p=0,0001); incisional hernias in 2 LA cases (1%) vs 10 OA cases (p=0,008). There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative hospital stay (3 days), resumption of intake of liquids (1 day) or readmission rate (8%).

CONCLUSIONS

There are fewer surgical wound alterations and incisional hernias with the laparoscopic approach, but there is higher cost, lengthier surgery duration, and a longer learning curve. Our results cannot provide a clear indication for one approach or the other, and therefore each case must be evaluated on an individual basis.

Risk factors for mesh-related infections after hernia repair surgery: a meta-analysis of cohort studies

Mesh infection, although infrequent, is a devastating complication of mesh hernioplasties. The aim of this study was to systematically review and synthesize the available evidence on risk factors for synthetic mesh infection after hernioplasty. A systematic search was performed in PubMed and Scopus databases. The extracted data were synthesized with the methodology of meta-analysis. We identified six eligible studies that reported on 2,418 mesh hernioplasties. The crude mesh infection rate was 5%. Statistically significant risk factors were smoking (risk ratio [RR] = 1.36 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.73]; 1,171 hernioplasties), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score ≥3 (RR = 1.40 [1.15, 1.70]; 1,682 hernioplasties), and emergency operation (RR = 2.46 [1.56, 3.91]; 1,561 hernioplasties). Also, mesh infections were significantly correlated with patient age (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 2.63 [0.22, 5.04]; 2,364 hernioplasties), ASA score (WMD = 0.23 [0.08, 0.38]; 1,682 hernioplasties), and the duration of the hernioplasty (WMD = 44.92 [25.66, 64.18]; 833 hernioplasties). A trend toward higher mesh infection rates was observed in obese patients (RR = 1.41 [0.94, 2.11]; 2,243 hernioplasties) and in patients operated on by a resident (in contrast to a consultant; RR = 1.18 [0.99, 1.40]; 982 hernioplasties). Mesh infections usually resulted in mesh removal, and common pathogens included Staphylococcus spp., Enterococcus spp., and gram-negative bacteria. Patient age, ASA score, smoking, and the duration and emergency setting of the operation were found to be associated with the development of synthetic mesh infection. The heterogeneity of the available evidence should be taken under consideration. Prospective studies with a meticulous follow-up are warranted to further investigate mesh-related infections.

Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy in obese patients: outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database

BACKGROUND

Although open and laparoscopic appendectomies are comparable operations in terms of outcomes, it is unknown whether this is true in the obese patient. Our objective was to compare short-term outcomes in obese patients after laparoscopic vs open appendectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2005-2009), 13,330 obese patients (body mass index ≥ 30) who underwent an appendectomy were identified (78% laparoscopic, 22% open). The association between surgical approach (laparoscopic vs open) and outcomes was first evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Next, to minimize the influence of treatment selection bias, we created a 1:1 matched cohort using all 41 of the preoperative covariates in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Reanalysis was then performed with the unmatched patients excluded. Main outcomes measures included patient morbidity and mortality, operating room return, operative times, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a 57% reduction in overall morbidity in all the obese patients after the multivariable risk-adjusted analysis (odds ratio = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.36-0.52; p < 0.0001), and a 53% reduction in risk in the matched cohort analysis (odds ratio = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.32-0.65; p < 0.0001). Mortality rates were the same. In the matched cohort, length of stay was 1.2 days shorter for obese patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy compared with open appendectomy (mean difference 1.2 days; 95% CI, 0.98-1.42).

CONCLUSIONS

In obese patients, laparoscopic appendectomy had superior clinical outcomes compared with open appendectomy after accounting for preoperative risk factors.

Clinical Characteristics and Surgical Safety in Patients with Acute Appendicitis Aged over 80

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes, including surgical safety, in patients over 80 years of age who underwent an appendectomy.

Methods

This study involved 160 elderly patients who underwent an appendectomy for acute appendicitis: 28 patients over 80 years old and 132 patients between 65 and 79 years old.

Results

The rate of positive rebound tenderness was significantly higher in the over 80 group (P = 0.002). Comparisons of comorbidity, diagnostic tool and delay in surgical treatment between the two groups were not statistically different. American Society of Anesthesiologists score was significantly higher in the over 80 group than in the 65 to 79 group (2.4 ± 0.5 vs. 1.6 ± 0.5; P < 0.00005). Comparisons of operative times and use of drainage between the two groups were not statistically different. In the pathologic findings, periappendiceal abscess was more frequent in the over 80 group (P = 0.011). No significant differences existed between the two groups when comparing the results of gas out and the time to liquid diet, but the postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the over 80 group (P = 0.001). Among the postoperative complications, pulmonary complication was significantly higher in the over 80 group (P = 0.005). However, operative mortality was zero in each group.

Conclusion

In case of suspicious appendicitis in elderly patients, efforts should be made to use aggressive diagnostic intervention, do appropriate surgery and prevent pulmonary complications especially in patients over 80 years of age.