Laparoscopic versus traditional appendectomy for suspected appendicitis

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The "double endoloop" technique--a simple alternative technique for laparoscopic appendectomy

Diagnostic laparoscopy is now being frequently used in the emergency management of patients with acute lower abdominal pain, particularly where appendicitis is suspected. It is particularly useful in women where other responsible gynecologic causes can be diagnosed and treated thereby decreasing the rate of negative open appendectomy. Recent advances in laparoscopic techniques have resulted in increasing numbers of patients proceeding to laparoscopic appendectomy. Here, we describe a modification of laparoscopic appendectomy using a "double endoloop technique." We have used this method in 53 patients during last 18 months in selected cases. The procedure is simple, quick, effective, and cheap.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy has been widely practiced for uncomplicated appendicitis; various reports demonstrated its merits in assisting diagnosis, reducing postoperative pain, analgesic requirement, and incidence of wound infection. The role of laparoscopy in management of complicated appendicitis, ie, gangrenous, perforated appendicitis and appendiceal abscess, remains undefined. Currently, the choice of operative approach is mostly at the surgeons' discretion. A retrospective study was conducted in our institution to review the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with complicated appendicitis.

STUDY DESIGN

From January 1999 to January 2004, records of patients older than 14 years of age with diagnosis of appendicitis were retrieved from computer database for analysis. All patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy to confirm diagnosis of complicated appendicitis, and patients subsequently underwent either laparoscopic or open appendectomies. Patients' demographics data and perioperative outcomes from the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1,133 patients with acute appendicitis underwent operations in our institution. Two hundred forty-four patients (21.5%) with complicated appendicitis were identified by laparoscopy, of which 175 underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and 69 had open appendectomy (OA). Both groups of patients were comparable in demographics. Mean operative time was 55 minutes for LA group and 70 minutes for the OA group (p<0.001). Mean hospital stay was 5 days and 6 days for LA and OA group respectively (p<0.001). There was one conversion patient (0.6%) in the LA group who suffered from wound infection, and there were seven (10%) wound infections in the OA group (p=0.001). There were 10 cases (5.7%) of intraabdominal collection in the LA group and 3 (4.3%) in the OA group (p=0.473). There was no mortality in the current series.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is feasible and safe. It is associated with a significantly shorter operative time, lower incidence of wound infection, and reduced length of hospital stay when compared with patients who had open appendectomy.

Videolaparoscopic appendectomy: the current outlook

BACKGROUND

Mini-invasive techniques have revolutionized surgery, but the superiority of laparoscopic access for appendectomy is widely debated. The authors analyze their monocentric experience with 1,347 laparoscopic appendectomies.

METHODS

Between October 1991 and December 2002, all the patients with an indication for appendectomy underwent surgery (301 emergency and 1,046 interval appendectomies) using the laparoscopic approach.

RESULTS

For 1,248 patients, appendectomy was performed laparoscopically, whereas for 99 patients (7.3%), it was converted to an open procedure because of technical reasons (90 patients, 6.7%) or intraoperative complications (9 patients, 0.6%). For 59 patients (4.4%), the appendectomy was associated with another procedure. Histology showed "acute" alterations in 261 of the 301 emergency surgeries and in 148 of the 1,046 elective operations. Postoperative complications arose in 37 patients (2.7%), with 5 patients (0.3%) requiring invasive treatment. The mean postoperative stay was 30 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy offers unquestionable advantages, but it is not yet considered the "gold standard" for appendiceal pathology. Many centers reserve it for selected patients (e.g., obese patients and women suspected of having other pathologies). No randomized trials or metaanalyses have definitively proved its superiority.

Acute appendicitis of the appendiceal stump

We report a case of a 27-year-old man, status post open appendectomy as an infant, in whom the diagnosis of acute appendicitis of the appendiceal stump was made by computed tomography (CT). A coronal reformatted CT image demonstrated both the inflamed appendix and a normal terminal ileum. Although rare, stump appendicitis may present with signs and symptoms typical of acute appendicitis in patients status post appendectomy and should be considered in the differential diagnosis.

Mini-laparoscopic appendectomy using a needle loop retractor offers optimal cosmetic results

BACKGROUND

Do conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) techniques provide truly satisfying results for patients and surgeons? We have devised a more advanced technique that improves cosmesis.

METHODS

A 2-mm scope is inserted at the umbilicus, and a 12-mm working trocar is inserted through a suprapubic incision placed below the line of pubic hair. A needle loop retractor (NLR) is inserted to hold the appendix in the lower right abdomen. In this NLR, a stainless steel wire is placed within a needle having a diameter of 2 mm. From the suprapubic trocar, a bipolar coagulator is inserted to transect the appendiceal mesentery. A series of 30 patients underwent this procedure.

RESULTS

There were no conversions to laparotomy and no intra- or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy using a 2-mm scope, suprapubic trocar, and an NLR yields optimal cosmetic results. For surgeons, the NLR allows the appendix to be held more firmly than then a 5- or 2-mm grasping forceps is used.

Video-assisted extracorporeal appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Despite many randomized controlled trials, there are still several important doubts about laparoscopic appendectomy. Longer operative time and greater cost are the two major disadvantages of the laparoscopic technique.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In current techniques of laparoscopic appendectomy, the appendix is ligated and divided within the abdominal cavity. We have performed 423 laparoscopic appendectomies using an extracorporeal technique during the last 8 years. In this technique, the appendix is delivered to the surface through the cannula, and appendectomy is carried out extracorporally.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The extracorporeal technique of appendix removal can be performed as safely and efficiently as the open technique. We report our data on the series of 423 operations, in which we had the encouraging experience that the video-assisted extracorporeal technique is a practical and reasonable alternative to the traditional laparoscopic technique.

A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

For many years it has been claimed that observational studies find stronger treatment effects than randomized, controlled trials. We compared the results of observational studies with those of randomized, controlled trials.

METHODS

We searched the Abridged Index Medicus and Cochrane data bases to identify observational studies reported between 1985 and 1998 that compared two or more treatments or interventions for the same condition. We then searched the Medline and Cochrane data bases to identify all the randomized, controlled trials and observational studies comparing the same treatments for these conditions. For each treatment, the magnitudes of the effects in the various observational studies were combined by the Mantel-Haenszel or weighted analysis-of-variance procedure and then compared with the combined magnitude of the effects in the randomized, controlled trials that evaluated the same treatment.

RESULTS

There were 136 reports about 19 diverse treatments, such as calcium-channel-blocker therapy for coronary artery disease, appendectomy, and interventions for subfertility. In most cases, the estimates of the treatment effects from observational studies and randomized, controlled trials were similar. In only 2 of the 19 analyses of treatment effects did the combined magnitude of the effect in observational studies lie outside the 95 percent confidence interval for the combined magnitude in the randomized, controlled trials.

CONCLUSIONS

We found little evidence that estimates of treatment effects in observational studies reported after 1984 are either consistently larger than or qualitatively different from those obtained in randomized, controlled trials.

Acute appendicitis: influence of early pain relief on the accuracy of clinical and US findings in the decision to operate--a randomized trial

PURPOSE

To determine the influence of early pain relief on the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography (US) and on the appropriateness of the surgical decision.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial with morphine was conducted. A visual analog scale was used to evaluate pain in 340 patients aged 16 years or older. US was performed with a standardized protocol. Diagnosis was confirmed at histologic analysis or, in the patients released without surgery, at follow-up.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-five patients were injected with morphine, and 165 were injected with the placebo. Pain relief was stronger in the morphine group. In the morphine group, US had lower (71.1%) sensitivity (difference, -9.5%; 95% CI, -18.5%, -0.5%) and higher (65.2%) specificity (difference, 11.4%; 95% CI, 1.0%, 21.8%). This group had also a higher positive predictive value (64.6%) and a lower negative predictive value (71.4%), but the differences between this group and the placebo group were not statistically significant. Among female patients, the decision to operate was appropriate more often in the morphine group (75.8%), but the difference between this group and the placebo group was not statistically significant (5.1%; 95% CI, -7.4%, 17.6%). In male patients and overall, opiate analgesia did not influence the appropriateness of the decision. The appropriateness to discharge patients without surgery was 100% in all groups.

CONCLUSION

Morphine does not improve US-based diagnosis of appendicitis.

Laparoscopy in the context of lower abdominal pain in young women

The management of lower abdominal pain in young women carries up to 45% chance of diagnostic error. Laparoscopic management may be particularly beneficial in this subset of patients. This study reviews the authors' experience with laparoscopy as a potential diagnostic and therapeutic tool in young women with lower abdominal pain. The authors analyzed 121 consecutive female patients, with a mean age of 30 years, who were evaluated from June 1995 to October 1997. All patients were managed by early laparoscopy within 24 h from the onset of symptoms. Radiographic imaging, including computed tomography and ultrasound, was performed in 79 patients (65.2%). Laparoscopy was diagnostic in all cases. In 58 patients (48%), multiple pathologic conditions were identified. Acute appendicitis was the most common diagnosis (82.6%), and benign gynecologic disorders was the predominant reason for multiple pathologic conditions (clinical evaluation was erroneous in 15% of patients). In 96% of patients, definite surgical treatment was provided laparoscopically. The mean hospitalization time was 2.0 +/- 1 days, and the mean operative time was 59.8 +/- 21 min. The overall complication rate was 2.5%. In young women, early laparoscopy can offer a safe and effective alternative for the definite diagnosis and treatment of lower abdominal pain.

Laparoscopic appendectomy in children performed using single endoscopic GIA stapler for both mesoappendix and base of appendix

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Similar to open appendectomy (OA), most of the methods described for laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) require two steps: (1) dissection and division of mesoappendix and (2) excision of appendix. Dissection of mesoappendix requires more skill and experience during LA. In single endoscopic GIA stapler laparoscopic appendectomy technique (SESLAT), both mesoappendix and base of appendix may be divided in one step with the application of a single endoscopic GIA stapler.

METHODS

LA was attempted in 18 patients who had acute appendicitis and was successfully performed in 16 patients.

RESULTS

In two patients, the operation was converted to OA. The authors did not need conversion to OA because of complication resulting from the use of the stapler.

CONCLUSIONS

SESLAT is a quick, easy, and versatile method for LA in children that obviates dissection of mesoappendix and related complications. Thus, it enables LA to be performed by inexperienced beginners.

[Laparoscopic appendectomy in the adult]

AIM OF THE STUDY

The benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy remain controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of this technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four hundred and forty-eight patients operated on for suspected appendicitis during a 5-year period were analysed in a retrospective study. The preoperative diagnosis was corrected in 21.4% of the cases (8.1% for males and 28.7% for females) and the conversion rate was 9.7%. There were 17 patients with generalized peritonitis and 28 with localized peritonitis. During the past year, this surgical method was introduced in another hospital and a prospective study included 92 consecutive patients operated on for appendicitis. The operating time was 53 minutes and the conversion rate was 7.6%. There were five patients with generalized peritonitis and eight with localized peritonitis.

RESULTS

There were no postoperative deaths. In the first period, the morbidity rate was 2.3% in the laparoscopic group without conversion. After pathological examination, there was a 14.2% rate of normal appendix. The mean hospital stay was 4.3 days. In the second period, there were only three minor complications and the mean hospital stay was 4.19 days.

CONCLUSION

The choice of laparoscopic approach is associated with some advantages: corrections of the diagnosis (mainly in young women) and simplification of the postoperative course, provided that the surgeon has sufficient experience.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a metaanalysis

BACKGROUND

There have been numerous retrospective and uncontrolled series of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), as well as 16 prospective randomized studies published to date. Although most of these have concluded that the laparoscopic technique is as least as good as open appendectomy (OA), there has been considerable controversy as to whether LA is superior. To help clarify this issue, we performed a metaanalysis of the randomized prospective studies.

STUDY DESIGN

A metaanalysis of all formally randomized prospective trials of LA versus OA in adults.

RESULTS

A total of 1,682 patients were analyzed. When compared with OA, LA results in significantly less postoperative pain, earlier resumption of solid foods, a shorter hospital stay, and a faster return to normal activities. The wound infection rate in the LA patients is less than one half the rate in patients undergoing OA. LA, however, requires longer operating times and the incidence of intraabdominal abscess is higher, but this failed to reach statistical significance. There were no differences in complications or hospital charges.

CONCLUSIONS

LA offers considerable advantages over OA, primarily because of its ability to reduce the incidence of wound infections and shorten recovery times. Its widespread acceptance should be considered. The trend toward increased intraabdominal abscess formation is worrisome, however, and demands further investigation.

Laparoscopic appendectomy does not change the incidence of postoperative infectious complications

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether the laparoscopic approach does decrease the incidence of postoperative infectious complications after appendectomy.

METHODS

One hundred sixty-nine patients were randomized, 87 with laparoscopic (LA) and 82 with open appendectomy (OA). Patients in the OA group had a McBurney incision; LA was performed in the lithotomy position.

RESULTS

Acute appendicitis was confirmed in 75% of patients. The appendix was perforated in 5 patients of the LA versus 2 patients of the OA group. No conversion to the open procedure was necessary. The median operating time was 35 minutes in the LA group and 31 minutes in the open group (P = 0.58). The median postoperative hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopic than after open surgery (3 days versus 4 days, P = 0.026), whereas the time required for return to work was not significantly different (14 versus 15 days). There were 5 (6%) patients with superficial wound infection following LA and 6 (7%) after OA (P = 0.67). Intra-abdominal fluid collections were found in 2 (2%) patients following LA and 3 (4%) patients following OA (P = 0.60). In the LA group, 3 patients presented with intra-abdominal hemorrhage and another 3 developed a paralytic ileus that was treated conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe and as effective as the open procedure; however, it does not decrease the rate of postoperative infectious complications.

Have the evaluation and treatment of acute appendicitis changed with new technology?

The evaluation and treatment of acute appendicitis remain essentially unchanged for the majority of individuals who present with this disease. Although advancements have been made in laboratory analysis as well as imaging via ultrasonography and CT, nothing can replace careful evaluation by an experienced surgeon. Appendicitis remains a diagnosis based primarily on history and physical examination, with further studies being useful adjuncts in atypical cases--more likely to occur in the very young or very old and most cost effective when ordered by the surgical consultant. Improvement in outcomes has not been demonstrated with routine use of "new technology." The treatment of acute appendicitis continues to be early surgical intervention. Although laparoscopic appendectomy may offer advantages in women of childbearing age and in obese individuals, its routine use is not indicated based upon current reports in the literature. Debate continues regarding the optimal treatment of the periappendiceal mass. Further clinical research regarding early operation compared with intravenous antibiotics with or without drainage, as well as comparison of outcomes with or without interval appendectomy, needs to be performed. With continued research and definition of populations likely to benefit from advances in technology, a more focused application will be possible. This will lead to improved outcomes and decreased overall cost. The issue of delay in treatment, a major determinant of morbidity associated with appendicitis, warrants further evaluation and should be addressed on a population-specific basis. Emphasis should remain on the early clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis with its associated low morbidity and mortality.

Should laparoscopic appendectomy be avoided for complicated appendicitis in children?

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic appendectomy is becoming the preferred technique for treating acute appendicitis. However, recent literature on adults suggests that laparoscopic appendectomy may increase the risk for postoperative infectious complications in complicated (gangrenous or perforated) cases. This study was undertaken to compare the results of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis in children.

METHODS

A retrospective review from two institutions was performed for all children treated operatively for complicated appendicitis from January 1994 through November 1996.

RESULTS

Fifty-six cases were identified. Twenty-seven children underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, whereas 22 underwent open appendectomy. Seven children underwent conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery. Operating times and length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the laparoscopic and open groups. Postoperative complications developed in 24 children (42.8%). Complications were more frequent after laparoscopic appendectomy compared with open appendectomy (56% v 18%, P = .002). A postoperative intraabdominal abscess (IAA) developed in 14 children (25%). An IAA occurred in two children after open appendectomy compared with 11 children after laparoscopic appendectomy (9% v 41%, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that laparoscopic appendectomy should be avoided in children who have complicated appendicitis because of the increased risk for postoperative intraabdominal abscesses. The authors propose a prospective, randomized trial to verify this finding.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: a viable alternative approach

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is relatively a new technique and requires comparison to open appendectomy (OA) to determine the more favorable approach in the surgical management of acute appendicitis. We designed this study to compare the course and postoperative complications between LA and OA. We reviewed the charts of both groups of patients and followed their course in the hospital. Seventy-seven patients who underwent LA with one conversion to the open technique (1.3%) were compared to 84 patients who underwent OA. There was no difference in age and sex distribution. The mean hospital stay was shorter in the LA (32.5+/-10 vs 74.2+/-24 h, p < 0.0001). Parenteral analgesia requirement was higher in the OA group (4.7+/-1.4 vs 2.6+/-2, p < 0.0001). The total cost was higher in the OA group ($11,260+/-4000 vs 7,090+/-3500, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the OR time, duration of the procedure, and surgery costs between both groups. Normal appendices removed were similar in both OA and LA groups (23.8 vs 28.9%). There was no difference in the rates of postoperative complications between both groups. We conclude that LA is a viable alternative to OA. It is safe, cost effective, and less invasive than the OA with less pain and shorter hospital stay.

Laparoscopic appendectomy and the management of gynecologic pathologic conditions found at laparoscopy for presumed appendicitis

A laparoscopic approach to patients with possible appendicitis has increased in popularity. In this article it is compared to the traditional open appendectomy, and the management of frequently found gynecologic pathology masquerading as appendicitis is described.

A comparison of laparoscopic and traditional open splenectomy in childhood

This study aimed to determine whether laparoscopic splenectomy is more advantageous than open splenectomy in pediatric patients. Data from 61 patients treated between June 1983 and September 1994 were reviewed. Length of hospitalization, hospital costs, operating time, and postoperative complications were evaluated. Forty-seven patients had open splenectomy. Nineteen of these underwent concomitant procedures. Fourteen patients had laparoscopic splenectomy, and four had concomitant cholecystectomy. The data show a trend toward a 1-day reduction in hospital stay associated with laparoscopic splenectomy (P < .02). Operating time was 83% longer for the laparoscopic approach (P < .001), and operating costs were almost $3,000 more (P < .001) than for open splenectomy. The total hospital cost also was greater for laparoscopic procedures (P < .1), primarily reflective of a more than $3,000 difference for splenectomy alone (P < .02). Two of the fourteen laparoscopic patients (14%) had complications. One patient with Evan's syndrome had pneumonia that required antibiotics. Another patient required conversion to an open procedure because of poorly controlled hemorrhage from a short gastric vessel. Twelve of the open splenectomy patients (25%) had complications: atelectasis (3), fever (4), wound infection (2), pneumonia (1), laryngospasm (1), and pancreatitis (1). The authors conclude that laparoscopic splenectomy is a safe but currently more expensive alternative to open splenectomy, primarily because of the use of disposable instruments. Benefits include a shorter hospital stay, no greater risk of postoperative complications, and subjective improvement in the cosmetic result. Disadvantages include increased operating time and cost. Evaluation of larger series will be needed to determine the significance of the difference in complication rates between the two procedures.

Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy. A prospective randomized comparison

OBJECTIVE

The authors compare open and laparoscopic appendectomy in a randomized fashion with regard to length of operation, complications, hospital stay, and recovery time.

METHODS

Adult patients (older than 14 years of age) with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized to either open or laparoscopic appendectomy over a 9-month period. All patients received preoperative antibiotics. The operative time was calculated as beginning with the incision and ending when the wound was fully closed. Patients that were converted from laparoscopic to open appendectomy were considered a separate group. Return to normal activity and work were determined by questioning during postoperative clinic, telephone, or mailed questionnaire.

RESULTS

There was a total of 169 patients randomized, 88 to the open and 81 to the laparoscopic group. The groups were similar demographically. Of the 81 laparoscopic patients, 13 (16%) were converted to open. In the open group, 70 patients (79.5%) had acute appendicitis and 21 (23.9%) had perforative appendicitis. In the laparoscopic group, 62 patients (76.5%) had acute appendicitis and 10 (12.3%) had perforative appendicitis. There was no statistical difference in the return to activity or work between the laparoscopic and open groups. The operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (102.2 minutes vs. 81.7 minutes, p < 0.01). The hospital stay of 2.2 days in the laparoscopic group and 4.3 days in the open group was statistically (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the hospital stay for those with acute appendicitis (1.89 days vs. 2.61 days, p = 0.067) compared with those with a normal appendix but with pelvic inflammatory disease (1.1 days vs. 2.3 days, p = 0.11). There was a significant difference in patients with perforative appendicitis (1.5 days vs. 9.5 days, p < 0.01). The hospital cost for patients having laparoscopic appendectomy was $6077 and for an open appendectomy $7227 (p = 0.164). There were no increased complications associated with the laparoscopic technique.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic appendectomy is comparable to open appendectomy with regard to complications, hospital stay, cost, return to activity, and return to work. There was a greater operative time involved with the laparoscopic technique. Laparoscopic appendectomy does not offer any significant benefit over the open approach for the routine patient with appendicitis.

Laparoscopic procedure for suspected appendicitis. A prospective study in 283 consecutive patients

Between September 1990 and December 1993, 283 consecutive patients were admitted with clinical symptoms of acute appendicitis. These patients underwent primary laparoscopic approach so that an appendicectomy could be performed by this method. In 49 cases (17.3%), primary laparoscopic examination corrected the preoperative diagnosis and the appendix was left in situ. Appendicectomy was performed in 234 cases (149 women, 85 men) with a mean age of 30 years. Requirement for open surgery occurred in 29 cases. The main cause of unsuccessful procedures was inflammation due to local or generalized peritonitis. Median operative time for a successful procedure was 60 min (range, 25-160). Four postoperative complications (one related to laparoscopic procedure), one case of wound infection, and no mortality resulted. After laparoscopic appendicectomy, the median hospital stay was 3 days (range, 1-16). These results suggest that a laparoscopic approach for suspected appendicitis is reliable, allowing abdominal exploration and safe appendicectomy.

Minimal access surgery of the gastrointestinal tract

In the last 5 years, surgery of the gastrointestinal tract has been revolutionized by the application of minimal access techniques. Following initial enthusiasm, which suggested that most abdominal surgery would ultimately be done via this approach, there is now need for appraisal and evaluation of the role of a number of these minimal access techniques when compared with open surgery. Undoubtedly, the most convincing and total application of minimal access techniques has been in the treatment of gallstone disease. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is now standard therapy for cholelithiasis and endoscopic sphincterotomy with stone extraction is standard therapy for choledocholithiasis. Where the two conditions co-exist, operative cholangiography allows for the recognition of stones in the bile duct at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and provides the potential avenue for treatment. Most major centres also would recommend routine operative cholangiography during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the detection of unsuspected stones and as an extra safety procedure in the early identification of potential bile duct injuries. The efficacy of laparoscopic appendicectomy and laparoscopic or thoracoscopic treatment of achalasia of the oesophagus also is supported by data from well conducted prospective studies. Doubt remains regarding the advantage of laparoscopic surgery over other approaches in the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux, inguinal hernias and jaundice due to non-resectable cancer. For all three of these conditions, prospective trials are underway and the results of these trials should be assessed prior to widespread adoption of the laparoscopic techniques.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The E.A.E.S. Consensus Development Conferences on laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and hernia repair. Consensus statements--September 1994. The Educational Committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery

Under the mandate of the Educational Committee of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (E.A.E.S.), three consensus development conferences (CDCs) were performed in order to assess the current status of the endoscopic surgical approaches for the treatment of cholelithiasis, appendicitis, and inguinal hernia. Consensus panels for the different disease states (10-13 members each) selected by the education committee on the basis of members' clinical expertise, academic activity, community influence, and geographical location weighed the evidence on the basis of published results according to the criteria for technology assessment: feasibility, efficacy, effectiveness, economy. Draft statements were prepared, discussed by the panels, and presented at plenary sessions of the 2nd European Congress of the E.A.E.S. in Madrid September 15-17, 1994. Following discussions final consensus statements were formulated to provide specific answers for each topic to a minimum of the following questions: 1. What stage of technological development is the endoscopic surgical procedure at (in September 1994)? 2. Is endoscopic surgery safe and feasible? 3. Is it beneficial to the patients? 4. Who should undergo endoscopic surgery? 5. What are the training recommendations? Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the procedure of choice for symptomatic cholelithiasis. Laparoscopic appendectomy is presently at the efficacy stage of development, because most of the data on feasibility and safety originate from centers with special interest in endoscopic surgery: it is not yet the gold standard for acute appendicitis. Endoscopic hernia repair is presently a feasible alternative for conventional hernia repair if performed by experienced endoscopic surgeons. It appears to be efficacious in the short-term. The full text of the consensus panel's statements is given in this publication.

Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication is less expensive than open Belsey Mark IV

Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication is a relatively new technique used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The purpose of this study was to compare the cost to the patient and insurer of a laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LN) to an open Belsey Mark IV (B4), the previous standard operation for GERD at Emory University Hospital. A retrospective review of 20 consecutive patients undergoing LN or B4 for GERD was performed. Patients were well matched for age, severity of disease, and comorbid illness. The data were analyzed using an unpaired Student's t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank analysis. The results are as follows (mean +/- SD): [table: see text] We conclude that the charges for laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication are significantly less than the charges for Belsey Mark IV. The majority of the savings resulted from a shortened hospital stay.

Laparoscopic versus conventional surgery for suspected appendicitis in women

The diagnosis of appendicitis remains uncertain in female patients and laparoscopy has been suggested as a valid diagnostic tool. The laparoscopic approach has recently also been proposed for the treatment of acute appendicitis, though its real value is still under debate. A clinical and economic prospective evaluation of laparoscopic surgery over a 1-year period in female patients is reported. The study involved 38 patients presenting with signs of appendicitis and assigned to open (18) or laparoscopic surgery (20). The two groups were comparable as regards age and clinical presentation of the disease. The duration of the procedures was similar (60 min). Morbidity was comparable (3 vs 2). The ratio of negative appendectomy (50% vs 44%) was also similar, but the laparoscopic approach enabled a higher number of certain diagnoses (9/10 vs 3/8 p > 0.05). No significant differences were observed in the median postoperative stay (3 days for laparoscopy and 4 for surgery) or in the days needed to return to normal activity (15 vs 18). The cosmetic satisfaction was higher for the laparoscopic patients. The cost of the laparoscopic approach, however, was much higher than for conventional surgery. Our results suggest that laparoscopy is a useful diagnostic tool in female patients, but that laparoscopic appendectomy should be considered with some caution in times of restricted financial resources.

Endocoagulator control of the mesoappendix for laparoscopic appendectomy

This article reports a new technique for laparoscopic appendectomy. The endocoagulator is used to effect sealing of the appendicular vessels, by heat, before their division. The technical steps are described. The results obtained from 30 cases prove its efficacy, safety, simplicity, and adaptability to varying clinical situations. The possible benefit of future nonadhesion formation is discussed.

Complications of laparoscopy and thoracoscopy

Laparoscopy was first performed at the turn of the century, but it was not until the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy that the procedure became widely adopted by general surgeons. Since then, traditional open procedures, including cholecystectomy, exploratory laparotomy, colectomy, hernia repair, and appendectomy, are being widely performed laparoscopically. The advantages of laparoscopic surgery, including less postoperative pain due to smaller surgical incisions, shorter hospital stay, quicker return to preoperative activity, and superior cosmesis, resulted in widespread popularity with both surgeons and patients. In certain situations, the traditional method may be superior to the laparoscopic approach, as may be the case with laparoscopic hernia repair. It is difficult to justify converting a local, extraperitoneal, 45-minute, outpatient inguinal hernia repair in a virgin groin into a general anesthetic, transperitoneal, 2-hour plus, possibly inpatient laparoscopic procedure with the implantation of mesh. However, data may indicate that this operation does indeed have benefits. We must, therefore, carefully study such new operations. With the advent of a new surgical procedure, both surgeons and anesthesiologists must be familiar with the various complications unique to this technique. If recognized early, potentially life-threatening complications, including gas embolization and tension pneumothorax, can be corrected.

Complications of therapeutic laparoscopy

Laparoscopic surgery holds great promise as a technique for reducing hospital stay and convalescence. Although advantages in hospital cost cannot be shown for all such procedures, improvements in technique and operator experience will undoubtedly improve the situation. Analysis of the pertinent physiologic aspects and complication rates indicates that laparoscopy is not minimally invasive, but rather exposes the patient to many of the risks normally incurred by open procedures. Enthusiasm for the use of these techniques must be tempered by good judgment and scientific evidence supporting equivalent or better long-term results at equal or lower rates of morbidity and mortality.

A prospective randomized trial comparing open versus laparoscopic appendectomy

OBJECTIVE

The authors determined whether there was an advantage to laparoscopic appendectomy when compared with open appendectomy. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND DATA: The advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy were questioned because the recovery from open appendectomy is brief.

METHODS

From January 15, 1992 through January 15, 1993, 75 patients older than 9 years were entered into a study randomizing the choice of operation to either the open or the laparoscopic technique. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon test.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients were assigned to the open appendectomy group and 38 patients were assigned to the laparoscopic appendectomy group. Two patients were converted intraoperatively from laparoscopic appendectomies to open procedures. Thirty-one patients (81%) in the open group had acute appendicitis, as did 32 patients (84%) in the laparoscopic group. Mean duration of surgery was 65 minutes for open appendectomy and 87 minutes for laparoscopic appendectomy (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in length of hospitalization, interval until resumption of a regular diet, or morbidity. Duration of both parenteral and oral analgesic use favored laparoscopic appendectomy (2.0 days versus 1.2 days, and 8.0 days versus 5.4 days, p < 0.05). All patients were instructed to return to full activities by 2 weeks postoperatively. This occurred at an average of 25 days for the open appendectomy group versus 14 days for the laparoscopic appendectomy group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomies have a shorter duration of analgesic use and return to full activities sooner postoperatively when compared with patients who underwent open appendectomies. The authors consider laparoscopic appendectomy to be the procedure of choice in patients with acute appendicitis.

[Laparoscopic appendectomy. A review of the literature]

Laparoscopic methods are becoming increasingly popular in surgery. In the course of a review concerning laparoscopic appendectomy undertaken up to 31 December 1993 all publications were evaluated by computer-assisted research. Out of a total of 90 publications only 14 deal with the comparison of the laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. Two prospective randomized studies are published. Because of the low number of patients the evaluation of the laparoscopic method is not yet definite.