Prospective randomized multicentre study of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy

Perioperative pain management for appendicectomy: A systematic review and Procedure-specific Postoperative Pain Management recommendations

BACKGROUND

Despite being a commonly performed surgical procedure, pain management for appendicectomy is often neglected because of insufficient evidence on the most effective treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations by assessing the available literature for optimal pain management after appendicectomy.

DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES

This systematic review-based guideline was conducted according to the PROSPECT methodology. Relevant randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the English language from January 1999 to October 2022 were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases using PRISMA search protocols.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies on adults and children. If articles reported combined data from different surgeries, they had to include specific information about appendicectomies. Studies needed to measure pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS) or a numerical rating scale (NRS). Studies that did not report the precise appendicectomy technique were excluded.

RESULTS

Out of 1388 studies, 94 met the inclusion criteria. Based on evidence and consensus, the PROSPECT members agreed that basic analgesics [paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)] should be administered perioperatively for open and laparoscopic appendicectomies. A laparoscopic approach is preferred because of lower pain scores. Additional recommendations for laparoscopic appendicectomies include a three-port laparoscopic approach and the instillation of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic. For open appendicectomy, a preoperative unilateral transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block is recommended. If not possible, preincisional infiltration with local anaesthetics is an alternative. Opioids should only be used as rescue analgesia. Limited evidence exists for TAP block in laparoscopic appendicectomy, analgesic adjuvants for TAP block, continuous wound infiltration after open appendicectomy and preoperative ketamine and dexamethasone. Recommendations apply to children and adults.

CONCLUSION

This review identified an optimal analgesic regimen for open and laparoscopic appendicectomy. Further randomised controlled trials should evaluate the use of regional analgesia and wound infiltrations with adequate baseline analgesia, especially during the recommended conventional three-port approach.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration No. CRD42023387994).

Laparoscopic Appendectomy Translates into Less Analgesics and Faster Return to Work in Asia

Background:

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is claimed to require less analgesic and allow for a faster return to work. This study examines whether these benefits hold true in Asian patient populations.

Methods:

A retrospective audit of emergency appendectomies over one year was conducted to study outcomes of postoperative pain, length of stay (LOS), duration of analgesia, and hospitalization leave (HL). A telephone questionnaire evaluated post-discharge analgesic intake, residual symptoms at follow-up, adequacy of HL and opinion on teleconsult reviews.

Results:

Of the 201 patients, 187 (93%) underwent LA. Presurgery symptoms were significantly longer in the open appendectomy (OA) group (mean: OA 3.79, LA 1.81 days; p = 0.026) which also had a higher frequency of perforation (71.4%). LA patients reported less pain compared to OA (LA 3.60 vs. OA 4.14; p = 0.068) but were prescribed the same 2 weeks of analgesics as OA. LOS was significantly less for LA (mean LA 3.09, OA 6.93 days; p = 0.006). Mean HL for LA and OA were 17.9 and 21.8 days respectively (p = 0.05). Nearly 83% patients did not complete the prescribed course of analgesics and 47% patients felt that HL was more than adequate. Seventy-five percent of patients were asymptomatic at hospital follow-up and nearly 41% agreed to teleconsult reviews.

Conclusion:

Majority of LA patients do not need 2 weeks of analgesics and their HL can be shortened for faster return to work thereby realizing the true benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Selected cases can be offered postoperative teleconsultation.

A feasibility randomised controlled trial to evaluate the role of computed tomography in adults with atypical right iliac fossa pain

BACKGROUND

In patients with right iliac fossa pain, the need for surgery is largely determined by the likelihood of appendicitis. Patients often undergo ultrasound scanning despite a low diagnostic accuracy for appendicitis. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of a larger trial of computed tomography in the evaluation of patients with atypical right iliac fossa pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-centre, unblinded, parallel randomised controlled trial of computed tomography in the assessment of patients with atypical right iliac fossa pain. After a retrospective evaluation, standard care was defined as serial examination with or without ultrasound. Atypical right iliac fossa pain was defined as no firm diagnosis after initial senior review. Simple descriptions of the risks and benefits of computed tomography were devised for patients to consider. Primary objectives were to assess feasibility and acceptability of the study procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 71 patients were invited to participate and 68 were randomised. Final analysis included 31 participants in the standard care arm and 33 in the computed tomography arm, with comparable demographics. Computed tomography was associated with superior diagnostic accuracy, with 100% positive and negative predictive value. The proportion of scans that positively influenced management was 73% for computed tomography and 0% for ultrasound. In the computed tomography arm, there was a trend towards a shorter length of stay (2.3 vs 3.1 days) and a lower negative laparoscopy rate (2 of 11 vs 4 of 9).

CONCLUSION

A large randomised trial to evaluate the use of unenhanced computed tomography in atypical right iliac fossa pain appears feasible and justified.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The removal of the acute appendix is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Open surgery associated with therapeutic efficacy has been the treatment of choice for acute appendicitis. However, in consequence of the evolution of endoscopic surgery, the operation can also be performed with minimally invasive surgery. Due to smaller incisions, the laparoscopic approach may be associated with reduced postoperative pain, reduced wound infection rate, and shorter time until return to normal activity.This is an update of the review published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) with regard to benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE and Embase (9 February 2018). We identified proposed and ongoing studies from World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials Register (9 February 2018). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA versus OA in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (or standardised mean differences (SMD) if researchers used different scales such as quality of life) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 85 studies involving 9765 participants. Seventy-five trials included 8520 adults and 10 trials included 1245 children. Most studies had risk of bias issues, with attrition bias being the largest source across studies due to incomplete outcome data.In adults, pain intensity on day one was reduced by 0.75 cm on a 10 cm VAS after LA (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.45; 20 RCTs; 2421 participants; low-quality evidence). Wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.51; 63 RCTs; 7612 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses was increased following LA (Peto OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.43; 53 RCTs; 6677 participants; moderate-quality evidence).The length of hospital stay was shortened by one day after LA (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.70; 46 RCTs; 5127 participant; low-quality evidence). The time until return to normal activity occurred five days earlier after LA than after OA (MD -4.97, 95% CI -6.77 to -3.16; 17 RCTs; 1653 participants; low-quality evidence). Two studies showed better quality of life scores following LA, but used different scales, and therefore no pooled estimates were presented. One used the SF-36 questionnaire two weeks after surgery and the other used the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index six weeks and six months after surgery (both low-quality evidence).In children, we found no differences in pain intensity on day one (MD -0.80, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.05; 1 RCT; 61 participants; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal abscesses after LA (Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.22; 9 RCTs; 1185 participants; low-quality evidence) or time until return to normal activity (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.30; 1 RCT; 383 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.42; 10 RCTs; 1245 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and the length of hospital stay was shortened by 0.8 days after LA (MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.62; 6 RCTs; 316 participants; low-quality evidence). Quality of life was not reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Except for a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscesses after LA in adults, LA showed advantages over OA in pain intensity on day one, wound infections, length of hospital stay and time until return to normal activity in adults. In contrast, LA showed advantages over OA in wound infections and length of hospital stay in children. Two studies reported better quality of life scores in adults. No study reported this outcome in children. However, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate and some of the clinical effects of LA were small and of limited clinical relevance. Future studies with low risk of bias should investigate, in particular, the quality of life in children.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a retrospective cohort study assessing outcomes and cost-effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed in emergency surgery. Because of lack of consensus about the most appropriate technique, appendectomy is still being performed by both open (OA) and laparoscopic (LA) methods. In this retrospective analysis, we aimed to compare the laparoscopic approach and the conventional technique in the treatment of acute appendicitis.

METHODS

Retrospectively collected data from 593 consecutive patients with acute appendicitis were studied. These comprised 310 patients who underwent conventional appendectomy and 283 patients treated laparoscopically. The two groups were compared for operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, complication rate, return to normal activity and cost.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter hospital stay (2.7 ± 2.5 days in LA and 1.4 ± 0.6 days in OA), with a less need for analgesia and with a faster return to daily activities (11.5 ± 3.1 days in LA and 16.1 ± 3.3 in OA). Operative time was significantly shorter in the open group (31.36 ± 11.13 min in OA and 54.9 ± 14.2 in LA). Total number of complications was less in the LA group with a significantly lower incidence of wound infection (1.4 % vs 10.6 %, P <0.001). The total cost of treatment was higher by 150 € in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach is a safe and efficient operative procedure in appendectomy and it provides clinically beneficial advantages over open method (including shorter hospital stay, decreased need for postoperative analgesia, early food tolerance, earlier return to work, lower rate of wound infection) against only marginally higher hospital costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02867072 Registered 10 August 2016. Retrospectively registered.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults and children: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults and children.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA and OA in adults and children between January 1992-March 2016 were included in this study. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative complications, reoperation rate, operation time, postoperative stay, and return to normal activity.

RESULT

Thirty-three studies including 3642 patients (1810 LA, 1832 OA) were included. Compared with OA, LA in adults was associated with lower incidence of wound infection, fewer postoperative complications, shorter postoperative stay, and earlier return to normal activity, but a longer operation time. There was no difference in levels of intra-abdominal abscess and reoperation between the groups. Subgroup analysis in children did not reveal significant differences between the two techniques in wound infection, postoperative complications, postoperative stay, and return to normal activity.

CONCLUSION

LA in adults is worth recommending as an effective and safe procedure for acute appendicitis, and further high-quality randomized trials comparing the two techniques in children are needed.

A modified Delphi method toward multidisciplinary consensus on functional convalescence recommendations after abdominal surgery

Background

Evidence-based information on the resumption of daily activities following uncomplicated abdominal surgery is scarce and not yet standardized in medical guidelines. As a consequence, convalescence recommendations are generally not provided after surgery, leading to patients’ insecurity, needlessly delayed recovery and prolonged sick leave. The aim of this study was to generate consensus-based multidisciplinary convalescence recommendations, including advice on return to work, applicable for both patients and physicians.

Method

Using a modified Delphi method among a multidisciplinary panel of 13 experts consisting of surgeons, occupational physicians and general practitioners, detailed recommendations were developed for graded resumption of 34 activities after uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy, laparoscopic and open appendectomy, laparoscopic and open colectomy and laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair. A sample of occupational physicians, general practitioners and surgeons assessed the recommendations on feasibility in daily practice. The response of this group of care providers was discussed with the experts in the final Delphi questionnaire round.

Results

Out of initially 56 activities, the expert panel selected 34 relevant activities for which convalescence recommendations were developed. After four Delphi rounds, consensus was reached for all of the 34 activities for all the surgical procedures. A sample of occupational physicians, general practitioners and surgeons regarded the recommendations as feasible in daily practice.

Conclusion

Multidisciplinary convalescence recommendations regarding uncomplicated laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy (laparoscopic, open), colectomy (laparoscopic, open) and inguinal hernia repair (laparoscopic, open) were developed by a modified Delphi procedure. Further research is required to evaluate whether these recommendations are realistic and effective in daily practice.

A Novel Successive Suturing Device for Laparoscopic Surgery

Suturing is one of the more tiresome and difficult tasks during laparoscopic surgeries. To cope with this problem, we aimed to develop a novel successive suturing device. A novel needle holding and locking mechanism is proposed to transfer the needle between the upper and bottom jaws. The device is straightforward to use with intuitive 2-trigger control, and it can perform successive suturing without the need of reload between stiches. Also, it is compact enough to be inserted through a 12-mm trocar. The feasibility of the device is verified through in vitro and in vivo experiments. It was found that the developed device was able to successfully close the wounds without any leakage. The developed successive suturing device offers an easy way of performing suture, and it will greatly help surgeons during laparoscopic surgeries.

Should appendectomy be performed laparoscopically? Clinical prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been described in 1983, and its superiority over open appendectomy (OA) is still being debated. Currently, there is no agreement on the advantages of LA. Postoperative pain is reported to be lower along with a faster return to normal activities in LA. However, some studies do not support these findings. In our study, we aimed to compare the outcomes and cost effectiveness of LA and OA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients were prospectively randomized into LA (31 patients) and OA (32 patients) groups. Demographic data, pre- and postoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, white blood cell (WBC) count, duration of surgery and hospitalization, complications, and pain scores (VAS) were recorded. Cost was calculated for both groups. Return to normal activities was evaluated by phone calls at the first and second week and 1 month after surgery.

RESULTS

There was a significant postoperative decrease in WBC count in the LA group (p<0.01). There were no differences between LA and OA groups in terms of postoperative CRP levels (p>0.05). The rates of wound infection and abscess were similar (p>0.05), while post-operative pain and time to return to normal activities were higher in the OA group (p<0.01). There was a positive correlation between BMI and operative time in the LA group (p<0.01), while BMI and operative time did not show a correlation in the OA group (p>0,05). The average cost in the LA and OA groups were 1960.5±339.05 and 687.115±159.5 TL, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LA is an effective method in the treatment of acute appendicitis due to less pain and faster recovery. LA can be the choice of treatment in acute appendicitis, with utilization of re-useable and cheaper vascular sealing devices.

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).

Laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review, published in Issue 1, 2011, of The Cochrane Library. Acute lower abdominal pain is common, and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal women, as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with symptoms of appendicitis, early pregnancy complications and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age.

SEARCH METHODS

The Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINAHL were searched (October 2013). The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched. No new studies were included in this updated version.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included. Trials were included if they evaluated laparoscopy with open appendicectomy, or laparoscopy with a wait and see strategy. Study selection was carried out by two review authors independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two review authors and the risk of bias assessed. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. A summary of findings table was prepared using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 12 studies including 1020 participants were incorporated into the review. These studies had low to moderate risk of bias, mainly because allocation concealment or methods of sequence generation were not adequately reported. In addition, it was not clear whether follow-up was similar for the treatment groups. The index test was incorporated as a reference standard in the laparoscopy group, and differential verification or partial verification bias may have occurred in most RCTs. Overall the quality of the evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach.Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (seven RCTs, 561 participants; odds ratio (OR) 4.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.50 to 6.71; I(2) = 18%), but no evidence was found of reduced rates for any adverse events (eight RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I(2) = 0%). A meta-analysis of seven studies found a significant difference favouring the laparoscopic procedure in the rate of removal of normal appendix (seven RCTs, 475 participants; OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.24; I(2) = 0%).Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. A significant difference favoured laparoscopy in terms of rate of specific diagnoses (four RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I(2) = 79%), but no evidence suggested a difference in rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I(2) = 0%).  

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that laparoscopy in women with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis led to a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared with open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. No evidence showed an increase in adverse events when any of these strategies were used.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of open, laparoscopic and single port appendicectomies

INTRODUCTION

Appendicectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed in general surgery. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of open appendicectomy (OA), laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) and single port laparoscopic appendicectomy (SPLA).

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients with suspected acute appendicitis were studied (OA: n=20, LA: n=20, SPLA: n=10). Clinical outcomes were compared between the three groups in terms of operative time, blood loss, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and cost.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were similar among groups (p>0.05). SPLA was characterised by longer operative time (88.1 minutes vs 35.6 minutes in OA and 33.4 minutes in LA) and higher costs (12.84 thousand Chinese yuan [RMB] vs 8.41 thousand RMB in LA and 4.99 thousand RMB in OA). OA was characterised by more blood loss (9.8ml vs 7.5ml in SPLA and 6.8ml in LA), longer hospital stay (7.5 days vs 3.5 days in LA and 3.4 days in SPLA) and lower costs. The total number of complications was higher for OA (n=2) than for LA and SPLA (n=0) although this was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Where feasible, LA should be undertaken as the initial treatment of choice for most cases of suspected appendicitis.

Systematic review of emergency laparoscopic colorectal resection

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery (LS) has become standard practice for a range of elective general surgical operations. Its role in emergency general surgery is gaining momentum. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of LS compared with open surgery (OS) for colorectal resections in the emergency setting.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of studies reporting outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal resections in the acute or emergency setting in patients aged over 18 years, between January 1966 and January 2013.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included, providing outcomes for 5557 patients: 932 laparoscopic and 4625 open emergency resections. Median (range) operating time was 184 (63-444) min for LS versus 148 (61-231) min for OS. Median (range) length of stay was 10 (3-23) and 15 (6-33) days in the LS and OS groups respectively. The overall median (range) complication rate was 27.8 (0-33.3) and 48.3 (9-72) per cent respectively. There were insufficient data to detect differences in reoperation and readmission rates.

CONCLUSION

Emergency laparoscopic colorectal resection, where technically feasible, has better short-term outcomes than open resection.

Laparoscopic versus open repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcer: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical repair of perforated gastroduodenal ulcers remains a common indication for emergent surgery. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the laparoscopic approach (LA) would be associated with reduced length of stay compared to the open approach.

METHODS

Patients with acute, perforated gastroduodenal ulcer were identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, of whom 50 had the LA. One-to-one case/control matching on the basis of age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, gender, and cardiac disease was evaluated for outcome analysis.

RESULTS

After matching, the 2 groups had similar characteristics. The rates of wound complications, organ space infections, prolonged ventilation, postoperative sepsis, return to the operating room, and mortality tended to be lower for the LA, although not significantly. Length of hospital stay was, however, significantly shorter for the LA by an average of 5.4 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The LA appears to be safe in mild to moderately ill patients with perforated peptic ulcer disease and is associated with reduced use of hospital resources.

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.

Appendicitis/diverticulitis: minimally invasive surgery

Complicated intra-abdominal infections such as acute appendicitis and complicated diverticulitis represent both diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Both diseases, although different in many ways, are caused by the obstruction of a blind pouch leading to inflammation, abscesses, and perforation of surrounding tissues. For many decades, acute appendicitis was managed through a conventional surgical incision in the right iliac fossa. As for other diseases, there is a significant tendency to propose less invasive treatments. For many teams, laparoscopy, which leads to less postoperative pain, a shorter hospital stay, and a quicker recovery, represents the standard of care for appendectomy. For selected cases, a medical approach can be proposed with satisfactory outcomes. Additionally, the management of complicated diverticulitis is also quickly moving towards less invasive procedures than the deleterious '3-phase surgery', which is Hartmann's procedure, followed by reversal protected with a stoma, and finally stoma closure. Benefiting from the evolution of antimicrobial therapy and interventional radiology, many complicated cases classified as Hinchey stage I and Hinchey stage II complicated diverticulitis are now treated medically. CT images allow the identification of patients requiring radiological drainage of localized abscesses or collections over 5 cm in size. Patients with Hinchey stage III sigmoiditis may benefit from an initial laparoscopic exploration allowing, in some cases, a conservative nonresective approach that will prevent laparotomy and stoma. Major resection leading to temporary or definitive stoma is usually indicated for stage IV complications and is required only in exceptional cases. Although a surgical intervention can be the definitive treatment for complicated intra-abdominal infections, multidisciplinary management including radiology, medical treatment, and laparoscopic surgery may limit the severe consequences of an acute surgical approach in patients suffering from complicated appendicitis and diverticulitis. Today, the ultimate goal of acutely infected abdomen management is to reduce hospital stay, disability, and numerous operations for these patients.

Wound healing after open appendectomies in adult patients: a prospective, randomised trial comparing two methods of wound closure

BACKGROUND

The skin is closed in open appendectomy traditionally with few interrupted nonabsorbable sutures. The use of this old method is based on a suggestion that this technique decreases wound infections. In pediatric surgery, skin closure with running intradermal absorbable sutures has been found to be as safe as nonabsorbable sutures, even in complicated cases. Our purpose was to compare the safety of classic interrupted nonabsorbable skin closure to continuous intradermal absorbable sutures in appendectomy wounds in adult patients.

METHODS

A total of 206 adult patients with clinically suspected appendicitis were allocated to the study and prospectively randomized into two groups of wound closure: the interrupted nonabsorbable (NA) suture and the intradermal continuous absorbable (A) suture group. Primary wound healing was controlled on the first postoperative day, at 1 week clinically and after 2 weeks by means of a telephone interview. Follow-up data were obtained from 185 patients (90 in group NA and 95 in group A).

RESULTS

Continuous absorbable intradermal suturing was as safe as nonabsorbable sutures in regard to wound infections.

CONCLUSION

Continuous, absorbable sutures can be used safely even in complicated appendicectomies without increasing the risk of wound infection. Considering the benefits of absorbable suturing, we recommend this method in all open appendectomies.

Meta-analysis of the results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic and open surgery for acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for the treatment of patients with acute appendicitis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register for relevant papers published between January 1990 and February 2012. We analyzed 22 outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for acute appendicitis.

RESULTS

We identified 39 papers reporting results from randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for acute appendicitis. Our meta-analysis included 5,896 patients with acute appendicitis; 2,847 had undergone laparoscopic surgery, and 3,049 had undergone open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was associated with longer operative time (by 13.12 min). However, compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis was associated with earlier resumption of liquid and solid intake; shorter duration of postoperative hospital stay; a reduction in dose numbers of parenteral and oral analgesics; earlier return to normal activity, work, and normal life; decreased occurrence of wound infection; a better cosmesis; and similar hospital charges.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery may now be the standard treatment for acute appendicitis.

[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.

Increased use of laparoscopy in acute right iliac fossa pain - is it good for patients?

AIM

The use of laparoscopy, with or without appendicectomy, is becoming more common in the management of acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain, but little is known of the 'unintended' consequences of this change. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of increased use of laparoscopy on the number and type of patients treated surgically and on the rate of negative appendicectomy.

METHOD

A prospective audit was carried out of admissions to a teaching hospital over two, 3-month periods during 2007 and 2008. The management, investigations and outcome of patients presenting with RIF pain were studied.

RESULTS

Admissions were stable over the two time-periods. There was a significant increase in the number of laparoscopic operations performed, from 22.5% (14/62) in 2007 to 85.7% (72/84) in 2008 (P < 0.0001), and the percentage of patients undergoing surgery rose from 55.4% (n = 62) in 2007 to 71.2% (n = 84) in 2008 (P < 0.01). In 2008, female patients were more likely to have surgery, an increase from 37.1% to 66.2% (P < 0.001), and were more likely to have a laparoscopic procedure, an increase from 50% to 98% (P < 0.0001). The rate of histologically confirmed appendicitis did not increase significantly (50/122 vs 57/118; P = 0.25), but the number of patients with a normal appendix either left in situ because it was macroscopically normal or found to be histologically normal following excision, increased significantly, from 9.01% in 2007 to 21.2% in 2008 (P < 0.01). The diagnostic value of pelvic ultrasound decreased from 75.6% of examinations in 2007 to 54.5% in 2008 (P = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

An increase in laparoscopic procedures has resulted in more operations in women, an associated higher negative appendicectomy rate and decreased usefulness of pelvic ultrasound. Increased use of laparoscopy needs to be balanced against the diagnostic benefits of 'negative' laparoscopy.

A Clinical Comparison of Laparoscopic versus Open Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis

Purpose

Although laparoscopic appendectomies (LAs) are performed universally, a controversy still exists whether the LA is an appropriate surgical approach to complicated appendicitis (CA). We retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomies for CA.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 60 consecutive patients who were diagnosed as having CA from July 2009 to January 2011. Outcomes such as operative time, time to soft diet, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were analyzed.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in operative time between the LA and the open appendectomy (OA) groups. Return to soft diet was faster in the LA group (2.1 ± 1.2 vs. 3.5 ± 1.5 days; P = 0.001). Length of hospital stay was shorter for the LA group (4.4 ± 2.3 vs. 5.8 ± 2.9 days; P = 0.045). The overall complication rates showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. In cases involving a periappendiceal abscess, the LA had a significantly higher incidence of intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) and postoperative ileus (PI; P = 0.028).

Conclusion

The LA showed good results in terms of the time to soft diet, the length of hospital stay, and surgical site infection (SSI) whereas the overall complication rates were similar for the two groups. However, the LA was associated with significantly higher incidence of IAA and PI for the cases with a periappendiceal abscess. Therefore, when using a LA, the surgeon must take great care to minimize the incidence of IAA and PI if a periappendiceal abscess is present.

Economics of appendicitis: cost trend analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy from 1998 to 2008

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has become more acceptable for the treatment of appendicitis over the last decade; however, its cost benefit compared to open appendectomy (OA) remains under debate. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utilization of LA and its cost effectiveness based on total hospital charges stratified by complexity of disease and complications compared to OA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Nationwide Inpatient Sample data from 1998 to 2008 with the principal diagnosis of appendicitis were included. Appendicitis cases were divided by simple and complex (peritonitis or abscess) and subdivided by OA, LA, and lap converted to open (CONV). Total charges (2008 value), length of stay (LOS), and complications were assessed by disease presentation and operative approach.

RESULTS

Between 1998 and 2008, 1,561,518 (54.3%) OA, 1,231,643 (42.8%) LA, and 84,662 (2.9%) CONV appendectomies were performed. LA had shorter LOS (2 d) than OA (3 d) and CONV (5 d) (P<0.001). CONV (7.4%) cases had more complications than OA (3.7%) and LA (2.6%). LA ($19,978) and CONV ($28,103) are costlier than OA ($15,714) based on normalized cost for simple and complex diseases (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

LA is more prevalent but its cost is higher in both simple and complex cases. Cost and complications increase if the case is converted to open. OA remains the most cost effective approach for patients with acute appendicitis.

Laparoscopy or not: a meta-analysis of the surgical effects of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy

Both open appendicectomy and laparoscopic appendicectomy have their own advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of our meta-analysis is to compare the surgical effects of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. In our study, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Only prospective randomized controlled trials that compared the 2 methods of operation were included. Evaluation indexes in our study involved are operating time, complications, hospital stay, time to return to normal activities, time to return to normal diet, and the overall cost. Results showed that operating time of laparoscopic appendicectomy was significantly longer [weighted mean difference (WMD) 7.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.03-9.17 min; P<0.00001]. Time of hospital stay (WMD -0.82; 95% CI: -0.93 to -0.70 d), time to return to normal activities (WMD -6.85; 95% CI: -7.62 to -6.09 d), and diet (WMD -0.61; 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.36 d) were significantly decreased in the laparoscopic appendicectomy group (all P<0.00001). There is no convincing difference in complications (odds ratio 0.99; 95% CI: 0.80-1.22; P=0.92) and death rates (odds ratio 0.97; 95% CI: 0.29-3.25; P=0.96). In conclusion, laparoscopic appendicectomy may have advantages over open appendicectomy in hospital stay and postoperative recovery.

Non-trocar related major retroperitoneal bleeding during laparoscopic appendectomy

Most of the reported vascular injuries in laparoscopic appendectomies occur during trocar or Veress needle insertions. As laparoscopy continues to evolve, it is essential that surgeons report unusual complications in an effort to raise awareness and guide management of any iatrogenic injury incurred during minimally-invasive procedures. We report the case of a patient who sustained a major non-trocar related retroperitoneal vascular injury during a routine LA.

Laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age

BACKGROUND

Acute lower abdominal pain is common and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal woman as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with the symptoms of appendicitis and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The  Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINHAL were searched (to April 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, nonspecific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two authors and the risk of bias assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (7 RCTs, 561 participants; OR 4.10, 95% CI 2.50 to 6.71; I(2) 18%) but there was no evidence of reduced rate for any adverse event (8 RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I(2) 0%).Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. There was a significant difference favouring laparoscopy in the rate of specific diagnoses (4 RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I(2) 79%) but there was no evidence of a difference in the rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I(2) 0%).  

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of laparoscopy in women with nonspecific abdominal pain and suspected appendicitis include a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared to open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. There was no evidence of an increase in adverse events with any of the strategies.

Prevention of postoperative peritoneal adhesions: a review of the literature

BACKGROUND

postoperative adhesions are a significant health problem with major implications on quality of life and health care expenses. The purpose of this review was to investigate the efficacy of preventative techniques and adhesion barriers and identify those patients who are most likely to benefit from these strategies.

METHODS

the National Library of Medicine, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were used to identify articles related to postoperative adhesions.

RESULTS

ileal pouch-anal anastomosis, open colectomy, and open gynecologic procedures are associated with the highest risk of adhesive small-bowel obstruction (class I evidence). Based on expert opinion (class III evidence) intraoperative preventative principles, such as meticulous hemostasis, avoiding excessive tissue dissection and ischemia, and reducing remaining surgical material have been published. Laparoscopic techniques, with the exception of appendicitis, result in fewer adhesions than open techniques (class I evidence). Available bioabsorbable barriers, such as hyaluronic acid/carboxymethylcellulose and icodextrin 4% solution, have been shown to reduce adhesions (class I evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

postoperative adhesions are a significant health problem with major implications on quality of life and health care. General intraoperative preventative techniques, laparoscopic techniques, and the use of bioabsorbable mechanical barriers in the appropriate cases reduce the incidence and severity of peritoneal adhesions.

Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Although laparoscopic surgery has been available for a long time and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been performed universally, it is still not clear whether open appendectomy (OA) or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the most appropriate surgical approach to acute appendicitis. The purpose of this work is to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of laparoscopic and conventional "open" appendectomy by means of a meta-analysis.

Methods

A meta-analysis was performed of all randomized controlled trials published in English that compared LA and OA in adults and children between 1990 and 2009. Calculations were made of the effect sizes of: operating time, postoperative length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, resumption of diet, complications rates, and conversion to open surgery. The effect sizes were then pooled by a fixed or random-effects model.

Results

Forty-four randomized controlled trials with 5292 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Operating time was 12.35 min longer for LA (95% CI: 7.99 to 16.72, p < 0.00001). Hospital stay after LA was 0.60 days shorter (95% CI: -0.85 to -0.36, p < 0.00001). Patients returned to their normal activity 4.52 days earlier after LA (95% CI: -5.95 to -3.10, p < 0.00001), and resumed their diet 0.34 days earlier(95% CI: -0.46 to -0.21, p < 0.00001). Pain after LA on the first postoperative day was significantly less (p = 0.008). The overall conversion rate from LA to OA was 9.51%. With regard to the rate of complications, wound infection after LA was definitely reduced (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59, p < 0.00001), while postoperative ileus was not significantly reduced(OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.47, p = 0.71). However, intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), intraoperative bleeding and urinary tract infection (UIT) after LA, occurred slightly more frequently(OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.01 to 2.43, p = 0.05; OR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.54 to 4.48, p = 0.41; OR = 1.76, 95% CI: 0.58 to 5.29, p = 0.32).

Conclusion

LA provides considerable benefits over OA, including a shorter length of hospital stay, less postoperative pain, earlier postoperative recovery, and a lower complication rate. Furthermore, over the study period it was obvious that there had been a trend toward fewer differences in operating time for the two procedures. Although LA was associated with a slight increase in the incidence of IAA, intraoperative bleeding and UIT, it is a safe procedure. It may be that the widespread use of LA is due to its better therapeutic effect.

Port site necrotising fasciitis following laparoscopic appendicectomy

Necrotising fasciitis is a fast-spreading infection affecting the fascia and, with continued spread, causes secondary necrosis of the skin. A case has been previously described in association with laparoscopic appendicectomy but with a fatal outcome. We report a similar but successfully managed case and review the literature.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis has been proposed to have advantages over conventional surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic and therapeutic effects of laparoscopic and conventional 'open' surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CNKI, SciSearch, study registries, and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults or children. Studies comparing immediate OA versus diagnostic laparoscopy (followed by LA or OA if necessary) were separately identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Missing information or data was requested from the authors. We used odds ratios (OR), relative risks (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies, of which 56 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were less likely after LA than after OA (OR 0.43; CI 0.34 to 0.54), but the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses was increased (OR 1.87; CI 1.19 to 2.93). The duration of surgery was 10 minutes (CI 6 to 15) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 8 mm (CI 5 to 11 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Hospital stay was shortened by 1.1 day (CI 0.7 to 1.5). Return to normal activity, work, and sport occurred earlier after LA than after OA. While the operation costs of LA were significantly higher, the costs outside hospital were reduced. Seven studies on children were included, but the results do not seem to be much different when compared to adults. Diagnostic laparoscopy reduced the risk of a negative appendectomy, but this effect was stronger in fertile women (RR 0.20; CI 0.11 to 0.34) as compared to unselected adults (RR 0.37; CI 0.13 to 1.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In those clinical settings where surgical expertise and equipment are available and affordable, diagnostic laparoscopy and LA (either in combination or separately) seem to have various advantages over OA. Some of the clinical effects of LA, however, are small and of limited clinical relevance. In spite of the mediocre quality of the available research data, we would generally recommend to use laparoscopy and LA in patients with suspected appendicitis unless laparoscopy itself is contraindicated or not feasible. Especially young female, obese, and employed patients seem to benefit from LA.

The incidence and risk factors of post-laparotomy adhesive small bowel obstruction

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this review was to assess the incidence and risk factors for adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) following laparotomy.

METHODS

The PubMed database was systematically reviewed to identify studies in the English literature delineating the incidence of adhesive SBO and reporting risk factors for the development of this morbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 446,331 abdominal operations were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. The overall incidence of SBO was 4.6%. The risk of SBO was highly influenced by the type of procedure, with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis being associated with the highest incidence of SBO (1,018 out of 5,268 cases or 19.3%), followed by open colectomy (11,491 out of 121,085 cases or 9.5%). Gynecological procedures were associated with an overall incidence of 11.1% (4,297 out of 38,751 cases) and ranged from 23.9% in open adnexal surgery, to 0.1% after cesarean section. The technique of the procedure (open vs. laparoscopic) also played a major role in the development of adhesive SBO. The incidence was 7.1% in open cholecystectomies vs. 0.2% in laparoscopic; 15.6% in open total abdominal hysterectomies vs. 0.0% in laparoscopic; and 23.9% in open adnexal operations vs. 0.0% in laparoscopic. There was no difference in SBO following laparoscopic or open appendectomies (1.4% vs. 1.3%). Separate closure of the peritoneum, spillage and retention of gallstones during cholecystectomy, and the use of starched gloves all increase the risk for adhesion formation. There is not enough evidence regarding the role of age, gender, and presence of cancer in adhesion formation.

CONCLUSION

Adhesion-related morbidity comprises a significant burden on healthcare resources and prevention is of major importance, especially in high-risk patients. Preventive techniques and special barriers should be considered in high-risk cases.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a metaanalysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) provides a safe and effective alternative to open appendectomy (OA), but its use remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency and safety of LA through a metaanalysis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA and OA published between January 1992 and February 2010 were included in this study. Strict literature appraisal and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. A metaanalysis then was performed to evaluate operative time, hospital cost, postoperative complications, length of analgesia, bowel function recovery, day liquid diet began, hospital stay, and return to work and normal activity.

RESULTS

The metaanalysis comprised 25 RCTs involving 4,694 patients (2,220 LA and 2,474 OA cases). No significant differences were found between the LA and OA groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), or type of appendiceal inflammation. Compared with OA, LA showed advantages of fewer postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.98; p = 0.04), less pain (length of analgesia: weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.53; 95% CI, -0.91 to -0.15; p = 0.007), earlier start of liquid diet (WMD, -0.51; 95% CI, -0.75 to -0.28; p < 0.0001), shorter hospital stay (WMD, -0.68; 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.35; p < 0.0001), and earlier return to work (WMD, -3.09; 95% CI, -5.22 to -0.97; p = 0.004) and normal activity (WMD, -4.73; 95% CI, -6.54 to -2.92; p < 0.00001), but a comparable hospital cost (WMD of LA/OA ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.40; p = 0.47) and a longer operative time (WMD, 10.71; 95% CI, 6.76-14.66; p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Despite the longer operative time, LA results in less postoperative pain, faster postoperative rehabilitation, a shorter hospital stay, and fewer postoperative complications than OA. Therefore, LA is worth recommending as an effective and safe procedure for acute appendicitis.

Long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess long-term outcome following open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy.

METHODS

A total of 105 patients with suspected acute appendicitis were randomized to LA (51) or OA (54) between 1997 and 1999 at one hospital. Perioperative factors and follow-up data from the outpatient clinic were recorded. Information about symptoms and overall satisfaction was obtained by telephone interview. In addition, appendicectomy data for 2008 were analysed retrospectively for comparison in a contemporary setting.

RESULTS

Data from 52 patients who had OA and 47 who had LA were analysed. OA was performed mostly by trainees, but LA was more likely to be undertaken by a consultant. The open procedure was quicker than the laparoscopic operation in the trial period (median 38 versus 65 min respectively; P < 0.001), but the difference was only 10 min in 2008. The OA group returned to work later than the LA group (median 13 versus 8 days; P = 0.013) and had more complications (22 versus 6; P = 0.014). Only one patient (OA) had a reoperation, owing to abdominal adhesions. Among 76 patients available for telephone interview, satisfaction scores were marginally higher for LA than OA.

CONCLUSION

LA has some advantages compared with an open approach.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00908804 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Comparison of outcomes after laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 222 ACS NSQIP hospitals

BACKGROUND

The benefit of laparoscopic (LA) versus open (OA) appendectomy, particularly for complicated appendicitis, remains unclear. Our objectives were to assess 30-day outcomes after LA versus OA for acute appendicitis and complicated appendicitis, determine the incidence of specific outcomes after appendectomy, and examine factors influencing the utilization and duration of the operative approach with multi-institutional clinical data.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database (2005-2008), patients were identified who underwent emergency appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 222 participating hospitals. Regression models, which included propensity score adjustment to minimize the influence of treatment selection bias, were constructed. Models assessed the association between surgical approach (LA vs OA) and risk-adjusted overall morbidity, surgical site infection (SSI), serious morbidity, and serious morbidity/mortality, as well as individual complications in patients with acute appendicitis and complicated appendicitis. The relationships between operative approach, operative duration, and extended duration of stay with hospital academic affiliation were also examined.

RESULTS

Of 32,683 patients, 24,969 (76.4%) underwent LA and 7,714 (23.6%) underwent OA. Patients who underwent OA were significantly older with more comorbidities compared with those who underwent LA. Patients treated with LA were less likely to experience an overall morbidity (4.5% vs 8.8%; odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.68) or a SSI (3.3% vs 6.7%; OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.50-0.65) but not a serious morbidity (2.6% vs 4.2%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-1.01) or a serious morbidity/mortality (2.6% vs 4.3%; OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.01) compared with those who underwent OA. All patients treated with LA were significantly less likely to develop individual infectious complications except for organ space SSI. Among patients with complicated appendicitis, organ space SSI was significantly more common after laparoscopic appendectomy (6.3% vs 4.8%; OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05-1.73). For all patients with acute appendicitis, those treated at academic-affiliated versus community hospitals were equally likely to undergo LA versus OA (77.0% vs 77.3%; P = .58). Operative duration at academic centers was significantly longer for both LA and OA (LA, 47 vs 38 minutes [P < .0001]; OA, 49 vs 44 minutes [P < .0001]). Median duration of stay after LA was 1 day at both academic-affiliated and community hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Within ACS NSQIP hospitals, LA is associated with lower overall morbidity in selected patients. However, patients with complicated appendicitis may have a greater risk of organ space SSI after LA. Academic affiliation does not seem to influence the operative approach. However, LA is associated with similar durations of stay but slightly greater operative times than OA at academic versus community hospitals.

Laparoscopic appendectomy is the preferred approach for appendicitis: a retrospective review of two practice patterns

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the results of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 264 patients who underwent appendectomy (155 LA and 109 OA) over an 8-year period was performed. The variables analyzed included patient data (white blood cell count [WBC], duration of symptoms, American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] score), operating data (length of the procedure and pathology), postoperative data (postoperative complications and length of hospital stay), and total costs.

RESULTS

Patient demographic data (age and sex), preoperative WBC, duration of symptoms, and pathology all were similar in the two study groups. Six cases were converted to OA and included in the LA group data. There was no statistical difference in the average operative time between the LA (mean, 55.7 + or - 22.3 min; range, 20-128 min) and OA (mean, 58.9 + or - 23.7 min; range, 29-135 min) groups (95% confidence interval [CI] -8.8-2.43; p = 0.26). The overall incidence of minor and major complications was significantly less in the LA group (3.2%, five incidents) than in the OA group (17.4%, 19 incidents; p = 0.0043). The median length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (median, 2 days; range, 1-8 days) than in the open group (median, 3 days; range, 1-11 days; p < 0.001). The mean total cost was $5,663 in the laparoscopic group and $6,031 in the open group (non-significant difference of -$368; 95% CI, -$926-$190; p = 0.19).

CONCLUSION

The findings show that LA is associated with fewer complications and similar total costs compared with OA. Therefore, LA can be recommended as a preferred approach to appendectomy.

Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Current practice in the United Kingdom for the use of diagnostic laparoscopy in suspected acute appendicitis

OBJECTIVE

Diagnostic laparoscopy is advocated in the management of patients with acute right iliac fossa pain. We asked consultant surgeons in the UK about their current use of this technique.

METHOD

A short anonymous questionnaire was sent to consultant surgeons from the ASGBI database. Information was sought on general surgical specialty, participation in the emergency surgical on-call rota, current practice regarding the use of diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with suspected acute appendicitis and on the management of an inflamed or noninflamed appendix. Statistical analysis was by means of chi(2) test.

RESULTS

There were 161 eligible returns from 250 questionnaires (64%) and the proportion of consultants replying from each subspecialty was similar to membership numbers of subspecialty organizations. Most consultants (68%) performed diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. The majority (69%) reserved its use for women of reproductive age and 14% of respondents laparoscoped all patients with suspected appendicitis. Compared to nongastrointestinal (GI), GI surgeons were significantly more likely to perform diagnostic laparoscopy (75 vs 52%, P = 0.008). In the case of an overtly inflamed appendix, 81% of respondents would remove it laparoscopically with significantly more GI surgeons following this course than nonGI surgeons (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Despite good evidence on the benefits of diagnostic laparoscopy in certain patients with suspected acute appendicitis, there is significant variation in its use. This difference appears to be based upon subspecialty and may be as a result of increasing subspecialization.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: burden or benefit? A single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is now a common practice, it has not yet become the standard of care because it has no clear advantage when compared to open appendectomy (OA), especially in cases of complicated appendicitis. Moreover, the literature reports an increased incidence of postoperative infections with LA.

AIM

To review our center's experience with LA and to compare it to the literature.

METHODS

All LAs performed between January 2004 and October 2007 were retrospectively reviewed for age, gross operative findings, pathology reports, operating time, length of hospital stay (LOS), and the time to resume regular diet and reach afebrile status. All patients who presented with phlegmonous appendicitis were treated medically and had a secondary appendectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 151 children underwent LA during this period (60 girls, 91 boys); the mean age was 10.4 years (range, 4-16). Forty-five patients (29.8%) presented with perforated appendicitis (PA). Nine patients had normal appendix on pathology. The mean operative time was 58.7 minutes (56.1 minutes for simple appendicitis [SA] and 64.8 minutes for PA). The mean intravenous narcotic analgesia duration was 12.2 hours for SA and 15.1 hours for PA. LOS was 2.82 days for SA and 3.8 days for PA. Regular diet was tolerated 1.47 days postoperatively for SA and 2.4 days for PA. The latter patients remained febrile for an average of 1.9 days. None of the patients presented with intra-abdominal infection postoperatively. Seven patients (4.6%) presented a trocar site infection. Since the introduction of a routine LA in 2004, the operating room time decreased from 66.4 minutes to 51 minutes.

CONCLUSION

This series confirms the safety of LA in almost all cases. The absence of intra-abdominal infections and the low rate of wound infections noted with LA compare favorably with the open approach. This approach is not only advantageous for cosmesis but also allows satisfying parents' requests, helps developing surgeons' laparoscopic skills, and is cost-effective.

Laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: a comparison with open appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is widely performed in many countries, LA for complicated appendicitis, which includes perforated or gangrenous appendicitis with or without localized or disseminated peritonitis, has not become a common practice yet.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical records of 230 patients who had undergone appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: 141 had undergone LA, 84 had conventional open appendectomy (OA), and 5 patients had conversion to the open procedure after laparoscopy. The LA group (total LA) was subdivided into "early experience (early LA: cases 1-56)" and "late experience (late LA: case 57 and higher)." We defined the early LA group as the comparison group to minimize selection bias.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were similar in the early LA and OA groups (P > 0.05). Wound infection was significantly more frequent in the OA group (P < 0.05). Intra-abdominal infection was equally common in these two groups. The overall rate of postoperative complications was significantly higher in the OA group (32.1%) than in the early LA group (18%; P < 0.05). This incidence was 12.8% in the total LA group. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the early LA group (10.6 +/- 3.9 days; P < 0.05), and 8.9 +/- 3.7 days in the total LA group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that LA is safe and useful even for the treatment of complicated appendicitis if performed by an experienced surgeon.

Laparoscopic assisted two port open appendicectomy

OBJECTIVES

The laparoscopic appendicectomy can be performed using one to several ports. We present our experience of two port laparoscopic assisted open appendicectomy. The objective was to assess the results retrospectively in terms of complications and its limitations.

METHODS

Between years 1998-2007, a two port laparoscopic assisted appendectomy was attempted in 2380 adult patients with suspected appendicitis. The patients with localized or generalized peritonitis were included. The appendicectomy was performed via an assisted two port method using 10 mm umbilical optical port and another 10 mm port in right iliac fossa. The children aged 12 and below and pregnant patients were excluded. All patients had their laparoscopic appendicectomy within 48 hours of admission.

RESULTS

Two port laparoscopic assisted appendicectomy was successful in 86.9% of cases. Acute appendicitis was the cause of acute abdomen in 88.9% of the patients. The accessory port was required in 8.5% of patients to complete the appendicectomy and the conversion rate to open was 4.6%. The mean operation time was 25 minutes and the mean hospital stay was 1.5 days. The port site infection was seen in 14, bleeding in 20, parietal wall abscess in three cases and intra-abdominal abscesses in 4 patients.

CONCLUSION

This approach is simple, can be converted to total intracorporeal by inserting accessory port or to open appendicectomy when required and has advantage of full laparoscopy of abdomen. It has its limitations in cases of extreme obesity, thick mesentery, gangrenous appendix, very large and thick appendix, and difficulty in finding the appendix, control of bleeding, division of adhesions and to deal with other associated pathology. Cost was minimized by using non-disposable port. The overall morbidity was low. There were no specific complications related to this technique and incidence of port site infection was similar to other approaches of laparoscopic appendicectomy.

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.