Conversion from laparoscopic to open appendicectomy: a possible drawback of the laparoscopic technique?

Open Versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Post Hoc Analysis of the EAST Appendicitis MUSTANG Study

Background: We sought to understand which factors are associated with open appendectomy as final operative approach. We hypothesize that higher American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Emergency General Surgery (EGS) grade is associated with open appendectomy. Patients and Methods: Post hoc analysis of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Multicenter Study of the Treatment of Appendicitis in America: Acute, Perforated and Gangrenous (MUSTANG) prospective appendicitis database was performed. All adults (age >18) undergoing appendectomy were stratified by final operative approach: laparoscopic or open appendectomy (including conversion from laparoscopic). Univariable analysis was performed to compare group characteristics and outcomes, and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify demographic, clinical, or radiologic factors associated with open appendectomy. Results: A total of 3,019 cases were analyzed. One hundred seventy-five (5.8%) patients underwent open appendectomy, including 127 converted from laparoscopic to open. The median age was 37 (25) years and 53% were male. Compared with the laparoscopic group, open appendectomy patients had more comorbidities, higher proportion of symptoms greater than 96 hours, and higher AAST EGS grade. Moreover, on intraoperative findings, the open appendectomy group had a higher incidence of perforated and gangrenous appendicitis with purulent contamination, abscess/phlegmon, and purulent abdominal/pelvic fluid. On multivariable analysis controlling for comorbidities, clinical and imaging AAST grade, duration of symptoms, and intra-operative findings, only AAST Clinical Grade 5 appendicitis was independently associated with open appendectomy (odds ratio [OR], 5.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-25.55; p = 0.025). Conclusions: In the setting of appendicitis, generalized peritonitis (AAST Clinical Grade 5) is independently associated with greater odds of open appendectomy.

Conversion from Laparoscopic to Open Appendectomy: Trends, Risk Factors and Outcomes. A 15-Year Single-Center Analysis of 2193 Adult Patients

Background

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has become the standard of care for the management of acute appendicitis in adult patients. Despite the increasing experience in laparoscopy, conversion to open surgery might still occur. We aimed to identify preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for conversion and determine surgical outcomes in this population.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of patients undergoing LA during the period 2006–2020. The cohort was divided into two groups: patients who underwent a fully laparoscopic appendectomy (FLA) and patients who were converted to open appendectomy (CA). Demographics, perioperative variables and postoperative outcomes were compared between both groups. Independent risk factors for conversion were determined by logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 2193 patients were included for analysis; 2141 (98%) underwent FLA and 52 (2%) CA. Conversion rates decreased significantly over time (p = 0.006). Patients with CA had significantly higher overall postoperative morbidity rates (FLA 14.9% vs. CA 48.0%, p < 0.0001) and longer mean length of hospital stay (FLA 1.7 vs. CA 5 days). In the multivariate analysis, obesity (p < 0.001), previous abdominal operations (p = 0.013), peritonitis (p = 0.003) and complicated appendicitis (p < 0.001) were independent risk factor for conversion.

Conclusions

Although conversion from laparoscopic to open appendectomy is infrequent and has decreased over time, it is associated with significantly higher postoperative morbidity. Patients with previous abdominal operations, obesity and complicated appendicitis should be thoroughly advised about the higher risk of conversion.

Mitigating the challenges of laparoscopic paediatric surgery in Ile Ife: The trend so far and lessons learnt

BACKGROUND

Paediatric laparoscopic surgery is fast growing worldwide, with many pathologies now being treated even in the youngest of patients. We hereby report our experience with the first 114 cases.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to highlight our progress and lessons learnt practicing laparoscopic paediatric surgery in our institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of the first 114 children who underwent laparoscopic surgery in our hospital. We focussed on demographics, indications, procedures performed, rate of conversion to open and complications. Records were retrieved from January 2011 to December 2019. Data were analysed using the SPSS software version 23 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA).

RESULTS

There were 83 males and 31 females (ratio of 3:1). Age groups included infants (13.2%), 1-5 years (21.9%), 5-10 years (33.3%) and > 10 years (31.6%). There was a remarkable increase in the frequency and complexity of cases performed from an average of 5 per year between 2011 and 2015 to an average of 23.5 per year between 2016 and 2019. The conversion rate was 6%, 5 appendectomies, 1 Swenson pull-through, 1 diagnostic laparoscopy and 1 Ladd's procedure. Four complications were noted; one recurrent adhesive intestinal obstruction, one residual intra-abdominal abscess, one port site abscess and one excessive bleeding from liver biopsy requiring conversion to open surgery.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that the routine use of laparoscopy in children is feasible and safe in our environment. However, the need for training, endurance through a steep learning curve and the willingness to battle the technical challenges are necessary for success.

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.

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.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: Which factors are predictors of conversion? A high-volume prospective cohort study

Appendicitis represents one of the most frequent condition requiring surgery. In Italy almost 0.2% of the population will be affected by acute appendicitis every year. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has gained acceptance over the past years and despite several meta-analyses, randomized studies and retrospective studies have been conducted, the indications and results are still conflicting especially in cases of complicated appendicitis. The aim of our study is to evaluate which factors are related to conversion to open appendectomy (OA) during laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).

MATHERIALS AND METHODS

From September 2011 to May 2013, appendectomy for acute appendicitis was performed on 434 patients in our Surgical Unit at S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy. Of these, 369 patients (85%) underwent LA. The clinical, demographic, surgical and pathological data of these patients were included in a prospective database. To note, only laparoscopic appendectomies were considered to be included in the analysis. The following factors were analyzed in order to identify which were associated with the conversion: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), previous abdominal surgery, comorbidities, clinical and laboratory parameters including Alvarado score, PCR, intraoperative findings such as anatomy and degree of inflammation. During our study period, laparoscopic appendectomies were performed by different surgeons both residents and attending surgeons. The decision to convert the intervention in an open procedure was taken by the individual surgeon. Regarding the postoperative period, were considered the time of hospitalization and related costs, time of oral intake of liquid and solid, time of passage of stool, readmissions and reoperations.

RESULTS

At univariate analysis, the factors significantly related to the conversion were the presence of comorbidities (p < 0.001) and, among these, the presence of arterial hypertension (p = 0.006) or other cardiovascular diseases (p = 0.031) and the history of previous abdominal surgery (p = 0.023). Patients with higher mean age (33.9 ± 15.4 vs. 46.0 ± 19.3, p = 0.001) and higher body mass index (BMI) (23.5 ± 4.3 vs 25.8 ± 4.9 kg/m(2), p = 0.006) had a higher risk of conversion. Multivariate analysis finally showed that factors significantly related to the conversion were the presence of comorbidities (p = 0.029), the presence of an appendiceal perforation (p = 0.003), a retrocecal appendix (p = 0.004), the presence of appendicular abscess (p = 0.023) and the presence of diffuse peritonitis (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients with acute appendicitis can be successfully managed with laparoscopy. We found that the only preoperative independent factor related to conversion during laparoscopic appendectomy is the presence of comorbidities. Nevertheless surgeons should take into account that presence of peri-appendicular abscess and diffuse peritonitis are both independently related not only to higher rate of conversion but also to higher risk of postoperative complication.

Suprapubic approach for laparoscopic appendectomy

Objective:

To evaluate the results of laparoscopic appendectomy using two suprapubic port incisions placed below the pubic hair line.

Design:

Prospective hospital based descriptive study.

Settings:

Department of surgery of a tertiary care teaching hospital located in Rohtas district of Bihar. The study was carried out over a period of 11months during November 2011 to September 2012.

Participants:

Seventy five patients with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Materials and Methods:

All patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy with three ports (one 10-mm umbilical for telescope and two 5 mm suprapubic as working ports) were included. Operative time, conversion, complications, hospital stay and cosmetic results were analyzed.

Results:

Total number of patients was 75 which included 46 (61.33%) females and 29 (38.67%) males with Mean age (±Standard deviation {SD}) at the time of the diagnosis was 30.32 (±8.86) years. Mean operative time was 27.2 (±5.85) min. One (1.33%) patient required conversion to open appendectomy. No one patient developed wound infection or any other complication. Mean hospital stay was 22.34 (±12.18) h. Almost all patients satisfied with their cosmetic results.

Conclusion:

A laparoscopic approach using two supra pubic ports yields the better cosmetic results and also improves the surgeons working position during laparoscopic appendectomy. Although, this study had shown better cosmetic result and better working position of the surgeon, however it needs further comparative study and randomized controlled trial to confirm our findings.

Single-institute prospective trial of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy with systemic lymph node dissection for early gastric carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG) is an advanced surgery that requires the mastery of complex surgical skills. We evaluate the feasibility of LAG with systemic lymph node dissection when participating surgeons have sufficient knowledge and experience to conduct open surgery for gastric cancer and basic laparoscopic skills.

METHODS

All operations were performed by two Japan Surgical Society board-certified attending surgeons who had performed over 50 conventional gastrectomies and 30 laparoscopic cholecystectomies. The surgeons went through an established program, including training at the wet and dry laboratories. In addition, surgeries for the first 10 cases were assisted by an expert surgeon with experience of >300 cases. To be eligible for the LAG procedure, patients had to have a preoperative diagnosis of T1, N0 and M0 gastric carcinoma. The morbidity rate was used as the study endpoint. Variables such as operating time, intraoperative blood loss and number of retrieved lymph nodes were evaluated as complementary surgical endpoints. These variables were compared between the first 25 cases and the latter 25 cases.

RESULTS

A total of 50 patients who were scheduled to undergo LAG were prospectively enrolled between 2005 and 2008. Morbidity rate was 4% (2/50), with one case due to intestinal injury and one case due to an intra-abdominal abscess. Complications related to laparoscopy were observed in 2% (1/50), with one case of mesenteric injury. The conversion rate to laparotomy was 6% (3/50). However, there were no serious consequences in converted cases. The operating time was 263.7 ± 45.0 min. The intraoperative blood loss was 94.5 ± 106.5 g. The total number of regional lymph nodes retrieved was 34.7 ± 12.2. A significant improvement in the blood loss was only noted after the first 25 procedures. All patients are alive and disease-free after a median follow-up of 38.8 months.

CONCLUSION

An adequate training program, including site visits by expert surgeons, in conjunction with basic laparoscopy skills and solid backgrounds in open gastrectomy from the perspective of the trainees are currently key to the successful and safe implementation of LAG. Whether the procedure is oncologically feasible remains to be confirmed by long-term follow-up.

Laparoscopic appendectomy conversion rates two decades later: an analysis of surgeon and patient-specific factors resulting in open conversion

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy in appendicitis has gained increased popularity but remains controversial. Despite more than 20 y of experience in laparoscopy, the nationwide laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) conversion rate is reportedly 8.6%. We sought to analyze the impact of patient-specific and surgeon-specific factors that may contribute to open conversion during LA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 745 LAs (49.9% females and 50.1% males; average age of 37.8 y performed at a large tertiary community teaching hospital over a 5-y period (May 2004-October 2008) was performed.

RESULTS

The overall conversion rate for the study period was 4.16% (n = 31). The most common reason for open conversion was severe acute inflammation (38.7%). Among converted cases, 77.42% had no prior abdominal surgery and only 25.81% of cases were converted due to adhesions. Females and patients ≥ 65-y-old had a higher likelihood of open conversion (4.30% versus 4.02%, P < 0.99 and 9.26% versus 3.76%, P < 0.1107). The overall conversion rate of cases performed by high-volume surgeons (≥ 50 total cases) in comparison to low-volume surgeons (10-49 total cases) was higher (4.86% versus 3.30%, P < 0.39). Conversion rates were lower among surgeons who completed residency training after 1990 (3.72% versus 4.35%, P < 0.82) and those with fellowship training (1.42% versus 5.18%, P < 0.034).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic conversion continues to gain popularity and remains the gold standard procedure for appendectomy. Older patients have a higher likelihood of conversion with severe acute inflammation being the most common reason for conversion. Additional minimally invasive fellowship training was the only surgeon-specific factor that significantly impacted conversion rate.

Contemporary predictors of conversion from laparoscopic to open appendectomy

BACKGROUND

We defined the contemporary conversion rate from laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) to open appendectomy and identified pre-operative factors associated with conversion.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 941 consecutive LAs performed for suspected acute appendicitis in a single urban university hospital between 2000 and 2007. Patient characteristics, clinical features, physical examination findings, laboratory values, computed tomography (CT) findings, surgeon identity, operative findings, and pathologic results were assessed. Categorical variables were compared in patients undergoing LA and those in whom conversion was necessary using the Fisher exact test; the Student t-test was used to compare continuous variables. Multivariable analysis was performed with binomial logistic regression. Statistical significance was established at α = 0.05.

RESULTS

The overall conversion rate was 4.1% and did not change significantly over the course of the study. By univariable analysis, conversion was significantly associated with older age, male gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score >2 points, longer duration of symptoms, rigidity on physical examination, increased percentage of neutrophils on admission white blood cell differential count, extraluminal air on CT, inexperience of the attending surgeon with LA, retrocecal location of the appendix, gross necrosis or perforation, murky or purulent ascites, and microscopic evidence of perforation. By multivariable analysis, advanced age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02 per year; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.04, p = 0.02), ASA score >2 points (HR 11.2; 95% CI 5.6-24.4; p < 0.001), CT inflammation grade ≥ 4 (HR 4.8; 95% CI 1.9-12.3; p = 0.001), and attending surgeon inexperience (HR 7.4; 95% CI 2.6-20.8; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of conversion.

CONCLUSION

The conversion rate during laparoscopic appendectomy has not changed significantly over the past seven years and remains ~4%. Independent pre-operative predictors of conversion are advanced age, ASA score >2 points, attending surgeon inexperience, and extensive inflammation observed on pre-operative CT scan. Proceeding directly with open appendectomy under these circumstances may reduce operative time, expense, and morbidity.

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.

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.

Ergonomics and Technical Aspects of Minimal Access Surgery in Acute Surgery

BACKGROUND

Following the general trend in the evolution of minimal access surgery (MAS), the place of laparoscopy for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in the emergency setting is well defined. As for all laparoscopic procedures, the ergonomic and technical aspects of MAS in acute surgery are important issues.

METHODS

Review of the literature.

RESULTS

The ergonomic and technical aspects of emergency laparoscopy include the surgeon's and the patient's position; the operating room setup, including the table, the monitor, and the specific equipment; patient preparation adapted as required to potential changes necessary as adapted to the pathology and conversion; the trocar setup, also adapted to the organ and pathology. Specific needs and variations can be necessary, dependent on the patient status, body build, and the pathology being treated. The operating room used for acute surgery should be adapted to evolving laparoscopic techniques, as well as new intraoperative diagnostic and therapeutic modalities.

CONCLUSION

High-tech equipment and associated procedures have modified the needs for a modern operating room setup. Laparoscopic procedures for emergency surgery must make use of well-known ergonomic principles and be adapted to the patient and the pathology.

Laparoscope use and surgical site infections in digestive surgery

OBJECTIVE

To compare surgical site infection (SSI) rates in open or laparoscopic appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and colon surgery. To investigate the effect of laparoscopy on SSI in these interventions.

BACKGROUND

Lower rates of SSI have been reported among various advantages associated with laparoscopy when compared with open surgery, particularly in cholecystectomy. However, biases such as the lack of postdischarge follow-up and confounding factors might have contributed to the observed differences between the 2 techniques.

METHODS

This observational study was based on prospectively collected data from an SSI surveillance program in 8 Swiss hospitals between March 1998 and December 2004, including a standardized postdischarge follow-up. SSI rates were compared between laparoscopic and open interventions. Factors associated with SSI were identified by using logistic regression models to adjust for potential confounding factors.

RESULTS

SSI rates in laparoscopic and open interventions were respectively 59/1051 (5.6%) versus 117/1417 (8.3%) in appendectomy (P = 0.01), 46/2606 (1.7%) versus 35/444 (7.9%) in cholecystectomy (P < 0.0001), and 35/311 (11.3%) versus 400/1781 (22.5%) in colon surgery (P < 0.0001). After adjustment, laparoscopic interventions were associated with a decreased risk for SSI: OR = 0.61 (95% CI 0.43-0.87) in appendectomy, 0.27 (0.16-0.43) in cholecystectomy, and 0.43 (0.29-0.63) in colon surgery. The observed effect of laparoscopic techniques was due to a reduction in the rates of incisional infections, rather than in those of organ/space infections.

CONCLUSION

When feasible, a laparoscopic approach should be preferred over open surgery to lower the risks of SSI.

Choice of approach for appendicectomy: a meta-analysis of open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy

Although laparoscopic appendicectomy has been performed since 1983, the optimal approach for appendicectomy is still under debate. A systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials between 1995 and 2006 was undertaken. Studies were analyzed overall and in 2 subgroups (pre-2000 and post-2000) to examine for changes in outcomes with increased laparoscopic experience. Operation time was significantly longer for laparoscopy and hospital stay was shorter. Operating time reduced markedly for laparoscopy on subgroup analysis. The risks of postoperative ileus and wound infection are lower for laparoscopy. Perhaps paradoxically, the risk of intra-abdominal abscess development is significantly raised with laparoscopy with an odds ratio of 2.26 (P=0.0002). Laparoscopic appendicectomy is a safe and effective method of treating acute appendicitis. This meta-analysis shows improvement in the outcomes of laparoscopy with increasing laparoscopic experience but open surgery appears to still confer benefits, especially in terms of intra-abdominal abscess incidence.

Examination Under Anesthesia Prior Laparoscopic Appendicectomy

The clinical finding of a mass in the right iliac fossa during the course of diagnosis of acute appendicitis may affect the management approach. A mass is sometimes only evident when the abdomen is examined under anesthesia. This study was conducted to assess the significance of examination under anesthesia and analyze the outcome of laparoscopic exploration and its correlation with the finding of a mass that can be felt only under anesthesia. We conducted a prospective study over 12 months on patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis who were treated with laparoscopic approach. There were 179 patients (101 females) who underwent laparoscopic appendicectomy; 20 cases (11%) were converted to open appendicectomy. Examination under anesthesia revealed a mass in 20 patients (11%). The rate of conversion to open operation was 65% (13 patients) in those who had palpable mass and 4% (7 patients) in those who had no mass (P<0.0001). This study has shown that most patients with a mass found under anesthesia will need conversion of the laparoscopic procedure to an open operation. The recommendation from this study therefore is that all patients planned to have a laparoscopic appendicectomy should have examination under anesthesia; if a mass is found, then the procedure should be converted to open operation from the beginning.

Abdominal emergencies: diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy has been practiced in the management of emergencies resulting from inflammatory conditions, lumenal obstruction, perforation, vascular occlusion, and trauma. This article identifies and discusses controversial areas in the field, in particular surrounding the efficacy, cost effectiveness, and perceived advantages of laparoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with acute abdominal conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Review and commentary on pertinent articles in the English language literature are presented.

RESULTS

Prospective randomized trials have been reported in the treatment of some disorders, but a lack of recommendations that are evidence-based has hindered more widespread usage of laparoscopy in an emergency setting. In addition, concerns have been raised that the creation of capnoperitoneum in the patient with established peritonitis may be detrimental with respect to potentiation of bacteremia and severe sepsis, and experimental studies have yielded conflicting data in this regard.

CONCLUSION

As such issues are resolved, utilization of laparoscopy is likely to increase substantially as expertise is acquired. A minimal-access approach carries less morbidity and may offer other practical advantages in terms of surgical technique and application. When surgical intervention is appropriate, laparoscopy is now preferred for acute biliary disease. Female patients of reproductive age with acute appendicitis may benefit, particularly if there is preoperative diagnostic uncertainty. Selected cases of intestinal obstruction and visceral perforation presenting soon after symptom onset and in whom shock is absent may also be amenable to laparoscopic repair. Its use in the treatment of most trauma patients and patients with generalized peritonitis or hemodynamic instability is not recommended at present.

Consequences of conversion in laparoscopic colorectal surgery

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic procedures converted to open approaches have been associated with higher complication rates than laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy and appendectomy. Laparoscopic colorectal resections have relatively high conversion rates compared with other laparoscopic procedures. This study was designed to evaluate outcomes of conversions compared with laparoscopic and open colorectal resections.

METHODS

We reviewed 498 consecutive colorectal resections performed between 1995 and 2002. Procedures were divided into laparoscopic colorectal resections, open colorectal resections, or conversions. Demographics, underlying disease, type of procedure performed, and operative outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Of the 238 laparoscopic procedures performed, 182 were completed laparoscopically and 56 (23 percent) required conversion; 260 were performed open. Conversions were associated with greater blood loss (200 (range, 50-750) vs. 100 (range, 30-900) ml), longer time to first bowel movement (82 (range, 40-504) vs. 72 (range, 12-420) hr), and longer length of stay (6 (range, 2-67) vs.. 5 (range, 2-62) days) than the laparoscopic colorectal resections group. There was no difference in operative time, transfusion requirements, intraoperative and postoperative complications, or mortality between conversions and laparoscopic colorectal resections. Conversions resulted in fewer patients requiring transfusions (4 vs. 14 percent), shorter time to first bowel movement (82 (range, 40-504) vs. 93 (range, 24-240) hr), and shorter length of stay (6 (range, 2-67) vs. 7 (range, 2-180) days) than in the open colorectal resections group. There were no differences in complications or mortality between the conversion group and the open colorectal resections group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic colorectal resections has a relatively high conversion rate; however, the converted cases have outcomes similar to open colorectal resections. In fact, the converted group required fewer blood transfusions than the open group. Experience and good judgment are fundamental for timely conversion of a laparoscopic procedure to open to decrease complication rates. Despite a high conversion rate, surgeons should consider laparoscopic colorectal resections, because even when necessary, conversion does not result in poorer outcomes than laparoscopic colorectal resections or open colorectal resections.

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for confirmed appendicitis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Reasons for conversion from laparoscopic to open or hand-assisted adrenalectomy: review of 261 laparoscopic adrenalectomies from 1993 to 2003

Over the past decade, laparoscopic adrenalectomy has become the operation of choice for resecting adrenal tumors. However, few reported data exist regarding the reasons for conversion from laparoscopic to open or hand-assisted adrenalectomy. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 261 consecutive laparoscopic adrenalectomies performed by one surgeon between 1993 and 2003. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy could not be completed in 8 of the 261 patients (3%); four of the operations were converted to hand-assisted laparoscopic adrenalectomy and four to open adrenalectomy. The reasons for the conversion were as follows: In three patients the tumor was too adherent to surrounding structures to be resected laparoscopically; in three patients the tumor was found to have malignant features during laparoscopy, and the operation was converted to achieve proper resection margins; in two patients the tumors were too large (15 and 16 cm, respectively) to be safely removed laparoscopically. The eight resected tumors included three pheochromocytomas, one myelolipoma, one angiomyolipoma, one solitary fibrous tumor, one liposarcoma, and one metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma. There were no cases in which conversion was required emergently for bleeding or other intraoperative catastrophes. All eight of the tumors removed were at least 5 cm in size (range 5-16 cm). The mean length of hospitalization was 4.4 days (range 3-8 days).

Efficacy of Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Appendicitis with Peritonitisa

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is safe and effective in cases of peritonitis, perforation, and abscess. We investigated our conversion rate and clinical outcomes in this patient population, as well as preoperative factors that predict operative conversion. A retrospective nonrandomized cohort of 92 patients underwent LA for acute appendicitis with peritonitis, perforation, or abscess at our institution between 1997 and 2002. Thirty-six of the 92 were converted to open appendectomy (OA), yielding a conversion rate of 39 per cent. The presence of phlegmon (42%), nonvisualized appendix (44%), technical failures (8%), and bleeding (6%) were reasons for conversion. Preoperative data had no predictive value for conversion. CT scan findings of free fluid, phlegmon, and abscess did not correlate with findings at the time of surgery. Total complication rates were 8.9 per cent in the LA group as compared to 50 per cent in the converted cohort. Postoperative data showed LA patients stayed 3.2 days versus 6.9 days for converted patients ( P = 0.01). LA patients had less pneumonia ( P = 0.02), intra-abdominal abscess ( P = 0.01), ileus ( P = 0.01), and readmissions ( P = 0.01). LA is safe and effective in patients with appendicitis with peritonitis, perforation, and abscess, resulting in shorter hospital stays and less complication.

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 Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch, 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 54 studies, of which 45 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were less likely after LA than after OA (OR 0.45; CI 0.35 to 0.58), but the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses was increased (OR 2.48; CI 1.45 to 4.21). The duration of surgery was 12 minutes (CI 7 to 16) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 9 mm (CI 5 to 13 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Hospital stay was shortened by 1.1 day (CI 0.6 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. Five studies on children were included, but the result 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).

REVIEWERS' 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.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery has been proposed to have diagnostic and therapeutic advantages over conventional surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic and therapeutic effects of laparoscopic and conventional 'open' surgery in the treatment of suspected acute appendicitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched for original articles and abstracts published until end of 2000. As main search tools we employed the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, EMBASE and SciSearch. CCTR and MEDLINE searches were repeated until 10 October 2001, all other databases were searched 10 October 2000. We also handsearched the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included clinical trials that assessed either: (1) Therapeutic effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults, (2) Therapeutic effects of LA versus OA in children, (3) Diagnostic effects of diagnostic laparoscopy (LAP) followed by LA or OA if necessary versus immediate OA, (4) Therapeutic effects of diagnostic laparoscopy (LAP) followed by OA if necessary versus immediate OA. We included only randomized studies and excluded those with unconcealed allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed each study's eligibility and quality. One reviewer extracted the data, 10% of which were later cross-checked by a second reviewer. Abstract authors and authors of articles lacking important information on trial design or results were contacted.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 studies, of which 39 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were about half as likely (Peto OR 0.47; 95%-CI 0.36 to 0.62) after LA than after OA, but intraabdominal abscesses were increased nearly threefold after LA (Peto OR 2.77; 95%-CI 1.61 to 4.77). The duration of surgery was 14 minutes (95%-CI 10 to 19) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 8 mm (95%-CI 3 to 13 mm) on a 100 mm VAS. Hospital stay was reduced by 0.7 days (95%-CI 0.4 to 1.0). Return to normal activity, work, and sport were 6 days (95%-CI 4 to 8), 3 days (1 to 5), and 7 days (3 to 12) earlier after LA than after OA. While the operation costs of LA were significantly higher than that of OA, the costs outside hospital were reduced. Strong heterogeneity was found for most outcomes, but not for wound infections and intraabdominal abscesses. In children, much less data were available, but the result do not seem to be much different when compared to adults. Pain which was measured blindly in two paediatric trials, was similar after LA and OA (-1 mm VAS; 95%-CI -8 to +7 mm). In trials on unselected patients, diagnostic laparoscopy led to large but variable reductions in the rate of negative appendectomies (RR 0.21; 95%-CI 0.13 to 0.33). In parallel, the rate of unestablished diagnoses was significantly decreased after laparoscopy (RR 0.34; 95%-CI 0.22 to 0.53). In fertile women, these effects were even more pronounced: rate of negative appendectomies: RR 0.19; 95%-CI 0.11 to 0.34; rate of patients without a final diagnosis established: RR 0.24; 95%-CI 0.15 to 0.38.

REVIEWER'S 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. In gangrenous or perforated cases, however, LA may possibly carry a higher risk of intraabdominal infections.