Comparison of various methods of mesoappendix dissection in laparoscopic appendectomy

Therapeutic effectiveness and influencing factors of laparoscopic appendectomy with mesoappendix dissection in the treatment of acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis (AP) is a frequently encountered surgical emergency, and appendectomy is conventionally regarded as the predominant treatment modality. Nevertheless, the therapeutic efficacy of this surgical approach remains to be improved. Thus, the exploration and implementation of surgical refinements are necessary.

AIM

To elucidate the therapeutic effectiveness and influencing factors of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) with mesoappendix dissection in the treatment of AP.

METHODS

First, 150 patients with AP who visited Shangrao Municipal Hospital between January 2022 and June 2024 were enrolled in this study. Among them, 72 patients were assigned to the control group to receive conventional LA, whereas 78 cases were included in the observation group for LA with mesoappendix dissection. Subsequently, indicators such as therapeutic effectiveness, surgical indices (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay), postoperative recovery indices (time to ambulation, gastrointestinal function recovery time, and time to food intake), incidence of adverse events (postoperative bleeding, pelvic infection, puncture site infection, and ileus), and serum inflammatory factors [tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-6, and C-reactive protein (CRP)] were collected and comparatively analyzed, and the influencing factors of therapeutic effectiveness in patients with AP were analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, the observation group had higher clinical therapeutic effectiveness, less operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay; shorter time to ambulation, gastrointestinal function recovery, and food intake; and a lower total incidence of adverse events, and this difference is statistically significant. In addition, the expression levels of various serum inflammatory factors in the observation group were significantly reduced postoperatively, which were markedly lower than those in the control group. Moreover, sex, age, body mass index, time from acute onset to admission, family medical history, preoperative TNF-α, preoperative IL-6, preoperative CRP, and treatment modality were identified to be not independent factors affecting the therapeutic effectiveness of LA with mesoappendix dissection in patients with AP.

CONCLUSION

Overall, LA with mesoappendix dissection has a remarkable curative effect in treating patients with AP, which is worthy of clinical promotion.

Appendiceal neuroendocrine neoplasms and resection of the mesoappendix: a retrospective comparative study

PURPOSE

Incidental appendiceal neoplasms are identified in approximately 1% of the specimens of suspected appendicitis. The current institutional policy is to perform en bloc mesoappendix resection during routine laparoscopic appendicectomy allowing for staging, reducing the need for oncological right hemicolectomy (ORH). Herein, we review en bloc mesoappendicectomy in clinical practice and its effects on the rate of ORH.

METHODS

We reviewed all cases of appendicectomy performed at the Auckland City Hospital between 1 May 2014 and 31 May 2019. Clinical notes and histopathological reports were reviewed. All neoplasms, surgical techniques and the need for further surgery were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 2455 appendicectomies were performed with an approximately similar number of procedures between the sexes and an overall median age of 31 years. Overall, 86% (n = 2098) of the specimens included resection of the mesoappendix, and 58 (2.4%) appendiceal neoplasms were identified. Of them, 33 (1.3%) specimens included neuroendocrine appendiceal neoplasms. Eleven (33%) patients with appendiceal neuroendocrine neoplasms were recommended ORH. One of these patients may have avoided additional surgery, whereas 3 (9.1%) patients with tumours of 10-20 mm avoided ORH because their mesoappendix was resected.

CONCLUSION

At our centre, there has been a significant change in the practice of mesoappendix resection, and we support resection of the mesoappendix during appendicectomy. The procedure is technically straightforward and safe, incurs no increases in costs or time, allows for accurate tumour staging and guides decisions regarding further surgical interventions.

High-energy devices in different surgical settings: lessons learnt from a full health technology assessment report developed by SICE (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Endoscopica)

BACKGROUND

The present paper aims at evaluating the potential benefits of high-energy devices (HEDs) in the Italian surgical practice, defining the comparative efficacy and safety profiles, as well as the potential economic and organizational advantages for hospitals and patients, with respect to standard monopolar or bipolar devices.

METHODS

A Health Technology Assessment was conducted in 2021 assuming the hospital perspective, comparing HEDs and standard monopolar/bipolar devices, within eleven surgical settings: appendectomy, hepatic resections, colorectal resections, cholecystectomy, splenectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, thyroidectomy, esophago-gastrectomy, breast surgery, adrenalectomy, and pancreatectomy. The nine EUnetHTA Core Model dimensions were deployed considering a multi-methods approach. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used: (1) a systematic literature review for the definition of the comparative efficacy and safety data; (2) administration of qualitative questionnaires, completed by 23 healthcare professionals (according to 7-item Likert scale, ranging from - 3 to + 3); and (3) health-economics tools, useful for the economic evaluation of the clinical pathway and budget impact analysis, and for the definition of the organizational and accessibility advantages, in terms of time or procedures' savings.

RESULTS

The literature declared a decrease in operating time and length of stay in using HEDs in most surgical settings. While HEDs would lead to a marginal investment for the conduction of 178,619 surgeries on annual basis, their routinely implementation would generate significant organizational savings. A decrease equal to - 5.25/-9.02% of operating room time and to - 5.03/-30.73% of length of stay emerged. An advantage in accessibility to surgery could be hypothesized in a 9% of increase, due to the gaining in operatory slots. Professionals' perceptions crystallized and confirmed literature evidence, declaring a better safety and effectiveness profile. An improvement in both patients and caregivers' quality-of-life emerged.

CONCLUSIONS

The results have demonstrated the strategic relevance related to HEDs introduction, their economic sustainability, and feasibility, as well as the potentialities in process improvement.

Factores asociados a la duración de la estancia hospitalaria posterior a la apendicectomía laparoscópica

Introducción. El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar los factores asociados a la duración de la estancia hospitalaria posterior a una apendicectomía laparoscópica. Métodos. Se realizó un estudio observacional, analítico, retrospectivo, en el Hospital de Alta Complejidad “Virgen de la Puerta” en Trujillo, Perú, entre 2017 y 2019. La muestra de 78 pacientes se distribuyó en hospitalización prolongada (mayor de 3 días) y hospitalización corta (igual o menor a 3 días). Para el análisis bivariado se emplearon las pruebas t de Student y chi cuadrado y para el análisis multivariado se utilizó regresión logística múltiple. Resultados. No existe asociación entre el recuento de leucocitos y la duración de la hospitalización. El análisis multivariado determinó asociación significativa entre la estancia hospitalaria y las siguientes variables: edad (OR 1,051; p=0,027), tiempo quirúrgico (OR 1,028; p=0,013), diagnóstico quirúrgico de apendicitis complicada (OR 15,008; p=0,018), y sexo femenino (OR 6,079; p=0,010). Conclusión. Los factores asociados a la duración de la hospitalización posterior a apendicectomía laparoscópica en este grupo de pacientes fueron la edad, el tiempo quirúrgico, el diagnóstico quirúrgico de apendicitis complicada y el sexo femenino.

Energy Devices for Clipless-Sutureless Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Utility and Safety

Background and Objectives: While laparoscopic appendectomy is standardized, techniques for appendiceal stump closure and mesoappendix division remain variable. Novel vessel sealing techniques are increasingly utilized ubiquitously. We sought to systematically summarize all relevant data and to define the current evidence on the safety and utility of energy devices for clipless−sutureless laparoscopic appendectomy in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: This review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Inclusion criteria included studies with laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis. The intervention included patients undergoing division of mesoappendix and/or securing of the appendicular base using diathermy (Monopolar or Bipolar or LigaSure Sealing Device) or Harmonic Scalpel (Group A) compared to patients undergoing division of mesoappendix and/or securing of the appendicular base using endoclip or Hem-o-lok or ligature (Group B). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Downs and Black scale. The outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI) or intra-abdominal collection, postoperative ileus, average operative duration, and length of hospital stay (LHS) were compared. Results: Six comparative studies were included; three were retrospective, two were prospective, and one was ambispective. Meta-analysis revealed a shorter operative duration in Group A with respect to appendicular base ligation (MD −12.34, 95% CI −16.57 to −8.11, p < 0.00001) and mesoappendix division (MD −8.06, 95% CI −14.03 to −2.09, p = 0.008). The pooled risk ratios showed no difference in SSI between groups. Additionally, no difference was observed in LHS. The risk of postoperative ileus was higher in group B regarding mesoappendix division (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93, p = 0.02), but no difference was found concerning appendicular base ligation. The included studies showed a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Conclusions: Clipless−sutureless laparoscopic appendectomy is safe and fast. Postoperative ileus seems less common with energy devices for mesoappendix division. However, the studies included have a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Further studies addressing the individual devices with surgeons of similar levels are needed.

Laparoscopic appendicectomy without the use of disposable materials - a low-cost alternative - 1,552 cases operated in 20 years

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic appendectomy does not have a single protocol on its technical systematization, access routes, and use of energy and staplers. The cost of disposable materials can prevent its widespread use. Alternatives to decrease cost can help disseminate the laparoscopic access to appendectomy.

OBJECTIVE

to introduce a low-cost laparoscopic appendectomy method with good aesthetic results through the location of incisions; to show its viability through its application in 1,552 cases of laparoscopic appendectomy operated between 2000 and 2019 with three portals and very low-cost regarding materials used.

METHODS

we applied three punctures - an umbilical one for the camera (5 or 10mm in diameter), a 10mm puncture in the right iliac fossa, and one 5mm puncture in the left iliac fossa. The materials used were permanent use trocars, grasping forceps, hook, scissors, and needle holder, without the need for any disposable device.

RESULTS

1.552 patients were operated between 2000 and 2019, 56.2% being female, mean age 32.66 years (9-93), average hospital stay of 1.74 days (1-10), and median of 1.2 days.

CONCLUSION

the technique we describe uses three metallic trocars and four permanent instruments, in addition to a single cotton suture. It is, therefore, a very low-cost laparoscopic procedure. Its application has shown good results and low morbidity, which may become the preferred indication for laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of acute appendicitis.

Evidence-based surgery for laparoscopic appendectomy: A stepwise systematic review

Introduction

Appendectomy is a common emergency surgery performed globally. Despite the frequency of laparoscopic appendectomy, consensus does not exist on the best way to perform each procedural step. We identified literature on key intraoperative steps to inform best technical practice during laparoscopic appendectomy.

Methods

Research questions were framed using the population, indication, comparison, outcome (PICO) format for 6 key operative steps of laparoscopic appendectomy: abdominal entry, placement of laparoscopic ports, division of mesoappendix, division of appendix, removal of appendix, and fascial closure. These questions were used to build literature queries in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. Evidence quality and certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) definitions.

Results

Recommendations were rendered for 6 PICO questions based on 28 full length articles. Low quality evidence favors direct trocar insertion for abdominal entry and establishment of pneumoperitoneum. Single port appendectomy results in improved cosmesis with unclear clinical implications. There was insufficient data to determine the optimal method of appendiceal stump closure, but use of a specimen extraction bag reduces rates of superficial surgical site infection and intra-abdominal abscess. Port sites made with radially dilating trocars are less likely to necessitate closure and are less likely to result in port site hernia. When port sites are closed, a closure device should be used.

Conclusion

Key operative steps of laparoscopic appendectomy have sufficient data to encourage standardized practice.

Consensus Statement of the Italian Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons (SPIGC): Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common causes of abdominal pain requiring surgical intervention. Approximately 20% of AA cases are characterized by complications such as gangrene, abscesses, perforation, or diffuse peritonitis, which increase patients' morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis of AA can be difficult, and evaluation of clinical signs, laboratory index and imaging should be part of the management of patients with suspicion of AA.

METHODS

This consensus statement was written in relation to the most recent evidence for diagnosis and treatment of AA, performing a literature review on the most largely adopted scientific sources. The members of the SPIGC (Italian Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons) worked jointly to draft it. The recommendations were defined and graded based on the current levels of evidence and in accordance with the criteria adopted by the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) for the strength of the recommendations.

RESULTS

Fever and migratory pain tend to be present in patients with suspicion of AA. Laboratory and radiological examinations are commonly employed in the clinical practice, but today also scoring systems based on clinical signs and laboratory data have slowly been adopted for diagnostic purpose. The clinical presentation of AA in children, pregnant and elderly patients can be unusual, leading to more difficult and delayed diagnosis. Surgery is the best option in case of complicated AA, whereas it is not mandatory in case of uncomplicated AA. Laparoscopic surgical treatment is feasible and recommended. Postoperative antibiotic treatment is recommended only in patients with complicated AA.

Adult appendicitis: Clinical practice guidelines from the French Society of Digestive Surgery and the Society of Abdominal and Digestive Imaging

INTRODUCTION

The French Society of Digestive Surgery (SFCD) and the Society of Abdominal and Digestive Imaging (SIAD) have collaborated to propose recommendations for clinical practice in the management of adult appendicitis.

METHODS

An analysis of the literature was carried out according to the methodology of the French National Authority for Health (HAS). A selection was performed from collected references and then a manual review of the references listed in the selected articles was made in search of additional relevant articles. The research was limited to articles whose language of publication was English or French. Articles focusing on the pediatric population were excluded. Based on the literature review, the working group proposed recommendations whenever possible. These recommendations were reviewed and approved by a committee of experts.

RESULTS

Recommendations about appendicitis in adult patients were proposed with regard to clinical, laboratory and radiological diagnostic modalities, treatment strategy for uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, surgical technique, and specificities in the case of macroscopically healthy appendix, terminal ileitis and appendicitis in the elderly and in pregnant women.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations for clinical practice may be useful to the surgeon in optimizing the management of acute appendicitis in adults.

Comparison of Ultrasonic Dissection and Suture Ligation for Mesoappendix in Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Objective

To compare the use of ultrasonic dissector and suture ligation for mesoappendix in laparoscopic appendectomy in terms of mean operative time and per-operative bleed.

Methodology

This was a randomized controlled trial conducted at Surgical Unit II, Holy Family Hospital over a period of six months. All patients with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis who presented in the emergency department of Holy Family Hospital on the call days of Surgical Unit II undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy were included in the study. After taking informed consent about the respective procedure, patients were allocated to two groups using computer-generated random numbers. Group A was operated using harmonic scalpel and in Group B suture ligation was done. Total time required to ligate the mesoappendix or to cauterize it using the harmonic scalpel was measured in minutes. Data was entered and analyzed in SPSS version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

Results

A total of 110 patients were enrolled in the study according to the inclusion criteria of the study. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups. Patients in Group A were operated using harmonic scalpel whereas patients in Group B were operated by suture ligation for dealing the mesoappendix in laparoscopic appendectomy. Mean operative time to ligate the mesoappendix for Group A patients was 1.56 (SD = 0.68) minutes while that of Group B was 21.07 (SD = 2.84) minutes. There was no per-operative bleeding in case of Group A while its incidence was 24% of patients in Group B. Results were statistically significant.

Conclusion

The conclusion of the study is that the use of harmonic scalpel was better than suture ligation for ligating the mesoappendix in laparoscopic appendectomy in terms of mean operative time and per operative bleed, hence it's preferable over the later in laparoscopic appendectomy.

Is the use of endoloops safe and efficient for the closure of the appendicular stump in complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis?

INTRODUCTION

There is still controversy regarding the ideal technique to close the appendicular stump in laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). The objective of this study was to determine the safety and efficiency of the use of an endoloop (EL) and endostapler (ES) in complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing LA from February 2013 to December 2019. Acute uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis were analysed separately, establishing two groups according to the stump closure technique: EL or ES. Seven hundred-nine patients were included (535 uncomplicated and 174 complicated). In uncomplicated appendicitis, an EL was used in 447 of the patients (83.55%) and an ES was used in 88 patients (16.45%). In complicated appendicitis, an EL was used in 85 patients (48.85%) and an ES was used in 89 patients (51.15%). An analysis of effectiveness and a cost analysis of each technique were performed.

RESULTS

In uncomplicated appendicitis, we found no differences with respect to global complications, although there were significant differences in the total mean hospital stay (EL group 1.55 (SD 1.48) days; ES group 2.21 (SD 1.69) days; p = 0.046). This meant a savings of 514.12€ per patient using the EL p < 0.001). In complicated appendicitis, the reoperations classified as Clavien-Dindo IIIB in the EL group (6.4%) were greater than in the ES group (0%) (p = 0.012), although the rate of postoperative abscesses (p = 0.788) and the mean volume of abscesses (p = 0.891) were similar.

CONCLUSION

The systematic use of an EL could reduce costs in uncomplicated appendicitis, while in complicated cases, both options are valid. Prospective studies with a greater number of patients are needed to observe differences in postoperative complications.

Thermal effects of monopolar electrosurgery detected by real-time infrared thermography: an experimental appendectomy study

Background

Monopolar energy (ME) is routinely used in appendectomy. This study aimed to investigate the degree of lateral thermal spread generated by ME and to evaluate the thermal injury sustained by the close-lying tissues.

Methods

Appendectomy with a monopolar Maryland dissector was performed in 8 rabbits (at 30 and 60 W power settings). A high-resolution infrared camera was used to record tissue heating during the intervention. After autopsy macroscopic changes were evaluated and tissue samples were subjected to myeloperoxidase (MPO) assay and histological examination.

Results

No significant differences in the extent of thermal spread, MPO activity and histological signs of inflammation were observed between groups. Regardless of the power settings, the heat spread exceeded 2 cm laterally along the mesoappendix when application time exceeded 3 s. The spread of heat through tubular structures in both groups caused a significant temperature rise in the nearby intestinal loop, resulting in perforation (n = 3) and necrosis (n = 1).

Conclusions

Application time is critical in thermal spread during appendectomy aided by ME. Tubular anatomic structures can enhance thermal injury on distant tissues. The observed effects of ME bear clinical relevance that need further investigation.

Risk factors for intra-abdominal abscess following laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a retrospective cohort study on 2076 patients

BACKGROUND

Intra-abdominal abscesses (IAA) may develop after laparoscopic appendectomies (LA) for acute appendicitis. The identification of risk factors for postoperative IAA could lead to a decrease in the readmission rate and surgery redoes after LA for acute appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study retrospectively analyzed patients undergone LA for acute appendicitis during the period 2001-2017. Clinical, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were described. Comparison between groups was made via univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The charts of 2076 patients undergone LA were reviewed. Thirty-seven patients (1.8%) developed a postoperative IAA. Male gender (p < 0.05), ASA score ≥ 2 (p < 0.05), a gangrenous or perforated appendicitis (p < 0.0001), abscess or pelvic peritonitis (p < 0.0001), clipping the mesoappendix (p < 0.0001), appendix division by mechanical stapler (p < 0.05), prolonged antibiotic therapy (p < 0.05), and piperacillin/tazocin regimen (p < 0.0001) were significantly more frequent in the group of patients with IAA. In terms of multivariate analysis, only pelvic peritonitis (p = 0.010), perforated appendicitis (p = 0.0002), and clipping the mesoappendix (p = 0.0002) were independent predictive factors for postoperative IAA.

CONCLUSION

Patients with peritonitis or a perforated appendicitis, and those who had their mesoappendix clipped showed a higher likelihood of developing an IAA. At risk patients should be provided with careful follow-up for the early detection and management of this complication.

Intended cost reduction in laparoscopic appendectomy by introducing the endoloop: a single center experience

BACKGROUND

Cost reduction measures in medicine are gaining greater importance nowadays, especially in high-volume procedures such as laparoscopic appendectomy (LAE). Currently there are two common methods of dissecting the appendix from the caecal pole: linear stapler and endoloops. The endoloop is the cheaper device but can only be used in uncomplicated cases of appendicitis. Therefore both methods are used in LAE depending on intraoperative findings. The goal of this study was to retrospectively evaluate possible cost reduction due to increased use of endoloop in LAE in our general surgery department of a tertiary referral university hospital.

METHODS

We previously used the stapler for appendix dissection in LAE as our local protocol but introduced the endoloop as standard method in 2015 to reduce intraoperative costs. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent LAE between June 2014 and October 2015 in our department. Our purpose is to show the effects on cost reduction during the introductory period adjusting for a potential bias due to the individual learning curve of every surgeon. We estimated costs for LAE by taking into account average device costs and duration of operation (DO) as well as patient outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 177 patients underwent LAE, 73 in 2014 (phase I) and 104 in 2015 (phase II). The median DO was 61 (± 24 SD) min during the entire period, and increased by 14 min from phase I to II (from 51 (±23 SD) min to 65 (±24 SD) min respectively, p < 0.001). The use of endoloops increased from 10% to 55% (p < 0.001). Patients' characteristics and outcomes did not differ significantly. A median saving of 5.9€ per operation was calculated in phase II compared to phase I (p = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Introducing the endoloop as standard device for LAE leads to a marginal reduction in intraoperative costs without increasing negative outcomes. In our model the cost-reduction achieved by cheaper devices was overcome by increased costs for DO during the initial phase of use of endoloops. A longer follow up might show a more pronounced cost reduction.

WSES Jerusalem guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common cause of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is challenging; a variable combination of clinical signs and symptoms has been used together with laboratory findings in several scoring systems proposed for suggesting the probability of AA and the possible subsequent management pathway. The role of imaging in the diagnosis of AA is still debated, with variable use of US, CT and MRI in different settings worldwide. Up to date, comprehensive clinical guidelines for diagnosis and management of AA have never been issued. In July 2015, during the 3rd World Congress of the WSES, held in Jerusalem (Israel), a panel of experts including an Organizational Committee and Scientific Committee and Scientific Secretariat, participated to a Consensus Conference where eight panelists presented a number of statements developed for each of the eight main questions about diagnosis and management of AA. The statements were then voted, eventually modified and finally approved by the participants to The Consensus Conference and lately by the board of co-authors. The current paper is reporting the definitive Guidelines Statements on each of the following topics: 1) Diagnostic efficiency of clinical scoring systems, 2) Role of Imaging, 3) Non-operative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis, 4) Timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, 5) Surgical treatment 6) Scoring systems for intra-operative grading of appendicitis and their clinical usefulness 7) Non-surgical treatment for complicated appendicitis: abscess or phlegmon 8) Pre-operative and post-operative antibiotics.

The Covidien LigaSure Maryland Jaw Device

Since its invention nearly 20 years ago, the Covidien LigaSure device along with its ForceTriad generator has dominated the Electrothermal Bipolar Vessel Sealing market. The LigaSure was used for surgical procedures, both open and laparoscopic. The purpose of this review is to provide evidence of the safety and utility of the LigaSure device compared to more traditional means of hemostasis and its ultrasonic competitor, particularly in laparoscopic applications. We will provide evidence related to electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing in general and look specifically at Covidien's newest product, the LigaSure Maryland Jaw Device.

Three port laparoscopic appendectomy technique with low cost and aesthetic advantage

INTRODUCTION

Despite dating more than 30 years after the first laparoscopic appendectomy, ileocecal appendix resection is still performed by laparotomy in more than 90% of cases, in our country.

AIM

To describe a technique for laparoscopic removal of the ileocecal appendix with three portals, at low cost and very good aesthetic appearance.

TECHNIQUE

Three incisions, one umbilical and two suprapubic are made; permanent material used comprises: grasping forceps, hook, scissors, needle holders, three metal trocars and four other usual instruments, and a single strand of cotton. There is no need to use of operative extractors bags, clips, endoloops, staples or bipolar or harmonic energy instruments. Allows triangulation and instrumentation in the conventional manner.

CONCLUSION

The proposed technique is safe and reproducible, easily teachable, at very low cost and can be applied in general hospitals with conventional laparoscopic equipment.