Laparoscopic interval appendectomy versus open interval appendectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

A Prospective and Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Appendectomy and Open Appendectomy in the Surgical Treatment of Appendicitis

Introduction Appendicitis is a prevalent surgical etiology of abdominal pain encountered in medical emergencies globally. Consequently, appendectomy is the most commonly performed surgical procedure. Despite advancements in surgical techniques, there is a lack of prospective studies evaluating these approaches across the full spectrum of appendicitis severity. Due to the absence of consensus on the optimal approach, both open and laparoscopic appendectomy are frequently being practiced. Our study aims to address this gap by providing a comprehensive comparison of laparoscopic and open appendectomy performed in all diagnosed uncomplicated and complicated cases of appendicitis, which includes acute appendicitis, sub-acute appendicitis, chronic appendicitis, appendicular perforation, appendicular abscess. Materials and methods This was a prospective study, performed at the Department of General Surgery, Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Memorial (GSVM) Medical College, Kanpur, between September 2023 and August 2024. The 60 patients were divided, using the odd-even method, between the laparoscopic appendectomy group (LA) and the open appendectomy group (OA), with 30 patients in each group. The study included patients with uncomplicated as well as complicated appendicitis and was conducted after attaining informed consent and ethical approval for the study. Results The laparoscopic approach offered a significantly shorter duration of hospital stay (3.57±2.5 days in LA and 7.53±2.7 days in OA), better postoperative pain recovery (mean VAS score being 2.17±1.13 in LA and 4.30±0.64 in OA) and reduced need for either oral or intravenous analgesics, 24 hours postoperatively, earlier return of normal bowel activity (8.2±4.2 hours in LA and 15.6±5.9 hours in OA), oral intake tolerance (96.7% patients in LA and 76.7% patients in OA were able to tolerate oral liquids on the first postoperative day), earlier return to routine activities (4.17±3.8 days and 7.17±2.7 days in LA and OA, respectively) and higher patient satisfaction (90% patients after LA and 60% patients after OA were "extremely satisfied"). The only shortcoming was the increased duration of surgery (53.17±12.4 and 23.7±6.2 min in the LA and OA groups, respectively). While few complications were more commonly associated with either procedure, like intra-abdominal abscess (6.7%) with LA and wound infection (10%) with OA, no statistically significant difference was observed in overall postoperative complication rates among the two groups. The quality of recovery after either procedure did not have a significant difference on long-term follow-up after surgery. Conclusion Our study revealed that the laparoscopic appendectomy group offered several significant advantages in postoperative recovery over the open appendectomy group, both in uncomplicated as well as complicated cases of appendicitis. Thus, laparoscopic appendicectomy should be considered as the surgery of choice, in uncomplicated as well as complicated cases of appendicitis, given that surgical skills are available.

Handmade Loop Versus Hem-o-Lok Clip in Closure of Appendiceal Stump During Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Limited Setting in a Peripheral University Hospital

Background: Today, laparoscopy is frequently used in abdominal emergencies such as acute appendicitis. There are several techniques used to close the appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendectomy. We aimed to compare the use of handmade loop and Hem-o-lok used to close the appendiceal stump in public hospitals where resources are limited, in terms of surgical outcomes and cost. Methods: Between January 2020 and December 2022, patients for whom handmade loops and Hem-o-loks were used to close the appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendectomy in our clinic were included in the study. There were a total of 638 patients (mean age: 33 ± 13.5 years, 325 females and 313 males) in the patient cohort. Demographic and clinical data, duration of surgery, complications, hospital stay, pathology reports, mortality, and cost of supplies were compared between the two groups. Results: There were 308 patients in the handmade loop group (160 females, 148 males, mean age: 33.7 years, range: 18-85 years) and 330 patients in the Hem-o-lok group (166 females, 164 males, mean age: 32.5 years, range: 18-89 years). There was no significant difference between the two groups for American Society of Anesthesiologists score, duration of symptom, hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, preoperative laboratory values, histopathological results, mortality, and morbidity (P > .05). The mean operation time was 48.76 ± 16.16 minutes in the handmade loop group and 40.53 ± 11.63 minutes in the Hem-o-lok group (p = 0.001). In terms of cost, the cost per case of Hem-o-lok group was about 25.8 times as much as the group that used sutures ($31 versus $1.2). Conclusions: Both methods can be used safely in laparoscopic appendectomy. The use of Hem-o-lok has no advantage other than shortening the operation time. However, it is costlier. Especially in peripheral hospitals where resources are limited, closing the appendiceal stump using a handmade loop is an easy, safe, and cost-effective method.

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 versus Open Appendectomy: A Prospective Comparative Study and 4-Year Experience in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background The aim of this study was to validate the pros of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) over open appendectomy (OA) and to compare various primary outcome measures in the management of acute and recurrent appendicitis.

Study Design Prospective comparative study.

Place and Duration Between June 2015 and October 2019 in JJ Hospital, Mumbai.

Materials and Methods Total of 60 patients with acute and recurrent appendicitis were included in the study. Thirty patients underwent OA and 30 underwent LA. Both groups were comparable clinicopathologically and demographically. Various intraoperative and postoperative parameters were compared. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and categorical variables were expressed as percentages. Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables and chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables. p-Value≤0.001 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results The median age of patients undergoing OA and LA was 24.9 and 25.2 years (p = 0.221), respectively. Female: male ratio in OA and LA was 1.30 and 1.14, respectively (p = 0.795). Mean operative duration in LA and OA group was 47.17 ± 14.39 minutes and 36.9 ± 12.33 minutes (p = 0.001), respectively. Mean length of postoperative stay in LA and OA group was 3.69 ± 0.71 days and 5.28 ± 0.63 days (p = 0.000), respectively. Median visual analogue scale score in LA and OA group was 3.5 and 5 (p = 0.001), respectively. Mean time to return to normal activity in LA and OA group was 8.13 ± 1.33 days and 10.10 ± 2.20 days (p = 0.000), respectively. About 6.66% patients in LA group and 13.33% in OA group had postoperative wound infection (p = 0.652). Mean scar scale scoring done on 30th postoperative day was 4.23 in LA and 8.23 in OA (p = 0.000).

Discussion and Conclusion LA is more promising than OA in the management of acute and recurrent appendicitis. LA offers lesser operative site pain in the postoperative period, shorter postoperative hospital stays, earlier recovery, and return to normal activities and cosmetically better scars on 30th day follow-up. No conversions or significant difference in wound related complications were seen in both groups. Prolonged intraoperative duration was the only drawback of LA.

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.

Looped suture versus stapler device in pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy: a comparative outcomes and intraoperative cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Appendiceal ligation during pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) may be performed using looped suture versus stapler. Controversy regarding the utility of either method exists. Clinical outcomes and cost analysis of LA with both methods were compared.

METHODS

All pediatric LA were performed from fiscal years 2013 and 2014 by two pediatric surgeons. While one surgeon used looped suture, the other used stapler exclusively. chi-Square tests were performed to analyze associations.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-eight cases were analyzed where looped suture versus stapler LA was performed in 46% and 54% of patients, respectively. Operating room costs were $317.10 and $707.12/person for looped suture and stapler LA, respectively (P<0.0001). Difference in cost of $390.02/person was attributed solely to ligation type. On bivariate analysis, rate of in-hospital complications, length of stay, return-to-ER and readmission within 30 days did not significantly differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

A comparative analysis of looped suture versus stapler device during LA for pediatric appendicitis revealed that postoperative complications, length of stay, ER visits and readmissions were not significantly different. Looped suture LA was significantly more cost efficient than stapler LA. In pediatric appendicitis, appendiceal ligation during LA may be performed safely and cost effectively with looped suture versus stapler.

TYPE OF STUDY

Cost effectiveness LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

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.

Single-Port Laparoscopic Interval Appendectomy for Perforated Appendicitis With a Periappendiceal Abscess

PURPOSE

Nonoperative management followed by an interval appendectomy is a commonly used approach for treating patients with perforated appendicitis with abscess formation. As minimally-invasive surgery has developed, single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) is increasingly being used to treat many conditions. We report our initial experience with this procedure using a multichannel single-port.

METHODS

The study included 25 adults who underwent a single-port laparoscopic interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with periappendiceal abscess by using a single-port with or without needlescopic grasper between June 2014 and January 2016.

RESULTS

Of the 25 patients, 9 (36%) required percutaneous drainage for a median of 7 days (5-14 days) after insertion, and 3 (12%) required conversion to reduced-port laparoscopic surgery with a 5-mm port insertion because of severe adhesions to adjacent organs. Of 22 patients undergoing SPLS, 13 underwent pure SPLS (52.0%) whereas 9 patients underwent SPLS with a 2-mm needle instrument (36.0%). Median operation time was 70 minutes (30-155 minutes), and a drainage tube was placed in 9 patients (36.0%). Median total length of incision was 2.5 cm (2.0-3.0 cm), and median time to soft diet initiation and length of stay in the hospital were 2 days (0-5 days) and 3 days (1-7 days), respectively. Two patients (8.0%) developed postoperative complications: 1 wound site bleeding and 1 surgical site infection.

CONCLUSION

Conservative management followed by a single-port laparoscopic interval appendectomy using a multichannel single-port appears feasible and safe for treating patients with acute perforated appendicitis with periappendiceal abscess.

Effectiveness and safety of endoscopy for treatment of surgical site infection: A randomized control trial

The aim of this randomized control study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopy for the treatment of surgical site infection (SSI), compared with conventional therapy. One hundred and six patients who were diagnosed with severe SSI were included in the study, performed from May 2005 to July 2012 at Tianjin Binhai New Area Dagang Hospital, China. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: 57 patients in group A treated by endoscopy and 49 patients in group B treated by conventional therapy for SSI. The primary outcome was the healing period of the wound; the secondary outcomes were the blood loss following surgery, visual analog scale (VAS) measurement, volume of irrigation saline during surgery, rate of skin transplantation, length of hospital stay and other complications. The mean wound healing time was significantly less in group A (10.0±2.5 days) than in group B (19.4±5.2 days). The mean VAS score 7 days after surgery in group A was significantly less compared with group B. The intra-operative blood loss, intra-operative volume of irrigation saline and length of the hospital stay were significantly reduced in group A compared with group B. No significant differences between the groups were revealed in terms of the duration of surgery and the clinical complications. This study demonstrated that the endoscopy procedure for the treatment of SSI reduces the wound healing time compared with that of traditional surgery, without increasing any risk of clinical events. The present study showed that endoscopy was not only effective but also safe in the therapy of serious SSI. However, a further randomized control trial is necessary to testify our conclusions.

Efficacy of transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy for appendicitis: a four-year experience at a single center

PURPOSE

To compare the surgical outcomes after transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) and open appendectomy (OA) at a single institution.

METHODS

We compared the surgical outcomes for 94 consecutive patients who underwent TULAA between April 2010 and March 2014 to those for 91 consecutive patients who underwent OA between April 2006 and March 2010.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the clinicopathological backgrounds between the two groups. Although the lengths of the operations were similar in both groups, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TULAA group (4.7 days vs. 5.4 days, P = 0.02). The need for abdominal drain insertion was significantly reduced in the TULAA group owing to sufficient intraperitoneal exploration (P = 0.03). The incidence of postoperative complications was also lower in the TULAA group, but the difference was not significant (8.6 % vs. 12.1 %, P = 0.31). In complicated cases, a lower incidence of surgical site infection was confirmed in the TULAA group (6.7 % vs. 20.7 %, P = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrated that TULAA provided better surgical outcomes, especially a faster recovery. TULAA could be an effective procedure incorporating both open and laparoscopic techniques, and can be implemented as a standard procedure for the treatment of appendicitis, regardless of disease severity.

Is laparoscopic appendectomy going to be standard procedure for acute appendicitis; a 5-year single center experience with 1,788 patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether laparoscopic appendectomy can be the gold standard for acute appendicitis regarding the applicability and cost effectivity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included patients who were operated by laparoscopically for acute appendicitis between January 2008 and September 2012. Patients' sex, ages, hospitalization time, the type for closure of the appendiceal stump, complication rate, surgery time and other parameters were recorded.

RESULTS

1,788 patients with acute appendicitis on laparoscopic evaluation constituted the study population. Average age of the patient group was 30.1 ± 2.3 years old. Average hospitalization time was 1.2 ± 1.1 days. Metal clips were used in 1,100 (61.5%) patients, intracorporeal knotting was performed in the remaining. Total complication rate was 3.8%.

CONCLUSION

By the using of metal clips and increased experience; laparoscopy may be gold standard for acute appendicitis.

Staple line as a cause of unusual early internal hernia after appendectomy

The use of mechanical stapling devices in laparoscopic appendectomies has become a common practice. Occasionally, the retained staples have been described to cause adhesions that might result in bowel obstruction. Early bowel obstruction after routine abdominal surgery should be closely investigated and might warrant early re-exploration. We present a rare case of small bowel obstruction caused by a staple line adhesive band one week after appendectomy. A 46-year-old female underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis. A linear endoscopic stapling device was utilized during the procedure. The patient was discharged without complication. One week later, the patient presented to the emergency room for abdominal pain and she was discharged after adequate pain control. Several hours later she returned with similar symptoms, and she was diagnosed with distal small bowel obstruction by computed tomography scan. During the diagnostic laparoscopy there was an internal hernia through a defect created by the appendiceal staple line and the adjacent small bowel mesentery. After reduction of the hernia, the small bowel venous drainage improved, and no intestinal resection was necessary. The offending staple was removed and the staple line covered with omentum. The patient had complete resolution of symptoms and she was discharged the following day. No perioperative complications occurred. Mechanical staplers are routinely used in laparoscopic appendectomy. The staple line should be inspected at the end of the procedure to confirm the absence of free, unformed staples that can generate adhesions and postoperative complications.

Analysis of endoloops and endostaples for closing the appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendectomy

PURPOSE

An inadequate closure of the appendiceal stump can lead to intra-abdominal surgical site infections. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of different closure techniques by focusing on the intraoperative and postoperative complications versus cost.

METHODS

From June 2011 to June 2013, 333 patients from two different hospitals undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy were included in this study. The patients were divided into two groups based on the technique used for appendiceal stump closure: there were 104 patients in the stapler group and 229 in the loop group.

RESULTS

Among the 333 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, there were two (0.6%) intraoperative complications and 22 (6.6%) postoperative complications. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the intraoperative and postoperative complications. The length of the operation was 7 min shorter when the endoloop was used (p = 0.014). The mean costs of the operation were significantly lower when the loop was used (<euro> 554.93) compared to the stapler (<euro> 900.70) (p = 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no clinical evidence supporting the routine use of endoscopic staplers. The appendiceal stump can be secured safely with the use of endoloops in the majority of patients. Surgeons have to be more selective when choosing how to perform closure, and an endostapler should be used only in cases where it is clinically indicated.

External tube drainage or omentoplasty in the management of residual hepatic hydatid cyst cavity: a prospective randomized controlled study

Background: Surgical procedures advocated for management of residual hepatic hydatid cyst cavity have been a subject of controversy. The aim of this study was to compare omentoplasty (OP) and external tube drainage (ETD).

Material and methods: This was a prospective randomized controlled study conducted on radiologically documented cases of hepatic hydatidosis (n=50) in a tertiary care hospital of Kashmir. Patients were divided into two groups; in one group ETD was performed and in another OP was done.

Results: Twenty-eight patients were offered ETD and 22 OP. There was no statistically significant difference in mean operative time. The overall complication rate was higher in ETD (42.86%) as compared to OP (22.73%). In ETD group two patients had bile leak and infection of residual cavity each; whereas no such complication was seen in OP. The mean pain scores were elevated in ETD (p<0.0016).The mean hospital stay was more in ETD as compared to OP (p<0.0031). Also time for resumption of activities of daily life was more in ETD (p<0.0026). The recurrence of disease was seen in three patients in ETD as compared to none in OP.

Conclusion: Omentoplasty offers a number of advantages over external tube drainage and should remain the preferred option whenever possible.