PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10415210

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: time to decide.

A Fingerhut·B Millat·F Borrie
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Although widely practiced, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has not met with universal approval. Several controlled trials have been conducted, some in favor, others not. The goal of this review was to ascertain (1) if laparoscopy was capable of improving the diagnostic and therapeutic difficulties encountered during open appendectomy (OA) and (2) if the introduction of laparoscopy in the overall management of acute appendicitis has changed anything in practice. Analysis and criticism of 17 controlled studies (nearly 1800 patients) on laparoscopic appendectomy and 2 randomized studies dealing with diagnostic laparoscopy are reported. Because of the questionable quality of randomized controlled trials (number of patients, exclusions, withdrawals, blinding, intention-to-treat analysis), publication biases, local practice variations (hospital stay, rate of enrollment), results regarding analgesia requirements, return to activity and work, duration of hospital stay, outcome, follow-up, and antibiotic prophylaxis the studies must be interpreted with caution. The real world of appendicitis probably differs greatly from the atmosphere under which controlled trials comparing LA and OA have been performed. Statistical significance is contrary to the clinical significance of the results. Consistently longer operating times [the difference ranging from 8 minutes (NS) to 29 minutes (p < 0.0001)], a minimal reduction in hospital stay [0. 1 day (NS) to 2.1 days (p < 0.007)], and, somewhat more controversial, an earlier return to normal activity were reported for LA. Data on analgesic requirements were confusing, but wound complications were more frequent after OA [pooled odds ratio for 10 studies: 2.6 (95% CI 1.3-5.2)]. Unsolved problems include national behavioral problems, age and experience of operating surgeons (LA or OA), and emergency conditions (availability of staff, instruments). Results of cost analysis vary according to the standpoint of disease, the patient, the surgeon, the treatment center, industry, and society. Three questions remain: Because of the competition of LA versus OA, OA has improved greatly. Can it be improved any more? Is there a place or need for further randomized controlled trials? Should we not conclude once and for all that LA is out?

Explore related subjects

AppendectomyAppendicitisHumansLaparoscopyPostoperative ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalTreatment OutcomeComparative StudyJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A Fingerhut, B Millat, F Borrie. 1999. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: time to decide.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002689900587

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

The natural history and traditional management of appendicitis revisited: spontaneous resolution and predominance of prehospital perforations imply that a correct diagnosis is more important than an early diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The principle of early exploration on wide indications in order to prevent perforation has been the guiding star for the management of patients with suspected appendicitis for over 100 years, dating back to a time when appendicitis was a significant cause of mortality. Since then there has been a dramatic decrease in mortality due to appendicitis. Emerging evidence calls for a new understanding of the natural history of untreated appendicitis. This motivates a reappraisal of the fundamental principles for the management of patients with suspected appendicitis. METHODS: Analysis of epidemiologic and clinical studies that elucidate the natural history of appendicitis, i.e. the possibility of spontaneous resolution or the risk of progression to perforation, the determinants of the proportion of perforations and mortality, and the consequence of in-hospital delay. RESULTS: The results presented in a number of studies suggest that spontaneous resolution of appendicitis is common, that perforation can seldom be prevented, that the risk of perforation has been exaggerated and that in-hospital delay is safe. An alternative understanding of the inverse relationship between the proportion of negative explorations and perforation and the increasing proportion of perforation with length of time is presented, mainly explaining these findings by selection due to spontaneous resolution. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that spontaneous resolution of untreated, non-perforated appendicitis is common and that perforation can rarely be prevented and is associated with a lower increase in mortality than was previously thought. This motivates a shift in focus from the prevention of perforation to the early detection and treatment of advanced appendicitis. In order to minimize mortality, morbidity and costs avoidance of negative appendectomies is more important then preventing perforation. In patients with an equivocal diagnosis where advanced appendicitis is deemed less likely a correct diagnosis is more important than a rapid diagnosis. These patients can safely be managed by active observation with an improved diagnostic work-up under observation, which has consistently shown a low proportion of negative appendectomies without an increase in the proportion of perforations or morbidity. A high proportion of perforations can be explained by selection due to undiagnosed resolving appendicitis. The proportion of perforation is therefore a questionable measure of the quality of the management of patients with suspected appendicitis and should be used with caution.

Appendectomy↗