PubMed · 14896484
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
C ZUCKERMANN DUARTE. 1951. [Appendectomy; operative technic].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14896484/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The role of laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis remains controversial. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy outcomes for children with perforated appendicitis. METHODS: Over a 36-month period, 111 children with perforated appendicitis were analyzed in a retrospective review. These children were treated with either laparoscopic (n = 59) or open appendectomy. The primary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay, time to adequate oral intake, wound infection, intraabdominal abscess formation, and bowel obstruction. RESULTS: The demographic data, presenting symptoms, preoperative laboratory values, and operative times (laparoscopic group, 61 +/- 3 min; open group, 57 +/- 3 were similar for the two groups (p = 0.3). The time to adequate oral intake was 104 +/- 7 h for the laparoscopic group and 127 +/- 12 h for the open group (p = 0.08). The hospitalization time was 189 +/- 14 h for the laparoscopic group, as compared with 210 +/- 15 h for the open group (p = 0.3). The wound infection rate was 6.8% for the laparoscopic group and 23% for the open group (p < 0.05). The wounds of another 29% of the patients were left open at the time of surgery. The postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation rate was 13.6% for the laparoscopic group and 15.4% for the open group. One patient in each group experienced bowel obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy for the children with perforated appendicitis in this study was associated with a significant decrease in the rate of wound infection. Furthermore, on the average, the children who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy tolerated enteral feedings and were discharged from the hospital approximately 24 h earlier than those who had open appendectomy.
BACKGROUND: The benefit of laparoscopic appendicectomy remains unclear. We have analysed available randomised studies comparing laparoscopic and open appendicectomy regarding their clinical pitfalls and statistical relevance. METHODS: Thirty eight studies were analysed in terms of the following aspects: A. clinical problems (e.g., expertise of the surgeons, pre- and postoperative antibiotic treatment, definition of complications, blinding of outcomes) and B. statistical problems (e.g., definition of primary and secondary outcomes, power and sample size, statistical methods, confidence intervals, comparability of groups and studies). RESULTS: Most of the studies have clinical and statistical pitfalls. The most important pitfalls are the uncertain expertise of the operating surgeons, blinding, and the exploratory nature of the studies. Our analysis aims at giving useful information for the appraisal of existing studies and the conduct of further studies. It also gives some preliminary results. CONCLUSIONS: More than twenty years after Semm performed the first laparoscopic appendicectomy, it is necessary to clarify the superiority of laparoscopic or open appendectomy with well-defined, carefully designed randomised studies.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.