PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16823654

Securing the appendiceal stump in laparoscopic appendectomy: evidence for routine stapling?

G Kazemier·K H in't Hof·S Saad·H J Bonjer·S Sauerland
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This metaanalysis aimed to compare endoscopic linear stapling and loop ligatures used to secure the base of the appendix. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials on appendix stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy were systematically searched and critically appraised. The results in terms of complication rates, operating time, and hospital stay were pooled by standard metaanalytic techniques. RESULTS: Data on 427 patients from four studies were included. The operative time was 9 min longer when loops were used (p = 0.04). Superficial wound infections (odds ratio [OR], 0.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.06-0.71; p = 0.01) and postoperative ileus (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14-0.89; p = 0.03) were significantly less frequent when the appendix stump was secured with staples instead of loops. Of 10 intraoperative ruptures of the appendix, 7 occurred in loop-treated patients (p = 0.46). Hospital stay and frequency of postoperative intraabdominal abscess also were comparable in loop-treated and staple-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical evidence on stump closure methods in laparoscopic appendectomy favors the routine use of endoscopic staplers.

Explore related subjects

AppendectomyHumansIleusIncidenceLaparoscopyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical StaplersSurgical Wound InfectionSuture TechniquesTime FactorsJournal ArticleMeta-Analysis

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G Kazemier, K H in't Hof, S Saad, H J Bonjer, S Sauerland. 2006-07-03. Securing the appendiceal stump in laparoscopic appendectomy: evidence for routine stapling?. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0525-7

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↗