PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “APPENDECTOMY”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

[Status and outcome of laparoscopic appendectomy--results of a prospective study of 600 consecutive appendectomies].

In a prospective study 600 consecutive appendectomies were held. In 51 cases the surgery was conventionally ended after laparoscopic beginning. The laparoscopic proceeding was set independently of the dimension of the inflammation. Also the perforation did not exhibit any contraindication. The rate of complications of 8.7% was in the range of the conventional appendectomy. We, however, could show that with increased experience and save technique the morbidity, especially the septic complications could have been sinked to 2%. The duration of hospitalisation amounted on an average of 5.0 days, the surgery time 53.6 minutes. The main advantage of the laparoscopic proceeding is the outstanding overview with the possibility of a diagnostics of the abdominal cavity. Besides an acute appendicitis of which in 14.6% a perforation was present, relevant side findings were elevated in 11.3% which in 7.7% were endoscopic surgically treated at the same time.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1998

[Laparoscopic appendectomy as routine operation for treatment of inflammatory diseases of the appendix. Analysis of 733 laparoscopic appendectomies 6/1992 to 8/1997 in the Reichenbach district hospital].

All laparoscopic appendectomies were analysed retrospectively during 6/1992 and 8/1997 in our hospital. Operation time was 33.6 +/- 12.9 min. In 9 patients the operation had to be converted. Complications occurred in 1.77% (13 patients). 7 complications could be treated laparoscopically and 6 required a laparotomy. The hospital time was 6.4 +/- 2.2 days. The patients needed 1.3 +/- 1.7 days oral analgetics. We believe the laparoscopic appendectomy a reliable operation to treat all inflammatory diseases of the appendix.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Laparoscopic appendectomy and laparotomy appendectomy: comparison of methods].

The study compares the real advantages of laparoscopic appendicectomy using only a transumbilical trocar, with laparotomic appendicectomy in the management of acute and/or chronic pain in the lower right abdominal quadrant. From May 1997 to April 2000, 88 patients were treated: 27 (group I) with the laparoscopic approach, and 61 (group II) with laparotomy. We compared operating times, incidence of complications, hospital stay and cosmetic result. We also reviewed the literature on this subject over the past ten years. Average operating time was 45 minutes in group I and 30 minutes in group II; complications consisted in 2 cases of omphalitis in the laparoscopic group and 3 infections of the wound and 2 cases of lipolysis of the abdominal wall in the laparotomic group. The average hospital stay was 3.2 days in the laparoscopic group against 4.7 days in the laparotomic group. Resumption of work and sport occurred after 10 to 20 days and 15 to 45 days in groups I and II, respectively. The total cost was lower in the laparoscopic group. The laparoscopic approach appears to be an effective technique for the management of acute and chronic appendicitis, as it allows both treatment of the pathology and diagnosis and treatment of other unknown pathologies, with exploration of the abdominal cavity. In addition, it guarantees a good cosmetic result, a short hospital stay with a low incidence of complications and an advantageous cost/benefit ratio.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Results of laparoscopic vs. conventional appendectomy in complicated appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Although many trials show some advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy, the value of laparoscopic appendectomy is still controversial. Specifically the question of whether there are benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy in complicated appendicitis remains to be answered. METHODS: Of 1,106 consecutive appendectomies (717 laparoscopic appendectomies, 330 open appendectomies, and 59 conversions) between 1989 and 1999, the results of 299 patients with complicated appendicitis (defined by perforation, abscess, or peritonitis) were analyzed retrospectively to compare the complications of laparoscopic appendectomy and conversion (intention-to-treat group) with those of open appendectomy. RESULTS: Complicated appendicitis (n = 299) was treated by laparoscopic appendectomy in 171 patients, by open appendectomy in 82 patients, and by conversion in 46 patients. Laparoscopic appendectomy and conversion showed fewer abdominal wall complications than open appendectomy (13/217; 6 percent vs. 15/82; 18.3 percent; P < 0.003), which led to a decrease of the total complication rate in the intention-to-treat group (21/217; 9.7 percent vs. 19/82; 23.1 percent; P = 0.004). The rate of intra-abdominal abscess formation was nearly the same after laparoscopic appendectomy (4.1 percent) and open appendectomy (4.9 percent). The total complication rate was higher in complicated appendicitis than in acute appendicitis (P < 0.005) but was independent of the laparoscopic technique. The conversion rate was higher in complicated appendicitis than in acute appendicitis (21.2 vs. 2.3 percent; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In comparison with open appendectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy (by itself and in an intention-to-treat view) leads to a significant reduction of early postoperative complications in complicated appendicitis and therefore should be considered as the procedure of choice.

Abscess↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Appendectomy in the pre- and postlaparoscopic eras.

The role of laparoscopic appendectomy remains controversial since many authors have suggested that overall morbidity is primarily a function of the degree of appendicitis rather than the operative approach. We have reviewed our appendectomy experience to determine the advantages and/or disadvantages of the laparoscopic technique in cases of acute appendicitis, and furthermore to ascertain whether the extent of disease should affect the surgical approach used. Data were accumulated for all 1158 patients who underwent appendectomy at a single institution during the following three time periods that span the pre- and postlaparoscopic eras: period I (1987 to 1990), period II (1991 to 1993), and period III (1994 to 1997). Cases were categorized with regard to pathologic findings and operative approach (i.e., open or laparoscopic appendectomy). The percentage of appendectomies performed laparoscopically increased with time (0%, 27%, and 79% for periods I, II, and III, respectively). Overall, the total operating room time was slightly shorter for laparoscopic compared to open appendectomy (99 vs. 102 minutes; P<0.05). Operating room times for open appendectomy remained unchanged, but the times for laparoscopic appendectomy decreased from period II to period III (119 to 94 minutes; P<0.001). In cases of gangrenous/perforated appendicitis, the times for laparoscopic appendectomy were significantly shorter than those for open appendectomy (98/115 vs. 120/125 minutes; P<0.001 for both). Overall, the hospital stay was shorter for patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (1.63 vs. 4.21 days; P<0.001), and the difference was maintained in all three time periods. The differences in length of hospital stay for lap-aroscopic vs. open appendectomy were most dramatic in gangrenous/perforated cases (1.8/3.0 vs. 4.0/9.0 days; P<0.001), whereas there was only a slight difference in cases of simple appendicitis, for example, 1.6 vs. 2.1 days (laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy, period III). There was a significant decrease in the percentage of perforated cases in which surgical treatment had been delayed (>8 hours) (21%, 5%, and 5%) over the three time periods, but the rate of "negative" appendectomies was similar (10%, 8%, and 8%). The complication rates following laparoscopic and open appendectomies during period II were 5.4% and 7.5%, respectively (P>0.05). Laparoscopic appendectomy results in a marked decrease in the length of hospital stay and similar postoperative morbidity compared to open appendectomy. In cases of gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy appears to be especially worthwhile in regard to both operating room time and hospital stay.

Acute Disease↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Prospective randomized comparison of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy in men.

A prospective, randomized trial was performed to compare open appendectomy with laparoscopic appendectomy in men with a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Sixty-four patients with a median age of 25 years (range 18-84 years) were randomized to open appendectomy (n = 31) or laparoscopic (n = 33) appendectomy. Of the 64 men, 56 (87.5%) had appendicitis (27 open, 29 laparoscopic procedures). The mean operating times were 50.6 +/- 3.7 minutes (+/- SEM) for open and 58.9 +/- 4.0 minutes for laparoscopic appendectomy (p = 0.13). Five (15%) patients randomized to laparoscopic appendectomy had an open operation. The mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer for open appendectomy (3.8 +/- 0.4 days) than for laparoscopic appendectomy (2.9 +/- 0.3 days) (t = 2. 05,df = 62,p = 0.045). The complication rate after open appendectomy (25.8%) was not significantly different from that after laparoscopic appendectomy (12.1%). There was a single postoperative death due to a pulmonary embolus in the laparoscopic group and a single death due to cardiac and renal failure in the open group. The mean time to return to normal activities was significantly longer following open appendectomy (19.7 +/- 2.4 days) than after laparoscopic appendectomy (10.4 +/- 0.9 days), (t = 3.75,df = 49,p = 0.001). In conclusion, laparoscopic appendectomy in men has significant advantages in terms of a more rapid recovery compared to open appendectomy. There were no significant disadvantages to laparoscopic appendectomy compared to open appendectomy.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1994

A prospective randomized trial comparing open versus laparoscopic appendectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The authors determined whether there was an advantage to laparoscopic appendectomy when compared with open appendectomy. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND DATA: The advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy were questioned because the recovery from open appendectomy is brief. METHODS: From January 15, 1992 through January 15, 1993, 75 patients older than 9 years were entered into a study randomizing the choice of operation to either the open or the laparoscopic technique. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were assigned to the open appendectomy group and 38 patients were assigned to the laparoscopic appendectomy group. Two patients were converted intraoperatively from laparoscopic appendectomies to open procedures. Thirty-one patients (81%) in the open group had acute appendicitis, as did 32 patients (84%) in the laparoscopic group. Mean duration of surgery was 65 minutes for open appendectomy and 87 minutes for laparoscopic appendectomy (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in length of hospitalization, interval until resumption of a regular diet, or morbidity. Duration of both parenteral and oral analgesic use favored laparoscopic appendectomy (2.0 days versus 1.2 days, and 8.0 days versus 5.4 days, p < 0.05). All patients were instructed to return to full activities by 2 weeks postoperatively. This occurred at an average of 25 days for the open appendectomy group versus 14 days for the laparoscopic appendectomy group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomies have a shorter duration of analgesic use and return to full activities sooner postoperatively when compared with patients who underwent open appendectomies. The authors consider laparoscopic appendectomy to be the procedure of choice in patients with acute appendicitis.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2001

[Laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Critical review of the literature and personal experience].

UNLABELLED: In the era of video-laparoscopic surgery there are a lot of surgeons that still continue to perform open appendectomy. This choice is the consequence of the good results of open appendectomy (clinical, cosmetic, hospital stays and hospital costs). Published trials on laparoscopic appendectomy don't show that it is superior to the open approach. The aim of this study is to critically review the literature on laparoscopic and traditional appendectomies and to report a clinical experience on 86 consecutive patients that underwent open appendectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 2000 to March 2001, in the Department of Emergency Surgery of Villa Scassi Hospital in Genoa, 86 patients underwent open appendectomy (32 men; mean age 29.8 years; range 15-54 years/54 women; mean age 22.4 years; range 13-80 years). All the patients underwent blood examinations, abdomino-pelvic ultrasonographys and the women gynecological evaluation. The Authors used, almost always, the Stropeni way of access (cutaneous Mac Burney and right para-rectal incision of the muscles). Discharge has been done as soon as possible. Removed appendices were submitted to histological examination and were classified as normal or pathologic according to the severity of the lesion. Review of articles has been done on Medline. RESULTS: Suspected appendicitis have been confirmed by histological examination that documented 1 normal appendix, 7 chronic appendicitis, 45 acute catharralis, 22 acute suppurative and 11 gangrenous or perforated appendicitis. The specificity of open appendectomy has been 97.6% (100% for men). Post-operative complications were: 2 wound infections and 1 recurrence of an abscess (2.58%). Open appendectomy did carry an hospital bill of 2,500,000 IT liras (1,200 USA dollars) for non complicated appendicitis and 2,000 USA dollars for perforated appendicitis. The early discharge allowed us to spend 119 millions IT liras less in 7 months (99,600 USA dollars in a year). DISCUSSION: The role of laparoscopic appendectomy isn't still established. After a critical review of the literature we can suggest that: 1) laparoscopic appendectomy increase operative time (63 vs 43 minutes: p < 0.0001); 2) laparoscopic approach can reduce the length of post-operative stay in hospital; 3) hospital bill is strongly reduced by open appendectomy (4,274 vs 7,923 USA dollars). On our experience the cost of the hospital for uncomplicated appendicitis is 2,500,000 IT liras (1,200 USA dollars). Otherwise it has been suggested that laparoscopic appendectomy has a better diagnostic accuracy respect to open appendectomy. Some Authors report a percentage of "negative" appendices of 16-50%. In Authors experience the percentage of "negative" appendices is 1.3% and so the diagnostic accuracy is 96% in women and 100% in men, probably because we systematically performed a preoperative abdomino-pelvic ultrasonography and, for the women, a gynecological evaluation. In conclusion, laparoscopic appendectomy should be done in case of suspected appendicitis in women. In the other cases, when there is a strong clinical suspect of appendicitis and, in particular, in case of suppurative appendicitis, the Authors recommend to perform an open appendectomy using the Stropeni approach. In case of perforated appendicitis with abdominal abscess they recommend to perform an open appendectomy using the right para-rectal approach or the median umbilical-pubis approach.

Acute Disease↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Intra-abdominal abscesses following laparoscopic and open appendectomies.

Recent findings in a small number of studies have suggested a trend toward increased infectious complications following laparoscopic appendectomy. The purpose of the present review was to evaluate the incidence of postappendectomy intra-abdominal abscess formation following laparoscopic and open appendectomies. Using the surgical database of the Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center, we reviewed the records of all appendectomies performed at the center between March 1993 and September 1995. Incidental appendectomies as well as appendectomies in pediatric patients under the age of 18 years were excluded. A total of 2497 appendectomies were identified; indications for these procedures included acute appendicitis in 1422 cases (57%), gangrenous appendicitis in 289 (12%), and perforated appendicitis in 786 (31%). The intraoperative diagnosis made by the surgeon was used for classification. A two-tailed P value of <0.05 was considered significant. There was no significant difference in the rate of abscess formation between the groups undergoing open and laparoscopic appendectomies for acute and gangrenous appendicitis. In patients with perforated appendicitis, a total of 26 postappendectomy intra-abdominal abscesses occurred following 786 appendectomies for an overall abscess formation rate of 3.3%. Eighteen abscesses occurred following 683 open appendectomies (2.6%), six abscesses occurred following 67 laparoscopic appendectomies (9.0%), and the remaining two abscesses occurred following 36 converted cases (5.6%). For perforated appendicitis, however, there was a statistically significant increase in the rate of abscess formation following laparoscopic appendectomy compared to conventional open appendectomy (9.0% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.015). There was no significant difference in the rate of abscess formation between open vs. converted cases or between laparoscopic vs. converted cases. A comparison of the length of the postoperative hospital stay showed no significant difference between open and laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis (6.1 days vs. 5.9 days). Laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis is associated with a higher rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess formation without the benefit of a shortened hospital stay. Given these findings, laparoscopic appendectomy is not recommended in patients with perforated appendicitis.

Abdominal Abscess↗
PubMed2003

Institutioning a clinical practice guideline to decrease the rate of normal appendectomies.

With the advent of laparoscopic appendectomy, the rate of normal appendectomies increased at our institution. To decrease our rate of normal appendectomies, we instituted a clinical practice guideline in January 1999 for the preoperative evaluation and treatment of patients with possible acute appendicitis. The medical records of 464 consecutive patients who underwent either open or laparoscopic appendectomy with a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2000, were reviewed. The decision of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy was made at the time of surgery by the attending surgeon. Two hundred twelve patients (116 females, 96 males) underwent an appendectomy for acute appendicitis (142 open, 70 laparoscopic) from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1998, prior to the institution of the guideline. Two hundred fifty-two patients (117 females, 135 males) underwent an appendectomy for acute appendicitis (193 open, 59 laparoscopic) from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2000 (after the guideline was instituted). Prior to the guideline, the normal appendectomy rate was 21.7 per cent (18.3% open, 28.6% laparoscopic). After the guideline was instituted, the normal appendectomy rate was 16.7 per cent (14.5% open, 23.7% laparoscopic). In females, the normal appendectomy rate prior to the guideline was 31.0 per cent (26.6% open, 36.5% laparoscopic) while the normal appendectomy rate after the guideline was 23.1 per cent (19.0% open, 31.6% laparoscopic), P = 0.172. In males, the normal appendectomy rate prior to the guideline was 10.4 per cent (11.5% open, 5.6% laparoscopic) while the normal appendectomy rate after the guideline was 11.1 per cent (11.4% open, 9.5% laparoscopic), P = 0.861. By instituting a guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of possible acute appendicitis, we were able to decrease our rate of normal appendectomies. Although statistical significance was not reached, there is a trend toward decreasing the rate of normal appendectomies in females after the guideline was instituted.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2004

The costs and effects of laparoscopic appendectomy in children.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic procedures are performed commonly in children. In general, the cost containment of laparoscopic surgery in children has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of laparoscopic appendectomy with those of open appendectomy. DESIGN: Prospective clinical trial between November 1, 1997, and April 30, 2000. For analysis, cost of supplies, operation room use, and recovery in the hospital and after discharge was evaluated. Costs common to both groups were not determined. SETTING: Operations performed in a university hospital.Patients Eighty-seven children aged 4 to 15 years who underwent appendectomy for suspected appendicitis. Patients were randomized to laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Intervention Laparoscopic appendectomies performed with the same standard set of reusable equipment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost surplus of the laparoscopic procedure and recovery after surgery were evaluated, to determine the costs and effects of laparoscopic appendectomy compared with those of open appendectomy in children. RESULTS: Excess operating and complication costs per procedure were 96 euros (EUR) in laparoscopic appendectomy. The increased operative expenses were offset by a shorter hospital stay, resulting in a marginal difference of 53 EUR in itemized total costs between the 2 procedures (total cost, 1023 EUR in the laparoscopic appendectomy group and 970 EUR in the open appendectomy group). After laparoscopic appendectomy, children returned to school and sports earlier than those who had had an open appendectomy. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy was marginally more expensive, but it allowed earlier return to normal daily activities than open appendectomy.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Appendectomy protects against the development of ulcerative colitis and reduces its recurrence: results of a multicenter case-controlled study in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: Studies in the US and Europe have shown that appendectomy may prevent the development of ulcerative colitis, but no detailed study has been conducted in Japan, where ulcerative colitis is uncommon and the population is racially homogeneous. In addition, there has been no detailed analysis of the relationship between appendectomy and the clinical course of ulcerative colitis. In this multicenter clinical study, we evaluated the effects of appendectomy on ulcerative colitis in Japan. METHODS: A case-control study was undertaken in seven medical institutions comparing the incidence of appendectomy and tonsillectomy in 325 patients with ulcerative colitis and 325 controls matched for age (10-yr intervals) and sex. Disease duration, extent, and prognosis were determined in 21 patients with ulcerative colitis who underwent appendectomies and 304 patients with ulcerative colitis who did not undergo appendectomies. RESULTS: Appendectomy was performed in a significantly lower percentage of patients in the ulcerative colitis group (21/325, 6.5%) than in the control group (53/325, 16.3%) (p < 0.001) (odds ratios = 0.355, 95% CI = 0.208-0.603). In contrast, no significant difference was observed between the groups with respect to tonsillectomy. The mean age (25.7 +/- 10.9 yr) of patients with ulcerative colitis at the time of appendectomy was significantly higher than the mean age (20.1 +/- 8.7 yr) of patients in the control group at the time of appendectomy (p < 0.05). The incidence of proctitis was higher in the appendectomy group than in the group that did not undergo appendectomies (38.1% vs 18.1%). In addition, the recurrence rates were significantly lower in the appenectomy group than in the group that did not undergo appendectomies (57. 1% vs 78.6%, p < 0.05), although both groups were similar in composition as to sex, age, duration of disease, smoking status, and previous medical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that appendectomy has a negative association with and perhaps a preventive effect on the development of ulcerative colitis in the Japanese population. Furthermore, appendectomy also appears to reduce the extent and recurrence of ulcerative colitis.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To asses the role of laparoscopic appendectomy in the treatment of acute as well as chronic appendicitis on the basis of our own experiences. METHODOLOGY: From the set of 849 patients treated with appendectomy (from January 1993 to December 2000) 331 were singled out, i.e.; those unable to work for some time and thus being on sickness benefit who asked for a medical certificate. They were operated on for either acute or chronic appendicitis. RESULTS: In our set of 331 patients (158 males, 173 females, the average age 29.4) open appendectomy was performed on 179 patients and laparoscopic appendectomy on 152. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 43 males (28%) and 109 females (72%); open appendectomy in 115 males (64%) and 64 females (36%). Laparoscopic appendectomy took 53.7 +/- 18.1 minutes, open appendectomy took 43.6 +/- 8.99 minutes. The time of work disablement is longer in open appendectomy (open appendectomy: 41.2 +/- 9.91 days; laparoscopic appendectomy; 29.1 +/- 15.11 days). A significant difference (p < 0.00001) can be seen in the length of hospitalization (laparoscopic appendectomy: 5.0 +/- 2.75 days, open appendectomy: 8.3 +/- 2.83 days). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo laparoscopic appendectomy spent less time in hospital, and they can return to work rather earlier. On the other hand the time of surgery is longer. Higher cost is compensated for with shorter hospitalization and early return to work.

Acute Disease↗