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 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

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↗

PubMed2004

Trends in utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Although a number of trials have analyzed the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy, the clinical advantages, and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic appendectomy in the management of acute and perforated appendicitis are still not clearly defined. The aim of this study was to examine utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy using a national administrative database of academic medical centers and teaching hospitals. METHODS: Using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes, we obtained data from the University HealthSystem Consortium Clinical Data Base for all patients who underwent appendectomy for acute and perforated appendicitis between 1999 and 2003 (n = 60,236). Trends in utilization of laparoscopic appendectomy were examined over the 5-year period. The outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy were compared including length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission, complications, observed and expected (risk-adjusted) in-hospital mortality, and costs. RESULTS: Overall, 41,085 patients underwent open appendectomy and 19,151 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. The percentage of appendectomy performed by laparoscopy increased from 20% in 1999 to 43% in 2003 (P <0.01). Compared with patients who underwent open appendectomy, patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were more likely female, more likely white, had a lower severity of illness, and were less likely to have perforated appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (2.5 days vs 3.4 days), lower rate of 30-day readmission (1.0% vs 1.3%), and lower rate of overall complications (6.1% vs 9.6%). There was no significant difference in the observed to expected mortality ratio between laparoscopic and open appendectomy (0.5 vs 0.6, respectively). The mean cost per case was similar between the two groups (US$ 6,242 vs US$ 6,260). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of laparoscopic appendectomy at academic centers has increased more than two-fold between 1999 and 2003. Patients selected for laparoscopic appendectomy have less advanced appendicitis and have a shorter length of stay and fewer complications without increasing the inpatient care cost.

Adolescent↗

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↗

PubMed2004

Hospital- and patient-level characteristics and the risk of appendiceal rupture and negative appendectomy in children.

CONTEXT: The rates of appendiceal rupture and negative appendectomy in children remain high despite efforts to reduce them. Both outcomes are used as measures of hospital quality. Little is known about the factors that influence these rates. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between hospital- and patient-level characteristics and the rates of appendiceal rupture and negative appendectomy in children. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective review using the Pediatric Health Information System database containing information on 24,411 appendectomies performed on children aged 5 to 17 years at 36 pediatric hospitals in the United States between 1997 and 2002. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of negative appendectomy and appendiceal rupture; the odds ratio (OR) of negative appendectomy and appendiceal rupture by hospital, patient age, race, and health insurance status, and hospital fiscal year and appendectomy volume. Negative appendectomy rate was defined as the number of patients with appendectomy but without appendicitis divided by the total number of appendectomies. RESULTS: The median negative appendectomy rate was 3.06% (range, 1%-12%) and the median appendiceal rupture rate was 35.08% (range, 22%-62%). The adjusted OR for appendiceal rupture was higher in Asian children (1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-2.23) and black children (1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30) compared with white children. Children without health insurance and children with public insurance had increased odds of appendiceal rupture compared with children who had private health insurance (adjusted OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.22-1.53 for self-insured; adjusted OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.34-1.64 for public insurance). No correlation existed between negative appendectomy rate and race, health insurance status, or hospital appendiceal rupture rate. The negative appendectomy rate improved as the hospital appendectomy volume increased. CONCLUSION: The rate of appendiceal rupture in school-aged children was associated with race and health insurance status and not with negative appendectomy rate and therefore is more likely to be associated with prehospitalization factors such as access to care, quality of care, and patient or physician education.

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↗

PubMed1993

A review of the results of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.

Proponents of laparoscopic appendectomy emphasize the advantages of laparoscopic operation--decreased hospitalization, paralytic ileus, postoperative pain and wound complications, including infection. This study compared open laparoscopic appendectomy with laparoscopic appendectomy. To compare the two techniques, patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy at four hospitals were compared with patients undergoing open appendectomy during a six month period. Excluded were incidental appendectomies and patients with perforated appendicitis. An equal number of pediatric patients undergoing laparoscopic and open procedures were included in the analysis to avoid bias, because most of the laparoscopic appendectomies were performed in the adult patient population (age of more than 16 years). A University Medical Center, a Veterans Administration and two community hospitals were the settings. Patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 54) had an average age of 25.7 +/- 1.5 (range of six to 59 years). These patients were compared with 121 patients undergoing open appendectomy whose average age was 23.7 +/- 1.8 (range of three to 83 years). The race and gender distribution were similar in the two groups. Traditional open appendectomy was compared with a group of patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Variables evaluated were operating room time, number of patients who reported nausea, days until patient tolerated a regular diet, days of hospitalization, postoperative pain medication and wound infection rate. Results are expressed as the mean plus or minus standard error of the mean. Analysis of variance was used to compute continuous variables and Fischer's exact test was used for discrete variables. The laparoscopic approach was attempted in 61 patients and completed in 54 patients. Open appendectomy was performed upon 121 patients. Nineteen patients (18 who underwent open operation and one patient who underwent laparoscopic operation) were excluded from further analysis because of perforated appendicitis. The open procedure took less time (p < 0.05). However, there were more wound infections than in the laparoscopic group (seven of 103 versus zero of 53; p = 0.09). Patients with acute appendicitis recuperated more quickly from the laparoscopic procedure, as evidenced by the time until eating regular diet, period of hospitalization, incidence of nausea and pain medications on postoperative day one (p < 0.05). The absence of wound infections after laparoscopic appendectomy can be attributed to the practice of placing the appendix in a sterile bag or into the trocar sleeve before removal from the abdomen. Laparoscopic appendectomy reduces the period of hospitalization, postoperative ileus, nausea and postoperative pain in patients with acute appendicitis.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Adolescent↗

PubMed1993

Appendectomy incidental to cholecystectomy among elderly Medicare beneficiaries.

To assess the risks of adverse outcomes after appendectomy incidental to cholecystectomy among elderly Medicare beneficiaries, 8,936 persons undergoing cholecystectomy with incidental appendectomy and 44,461 persons undergoing cholecystectomy without incidental appendectomy were studied. Controlling for age, race, gender and co-morbidity status, the risk for wound infection in persons with incidental appendectomy was 83 percent higher than in persons without incidental appendectomy (95 percent confidence interval, 1.53 to 2.18). The risks for having other adverse outcomes, including other infections, extensive intrahospital complications and mortality rate at 30 days, were also higher for the former group, although these differences were not statistically significant. In addition, the demographic characteristics and health status of persons undergoing cholecystectomy with incidental appendectomy with persons undergoing cholecystectomy only were compared. Males, persons of younger ages, of white race or with no co-morbid conditions, were significantly more likely to undergo cholecystectomy with incidental appendectomy. Variables to control for differences in the demographic characteristics and health status between persons receiving and not receiving incidental appendectomy were included in the regression models for adverse outcomes. However, these models may not completely control for differences between the two groups. As a result, the actual relationship between incidental appendectomy and adverse outcomes may be underestimated. The preventive effect of incidental appendectomy on morbidity and mortality rates from future instances of appendicitis was assessed by determining the remaining lifetime risk for acute appendicitis. For persons 65 to 69 years of age, 115 incidental appendectomies would be required to prevent one future instance of appendicitis and 4,472 incidental appendectomies would be needed to prevent a single future death from acute appendicitis. Because incidental appendectomy increases the risk for wound infection among persons undergoing cholecystectomy and because the lifetime risk for acute appendicitis is relatively low for persons of this age group, surgeons should carefully consider the risks and benefits of incidental appendectomy in the elderly.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2001

Intra-abdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis.

HYPOTHESIS: The incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess is higher after laparoscopic compared with open appendectomy for perforated appendicitis. METHODS: A historical cohort study of pediatric patients operated on for suspected appendicitis by open appendectomy or laparoscopic appendectomy compares the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess for each procedure. SETTING: A tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Five hundred thirty-eight pediatric patients were operated on for suspected appendicitis at our institution between 1974 and 1999. Of these, 453 were included in the study. Of the excluded patients, 9 had incomplete medical records, 69 had normal or interval appendectomies, and 7 had appendixes removed by methods other than laparoscopy or right lower quadrant incision. INTERVENTIONS: Open appendectomy performed through a right lower quadrant incision or laparoscopic appendectomy performed through a 3-trocar approach by 1 of 3 pediatric surgeons at our institution. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess after laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. RESULTS: In perforated appendicitis (170 patients), the incidence of postoperative abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy was 24% vs 4.2% after open appendectomy. The relative risk ratio of developing a postoperative abscess after perforated appendicitis was 5.6 (confidence interval, 2.1-16.0) after laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. The results remained significant when controlled for age, sex, intraoperative irrigation, and preoperative antibiotics. Postoperative abscess in all acute, gangrenous, and perforated appendicitis after laparoscopic appendectomy was 6.4% vs 3.0% after open appendectomy. This was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: There is a significant increase in the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess with perforated appendicitis after laparoscopic compared with open appendectomy in pediatric patients.

Abdominal Abscess↗

PubMed2006

Interval laparoscopic appendectomy in children.

BACKGROUND: Conservative management of advanced complicated appendicitis in children is becoming more common. Formation of an appendiceal mass or abscess may mitigate against urgent appendectomy during the acute stage, and conservative treatment followed by interval appendectomy has been advocated. We present our experience of interval laparoscopic appendectomy in our institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All children who were offered interval laparoscopic appendectomy between January 2000 and December 2004 were included. Retrospective case note analysis was performed and data collected included demographics, duration of symptoms, method of diagnosis, days of antibiotics, length of interval, operative time, length of hospital stay (conservative treatment and interval laparoscopic appendectomy), analgesia requirements, complications, and histology. RESULTS: Thirty-six children, median age 8 years (range, 1-15 years) diagnosed with appendiceal mass or abscess were offered interval laparoscopic appendectomy by two surgeons in our institution: one patient declined interval laparoscopic appendectomy. Median antibiotic treatment was 10 days (range, 3-23 days). Median length of stay for conservative treatment was 6 days (range, 1-27 days). Five children required percutaneous drainage. For the 35 children who had interval laparoscopic appendectomy, the median interval was 93 days (range, 34-156 days) and median operative time was 55 minutes (range, 25-120 minutes). Median length of stay for interval laparoscopic appendectomy was 1 day (range, 1-3 days). There were no complications following interval laparoscopic appendectomy. CONCLUSION: Interval laparoscopic appendectomy can be safely performed in children, is associated with a short hospital stay and minimal morbidity, analgesia, and scarring following conservative management of appendiceal mass or abscess. Interval laparoscopic appendectomy eliminates the risk of recurrent appendicitis and serves to excise undiagnosed carcinoid tumors. In future it may be possible to perform interval laparoscopic appendectomy as a day-case procedure in selected patients.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2001

Minilaparoscopic appendectomy.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using 2-mm laparoscopic instruments in the treatment of appendicitis and to identify risk factors that may limit their use. Minilaparoscopic appendectomy was performed through a 2-mm port in the umbilicus for a videoendoscope, a 2-mm working port in the right upper quadrant, and a 5/12-mm suprapubic port for an endoscopic stapler. Minilaparoscopic appendectomy was attempted in 26 consecutive patients with appendicitis. Thirty-two consecutive patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic appendectomy with 5- and 10-mm instruments and videoendoscopes before the availability of 2-mm instrumentation were analyzed for comparison. Statistical comparisons were made by the Student t test and Fisher exact test. Differences were considered statistically significant at a P value less than 0.05. There were no conversions to an open appendectomy in the minilaparoscopic appendectomy or conventional laparoscopic appendectomy group. The mean operative time was 69.5 minutes for the minilaparoscopic appendectomy group and 85.5 minutes for the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy group (P = 0.02). The mean postoperative length of stay was 1.7 days for the minilaparoscopic appendectomy group and 2.5 days for the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy group (P = 0.08). There was no significant difference in the complication rates (P = 0.31). Minilaparoscopic appendectomy was completed in 13 (50.0%) patients. Independent risk factors (P = 0.05) for conversion to 5- or 10-mm ports were a retrocecal appendix and increasing patient age. There were no differences in the mean postoperative length of stay (P = 0.12) or complication rate (P = 0.39) between the two groups, but mean operative time was longer (P = 0.05) in the converted group. Perioperative outcomes for minilaparoscopic appendectomy are comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. The use of 2-mm instrumentation in the management of appendicitis is limited in patients with retrocecal appendicitis. Increasing patient age and a history of abdominal surgery may influence the need to convert 2-mm ports to 5- or 10-mm ports.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1993

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: is there really any benefit?

Laparoscopic appendectomy is emerging as a popular treatment modality for acute appendicitis. Although claims have been made to potential superiority over traditional appendectomy, comparisons of operative difficulty, hospital stay, hospital costs, complication rates, postoperative pain, and convalescence have not been well studied. Two hundred consecutive patients presenting with signs and symptoms of acute appendicitis underwent appendectomy. Traditional appendectomy was employed in 101 patients, while 99 underwent laparoscopy. Successful laparoscopic appendectomy was possible in 89 patients who were compared with the 101 patients with traditional appendectomy. There were two pregnant patients with appendicitis in each group. The incidence of acute appendicitis was 72 per cent for traditional appendectomy and 74 per cent for laparoscopic appendectomy. Operating time was significantly longer with laparoscopic appendectomy (60.1 vs 45.4 minutes, P = 0.0001). This was reflected in higher (although not significant) hospital costs ($8,683 vs $6,213). Post-op hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic appendectomy (2.7 vs 3.8 days, P = 0.001). Complication rates were no different between the two groups. Post-op pain, as evaluated by a patient grading scale, was less for laparoscopic appendectomies up to the third post-op week (P = 0.003). The amount of IM pain medication was greater with traditional appendectomy (P = 0.009). Convalescence was significantly shorter with laparoscopic appendectomy as measured by: 1) return to normal household activity (7.8 vs 13.2 days, P = 0.016), 2) returned ability to exercise (19.7 vs 29.0 days, P = 0.009), 3) patient feeling well enough to return to work (14.1 vs 19.2 days, P = 0.032), and 4) actual return to work (15.4 vs 20.5 days, P = 0.038).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Activities of Daily Living↗

PubMed1996

Intraabdominal abscesses following laparoscopic and open appendectomies.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this review was to evaluate the incidence of postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation following laparoscopic and open appendectomies. METHODS: The current study retrospectively examines appendectomies performed during the period from January 1993 to July 1994. Excluded were cases which were started laparoscopically but converted to open procedures. There were 1,287 cases identified; 597 were perforated (46%), 114 were gangrenous (9%), and 576 were acute (45%). These diagnoses represent intraoperative diagnoses. RESULTS: Of the 576 appendectomies for acute appendicitis, 64 (11%) were performed laparoscopically. There were four intraabdominal abscesses (0.7%), all occurring after open procedures. Of the 114 appendectomies for gangrenous appendicitis, 16 (14%) were done laparoscopically. There were two postoperative abscesses (1.8%), one following an open and one following a laparoscopic procedure. There was no significant difference in abscess rate between laparoscopic and open appendectomies for either acute or gangrenous appendicitis. Of the 597 appendectomies for perforated appendicitis, 28 (5%) were done laparoscopically. There were 19 postoperative abscesses in the whole group, accounting for a 3.2% abscess rate. Sixteen abscesses occurred after open appendectomies and three occurred after laparoscopic appendectomies (2.9% vs 11%, P = 0.054). The preoperative diagnosis was incorrectly identified as acute appendicitis in 95 cases subsequently found to have perforated appendicitis; there was only 1 postoperative abscess in this group. There was no difference in postoperative stay in the open vs laparoscopic group (6.3 days vs 6.1 days). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in the rate of postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation between laparoscopic and open appendectomies in cases of acute or gangrenous appendicitis. However, laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis was associated with an important trend toward a higher rate of postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation than open appendectomy. This observation calls for closer prospective scrutiny of laparoscopic appendectomy in the setting of perforated appendicitis.

Abdominal Abscess↗

PubMed2004

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children with uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis.

PURPOSE: To address whether laparoscopic appendectomy could be an alternative to conventional open appendectomy in children with complicated appendicitis as well as uncomplicated appendicitis, a retrospective study comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomies was performed. METHODS: One hundred patients who were treated by immediate appendectomy, either laparoscopically or by the open method, between May 2000 and August 2003 were included in the study. There were 53 patients in the laparoscopic appendectomy group and 47 patients in the open appendectomy group. RESULTS: The operating time was significantly longer for laparoscopic appendectomy than for open appendectomy (P < .001). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with uncomplicated appendicitis (P = .001). Thirteen of the 100 patients (13.0%) had 15 postoperative complications including wound infection (n = 8), intraabdominal abscess (n = 4), stitch abscess (n = 2), and small bowel obstruction (n = 1). In both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, there was no significant difference between laparoscopic and open appendectomies in the complication rates, and the incidences of each complication did not differ between the procedures. Among the 14 patients with generalized peritonitis, postoperative complications were seen in 5 patients (35.7%). Although the presence of generalized peritonitis was associated significantly with postoperative complications (P = .017), there was no significant association between the procedure and complications. Overall treatment costs were increased by 26.0% in laparoscopic appendectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy should remain an option in children with uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, and when laparoscopy is selected, consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure is essential.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2003

The safety of incidental appendectomy at the time of abdominal hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the complication rates of incidental appendectomies in women who undergo benign gynecologic procedures. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective case-controlled study of patients who did (n=100 women) or did not (n=100 women) undergo incidental appendectomies at the time of an abdominal hysterectomy between June 1995 and January 2001. Information was abstracted from hospital and clinic records and a gynecologic oncology database. Data were obtained about age, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, the number of days with nothing by mouth, the length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications (cellulitis, fever, ileus, pneumonia, thromboembolic disease). Data were analyzed with the use of two-sample t tests, Wilcoxon Rank sum tests, chi(2) tests, and multiple logistic regressions. RESULTS: There was no difference in preoperative diagnosis or operative procedure for either group. The number of patients in the group that did have incidental appendectomy versus the group that did not have incidental appendectomy with additional procedures at the time of abdominal hysterectomy was bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (66 vs 61 women), unilateral oophorectomy (19 vs 19 women), lysis of adhesions (9 vs 8 women), and others (12 vs 8 women). Compared with the group that did not have incidental appendectomy, the group that did have incidental appendectomy was younger (mean age+/-SD: 44+/-9.6 years vs 48+/-13.6 years, P=.02) and had a lower mean body mass index (26.1+/-6.0 kg/m(2) vs 29.8+/-8.9 kg/m(2), P=.0009). No significant differences were found between the two groups (the group that did have incidental appendectomy vs the group that did not have incidental appendectomy, respectively) with respect to the following postoperative complications: fever (40 vs 27 women), cellulitis (1 vs 2 women), wound collection (4 vs 6 women), wound dehiscence (1 vs 5 women), wound abscess (7 vs 6 women), ileus (3 vs 2 women), and urinary tract infection (4 vs 10 women). The mean length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the group that did have incidental appendectomy than in the group that did not have incidental appendectomy (3.6+/-1.52 days vs 3.1+/-1.1 days, P=.006). However, the difference was no longer significant when patients who were fed electively on the postoperative day 2 were excluded from the analysis (3.16+/-1.13 days vs 3.04+/-1.13 days, P=.507). Thirty-one percent of the histologic specimens were abnormal, with fibrous obliteration being most common, and there was one case of acute appendicitis. CONCLUSION: An incidental appendectomy at the time of benign gynecologic procedures does not increase postoperative complication rates or length of hospital stay. The inclusion of incidental appendectomies in all abdominal hysterectomies could potentially decrease the morbidity and mortality rates because of appendicitis in elderly women.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Short-stay open appendectomy.

PURPOSE: This report describes a minimally invasive short-stay open appendectomy technique which improves the length of stay in comparison to traditional open appendectomy and improves the cost of hospitalization in comparison to laparoscopic appendectomy. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective analysis reviewed 100 consecutive children treated with traditional open appendectomy and 100 consecutive children treated with a minimally invasive short-stay open technique with local infiltration of bupivacaine hydrochloride. Data collected for each child included age, sex, diagnosis, operative time, return to activity time, complications, length of stay, and hospital charge. RESULTS: The mean length of stay (LOS) was reduced from 2.7 days for traditional open appendectomy patients to 1.0 day for minimally invasive short-stay open appendectomy. The mean hospital charge (HC) for this short-stay open appendectomy, US dollars 6795, was significantly less than the mean HC for traditional open appendectomy (US dollars 8162), and for laparoscopic appendectomy (US dollars 7668). CONCLUSION: This short-stay open appendectomy technique offers an efficacious alternative to both traditional open appendectomy and laparoscopic appendectomy.

Anesthetics, Local↗