Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: What is the real difference? Results of a prospective randomized double-blinded trial

Background: The comparison of laparoscopic to open appendectomy has been reviewed in many retrospective and prospective studies. Some report shorter hospital stays, less postoperative pain, and earlier return to work while others fail to demonstrate such differences. We performed a prospective, randomized double-blinded trial to evaluate this ongoing debate. Methods: Fifty-two consecutive men presenting with signs and symptoms suggestive of acute appendicitis were randomized to undergo either laparoscopic appendectomy or open appendectomy. Length of operative times, hospital stay, lost work days, visual analog pain scores, and operative costs were compared. Results: Length of stay averaged 21.5 h for the laparoscopic group and was not statistically different when compared to the open group. Perceived postoperative pain on postoperative days 1 and 7 were not statistically different between the two groups. Mean time to return to work was 11 days, and there was no statistical difference between groups. Operative costs were >$600 greater for the laparoscopic approach. Conclusions: In this prospective randomized double-blinded trial, laparoscopic appendectomy appears to confer no significant advantage over open appendectomy for postoperative pain or lost work days. It does carry an increase in operating room costs and, contrary to other reports, hospital stay is not shortened. Further studies are needed to determine if specific populations, such as the obese or women, may benefit from a minimally invasive approach to appendicitis. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, or the United States Government     

Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy. A prospective randomized comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compare open and laparoscopic appendectomy in a randomized fashion with regard to length of operation, complications, hospital stay, and recovery time. METHODS: Adult patients (older than 14 years of age) with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized to either open or laparoscopic appendectomy over a 9-month period. All patients received preoperative antibiotics. The operative time was calculated as beginning with the incision and ending when the wound was fully closed. Patients that were converted from laparoscopic to open appendectomy were considered a separate group. Return to normal activity and work were determined by questioning during postoperative clinic, telephone, or mailed questionnaire. RESULTS: There was a total of 169 patients randomized, 88 to the open and 81 to the laparoscopic group. The groups were similar demographically. Of the 81 laparoscopic patients, 13 (16%) were converted to open. In the open group, 70 patients (79.5%) had acute appendicitis and 21 (23.9%) had perforative appendicitis. In the laparoscopic group, 62 patients (76.5%) had acute appendicitis and 10 (12.3%) had perforative appendicitis. There was no statistical difference in the return to activity or work between the laparoscopic and open groups. The operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (102.2 minutes vs. 81.7 minutes, p < 0.01). The hospital stay of 2.2 days in the laparoscopic group and 4.3 days in the open group was statistically (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the hospital stay for those with acute appendicitis (1.89 days vs. 2.61 days, p = 0.067) compared with those with a normal appendix but with pelvic inflammatory disease (1.1 days vs. 2.3 days, p = 0.11). There was a significant difference in patients with perforative appendicitis (1.5 days vs. 9.5 days, p < 0.01). The hospital cost for patients having laparoscopic appendectomy was $6077 and for an open appendectomy $7227 (p = 0.164). There were no increased complications associated with the laparoscopic technique. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy is comparable to open appendectomy with regard to complications, hospital stay, cost, return to activity, and return to work. There was a greater operative time involved with the laparoscopic technique. Laparoscopic appendectomy does not offer any significant benefit over the open approach for the routine patient with appendicitis.     

Offene vs. laparoskopische Appendektomie

This article discusses the question of whether open or laparoscopic appendectomy is preferable in today's clinical routine. The article is based on data from randomized studies, evaluation of meta-analyses, and data from nonrandomized, multicentric studies evaluating the treatment of appendicitis in routine clinical practice. According to the data analysis, open appendectomy (OA) offers advantages with regard to a significantly shorter operative time and lower hospital costs. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is characterized by a significantly decreased rate of failed septic wound healing and faster recovery. Both procedures can be performed with the same degree of safety and comparable outcome for acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy offers significant advantages for establishing a precise diagnosis in young fertile women and overweight patients suffering from lower abdominal pain. The currently available data do not provide precise guidelines for the treatment of perforating appendicitis. However, we found significant evidence indicating an increased rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy. Thus, a laparoscopic approach cannot be regarded as a standard technique in advanced appendicitis.     

腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术的前瞻性、随机化的对比研究

目的：评价电视腹腔镜对急性阑尾炎手术治疗的价值。方法：对183例患者进行随机化的腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术的对比研究，78例被分配至行开腹阑尾切除术，而105例行腹腔镜阑尾切除术，比较手术时间、术后疼痛评分、运动功能指数、下床活动时间、住院活动时间、住院时间、切口美观指数、切口感染、腹腔残余脓肿及完全康复时间为观察指标。结果：腹腔镜阑尾切除术组和常规剖腹手术组相比，以上各指标（除手术时间外）均有显著的统计学意义（P＜0．05）。结论：腹腔镜阑尾切除术相比常规开腹手术具有术后疼痛轻、下床活动早、住院时间短、恢复快、切口感染少而且美观，可较早地恢复工作和学习等优点。     

A prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.

BACKGROUND. Laparoscopic appendectomy is feasible, but whether it confers any advantage to patients with acute appendicitis is not known. We performed a randomized controlled trial to compare results of laparoscopic and open appendectomy in patients with signs and symptoms suggesting acute appendicitis who were seen by one surgical team. METHODS. Sixty-two consecutive patients were randomized, 30 to laparoscopy and 32 to a classical open appendectomy. Postoperative recovery, complications, and return to normal activities were compared in the two groups. RESULTS. The laparoscopy group were discharged earlier (2.5 vs 3.8 days, p less than 0.01). Postoperative complications were more frequent after open appendectomy. Follow-up showed less pain, shorter bed stay at home, and faster return to work and sport after laparoscopic appendectomy. CONCLUSIONS. This prospective randomized study shows that laparoscopic appendectomy is superior to open appendectomy in terms of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and return to normal activities and is recommended as the approach of choice in the management of acute appendicitis.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to use meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy in a pediatric population. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Meta-analysis is a statistical tool that can be used to evaluate the literature in both qualitative and quantitative ways, accounting for variations in characteristics that can influence overall estimate of outcomes of interest. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a pediatric population has not previously been performed. METHODS: Comparative studies published between 1992 and 2004 of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children were included. Endpoints were postoperative pyrexia, ileus, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess formation, operative time, and postoperative hospital stay. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies including 6477 children (43% laparoscopic, 57% open) were included. Wound infection was significantly reduced with laparoscopic versus open appendectomy (1.5% versus 5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.75), as was ileus (1.3% versus 2.8%; OR = 0.5, 95% CI, 0.29-0.86). Intra-abdominal abscess formation was more common following laparoscopic surgery, although this was not statistically significant. Subgroup analysis of randomized trials did not reveal significant difference between the 2 techniques in any of the 4 complications. Operative time was not significantly longer in the laparoscopic group, and postoperative stay was significantly shorter (weighted mean difference, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.31). Sensitivity analysis identified lowest heterogeneity when only randomized studies were considered, followed by prospective, recent, and finally large studies. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that laparoscopic appendectomy in children reduces complications. However, we also see the need for further high-quality randomized trials comparing the 2 techniques, matched not only for age and sex but also for obesity and severity of appendicitis.     

Randomized trial of laparoscopic v open nephrectomy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clayman and associates first described laparoscopic nephrectomy in 1990. This paper describes the first randomized controlled trial to compare laparoscopic with open surgery for simple and radical nephrectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2001 and 2004, 45 patients requiring simple or radical nephrectomy (tumors as large as 8 cm) were randomized to either open surgery through a loin incision or laparoscopic nephrectomy (transperitoneal). Outcome measures included operative time, complications, hospital stay, pain scores, time to return to normal activities, and quality of life scores (EuroQol). RESULTS: The mean operative time was 105 minutes in the laparoscopic group and 93 minutes in the open-surgery group (P = 0.4). Blood loss, complications, and the mortality rate were similar in the two groups, as was the hospital stay at a median of 4 days in the laparoscopic group and 5 days in the open group (P = 0.9). Postoperative visual analog pain scores averaged 3.6 in the laparoscopic group compared with 5.4 in the open group (P = 0.02). There was no difference in pain scores at 3 months. Return to normal activities was faster in the laparoscopic group at 42 days v 62 days in the open group (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic nephrectomy is associated with less postoperative pain and a faster return to normal activities than open nephrectomy.     

复杂性阑尾炎术式的抉择：腹腔镜术抑或开腹手术

目的：探讨腹腔镜应用于复杂性阑尾炎的可行性。方法：回顾分析手术治疗复杂性阑尾炎213例患者的临床资料，213例分为腹腔镜阑尾切除术（laparoscopic appendectomy，LA）128例，开腹阑尾切除术（open appendectomy，OA）85例。比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、切口长度、术中引流管留置率及术后留置时间、术后疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale，VAS）、恢复进食时间、感染性并发症（即切口感染、腹腔内脓肿）发生率、术后住院天数、住院费用等指标。结果：LA组比OA组手术时间长，住院总费用高，差异有统计学意义；术中出血量、切口长度、术中引流管留置率及术后留置时间、术后疼痛VAS、恢复进食时间及术后住院天数等指标，IA组均优于OA组；LA组切口感染率较OA组低，腹腔内脓肿发生率两组无显著性差异。两组均无死亡病例。结论：LA具有创伤小、疼痛轻、肠道功能恢复快、切口感染率低、住院时间短等优势，用于治疗复杂性阑尾炎可行、安全、有效。     

Laparoscopic appendicectomy: an 8-year clinical experience

BACKGROUND: For more than a century, open appendectomy through a laparotomy has been the golden standard for the surgical removal of the appendix. Nowadays, many surgeons question the utility of laparoscopic surgery to perform appendectomies because it is commonly stated that the appendix can be removed through a small surgical incision carrying a minimal surgical trauma to the patient. Although open appendectomy is really safe, on the other hand it carries a considerable risk of postoperative complications, is associated with postoperative pain and affects patient s normal activity. Laparoscopic appendectomy was first described in 1983 and, in many studies, it is described to be better than open standard technique for the treatment of appendiceal diseases. The aim of the present study is the retrospective analysis of laparoscopic appendectomies performed in a 8-year period. METHODS: The authors report on 129 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. RESULTS: Conversion rate was 0.7 %, while the laparoscopic procedure was completed in 96 female and 32 male patients. The position of the appendix was behind the cecum in 37 cases, associate diseases were found in 15 cases. Mean operative time was 51 minutes; kind of laparoscopic instrumentation affected the operation time. Histologically there were 71 (55.5 %) focal appendicitis, 22 (17.1 %) suppurative appendicitis, 11 (8.6 %) gangrenous appendicitis, 18 (14.1 %) chronic appendicitis showing signs of previous suppurative episodes and 6 (4.7 %) normal appendix. There were neither in-hospital morbidity nor mortality. Follow-up showed reduced postoperative pain, short hospital stay, fast return to complete social activity. CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that laparoscopic technique can be considered a safe and effective procedure for the removal of the appendix as it has the advantage of allowing faster postoperative recovery; moreover the author recommend a wider and routinely use for appendectomy.     

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy

BACKGROUND: Despite many randomized controlled trials, the merits of laparoscopic appendectomy remain unclear. A meta-analysis may provide insights not evident from any individual studies. DATA SOURCES: Systematic literature search yielded 17 trials (1,962 subjects) of true randomized design with usable statistical data comparing laparoscopic and conventional appendectomy in adults. The effect sizes for operating time, hospitalization, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, wound infection, and intra-abdominal abscess were calculated, using the random effects model to allow for heterogeneity. An estimate of the robustness of all positive findings was also calculated. RESULTS: Modest but statistically significant effect sizes were found for four of the six outcome measures. Laparoscopic appendectomy takes 31% longer to perform, but results in less postoperative pain, faster recovery (by 35%), and lower wound infection rates (by 60%). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy offers significant improvement in postoperative outcomes at the cost of a longer operation.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The value of laparoscopy in appendicitis is not established. Studies suffer from multiple limitations. Our aim is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a prospective randomized double blind study. METHODS: Two hundred forty-seven patients were analyzed following either laparoscopic or open appendectomy. A standardized wound dressing was applied blinding both patients and independent data collectors. Surgical technique was standardized among 4 surgeons. The main outcome measures were postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures included evaluation of pain and activity scores at base line preoperatively and on every postoperative day, as well as resumption of diet and length of stay. Activity scores and quality of life were assessed on short-term follow-up. RESULTS: There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (18.5% versus 17% in the laparoscopic and open groups respectively), but some early complications in the laparoscopic group required a reoperation. Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (80 minutes versus 60 minutes; P = 0.000) while there was no difference in the pain scores and medications, resumption of diet, length of stay, or activity scores. At 2 weeks, there was no difference in the activity or pain scores, but physical health and general scores on the short-form 36 (SF36) quality of life assessment forms were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Appendectomy for acute or complicated (perforated and gangrenous) appendicitis had similar complication rates, regardless of the technique (P = 0.181). CONCLUSIONS: Unlike other minimally invasive procedures, laparoscopic appendectomy did not offer a significant advantage over open appendectomy in all studied parameters except quality of life scores at 2 weeks. It also took longer to perform. The choice of the procedure should be based on surgeon or patient preference.     

A randomized, controlled, clinical study of laparoscopic vs open tension-free inguinal hernia repair

Background: The aim of this prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study was to compare laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) hernia repair with a standard tension-free open mesh repair (open). Methods: A total of 108 low-risk patients with unilateral (primary or recurrent) or bilateral hernias were randomized to TAPP (group 1 = 52 cases) or open (group 2 = 56 cases). The outcome measures included operating time, complications, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, operating theater costs, and recurrences. Results: The mean operative time was longer for the TAPP than for the open group only in unilateral primary hernias. At rest, the median Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score was higher for group 1 than group 2 at 48 h postoperatively. Mild to discomforting pain in the inguinal region after 7 days, night pain after 30 days, and inguinal hardening after 3 months were more frequent in group 2 than group 1. No significant differences were observed in return to normal activities between the groups. One hernia recurrence was observed after 1 month in group 1. TAPP was significantly more expensive than open. Conclusions: TAPP was associated with less postoperative pain than open. The increase in operating theater costs, however, was dramatic and was not compensated by shorter time away from work. TAPP should not be adopted routinely unless its costs can be drastically reduced. Received: 10 June 1997/Accepted: 6 October 1997     

A prospective,randomized, unicenter study comparing laparoscopic and open treatments of acute appendicitis

Background: Appendectomy in the course of acute appendicitis is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedure in general surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic and conventional treatments for acute appendicitis in a prospective, randomized, unicenter study. Methods: The study involved 200 patients treated for acute appendicitis in the Department of General and Vascular Surgery at Ceynowa Hospital in Wejherowo, Poland. Results: The mean operative time for open surgery was 36.99 min. For laparoscopic method the operation was longer, requiring 47.75 min. Suction drainage was applied in 23 patients treated conventionally and 50 patients treated laparoscopically (p < 0.05). The requirement for analgesia, measured by the number of metamizole ampules, was significantly higher in the conventional group. Pain on postoperative days 2 and 7 measured using a visual analog scale, was significantly more severe for the patients treated conventionally. The hospital stay in both groups did not differ significantly: 5.03 days for the conventional group and 4.71 days for the laparoscopic group. The time until return to work and social activities in the laparoscopic group (15.85 days) and was significantly shorter than in the conventional group (19.65 days). Seven complications occurred in the conventional group (6.7%) and nine (9.4%) in the laparoscopic group. The difference was not statistically significant. No deaths occurred. Conclusions: On the basis of the conducted study, it may be assumed that laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe procedure, and that postoperative morbidity is comparable with that for a conventional operation. There was less postoperative pain and shorter recovery time after laparoscopic surgery than after the open procedure.     

The economic impact of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: results of a double-blinded,prospective, randomized trial

For this study, 66 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of unilateral primary inguinal hernia were randomized to undergo laparoscopic totally extra peritoneal (TEP), laparoscopic transabdominal (TAPP), or open inguinal hernia repair with polypropylene mesh (Lichtenstein type). Both the operative team caring for the patient postoperatively and the patient were blinded to the operative approach by placement of a large dressing covering the abdomen, which was not removed until postoperative day 3. The patients recorded their pain level on a visual analog pain scale daily. Medication usage also was recorded. All patients were seen at 7-day intervals until they returned to work. The patients were interviewed during their postoperative visits by an investigator blinded to the operative approach and questioned regarding their ability to return to work and their pain levels. The average number of lost work days in all the groups was 12, and there was no significant difference between the three groups (p = 0.074). The average operating time for the TAPP procedure was 59 min, less than the time required to complete either the TEP or the Lichtenstein approach, which had equivalent operative times (p = 0.027). The material cost was significantly lower for the Lichtenstein repair ($1,200 less) than for either of the laparoscopic approaches, a saving primarily related to consumable operating room supplies. The TEP repair costs were minimally higher than those for the TAPP repair ($125 more). No significant differences were noted in the postoperative pain scales, and the use of postoperative oral analgesics was equivalent. The higher operative costs noted for the laparoscopic hernia repairs were not offset by a shortened convalescence. Postoperative pain appears to be equivalent regardless of the operative approach chosen and is easily managed with oral analgesics. Presented at the 2003 Society of the American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Annual Meeting March 12–15, Los Angeles, CA     

腹腔镜在慢性阑尾炎诊治中的应用价值(附296例报告)

目的:比较腹腔镜手术与开腹手术在慢性阑尾炎治疗中的应用价值。方法:回顾分析2000年1月至2008年12月我院施行296例慢性阑尾炎手术的临床资料,164例行开腹手术,132例行腹腔镜手术,对比两组手术时间、术中出血、住院时间、术中发现和处理情况,并随访患者术后慢性腹痛的改善情况。结果:手术时间开腹组(52.76±21.82)m in,腹腔镜组(49.78±18.01)m in,t=0.88,P>0.05;术中出血开腹组(16.60±8.28)m l,腹腔镜组(9.68±4.22)m l,t=3.48,P<0.05;住院时间开腹组(7.84±3.27)d,腹腔镜组(6.80±2.98)d,t=2.98,P<0.05。腹腔镜组30例(22.7%)术中发现不同程度的腹腔粘连,阑尾与周围粘连10例,回盲部与前侧腹壁粘连8例,大网膜与腹壁及肠管粘连6例,升结肠与周围及腹腔内其他粘连6例,均在术中给予松解;开腹组18例(11.0%)术中发现阑尾与周围粘连,松解粘连行阑尾切除术,两组比较χ2=8.06,P<0.05;成功随访122例开腹手术者术后26例(21.3%)仍有慢性腹痛,98例腹腔镜手术者术后10例(10.2%)仍有慢性腹痛,两组比较χ2=6.68,P<0.05。结论:腹腔镜对慢性阑尾炎的诊治有一定的优势。     

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.     

Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy in overweight patients

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been associated with a faster recovery and less postoperative pain than the open technique. However, few data are available on the clinical outcome of LA in overweight patients. METHODS: A group of 106 patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 26.4, representing the upper quintile of 500 prospectively randomized patients, were included in the study. They were randomized to undergo either laparoscopic or open appendectomy (OA). Operating and anesthesia times, postoperative pain, complications, hospital stay, functional index (1 week postoperatively), sick leave, and time to full recovery were documented. RESULTS: In OA, the operating time for overweight patients was significantly longer than that for patients in the normal weight range (40 vs 35 min, p < 0.05). In LA, there was no difference in operating time between the normal and overweight patients. Overweight patients who underwent LA had longer operating and anesthesia times than their OA counterparts (55 vs 40 min, p < 0.001; and 125 vs 100 min, p < 0.001, respectively). Postoperative pain was significantly greater in overweight patients who underwent OA than in those treated with the laparoscopic technique. Postoperative pain was also significantly greater in overweight patients subjected to OA than in patients of normal weight after 4 weeks; the clinical significance may, however, be of less importance since the values are low (0.26 vs 0.09, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two operating techniques in terms of complications. Hospital stay was longer for overweight patients than for normal-weight patients undergoing OA (3.0 vs 2.0, p < 0.01). The functional index did not differ between any group of patients. Sick leave was longer for overweight patients who underwent OA than for normal-weight patients treated with the same technique (17 vs 13 days, p < 0.01). In the laparoscopic group, however, there were no differences between the overweight and normal-weight patients. Time to full recovery was greater in overweight patients subjected to OA than in the overweight patients in the LA group (22 vs 15 days, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this study, overweight patients who were submitted to LA had less postoperative pain and a faster postoperative recovery than overweight patients who had OA. LA also abolished some of the negative effects that overweight had on operating time, hospital stay, and sick leave with the open technique. However, anesthesia and operating times were significantly longer in LA for both overweight patients and those with a normal BMI.     

A Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Appendectomy

Background and Objectives:

To compare laparoscopic appendectomy with traditional open appendectomy.

Methods:

Seventy-one patients requiring operative intervention for suspected acute appendicitis were prospectively compared. Thirty-seven patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, and 34 had open appendectomy through a right lower quadrant incision. Length of surgery, postoperative morbidity and length of postoperative stay (LOS) were recorded. Both groups were similar with regard to age, gender, height, weight, fever, leukocytosis, and incidence of normal vs. gangrenous or perforated appendix.

Results:

Mean LOS was significantly shorter for patients with acute suppurative appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (2.5 days vs. 4.0 days, p<0.01). Mean LOS was no different when patients classified as having gangrenous or perforated appendicitis were included in the analysis (3.7 days vs. 4.1 days, P=0.11). The laparoscopy group had significantly longer surgery times (72 min vs. 58 min, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative morbidity.

Conclusions:

Laparoscopic appendectomy reduces LOS as compared with the traditional open technique in patients with acute suppurative appendicitis. The longer operative time for the laparoscopic approach in our study is likely related to the learning curve associated with the procedure and did not increase morbidity.     

小儿腹腔镜阑尾切除与开腹阑尾切除的临床对比研究

【摘要】 目的 对比研究小儿腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)与传统开腹阑尾切除术(OA)的临床疗效及安全性。方法 回顾性分析2009年1月~2012年12月期间进行LA和OA的93例小儿阑尾炎患者的临床资料,对两组手术时间、术中出血情况、术后恢复情况等进行统计对比分析。结果〓两组患儿手术及恢复顺利,术后无严重并发症。两组手术时间及术中出血量差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);LA组术后肛门排气时间、下床活动时间、切口疼痛时间、术后住院天数均低于OA组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 与OA比较,小儿LA具有创伤小、并发症少,恢复快及美容等优势,是治疗小儿阑尾炎理想的手术方式。     

A prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy: Clinical and economic analyses

BACKGROUND. Previous randomized studies of laparoscopic appendectomy produced conflicting recommendations, and the adequacy of sample sizes is generally unknown. We compared clinical and economic outcomes after laparoscopic and open appendectomy in a sample of predetermined statistical power. METHODS. A pre-study power analysis suggested that 200 randomized patients would yield 80% power to show a mean decrease of 1.3 days' hospitalization. One hundred ninety-eight patients with a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized prospectively to laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Economic analysis included billed charges, total costs, direct costs, and indirect costs associated with treatment. RESULTS. Laparoscopic appendectomy took longer to perform than open appendectomy (median, 107 vs 91 minutes; P <.01) and was associated with fewer days to return to a general diet (mean, 1.6 versus 2.3 days; P <.01), a shorter duration of parenteral analgesia (mean, 1.6 versus 2.2 days; P <.01), fewer morphine-equivalent milligrams of parenteral narcotic (median, 14 mg versus 34 mg; P =.001), a shorter postoperative hospital stay (mean, 2.6 versus 3.4 days; P <.01), and earlier return to full activity (median, 14 versus 21 days; P <.02). However, operative morbidity and time to return to work were comparable. Billed charges and direct costs were not significantly different in the 2 groups ($7711 versus $7146 and $5357 versus $4945, respectively), but total costs (including indirect costs) of laparoscopic appendectomy were, on average, nearly $2400 less, given the shorter length of stay and abbreviated recuperative period ($11,577 versus $13,965). Subgroup analyses suggested the benefit of a laparoscopic approach for uncomplicated appendicitis and for patients with active lifestyles. CONCLUSIONS. While laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with statistically significant but clinically questionable advantages over open appendectomy, a laparoscopic approach is relatively less expensive. The estimated difference in total costs of treatment (direct and indirect costs) was at least $2000 in more than 60% of the bootstrapped iterations. The economic significance and implications favoring a laparoscopic approach cannot be ignored.