New strategy during complicated open appendectomy: Convert open operation to laparoscopy

AIM: To introduce a new strategy during complicated open appendectomy - converting open operation to laparoscopy.METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed databases at two institutions between October 2010 and January 2013, identifying 826 patients who had undergone complicated appendectomy for histologically confirmed acute or chronic appendicitis. They included 214 complicated appendectomies: 155 lengthened-incision open appendectomies (LIA group) and 59 open appendectomies with conversion to laparoscopy (OACL group).RESULTS: A total of 214 patients with complicated appendectomies were included in the study, including 155 cases of LIA and 59 cases of OACL. No major complication leading to death occurred in the study. Patient characteristics of the two groups were similar. Several parameters showed a significant difference between the two groups. For the OACL vs LIA groups they were, respectively: incision length (3.8 ± 1.4 cm vs 6.2 ± 3.5 cm, P < 0.05); time to flatus recovery (2.3 ± 0.6 d vs 4.2 ± 0.8 d, P < 0.05), drainage rate (61.0% vs 80.0%, P < 0.05); pain level (3.6 ± 1.8 vs 7.2 ± 2.4, P < 0.05); hospital stay (5.1 ± 2.7 d vs 8.7 ± 3.2 d, P < 0.05); complication rate (8.5% vs 14.7%, P < 0.05). Other factors showed no significant differences.CONCLUSION: Lengthened-incision open appendectomy increases the incidence of complications and prolongs the hospital stay. Conversion of open to laparoscopic appendectomy is feasible and efficient in complicated cases. It decreases the rate of incisional and abdominal infections, allows faster return of bowel movements, and shortens the hospital stay.     

A Retrospective Study of Two-port Appendectomy and its Comparison with Open Appendectomy and Three-port Appendectomy

Background/Aims:

To establish the efficacy of two-port appendectomy as an alternative to standard laparoscopic and open appendectomy in the management of acute appendicitis.

Materials and Methods:

Of the 151 patients included in the study, 47 patients were in the open group, 61 in two-port and 43 patients were included in the three-port group. Only patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis were included in the study. Patients with complicated appendicitis like perforated appendix, appendicular lump and appendicular abscess were excluded from the study. Patients converted to open procedure after initial diagnosis and patients with other pathology in addition to appendicitis were also excluded. Patients with recurrent appendicitis and chronic appendicitis were excluded. The total number of excluded cases was 50. Data were compared with cases of open and three-port appendectomy.

Results:

The mean operative time was 43.94, 35.74, and 59.65 min (SD: 18.91, 11.06, 19.29) for open, two-port, and three-port appendectomy groups respectively. Mean length of stay in days was 3.02, 1.93, and 2.26 (SD: 1.27, 1.04,1.09) for open, two-port, and three-port appendectomy groups respectively. Surgical site infection was significantly lower (P = 0.03) in laparoscopy group as compared to that in open appendectomy group. Seven patients (4.63%) developed surgical site infection, 5 (10.63%) in the open and 2 (1.92%) in the laparoscopy group. Surgical site infection was 1.63% and 2.32% in two-port and three-port appendectomy groups respectively.

Conclusions:

For uncomplicated appendicitis, the two-port appendectomy technique significantly reduces operative time as well as length of hospital stay. It also reduces surgical site infection as compared to open appendectomy group.     

Carcinoid tumor of the appendix： A consecutive series from 1237 appendectomies

INTRODUCTION The appendix is one of the most common single site for carcinoid tumor[1]. Histopathologically, appendiceal carci- noid tumor is mostly enterochromaffin (EC) cell type and derives from a subepithelial cell population, which is differ- ent fro…     

Laparoscopic vs. Open Colectomy in Cancer Patients: Long-Term Complications, Quality of Life, and Survival

PURPOSE This study was designed to evaluate long-term complications, quality of life, and survival rate in a series of colorectal cancer patients randomized to laparoscopic or open surgery. METHODS A total of 391 patients with colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to laparoscopic (n = 190) or open (n = 201) resection. Long-term follow-up was performed every six months by office visits. Quality of life was assessed at 12, 24, and 48 months after surgery by a modified version of Short Form 36 Health Survey questionnaire. All patients were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS Eight (4.2 percent) laparoscopic group patients needed conversion to open surgery. Overall long-term morbidity rate was 6.8 percent (13/190) in the laparoscopic vs. 14.9 percent (30/201) in the open group (P = 0.018). Overall quality of life was significantly better in the laparoscopic group in the first 12 months after surgery, whereas at 24 months, patients of the laparoscopic group reported a significant advantage only in social functioning. No difference was found in both overall and disease-free survival rates by comparing laparoscopic vs. open group. CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic colorectal resection was associated with a lower incidence of long-term complications and a better quality of life in the first 12 months after surgery compared with open surgery. No difference between groups was found in overall and disease-free survival rates. Presented at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 29 to June 2, 2005.     

Consequences of Conversion in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery

Introduction Laparoscopic procedures converted to open approaches have been associated with higher complication rates than laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy and appendectomy. Laparoscopic colorectal resections have relatively high conversion rates compared with other laparoscopic procedures. This study was designed to evaluate outcomes of conversions compared with laparoscopic and open colorectal resections. Methods We reviewed 498 consecutive colorectal resections performed between 1995 and 2002. Procedures were divided into laparoscopic colorectal resections, open colorectal resections, or conversions. Demographics, underlying disease, type of procedure performed, and operative outcomes were compared between groups. Results Of the 238 laparoscopic procedures performed, 182 were completed laparoscopically and 56 (23 percent) required conversion; 260 were performed open. Conversions were associated with greater blood loss (200 (range, 50–750) vs. 100 (range, 30–900) ml), longer time to first bowel movement (82 (range, 40–504) vs. 72 (range, 12–420) hr), and longer length of stay (6 (range, 2–67) vs.. 5 (range, 2–62) days) than the laparoscopic colorectal resections group. There was no difference in operative time, transfusion requirements, intraoperative and postoperative complications, or mortality between conversions and laparoscopic colorectal resections. Conversions resulted in fewer patients requiring transfusions (4 vs. 14 percent), shorter time to first bowel movement (82 (range, 40–504) vs. 93 (range, 24–240) hr), and shorter length of stay (6 (range, 2–67) vs. 7 (range, 2–180) days) than in the open colorectal resections group. There were no differences in complications or mortality between the conversion group and the open colorectal resections group. Conclusions Laparoscopic colorectal resections has a relatively high conversion rate; however, the converted cases have outcomes similar to open colorectal resections. In fact, the converted group required fewer blood transfusions than the open group. Experience and good judgment are fundamental for timely conversion of a laparoscopic procedure to open to decrease complication rates. Despite a high conversion rate, surgeons should consider laparoscopic colorectal resections, because even when necessary, conversion does not result in poorer outcomes than laparoscopic colorectal resections or open colorectal resections. Presented at the meeting of the International Congress and Endo Expo-SLS, Las Vegas, Nevada, September 22 to 25, 2003     

Appendiceal adenocarcinoma: Long-term outcomes after surgical therapy

PURPOSE Appendiceal adenocarcinomas are very rare. We analyzed contemporary outcomes associated with surgical therapies for these malignancies.METHODS Retrospective outcomes for patients treated at a tertiary academic medical center from 1981 through 2001 were analyzed.RESULTS A total of 36 patients (22 females (61 percent) mean age, 52 years) with appendiceal adenocarcinoma were treated. Eighty-eight percent of patients presented with symptoms of acute appendicitis. Eighteen (50 percent) patients underwent curative resection (7 primary right hemicolectomies, 10 appendectomies + subsequent right hemicolectomy, and 1 appendectomy alone). Mean length of follow-up was 55 months. Overall five-year survival rate was 46 percent. The five-year survival rate after curative resection was 61 percent and after palliative surgery was 32 percent (P < 0.05). Among patients who underwent curative resection, factors associated with improved five-year survival rates included histologic type (79 vs. 32 percent for colonic vs. mucinous types, respectively; P < 0.05), T stage (75 vs. 47 percent for T1 and 2 vs. T3 and 4, respectively; P < 0.05), and tumor grade (100 vs. 46 percent for well-differentiated tumors vs. moderately or poorly differentiated tumors, respectively; P < 0.05).CONCLUSIONS Patients undergoing surgery for appendiceal adenocarcinoma can be stratified according to prognostic variables. The role of adjuvant therapies for patients with poor prognostic factors needs to be evaluated in a multi-institutional setting.Presented at World Congress of Digestive Surgery, Hong Kong, China, December 9 to 11, 2002.     

Laparoscopic treatment of perforated appendicitis

The use of laparoscopy has been established in improving perioperative and postoperative outcomes for patients with simple appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with less wound pain, less wound infection, a shorter hospital stay, and faster overall recovery when compared to the open appendectomy for uncomplicated cases. In the past two decades, the use of laparoscopy for the treatment of perforated appendicitis to take the advantages of minimally invasiveness has increased. This article reviewed the prevalence, approaches, safety disclaimers, perioperative and postoperative outcomes of the laparoscopic appendectomy in the treatment of patients with perforated appendicitis. Special issues including the conversion, interval appendectomy, laparoscopic approach for elderly or obese patient are also discussed to define the role of laparoscopic treatment for patients with perforated appendicitis.     

Diagnostic laparoscopy: Reducing the number of normal appendectomies

A prospective, controlled study was conducted to determine whether a selective policy of diagnostic laparoscopy could reduce the number of unnecessary normal appendectomies in patients with acute right iliac fossa pain. The cohort consisted of patients admitted with acute right iliac fossa pain by the emergency department. Of 102 patients in the study group, 28 subsequently required a diagnostic laparoscopy when a definite diagnosis could not be reached after 8 to 12 hours of observation. Of these, only 18 had inflamed appendices, which were removed. In the rest of the patients (10), the appendices were normal and unnecessary laparotomies were avoided. In the control group, wherein equivocal cases were laparotomized after a similar period of observation, there was a normal appendectomy rate of 15.7 percent (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of perforation between the control and study groups. Diagnostic laparoscopy in equivocal cases could thus significantly reduce the number of unnecessary appendectomies without compromising on the rate of perforation.Read at the World Congress of Surgery, Stockholm, Sweden, 1991.     

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.     

Initial experience with laparoscopic appendectomy

As experience with laparoscopy increases, new applications in general surgery are being identified. Treatment of acute appendicitis through the laparoscope has been proposed. We present our initial experience with this new technique. Over a 12-month period, laparoscopic appendectomy was attempted in 29 patients. There were no intraoperative complications. Two cases required conversion to the open technique owing to gangrene at the appendiceal base. The average operating time was 64 minutes. Two of nine patients with perforated appendicitis developed a pelvic abscess, and one patient developed wound cellulitis. Pain medication requirements were minimal, bowel function returned rapidly, and half of the patients were discharged on postoperative day one or two and returned to normal activity within one week. Based on our initial experience, it appears that laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and effective technique for managing acute appendicitis and offers advantages in terms of decreased pain, decreased hospital stay, and a rapid return to normal activities     

Laparoscopicvs. open resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE: To compare the outcome after laparoscopicversus open resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of all patients undergoing elective resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma between November 1992 and June 1999 at a university-affiliated hospital. These included 219 open (mean age, 68.3 years) and 98 laparoscopic (mean age, 70.3 years) resections. Data from converted cases (n=12) were included in the laparoscopic group using the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Operative time, lymph node yield, resection margins and postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar between laparoscopic and open technique. Parenteral analgesic use was less in the laparoscopic group (laparoscopic, 2.7; open, 3.2 days;P=0.021). Time to first flatus (laparoscopic, 1.8; open, 3 days;P<0.0001) and first bowel movement (laparoscopic, 3.5; open, 4.9 days;P<0.0001) was shorter in the laparoscopic group. Resumption of an oral liquid diet (laparoscopic, 2.1; open, 4 days;P<0.0001) and solid diet (laparoscopic, 5.2; open, 7.1 days;P<0.0001) was also quicker in the laparoscopic patients. Length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic patients (laparoscopic, 6.9; open, 10.9 days;P<0.001). There were less minor complications in the laparoscopic group (laparoscopic, 11.2; open, 21.5 percent;P=0.029) but no difference in major complications or perioperative mortality. Recurrence, disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups. No port site recurrences ocurred in the laparoscopic group but there were three wound recurrences in the open group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer can be performed safely and effectively in tertiary centers. Earlier discharge from hospital, quicker resumption of oral feeds and less postoperative pain are clear advantages. No adverse effect on recurrence or survival was noted, but results of prospective, randomized trials, currently underway, are needed before laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer becomes the standard of practice.Presented at The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons 2000 Scientific Session, Atlanta, Georgia, March 29 to April 1, 2000.     

Appendiceal schistosomiasis

Twenty surgical specimens of appendiceal schistosomiasis were reviewed retrospectively. They constituted 1 percent of 1984 appendices seen among approximately 15,000 surgical specimensexamined at free central laboratories serving the Igbos of Nigeria, West Africa. Oviposition bySchistosoma haematobium was classified according to its association with suppurative appendicitis and normal appendices. Seven of ten infested appendices obtained at curative operations showed suppurative appendicitis, whereas eight of nine infested appendices removed at incidental appendectomies were negative. One interval appendectomy was also negative. It is postulated that utilization of this novel classification on a worldwide basis will help to end the controversy concerning the etiologic role of schistosome ova in acute appendicitis.     

腹腔镜及开腹手术治疗小儿复杂性阑尾炎268例

目的:对比分析腹腔镜和开腹阑尾切除术在治疗小儿复杂性阑尾炎中的疗效.方法:回顾性分析2000-01/2009-11小儿复杂性阑尾炎患者268例临床资料,其中腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)128例,开腹阑尾切除术(OA)140例,比较两组手术情况和疗效.结果:手术时间:LA组较OA组长(62.2 min±15.3 min vs 57.1 min±6.4 min,P<0.01);术后肛门排气时间:LA组较OA组短(26.8 h±7.6 h vs 42.9 h±8.3 h.P<0.001);术后住院时间:LA组较OA组短(5.2 d±2.3 d vs 9.5 d±2.6d,P<0.001);术后腹腔脓肿LA组1例,OA组9例(P=0.036);切口感染:LA组3例,OA组28例(P<0.001);肠梗阻:LA组2例,OA组5例(P=0.518).结论:LA较OA具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少、住院时间短和美容效果好等优点,是治疗小儿复杂性阑尾炎一种安全有效的手术方式.     

Palliative Laparoscopic Resections for Stage IV Colorectal Cancer

Purpose Issues surrounding the safety and efficacy of palliative laparoscopic resections for patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer have not been explicitly examined in the literature. This article describes our experience with laparoscopic procedures for patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer and compares their perioperative outcomes to a contemporaneous group of patients with clinically curable (Stages I–III) disease. Methods A prospective database of laparoscopic resections for colorectal cancer performed between 1991 and 2002 was reviewed. Data regarding patient demographics, perioperative morbidity and mortality, operative times, conversion rates, and length of stay were extracted. Statistical analysis included chi-squared and Student's t-tests as required and P ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. Results A total of 375 cases were identified, of these 49 (13 percent) underwent laparoscopic palliative resections while 326 (87 percent) patients had resections for cure. When comparing palliative to curative procedures, there were no differences in intraoperative (4 percent vs. 9 percent) or postoperative complications (14 percent vs. 12 percent), perioperative mortality (8 percent vs. 4 percent), or length of hospital stay. Patients with Stage IV disease had largertumors (5.4 ± 2.3 cm vs. 4.6 ± 2.6 cm, P = 0.04) which contributed to an increased rate of conversion (22 percent vs. 11 percent, P = 0.05) with most conversions secondary to tumor fixation or bulk (64 percent) preventing determination of resectability. Conclusions A palliative laparoscopic resection is a safe and feasible option and presents acceptable morbidity and mortality in patients with Stage IV colorectal cancer. Importantly, in this difficult group ofpatients, our results compare favorably with those from previously published series of open procedures. Presented at the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery Congress, Glasgow, Scotland, June 15 to 18, 2003.     

Which technique for treatment of pilonidal sinus—Open or closed?

PURPOSE: After excision of the pilonidal sinus, some surgeons leave the wound open, and others close the wound primarily. The aim of this study is to compare length of hospital stay, length of time to return to work, wound infection rate, and recurrence rate in chronic pilonidal sinus patients, after modification of both closed and open techniques. METHODS: One hundred ten patients who had chronic-stage pilonidal sinus were randomly assigned to receive one of two excisional surgical procedures. One-half were treated by surgical excision and primary closure (closed technique, Group A). The other one-half were treated with Obeid's surgical excision (open technique, Group B). RESULTS: Ninety-one (46 in Group A and 45 in Group B) of 110 patients were followed for a period four months to three years. Although patients with primary closure had significantly longer hospital stays (P <0.05) than patients in the open group, they returned to work significantly earlier (P <0.05). In Group A and Group B, infection rates were 3.6 percent and 1.8 percent (P >0.01), and recurrence rates were 4.4 percent and 0 percent (P >0.01), respectively. CONCLUSION: Because both techniques have very low complication rates, treatment of chronic pilonidal sinus should be based on patient preference and characteristics, especially employment status.Poster presentation at the XlVth Biennial Congress of International Society of University Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Crete, Greece, October 25 to 29, 1992.     

Prognostic value of tumor “budding” in patients with colorectal cancer

From 1970 to 1985, 663 patients underwent curative resection of colon and rectal adenocarcinomas. All surgical specimens were examined for tumor budding, defined as small clusters of undifferentiated cancer cells ahead of the invasive front of the lesion. Patients were divided into two groups according to degree of budding: none or mild (BD-1) and moderate or severe (BD-2). BD-1 occurred in 493 patients (74.4 percent), and BD-2 was found in 170 patients (25.6 percent). More severe budding was associated with worse outcome: 71.1 percent of BD-2 patients had recurrence, compared with 20.0 percent of BD-1 patients (P < 0.005). The five-year survival rate was worse in BD-2 than in BD-1 (22.2 percent vs. 70.7 percent;P < 0.001). The 10-year survival rate was also worse in BD-2 than in BD-1 (13.8 percent vs. 50.6 percent;P < 0.001). The incidence of BD-2 rose with the Dukes stage. However, the five-year survival rate of Dukes B patients with BD-2 lesions was worse than that of Dukes C patients with BD-1 cancers (29.1 percent vs. 66.2 percent;P < 0.001). Moreover, there was no difference in five-year survival among BD-1 patients with either Dukes B or C lesions (68.3 percent vs. 66.2 percent). The presence of more severe budding appears to indicate a vigorous biologic activity of colorectal cancer. Thus, meticulous follow-up—and possibly adjuvant chemotherapy—may be beneficial for patients with marked budding, regardless of their Dukes stage.Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, San Francisco, California, June 7 to 12, 1992.     

Laparoscopic and Open Anterior Resection for Upper and Mid Rectal Cancer: An Evaluation of Outcomes

Purpose This study was designed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic anterior resection with open operation for mid and upper rectal cancer. Methods A total of 265 patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or open anterior resection for cancer of the mid and upper rectum from June 2000 to December 2004 were included. Data about the patients’ demographics, operative details, postoperative outcome, and disease status were collected prospectively. Comparison of the outcome between laparoscopic and open resection was performed. Results The median age of the 265 patients was 69 (range, 27–91) years, and laparoscopic anterior resection was performed in 98 patients (37 percent). There was no difference in the age, gender, comorbidities, and level of tumor between the two groups. The operating time was longer in the laparoscopic group (200 vs. 127 minutes; P < 0.01), but the blood loss was less (200 vs. 250 ml; P = 0.027). The overall operative mortality was 1.8 percent, and the complication rate was 27.9 percent. Significantly more patients with early diseases (Stage I and Stage II) were operated with laparoscopic approach. There was no difference in the mortality or morbidity between the two groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in five patients with open resection and one with laparoscopic resection (P = 0.418). Patients with laparoscopic resection had an earlier return of bowel function and earlier resumption of diet as well as a shorter median hospital stay (7 vs. 8 days; P < 0.001). With the median follow-up of the surviving patients for 21.2 months, the three-year local recurrence rates for those with open and laparoscopic resection were 4.9 and 3.3 percent, respectively (P = 0.513). In patients with Stage I and Stage II disease, the three-year cancer-specific survivals for open and laparoscopic resection were 89.8 and 88.6 percent, respectively (P = 0.882), whereas those of patients with Stage III disease were 65.6 and 55.5 percent, respectively (P = 0.911). Conclusions Laparoscopic anterior resection for mid and proximal rectal cancer is a safe option with short-term advantages compared with open operation. The oncologic outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic anterior resection were not compromised, with similar local recurrence rate and the cancer-specific survival rate as patients who underwent open resection. Presented at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 21 to 26, 2003.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy： Which way to go？

AIM： To compare the outcome of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. METHODS： Prospectively collected data from 293 consecutive patients with acute appendicitis were studied. These comprised of 165 patients who underwent conventional appendectomy and 128 patients treated laparoscopically. The two groups were compared with respect to operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, complication rate and cost. RESULTS： There were no statistical differences regarding patient characteristics between the two groups. Conversion to laparotomy was necessary in 2 patients （1.5%）. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter hospital stay （2.2 d vs 3.1 d, P = 0.04）, and lower incidence of wound infection （5.3% vs 12.8%, P = 0.03）. However, in patients with complicated disease, intra-abdominal abscess formation was more common after laparoscopic appendectomy （5.3% vs 2.1%, P = 0.002）. The operative time and analgesia requirements were similar in the two groups. The cost of treatment was higher by 370 in the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSION： Laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe and efficient as open appendectomy, provided surgical experience and equipment are available.     

Histopathological findings in appendectomy specimens: a study of 24,697 cases

Purpose

Appendicitis is by far the commonest major emergency general surgical operation. Histopathological examination of the appendix is routinely performed.

Methods

This study is a retrospective analysis of 24,697 appendectomies performed from January 2003 to December 2011. Pathological reports were analyzed for the following parameters: age, gender, and pathological diagnosis.

Results

Appendectomy specimens represent 17 % of all pathological reports. Acute appendicitis was present in 19,637 (79.5 %) patients. The perforation rate was 6.3 % and was significantly higher in adult patients. The negative appendectomy rate was 15 % and was significantly higher in female and adult patients. The incidence of negative appendectomies had clearly decreased over the 9-year period distribution. Incidental unexpected pathological diagnoses were noted in 226 (0.9 %) appendectomy specimens. Neoplastic lesions were present in 171 cases (0.7 %); they include carcinoid, adenocarcinoma, and mucinous neoplasms.

Conclusions

Routine pathological examination of appendectomy specimens is expensive. With advances in technology and imaging modalities, the diagnosis of acute appendicitis has improved, with a subsequent significant reduction in negative appendectomy. There are still a number of unusual diagnoses found in appendicectomy specimens supporting the continued use of routine histology.     

Is Laparoscopic Colectomy Applicable to Patients With Body Mass Index >30? A Case-Matched Comparative Study With Open Colectomy

PURPOSE The benefits of early postoperative recovery, reduced postoperative pain, pulmonary dysfunction, and hospitalization after laparoscopic colectomy may improve outcome over open colectomy in obese patients. This case-matched study compares outcomes after open and laparoscopic colectomy.METHODS A total of 94 laparoscopic colectomy patients with a body mass index >30 (Jan 1999–June 2003) were identified from a prospective database and matched to open colectomy cases for age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, procedure, indication, and date of surgery. Operating time, length of stay, conversion, intraoperative and postoperative complications, reoperation, 30-day readmission rate, and costs were compared. Data are presented as means ± standard deviations, and appropriate statistical tests were used.RESULTS The two groups were matched for age (P = 0.06), gender (P = 1), American Society of Anesthesiologists class (P = 0.2), body mass index (P = 0.4), indication for surgery (P = 1), and procedure (P = 1). By using intention-to-treat–type analysis, there was no difference in median operating time (100 vs. 110 (mean, 123 vs. 112) minutes; P = 0.1), complications (21 vs. 24 percent; P = 0.74), readmission (17 vs. 10.6 percent; P = 0.3), reoperation rates (6.4 vs. 4.3 percent; P = 0.75), or direct costs (median, $3,368 vs. $3,552; mean, $4,003 vs. $4,037; P = 0.14) between laparoscopic colectomy or open colectomy; however, the median length of stay (3 vs. 5.5 (mean, 3.8 vs. 5.8) days; P = 0.0001) was significantly shorter after laparoscopic colectomy. Twenty-eight patients required conversion for adhesions (n = 11), bleeding (n = 3), obesity-hindering vision or dissection (n = 9), large phlegmon or tumor (n = 4), and ureteric injury (n = 1). The mean operating time for conversions was 142 minutes and length of stay was 6.4 days. Compared with laparoscopically completed cases, the median length of stay (5 vs. 2 (mean, 6.4 vs. 2.8) days; P = 0.0001) and median operating times (150 vs. 95 (mean, 142 vs. 115) minutes; P = 0.02) were significantly higher in the converted group, but there was no difference in the complication (P = 0.8), readmission (P = 1), or reoperation (P = 0.7) rates. Compared with open colectomy, the operating time (P = 0.02) was significantly higher in the converted group but there were no significant differences in the length of stay (P = 0.18), complication (P = 1), readmission (P = 0.35), or reoperative (P = 1) rates.CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic colectomy can be performed safely in obese patients, with shorter postoperative recovery than that with open colectomy. Although obesity is associated with a high conversion rate, outcome in these converted cases is comparable to the matched open cases.Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Dallas, Texas, May 8 to 13, 2004.