阑尾穿孔腹腔镜阑尾切除术41例临床分析

目的：总结腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗阑尾穿孔并腹膜炎的效果。方法：分析41例患者阑尾穿孔并腹膜炎行腹腔镜手术的临床资料,并随机选择常规开腹手术40例为对照组,比较两组的手术时间、术后切口感染、腹腔残余感染及肠粘连等并发症的发生率。结果：腹腔镜组手术时间45～95min,平均61min,几乎无出血,术后穿刺口感染1例,肠间积液1例,无近期肠粘连等并发症。对照组40例手术时间50～110min,平均58min,腹腔残余感染8例,切口感染7例,近期肠粘连4例。结论：腹腔镜阑尾切除术是阑尾穿孔并腹膜炎的首选治疗方式,具有开腹手术无法比拟的优点,可明显降低切口感染、腹腔残余感染及肠粘连等并发症。取出阑尾时尽量不与穿刺口接触及术毕彻底冲洗腹腔是避免以上并发症的关键。     

Comparison of laparoscopic, open, and converted appendectomy for perforated appendicitis

BACKGROUND: Perforated appendicitis is associated with a significant risk of postoperative abdominal and wound infection. Only a few controversial studies evaluate the role of laparoscopy in perforated appendicitis. The significance of conversion from laparoscopy to open appendectomy for perforated appendicitis is not well defined. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test. METHODS: Data on 52 patients with perforated appendicitis were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. Among these patients, 18 had laparoscopic appendectomies (LA); 24 had open appendectomies (OA); and 10 had converted appendectomies (CA). The indications for either method were based on the attending surgeons's philosophy. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed using a retrograde stapler technique. Operative time, hospital stay, ability to tolerate a liquid diet, and postoperative infectious complications were documented. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference in the operative time in minutes was found between the LA (114 +/- 29.3), CA (120.0 +/- 32.2), and OA (105.8 +/- 64.1) groups (p = NS). There was no statistically significance difference in length of stay (days) between the LA (9.2 +/- 4.1), OA (10.5 +/- 3.3), and CA (10.0 +/- 1.8) groups. The wound infection rate was less frequent in the LA group (0%) than in 0A (14%) and CA (10%) groups. The rate of intra-abdominal abscess infections (IAAs) and ileus were 22% and 28%, respectively, in LA group, 38% and 29%, respectively, in OA group, and 60% and 50%, respectively, in CA group. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in the rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscesses exists between laparoscopic and open appendectomy for perforated appendicitis. Wound infections and ileus complicate the postoperative course of patients after laparoscopic appendectomy less frequently than after open appendectomy. The conversion of laparoscopic to open appendectomy for perforated appendicitis is associated with increased postoperative morbidity.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: indications and current use.

Laparoscopic evaluation was performed in 43 consecutive patients with right lower abdominal pain and preoperative diagnosis of possible appendicitis. Patients with generalized peritonitis and evidence of perforation of the appendix were not considered for laparoscopy. Visualization was sufficient for making a diagnosis in 97.7% of the cases. In 95%, laparoscopic findings were compatible with the pathology report. Thirty-five patients underwent successful laparoscopic appendectomy with neither intraoperative nor postoperative complications. No further surgery was required; slightly elevated temperatures in 6 patients responded to treatment with antibiotics, and there were no wound infections. Laparoscopic appendectomy is minimally invasive and results in less postoperative pain and morbidity and fewer adhesions and other long-term sequelae than conventional laparotomy. It is associated with superior cosmetic results, a shorter hospital stay, and faster return to normal activities. This experience suggests that if there is no evidence that the appendix is perforated or that generalized peritonitis exists and if qualified physicians and adequate facilities are available, patients presenting with right lower quadrant abdominal pain and possible appendicitis are best evaluated and treated with laparoscopic technique.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy is superior to open appendectomy in obese patients

BACKGROUND: There are minimal data comparing laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) with open appendectomy (OA) in obese patients. METHODS: We reviewed consecutive adult patients from 2003 to 2005 who underwent an appendectomy at a University-affiliated teaching hospital. Obesity was defined as a body mass index of 30 or greater. Outcome measures included length of stay, surgical times, intra-abdominal abscesses, wound infections, and hospital charges. RESULTS: There were 116 patients with a mean body mass index of 35. Eighty-five patients underwent LA, 12 were converted to open, 4 of 12 (31%) were perforated. Thirty-one patients underwent OA. Overall, 21 (18%) were perforated. Length of stay for LA was better, 3.4 days versus 5.5 days for OA (P = .02), and wound closure rate was better, 90% for LA versus 68% for OA (P < .01). Other outcome measures were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: LA is associated with shorter lengths of stay, fewer open wounds, and equivalent hospital charges and intra-abdominal abscess rates; and should be considered the procedure of choice for obese patients with appendicitis.     

Lapprotector use decreases incisional wound infections in cases of perforated appendicitis: a prospective study

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether Lapprotector, a protective film and ring device for protecting wounds, can prevent wound infection after open appendectomy. METHODS: We performed open appendectomy on 64 patients between 2004 and 2006. In September 2005, we started using Lapprotector to protect the site of incision (McBurney's point). Patients were divided into two groups as follows: Lapp(-), n = 32; Lapp(+), n = 32. Patient demographics were not statistically different and antibiotic protocols were identical. RESULTS: In the Lapp(-) group, the appendix was perforated in seven patients (21.9%) and not perforated in 25 patients (78.1%). In the Lapp(+) group, the appendix was perforated in nine patients (28.1%) and not perforated in 23 patients (71.9%). For perforated cases, incisional wound infection was seen in three out of seven patients (42.9%) in the Lapp(-) group and in no patient (0%) in the Lapp(+) group, a significant difference (p < 0.05, Chi-squared test). For nonperforated cases, wound infection was seen in only one out of 25 patients (4.0%) in the Lapp(-) group. CONCLUSION: We recommend using Lapprotector to prevent incisional wound infection in patients requiring open appendectomy, especially in cases where the appendix is perforated.     

Explaining insurance-related and racial disparities in the surgical management of patients with acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND: Race and insurance status influence the likelihood of undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) versus open appendectomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis. We hypothesized that these disparities are caused by presenting hospitals' use of LA. METHODS: The analysis included 26,104 appendectomies for acute appendicitis in New York State during 2003 and 2004. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors for undergoing LA versus open appendectomy. RESULTS: Before adjustment for individual hospital use of LA, both white patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-1.36; P < .0001] and privately insured patients (OR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.44-1.61; P < .0001) were more likely to undergo LA. Controlling for differential hospitals' use of LA decreased the OR for laparoscopic surgery to 1.08 (95% CI 1.01-1.15; P = .04) for white patients and to 1.22 (95% CI 1.15-1.31; P < .0001) for privately insured patients. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in presenting hospitals' use of LA maintain racial and, to a lesser extent, insurance-related disparities in the surgical management of patients with acute appendicitis.     

腹腔镜二孔法与三孔法阑尾切除术的对比研究

目的探讨腹腔镜二孔法与三孔法阑尾切除术的临床应用指征。方法回顾性分析腹腔镜阑尾切除术(Laparoscopic Appendectomy，LA)的临床资料，比较二孔法与三孔法LA的手术时间、戳孔感染率。本组206例完成LA术，其中三孔法148例(9例由二孔法中转)、二孔法58例。结果平均手术时间二孔法显著短于三孔法(P=0．000)。急性单纯性阑尾炎和慢性阑尾炎LA术后戳孔均无感染，急性化脓性阑尾炎戳孔感染率二孔法与三孔法无显著性差异(P=1．000)，急性坏疽性阑尾炎戳孔感染率二孔法显著高于三孔法(P=0．039)。结论LA二孔法具有更加微创、美容的特点，可作为单纯性、化脓性及慢性阑尾炎的首选术式．但对于坏疽性阑尾炎则宜选择三孔法。     

Laparoscopic appendectomy with endoloop: results of our experience

There are several different techniques for laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), with different material requirements and approach. We present the results from our series, where we employ monopolar hook for mesoappendix dissection and double polyglactin endoloop for ligation of appendicular stump. The appendix is taken out through the Hasson trocar without any contact with abdominal wall, in a completely laparoscopic procedure. We sought to analyze the security of this technique. We reviewed retrospectively every LA for acute appendicitis performed during the last 10 years in our Hospital. We collected data regarding surgical procedure and postoperative outcome, focusing on intraoperative or postoperative complications. A total of hundred and ten (110) LA for acute appendicitis (from simple appendicitis to perforated appendicitis) were performed. Mean operative time was 74.7 minutes (median 70 min, SD 24.43 min, min. 25, max. 130 min). Ten patients (9.09%) had postoperative complications, consisting in intraabdominal abscess in 6 patients (5.4%) and wound infection in 3 patients (2.7%). No major complication was found, as uncontrolled hemorrhage, bowel perforation or stump dehiscence. No patient needed a second surgical procedure in the postoperative time. Laparoscopic appendectomy with polyglactin endoloops is a completely laparoscopic and safe procedure, without any intraoperative complication in our series. Laparoscopic approach with 12 mm Hasson trocar and two 5 mm working trocars allows a nice aesthetic result.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: the risk of postoperative infectious complications.

BACKGROUND: Despite the reported advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), ongoing debate exists about a possible increase in postoperative infectious complication rates especially intraabdominal infections and wound infection, unless wound protection is utilized. METHODS: All consecutive appendectomies (open and laparoscopic) performed over 4 months were included in this prospective study. Demographic details, operative time, time to conversion, infective postoperative complications, and delay in discharge were recorded. The patients were divided into 2 groups, laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA). RESULTS: A total of 134 appendectomies were performed, 80 in the LA group and 54 in the OA group. Twenty-six (19.4%) appendices were perforated at the time of operation. The median patient age was 24 years (range, 7 to 63). Patients included 71 females and 63 males. Operating time in the LA group was longer with a median duration of 51.3 minutes (range, 35 to 100) compared with 40.6 minutes (range, 30 to 95) in the OA group. An extraction bag was used in 59/71 (83%) LA patients. Wound infection was recorded in 6 patients (5/54 in OA and 1/80 in LA). The site of wound infection was the port of specimen extraction in the laparoscopic group, and an extraction bag was not used. Wound infection delayed hospital discharge by an average of 2 days. Intraabdominal abscess formation complicated the outcome in 2 patients (1 in the LA group and 1 in the OA group). CONCLUSION: Wound infection is less common in LA than in OA, and an extraction bag is recommended. Intraabdominal infection rates do not appear to be increased, though the numbers in this study are relatively small. The longer operating time is minimal given the better results, and LA is the optimal approach to the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis: a comparison with open appendectomy

Background The role of laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis remains controversial. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy outcomes for children with perforated appendicitis. Methods Over a 36-month period, 111 children with perforated appendicitis were analyzed in a retrospective review. These children were treated with either laparoscopic (n = 59) or open appendectomy. The primary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay, time to adequate oral intake, wound infection, intraabdominal abscess formation, and bowel obstruction. Results The demographic data, presenting symptoms, preoperative laboratory values, and operative times (laparoscopic group, 61 ± 3 min; open group, 57 ± 3 were similar for the two groups (p = 0.3). The time to adequate oral intake was 104 ± 7 h for the laparoscopic group and 127 ± 12 h for the open group (p = 0.08). The hospitalization time was 189 ± 14 h for the laparoscopic group, as compared with 210 ± 15 h for the open group (p = 0.3). The wound infection rate was 6.8% for the laparoscopic group and 23% for the open group (p < 0.05). The wounds of another 29% of the patients were left open at the time of surgery. The postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation rate was 13.6% for the laparoscopic group and 15.4% for the open group. One patient in each group experienced bowel obstruction. Conclusions Laparoscopic appendectomy for the children with perforated appendicitis in this study was associated with a significant decrease in the rate of wound infection. Furthermore, on the average, the children who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy tolerated enteral feedings and were discharged from the hospital approximately 24 h earlier than those who had open appendectomy.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for perforated appendicitis

The role of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for perforated appendicitis is under investigation. A retrospective study was conducted to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy (OA) for perforated appendicitis. From January 2001 through December 2003, 229 patients with perforated appendicitis were treated at Far-Eastern Memorial Hospital. LA was successfully completed in 91 of 99 patients. OA was performed in 130 patients. Operation time was longer in the LA group (mean ± SD =96.1±43.1 vs. 67.8±32.2 minutes, P<0.01). Return of oral intake was faster in the LA group (3.2±2.4 vs. 5.0±7.0 days, P<0.01). The intravenous antibiotic usage period was shorter in the LA group (4.4±2.8 vs. 6.3±7.1 days, P<0.01). The postoperative wound infection rates were 15.2 % (LA group) and 30.7% (OA group). The overall infectious complication rates were 19% in the LA group and 37% in the OA group (P<0.01). Hospital stay days were shorter for the LA group (6.3±2.9 vs. 9.3±8.6 days, P<0.01). Our results indicated that laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and effective procedure for treating patients with perforated appendicitis.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy in Switzerland: a prospective audit of 2, 179 cases

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Since its introduction in 1983, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has not replaced the conventional open procedure. The patient benefit seems limited to a decreased wound infection rate, and the overall morbidity and mortality rates remain equal to those of open appendectomy. METHODS: The data (collected by the Swiss Association of Laparoscopic and Thoracoscopic Surgery) from 2, 179 patients undergoing LA at 84 surgical institutions in Switzerland between January 1995 and December 1997 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: More than 90% of all patients had no intra- or postoperative complications. However, perforated appendicitis was associated with more complications, in particular a threefold increased wound infection rate (9.2 vs 3.5%). Furthermore, the conversion and reoperation rates of perforated appendicitis were significantly increased compared to 'simple' acute appendicitis (25. 5 and 10.4% vs 4.8 and 2.1%, respectively). LA performed with a stapling device is superior to LA performed with loops, although the difference is not significant. CONCLUSION: Therefore, LA is a safe and effective procedure. The postoperative morbidity and mortality rates are comparable to those of open appendectomy, which is still the most commonly used procedure in Switzerland. The question of whether perforated appendicitis is better treated laparoscopically or by the open procedure cannot be answered with our data.     

Advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy in the elderly

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has gained in popularity in recent years. The number of elderly patients undergoing appendectomy has increased as that segment of the population has increased in number; however, the utility and benefits of LA in the elderly population are not well established. We hypothesized that LA in the elderly has distinctive advantages in perioperative outcomes over open appendectomy (OA). We queried the 1997 to 2003 North Carolina Hospital Association Patient Data System for all patients with the primary ICD-9 procedure code for OA and LA. Patients > or = 65 years of age (elderly) were identified and reviewed. Outcomes including length of stay (LOS), charges, complications, discharge location, and mortality were compared between the groups. There were 29,244 appendectomies performed in adult patients (>18 years old) with 2,722 of these in the elderly. The annual percentage of LA performed in the elderly increased from 1997 to 2003 (11.9-26.9%, P < 0.0001). When compared with OA, elderly patients undergoing LA had a shorter LOS (4.6 vs 7.3 days, P = 0.0001), a higher rate of discharge to home (91.4 vs 78.9%, P = 0.0001) as opposed to a step-down facility, fewer complications (13.0 vs 22.4%, P = 0.0001), and a lower mortality rate (0.4 vs 2.1%, P = 0.007). When LA was compared with OA in elderly patients with perforated appendicitis, LA resulted in a shorter LOS (6.8 vs 9.0 days, P = 0.0001), a higher rate of discharge to home (86.6 vs 70.9%, P = 0.0001), but equivalent total charges (dollars 22,334 vs dollars 23,855, P = 0.93) and mortality (1.0 vs 2.98%, P = 0.10). When elderly patients that underwent LA were compared with adult patients (18-64 years old), they had higher total charges (dollars 16,670 vs dollars 11,160, P = 0.0001) but equivalent mortality (0.37 vs 0.15%, P = 0.20). The use of laparoscopy in the elderly has significantly increased in recent years. In general, the safety and efficacy of LA is demonstrated by a reduction in mortality, complications, and LOS when compared with OA. The laparoscopic approach to the perforated appendix in the elderly patient has advantages over OA in terms of decreased LOS and a higher rate of discharge to home as opposed to rehabilitation centers, nursing homes, or skilled nursing care. When compared with all younger adults, the laparoscopic approach in the elderly was associated with equal mortality rates even though hospitalization charges were higher. Laparoscopy may be the preferred approach in elderly patients who require appendectomy.     

Laparoscopy in the contemporary management of acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND: We sought to compare laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) with open appendectomy (OA) focusing on the negative appendectomy rate (NAR), emergency department (ED) to operating room (OR) time, procedure length, and histopathological correlation. METHODS: All appendectomies for appendicitis over a 6-year period at a single hospital were reviewed. Open and laparoscopic procedures were compared. RESULTS: There were 1,312 appendectomies (54.6% OA and 45.4% LA) Mean ED to OR time was as follows: LA 10.8 hours (standard deviation [SD] +/- 9.0) versus 9.8 hours (SD +/- 8.5) OA (P = .0333). Mean OR time was 61.2 minutes (SD +/- 29.1) LA versus 57.7 minutes (SD +/- 28) OA (P = .0293). NAR was 18.3%, LA 23.3% versus 14.0% OA (P < .0001). Postoperative correlation with histopathology was 86% for LA versus 92% OA (P = .0003). In the LA group, 9.9% with a "normal" appendix had appendicitis by histopathology. CONCLUSIONS: LA is associated with increased presentation to procedure time, operative time, and negative appendectomy rate. Removing a "normal" appendix during LA in the absence of alternate pathology is recommended.     

Value of Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Perforated Appendicitis

Background The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with perforated appendicitis. Methods This study involved a total of 73 consecutive patients who had undergone appendectomy for perforated appendicitis between January 1999 and December 2004. While 39 patients underwent open appendectomy (OA) during the first 3 years, the remaining 34 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) during the last 3 years. Results There was no case of LA converted to OA. No significant difference was found in the operating time between the two groups. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with less analgesic use, earlier oral intake restart (LA, 2.6 days; OA, 5.1 days), shorter median hospital stay (LA, 11.7 days; OA, 25.8 days), and lower rate of wound infections (LA, 8.8%; OA, 43.6%). Conclusions These results suggest that LA for perforated appendicitis is a safe procedure that may prove to have significant clinical advantages over conventional surgery.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic appendectomy has been widely practiced for uncomplicated appendicitis; various reports demonstrated its merits in assisting diagnosis, reducing postoperative pain, analgesic requirement, and incidence of wound infection. The role of laparoscopy in management of complicated appendicitis, ie, gangrenous, perforated appendicitis and appendiceal abscess, remains undefined. Currently, the choice of operative approach is mostly at the surgeons' discretion. A retrospective study was conducted in our institution to review the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with complicated appendicitis. STUDY DESIGN: From January 1999 to January 2004, records of patients older than 14 years of age with diagnosis of appendicitis were retrieved from computer database for analysis. All patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy to confirm diagnosis of complicated appendicitis, and patients subsequently underwent either laparoscopic or open appendectomies. Patients' demographics data and perioperative outcomes from the two groups were compared. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,133 patients with acute appendicitis underwent operations in our institution. Two hundred forty-four patients (21.5%) with complicated appendicitis were identified by laparoscopy, of which 175 underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and 69 had open appendectomy (OA). Both groups of patients were comparable in demographics. Mean operative time was 55 minutes for LA group and 70 minutes for the OA group (p<0.001). Mean hospital stay was 5 days and 6 days for LA and OA group respectively (p<0.001). There was one conversion patient (0.6%) in the LA group who suffered from wound infection, and there were seven (10%) wound infections in the OA group (p=0.001). There were 10 cases (5.7%) of intraabdominal collection in the LA group and 3 (4.3%) in the OA group (p=0.473). There was no mortality in the current series. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is feasible and safe. It is associated with a significantly shorter operative time, lower incidence of wound infection, and reduced length of hospital stay when compared with patients who had open appendectomy.     

Factors leading to long-term hospitalization after laparoscopic appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Randomized studies demonstrate that laparoscopic appendectomy yields better results compared with open techniques. We sought to identify factors that determine an extended hospital stay among patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. METHODS: This was a prospective study including 669 patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. We analyzed variables that can predict the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Of 669 patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy, 141 stayed in the hospital for > or = 5 days (Group 1), and 97 stayed in the hospital for < or = 1 day after surgery (Group 2). The univariate analysis demonstrated that fever (P<0.0001), nausea and vomiting (P=0.060), leukocytosis (P<0.0001), gangrened or perforated intraoperative appearance of the appendix (P<0.0001), and appendix position behind the ileocecal junction (P<0.001) were related to a longer hospital stay. The multivariate analysis through logistical regression showed that the factors independently and significantly associated with an extended hospital stay were presurgical fever, appendix position behind the ileocecal junction, and intraoperative gangrened or perforated appearance of the appendix. CONCLUSION: Fever, appearance, and position of the appendix are factors related to an extended hospital stay.     

Fear for the intraabdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy: not realistic

Background: The risk for intraabdominal abscess (IAA) after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is still a matter of debate. The aim of the present study was to evaluate postoperative complications after open (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy, in particular in perforated appendicitis (PA).Methods: In the period 1999–2002, 331 appendectomies were performed for histological proven appendicitis, 144 by the open and 187 by the laparoscopic technique. Parameters were conversion rate, perforation, wound infection, and IAA.Results: Conversion to OA was done in 20 cases (10.7%). Perforated appendicitis led more frequently to conversion than simple appendicitis (23.5 vs 7.8%; p = 0.007). Perforated appendicitis was equally seen in the open and laparoscopic technique (15 vs 18%). Wound infections after OA, converted and LA for acute appendicitis were 3 of 144 (2.1%), 1 of 20 (5.0%) and 1 of 167 (0.6%), respectively (NS). IAA formation did not differ among the three procedures (3.5 vs 0 vs 3.6%). In PA the rate of IAA formation was increased. However, the risk was not influenced by the technique: Two patients after the OA, none after a converted procedure, and two patients after LA formed an abscess (9.5 vs 0 vs 7.7% [NS]).Conclusion: LA does not lead to more intraabdominal abscesses than the open technique; even for perforated appendicitis the laparoscopic technique can be used safely.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: between evidence and common sense

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has been proposed to have diagnostic and therapeutic advantages over conventional surgery. The purpose of this article is to present a recently completed Cochrane review on laparoscopic surgery for suspected appendicitis on the background of daily surgical practice and the developments in the last decade. METHODS: Within the Cochrane review, various medical databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, SciSearch) were searched electronically until October 2001. Congress proceedings were searched by hand. Randomized controlled trials were included that assessed the therapeutic effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults and children, the diagnostic effects of laparoscopy followed by LA or OA if necessary versus immediate OA, and the therapeutic effects of diagnostic laparoscopy followed by OA if necessary versus immediate OA. RESULTS: Based on 45 studies, wound infection was half as likely while intra-abdominal abscesses were three times more frequent after LA. Return to normal activity showed a uniform tendency in favor of LA. Pain was also reduced, but data vary and most primary studies were not blinded. Obvious diagnostic advantages concerned the negative appendectomy rate and the rate of patients without established diagnosis, both being reduced to 0.2-0.3 (RR). CONCLUSION: The review finds that laparoscopic surgery for suspected appendicitis has diagnostic and therapeutic advantages as compared to conventional surgery--a fact which is in full agreement with the daily practice of surgeons interested in endoscopic surgery.     

Intraabdominal abscess rate after laparoscopic appendectomy

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest increased intraabdominal abscess (IA) rates following laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), especially for perforated appendicitis. Consequently, an open approach has been advocated. The aim of our study is to compare IA rates following LA performed by a laparoscopic surgery and a general surgical service within the same institution. METHODS: Data of LA patients treated at Los Angeles County-University of Southern California (LAC-USC) Medical Center between March 1992 and June 1997 were reviewed. The main outcome measure was postoperative IA. RESULTS: In all, 645 LA were reviewed. A total of 413 LA (285 acute, 61 gangrenous, 67 perforated appendicitis) were performed by three general surgical services (10 attendings). Ten abscesses occurred postoperatively (2.4%), 6 with perforated appendicitis. After the laparoscopic service was introduced, 232 standardized LA (126 acute, 46 gangrenous, 60 perforated) were performed by two attendings. One IA occurred (gangrenous appendicitis). The IA rate for perforated appendicitis was significantly lower on the laparoscopic service (P = 0.025). There was no difference in IA rates for acute and gangrenous appendicitis. There was no mortality in either group. CONCLUSION: IA rate following LA for perforated appendicitis was significantly reduced on the laparoscopic service. Mastery of the learning curve and addition of specific surgical techniques explained this improved result. Therefore, laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis may not be contraindicated, even for perforated appendicitis.