Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic appendectomy is commonly performed and has been presumed to offer economic benefits similar to those of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study was done to examine that premise. METHODS: Two surgical groups contributed consecutively operated patients with a clinical diagnosis of appendicitis. One group did all appendectomies open and the other group did them laparoscopically. Hospital expenses were compared using a single billing formula. Hospital length of stay, time to return to work, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Operating room times were longer for the laparoscopic group, median 80 minutes, versus median 50 minutes for the open group. Hospital length of stay and return to work were the same, median 1 day and median 10 days, respectively. Wound complications were less common in the laparoscopic group, 0 of 30, than in the open group, 3 of 18; however, there was 1 intra-abdominal abscess in the laparoscopic group. Median cost of the laparoscopic group was $2,915 versus $1,747 for the open group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy is more expensive than appendectomy but does not reduce hospital length of stay nor change the time to return to work; however, wound complications are less common.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

Background: Although laparoscopic appendectomy is widely practiced in developed countries, still there are many questions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of this approach in the treatment of acute appendicitis. Several controlled trials have been conducted, some in favor of laparoscopic appendectomy others not. The aim of this study was to evaluate laparoscopic appendectomy in comparison with open appendectomy, with special emphasis on postoperative septic complications. Methods: For this study, 227 consecutive patients (159 males and 68 females) with a diagnosis of suspected appendicitis between 1995 and 1999 were assigned either to laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 108) or open appendectomy (n = 119). The patients were assigned according to insurance company approval and patient preference. There were no exclusion criteria and no age limits in this study. Results: Wound infection was significantly higher in the open group (incidence, 7.6%) than in the laparoscopic group (incidence, 0%; p < 0.003). Intraabdominal infections were equal in both groups. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.046), but operative time was little longer than in the open group (p < 0.002). Conversion to open surgery was necessary in one case. Conclusions: Laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe and effective as the open procedure. It significantly reduces the rate of postoperative wound infection. However, it is still acceptable to perform the open procedure, especially in hospitals without a large amount of laparoscopic experience.     

Fast-track open transperitoneal nephrectomy

OBJECTIVE: Hospital stay after open transperitoneal nephrectomy is usually 5-10 days, the limiting factors being pain, ileus, stress-induced organ dysfunction and fatigue. Recent studies have shown that aggressive multimodal rehabilitation may improve recovery and shorten hospitalization after other abdominal procedures. We therefore studied the effect of a multimodal rehabilitation regimen in patients undergoing open transperitoneal nephrectomy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 25 consecutive patients scheduled for elective transperitoneal nephrectomy were studied after the introduction of a multimodal rehabilitation regimen (continuous epidural analgesia, enforced mobilization and oral nutrition and revision of the transurethral catheterization and drain regimen) and compared with 50 consecutive patients treated before the introduction of this regimen. RESULTS: The multimodal rehabilitation regimen decreased hospital stay from 8 to 4 days (p < 0.001) with mobilization for approximately 6 h on the first postoperative day and 8 h on the second and third days. Use of a drain was shorter with the multimodal regimen (1 vs 4 days; p < 0.001), as was transurethral catheterization (1 vs 5 days; p < 0.001). "Medical" 30-day morbidity was low (6-8%) in both groups. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that a multimodal rehabilitation regimen with optimized pain relief, enforced mobilization, early oral nutrition and short-term transurethral catheterization and drain placement may reduce hospital stay after open transperitoneal nephrectomy.     

Minimally invasive open thyroidectomy

We recently developed a new surgical technique for carrying out thyroidectomy, to minimize tissue trauma by obviating unnecessary neck exploration. This report describes our technique of performing minimally invasive open thyroidectomy and compares the results with those of conventional thyroidectomy. Minimally invasive open thyroidectomy was performed by making a small skin incision, 3.0–4.5 cm long, and approaching the thyroid directly via a transverse divi-sion of the strap muscles without raising skin flaps. The outcomes of 466 patients who underwent a minimally invasive open thyroidectomy were retrospectively compared with those of 437 patients who underwent conventional thyroidectomy for various types of thyroid nodules. There was no significant difference in the extent of surgery between the group of patients who underwent minimally invasive thyroidectomy and the group of patients who underwent conventional thyroidectomy. However, the length of the skin incision, at 3.7 ± 0.7 vs 9.6 ± 3.3 cm, respectively, operative time, at 57.6 ± 11.7 vs 85.2 ± 32.3 min, respectively, blood loss, at 18.4 ± 15.3 vs 43.1 ± 21.8 ml, respectively, and hospital stay, at 1.6 ± 0.5 vs 4.3 ± 1.6 days, respectively, were significantly reduced in the minimally invasive open thyroidectomy group (P < 0.05). Moreover, the number of patients who required postoperative analgesia was significantly less in the minimally invasive open thyroidectomy group. These results show that minimally invasive open thyroidectomy provides surgeons with a clear operative field, and that it has proven to be simple, safe, and practical for selected patients. Received: September 11, 2000 / Accepted: March 6, 2001     

Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy

Background: A randomized clinical trial was performed to compare open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Methods: 201 patients with similar characteristics of appendicitis were randomized to either OA or LA. Operative time and technique, reintroduction of diet, postoperative pain, use of analgesia, hospital stay, and complications were documented. Results: 104 patients were allocated to the OA group and 97 to the LA group. Postoperative pain was significantly less in the LA group on the 1st (p < 0.001) and 2nd (p < 0.001) postoperative day, resulting in less use of analgesics on both days (p < 0.001). Restoration of diet was similar in both groups. Mean operative time was longer in the LA group: 61 vs 41 min (p < 0.001). Postoperative complications did not differ in either group, except for wound infections (six OA group vs zero LA group, p < 0.05). Mean hospital stay was similar in both groups. Conclusions: LA results in less postoperative pain and fewer wound infections. The laparoscopic procedure is technically more demanding to perform, resulting in longer operative time.     

Conservative open anterior acromioplasty

The records of 29 consecutive patients treated by a pure, open, anterior acromioplasty were reviewed retrospectively. Excluded from consideration were patients with the following pathologic diagnoses or histories: (1) previously attempted acromioplasty on the same shoulder; (2) intraoperatively confirmed rotator cuff tear; (3) any surgically treatable biceps tendon or acromioclavicular abnormality; (4) lost to follow-up study. Three different techniques were employed to perform the acromioplasties. The first technique required partial deltoid origin detachment with an osteotome. The second technique spared the deltoid origin, while again using an osteotome to perform the acromioplasty. The third technique also spared the deltoid origin but used a high-speed burr to perform the acromioplasty. Evaluated in terms of patient satisfaction, residual pain, length of convalescence, suboptimal results, and complications, the first technique proved to be the least effective. The second technique produced early, excellent results. The third technique, in which a burr was employed through an intact deltoid origin, was most effective; technically, the method was also relatively simple and reliable.     

Laparoscopic versus open hemicolectomy

AIM: In the last decade, laparoscopic procedures are applied to the treatment of almost all colonic diseases, including both benign and malignant lesions. Focusing our attention to the laparoscopic operative technique, we compare the perioperative results and the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic hemicolectomy with those after open conventional hemicolectomy. METHODS: This prospective non randomized study is based on a series of 469 consecutive patients (73.6% with malignant lesions) operated on by the same surgical team following the same type of surgical technique, for laparoscopic and open approach, to perform right (RH) and left (LH) hemicolectomy, respectively, excluding segmental resections, emergency operations as well as transverse colon, splenic flexure and recurrent carcinomas. The treatment modality was selected by the patients after reading the informed consent form. Conversion rate to open surgery (for the laparoscopic group) and causes were assessed. Statistical significance (p) for operative time, resumption of gastrointestinal functions, length of stay, complications, perioperative mortality, as well as length of specimen, number of lymph-nodes harvest, incidence of local recurrences and distant metastases, and survival probability analysis in malignant cases, was assessed between the 2 groups (laparoscopic and open). RESULTS: From March 1992 to February 2003, 166 patients underwent RH and 303 LH. In the RH group, 108 patients underwent laparoscopic approach and 58 underwent open surgery (26 vs 13 for benign lesions and 82 vs 45 for adenocarcinomas, respectively). LH was performed by laparoscopy in 202 patients and by laparotomy in 101 (55 vs 30 for benign lesions and 147 vs 71 for adenocarcinomas, respectively). There were no conversions to open surgery in laparoscopic RH, while 10 patients (4.9%) in the laparoscopic LH group required conversion: 3 of 34 performed for diverticular disease and 7 of 147 performed for malignancy. Mean operative time for laparoscopic surgery was longer than for open surgery (182 vs 140 min for RH and 222 vs 190 min for LH, respectively), but with increasing experience this decreased significantly. Mean hospital stay in patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures was significantly shorter both in RH and LH groups (9.2 vs 13.2 days and 9.9 vs 13.2 days, respectively). Similar major complication rates were observed between the 2 laparoscopic and open groups (1.8% vs 1.7% for RH and 4.1% vs 4.9% for LH, respectively). Follow-up time ranged between 12 and 109 months (mean, 57.3 months) in RH groups and between 12 and 111 months (mean, 57.5 months) in LH groups. The follow-up dropout was of only 3 patients after RH (in the laparoscopic group) and 5 after LH (3 in the laparoscopic group and 2 in the open group). The local recurrence rate was lower after laparoscopic surgery in both arms (7% vs 8.8% for RH and 3.3% vs 7% for LH, respectively), but the differences were not statistically significant. Two port site recurrences were observed in the laparoscopic groups, 1 after a Dukes D palliative RH and 1 after a Dukes C LH converted to open surgery (1.7% and 0.9%, respectively). Metachronous metastases rates were similar between the laparoscopic and open groups (20.9% vs 17.6% for RH and 4.4% vs 5.3% for LH, respectively). Cumulative survival probability (CSP) at 72 months after laparoscopic RH was 0.791 as compared to 0.765 after open surgery (p=0.326) and 0.956 after laparoscopic LH as compared to 0.877 after open surgery (p=0.115). CSP for Dukes stage A, B and C in the laparoscopic RH group was 0.875, 0.846, and 0.727 as compared to 0.9 (p=0.815), 0.889 (p=0.87), and 0.6 (p=0.183) after open surgery, respectively. CSP for Dukes stage A, B and C in the laparoscopic LH group was 0.1, 0.966, and 0.885 as compared to 0.1 (p=0.936), 0.944 (p=0.466), and 0.7 (p=0.072) after open surgery, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that laparoscopic hemicolectomy for both benign and malignant lesions can be performed safely. Oncological outcomes were comparable with those of open surgery.     

Laparoscopic vs open surgery

BACKGROUND: The purported advantages of laparoscopic surgery over conventional open techniques are less pain and faster return to normal functional status. Very few studies have included validated measures of quality of life as end points. This study prospectively assessed the health status outcomes of patients undergoing four types of laparoscopic and open operations. METHODS: Preoperatively, patients undergoing elective inguinal hernioplasty, esophageal surgery, cholecystectomy, and splenectomy completed the SF-36, a well-tested, validated health-status instrument. This instrument measures physical functioning (PF), role-physical (RP), role-emotional (RE), bodily pain (BP), vitality (VT), mental health (MH), social functioning (SF), and general health (GH) health status domains. Patients then underwent either laparoscopic or open surgery. Patients were reassessed with the instrument > or =6 weeks after surgery. A total of 100 patients underwent these procedures. RESULTS: Compared to preoperative values, median SF-36 scores for laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients were improved in the domains of PF (85 vs 95, p = 0.01), BP (42 vs 75, p = 0.002), and VT (47.5 vs 70, p = 0.04); open cholecystectomy patients did not show statistically significant improvements over preoperative values. In addition, laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients had a better score than open cholecystectomy patients in the BP domain (75 vs 41, p = 0.05). Laparoscopic esophageal surgery patients had better scores than open surgery patients in the domains of RP (100 vs 0, p = 0.02) and VT (65 vs 52.5, p = 0.05). Compared to preoperative values, laparoscopic splenectomy patients had an improved score in GH (52 vs 77, p = 0.02) and better scores than open splenectomy patients in PF (90 vs 45, p = 0.05) and BP (84 vs 55.5, p = 0.01). Compared to preoperative values, open mesh hernioplasty patients showed improved scores in PF (70 vs 92.5, p = 0.03) and MH (72 vs 84, p = 0.05). Laparoscopic hernioplasty did not produce improved scores compared to either preoperative values or open hernioplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery has demonstrably better quality-of-life outcomes than open surgery for cholecystectomy, splenectomy, and esophageal surgery. However, open hernioplasty has at least as good, if not better, health status outcomes than laparoscopic repair.