Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Children

Background and Objectives:

The advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy have not yet been clearly demonstrated. The present study evaluated our early experience with laparoscopic appendectomy in children, in terms of its safety, effectiveness, technical difficulties, and economics.

Methods:

We reviewed the records of 50 cases involving laparoscopic appendectomy performed at our affiliated institutions between September, 1994, and September, 1996. Patient age ranged from 6 to 18 years (mean, 14 years). Thirty-two patients had acute nonperforated appendicitis, six had perforated appendicitis, two had fibrosis of the appendix, and ten had a histologically normal appendix.

Results:

In five patients the laparoscopic procedures were converted to open appendectomies because of technical difficulties. There were postoperative complications in four patients: one incomplete appendectomy which subsequently required an open appendectomy for completion, one pelvic abscess, one bowel obstruction, and one minor wound infection.

Conclusions:

Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and effective procedure. It takes longer operative time than open appendectomy. Length of hospitalization and incidence of postoperative complications are equivalent to those of open appendectomy. Economic benefits are difficult to assess at present. In sum, we believe that with better training, surgical techniques and equipment, laparoscopic appendectomy will eventually become the surgical procedure of choice in appendicitis.     

Macroscopic assessment of the appendix at diagnostic laparoscopyis reliable

Background: Healthy-looking appendixes are often removed at laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis. This practice may have adverse secondary effects. Methods: We reviewed the literature for the years 1978 to 1998 to analyze the negative appendectomy rates, complication rates, the accuracy of laparoscopic appendix assessment, and the incidence of false negative diagnosis of appendicitis at surgical and gynecological laparoscopy. Results: The respective negative appendectomy rates were 22% and 15% in studies that compared laparoscopic with open appendectomy. The appendix was left in situ in 37% of 4,281 surgical diagnostic laparoscopies. There were instances of missed appendicitis among the 3,367 gynecological diagnostic laparoscopies performed on women for lower abdominal pain, and there were 188 appendectomies in this group. Studies comparing the macroscopic appearance of the appendix at operation with microscopic findings from the excised specimen had a false negative error rate of 3%. Conclusions: Contrary to general opinion, there is no substantial evidence to support the assumption that the macroscopic diagnosis of appendicitis is unreliable. High rates of conflicting diagnoses of excision specimens suggest that endoappendicitis has little clinical significance. At present, negative appendectomy rates are considerably higher for laparoscopic appendectomy than for the open approach. The role of diagnostic laparoscopy in suspected appendicitis should be reconsidered. It may be useful in particular subgroups of patients, but it is no substitute for good clinical judgment. Furthermore, it is not always necessary to perform an incidental appendectomy. Received: 7 September 1999/Accepted: 21 October 1999/Online publication: 30 May 2000     

Intraabdominal abscesses following laparoscopic and open appendectomies

Background: The purpose of this review was to evaluate the incidence of postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation following laparoscopic and open appendectomies. Methods: The current study retrospectively examines appendectomies performed during the period from January 1993 to July 1994. Excluded were cases which were started laparoscopically but converted to open procedures. There were 1,287 cases identified; 597 were perforated (46%), 114 were gangrenous (9%), and 576 were acute (45%). These diagnoses represent intraoperative diagnoses. Results: Of the 576 appendectomies for acute appendicitis, 64 (11%) were performed laparoscopically. There were four intraabdominal abscesses (0.7%), all occurring after open procedures. Of the 114 appendectomies for gangrenous appendicitis, 16 (14%) were done laparoscopically. There were two postoperative abscesses (1.8%), one following an open and one following a laparoscopic procedure. There was no significant difference in abscess rate between laparoscopic and open appendectomies for either acute or gangrenous appendicitis. Of the 597 appendectomies for perforated appendicitis, 28 (5%) were done laparoscopically. There were 19 postoperative abscesses in the whole group, accounting for a 3.2% abscess rate. Sixteen abscesses occurred after open appendectomies and three occurred after laparoscopic appendectomies (2.9% vs 11%, P=0.054). The preoperative diagnosis was incorrectly identified as acute appendicitis in 95 cases subsequently found to have perforated appendicitis; there was only 1 postoperative abscess in this group. There was no difference in postoperative stay in the open vs laparoscopic group (6.3 days vs 6.1 days). Conclusions: We found no significant difference in the rate of postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation between laparoscopic and open appendectomies in cases of acute or gangrenous appendictis. However, laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis was associated with an important trend toward a higher rate of postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation than open appendectomy. This observation calls for closer prospective scrutiny of laparoscopic appendectomy in the setting of performated appendicitis.Presented at the Third International Congress on New Technology and Advanced Techniques in Surgery, Luxembourg, 11–17 June 1995     

Intra-abdominal abscesses following laparoscopic and open appendectomies

Recent findings in a small number of studies have suggested a trend toward increased infectious complications following laparoscopic appendectomy. The purpose of the present review was to evaluate the incidence of postappendectomy intra-abdominal abscess formation following laparoscopic and open appendectomies. Using the surgical database of the Los Angeles County-University of Southern California Medical Center, we reviewed the records of all appendectomies performed at the center between March 1993 and September 1995. Incidental appendectomies as well as appendectomies in pediatric patients under the age of 18 years were excluded. A total of 2497 appendectomies were identified; indications for these procedures included acute appendicitis in 1422 cases (57%), gangrenous appendicitis in 289 (12%), and perforated appendicitis in 786 (31%). The intraoperative diagnosis made by the surgeon was used for classification. A two-tailedP value of <0.05 was considered significant. There was no significant difference in the rate of abscess formation between the groups undergoing open and laparoscopic appendectomies for acute and gangrenous appendicitis. In patients with perforated appendicitis, a total of 26 postappendectomy intra-abdominal abscesses occurred following 786 appendectomies for an over-all abscess formation rate of 3.3%. Eighteen abscesses occurred following 683 open appendectomies (2.6%), six abscesses occurred following 67 laparoscopic appendectomies (9.0%), and the remaining two abscesses occurred following 36 converted cases (5.6%). For perforated appendicitis, however, there was a statistically significant increase in the rate of abscess formation following laparoscopic appendectomy compared to conventional open appendectomy (9.0% vs. 2.6%,P=0.015). There was no significant difference in the rate of abscess formation between open vs. converted cases or between laparoscopic vs. converted cases. A comparison of the length of the postoperative hospital stay showed no significant difference between open and laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis (6.1 days vs. 5.9 days). Laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis is associated with a higher rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess formation without the benefit of a shortened hospital stay. Given these findings, laparoscopic appendectomy is not recommended in patients with perforated appendicitis. Presented at the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, San Francisco, Calif., May 19–22, 1996.     

Open versus laparoscopic operation for perforated appendicitis--a comparative study

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic therapy of complicated appendicitis is still discussed controversially. This retrospective study compared the clinical results of open and laparoscopic appendectomy in a single centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Within a period of three years (1999 to 2001) 493 patients with suspected acute appendicitis were operated prospectively at a German district hospital (250 open appendectomies, 243 laparoscopic appendectomies). Twenty percent of the patients in every group had a complicated appendicitis (48 open, 44 laparoscopic appendectomies) and were analysed retrospectively considering demographic data, operative time, body mass index, preoperative inflammatory parameters (white blood cell count, C-reactive protein and body temperature) and postoperative complication rate. RESULTS: Both groups were comparable with regard to demographic data. One patient of the laparoscopic group needed an open operation (conversion rate 2.3 %). The body mass index of the laparoscopic group was significantly higher (26.3 vs. 24.1 kg/m(2)). Preoperative white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, body temperature as well as postoperative antibiotic therapy and analgesics requirement were comparable in both groups. There was no significant difference between the length of operative time (open 48 min, laparoscopic 53.5 min). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (8 vs. 9 days, p = 0.032). Complication rate was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (11.5 vs. 35 %, p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe procedure for the treatment of complicated appendicitis with a significantly decreased complication rate and shorter postoperative stay.     

Laparoscopy reduces unnecessary appendicectomies and improves diagnosis in fertile women

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to study the value of diagnostic laparoscopy prospectively in fertile women scheduled for acute appendectomy. METHODS: For this study, 110 women, with acute abdominal pain ages 15 to 47 years, in whom the surgeon had decided to perform an appendectomy, were randomized to either open appendectomy or diagnostic laparoscopy, then open appendectomy if necessary. RESULTS: Appendicitis was diagnosed in 66% of the women after open surgery, and in 73% after laparoscopy. During laparoscopy, was appendicitis misdiagnosed in only 7% of the women, from whom the appendix unnecessarily removed, whereas 34% in the open surgery group had a healthy appendix removed. No appendicitis was missed in the laparoscopic group. The relative risk of removing a healthy appendix in open surgery was 6.6 relative risk (range, 2-21 C.I.) as compared with laparoscopy. Among the women with a healthy appendix, a gynecologic diagnosis was found in 73% after laparoscopy, as compared with 17% after open surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy reduces unnecessary appendectomies and improves diagnosis in fertile women.     

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.     

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.     

One-trocar appendectomy

Background: Laparoscopic appendectomy is a feasible and a safe alternative to open appendectomy. Several laparoscopic procedures have been described that use one or more trocars. We report our experience with the treatment of acute appendicitis using a laparoscopy-assisted technique by means of only one transumbilical trocar. Methods: From February 1996 to February 1999 we performed 65 laparoscopic appendectomies. In the procedures, a 10-mm operative telescope was used, with a 450-mm atraumatic grasper introduced through the operative channel. After the intraabdominal laparoscopic dissection, the appendix was exteriorized through the umbilical trocar. The appendectomy was performed outside the abdomen as in the open procedure. The procedure was completed using only one trocar in 55 patients (84.6%). Regarding the other 10 cases (15.3%), in 5 we used more than one trocar and in 5 conversion to open surgery was needed. Results: The average operating time in our series was 25 min and the median time to discharge was 2 days. There were six (11%) postoperative complications (three serous umbilical secretion and three umbilical hematomas). Conclusions: Our results suggest that this technique, which combines the advantages of both the open and the laparoscopic procedures, is a valid alternative for the treatment of acute appendicitis. However, this procedure cannot always be completed using only one trocar, as happened in 10 cases in our series.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy in pediatric patients: experience of 2300 operations

The experience of 2300 laparoscopic appendectomies in children aged between 7 days and 14 years is presented. Uncomplicated forms of acute appendicitis were observed in 1611 patients (70.1%). Complicated forms were observed in 689 (29.9%) patients: general peritonitis in 196, local peritonitis--in 334, periappendicular abscess--in 122 and friable infiltrate--in 37 patients. Laparoscopic appendectomy according to F. G?tz modified and adapted by us to children's age was used for all variants of the appendix location, including atypical. Optimal surgical approaches for children of early age and children over 3 years were developed. All laparoscopic interventions were completed endosurgically. Only in 15 (0.65%) patients the transition to open surgical operation was carried out on a diagnostic phase of the laparoscopic appendectomy for contraindications (solid infiltration, general peritonitis with multiple abscesses, intestine paresis with need of decompression). On comparative estimation of the laparoscopic and traditional appendectomies the indisputable advantages of the endoscopic technique are proved: more smooth course of the postoperative period, reduction of complications' number, reduction of hospital stay. Laparoscopic appendectomy is the most effective technique for the treatment of acute appendicitis complicated forms. Mean operative time was 65 min (range 42-120 min). Total amount of the postoperative complications in this group decreased almost 3 times. Frequency of such serious intraabdominal complications as acute commissural ileus decreased 3.5 times, infiltrates and abscesses of the abdominal cavity--2 times. Suppuration of the anterior abdominal wall was extremely rare. Mean hospital stay reduced almost 2 times. Intraoperative complications and lethality was not observed.     

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.     

Fifty-five consecutive laparoscopic appendectomy procedures without conversion.

BACKGROUND: In patients with suspected appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy is gaining increasing acceptance primarily because it is associated with less postoperative pain and a shorter hospital stay. Experience with 55 consecutive laparoscopic appendectomies, performed without conversion by the same surgeon, is herein examined and analyzed. METHODS: The medical records of 55 consecutive patients with suspected appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic exploration (from 2000 to 2002) were analyzed for demographic information, clinical findings, laboratory/computed tomography scan results, intraoperative diagnosis, clinicopathologic correlation, complications, incidental findings, and operative time. RESULTS: Twenty-six males (47%) and 24 females (53%) underwent surgery. Mean age was 25.2 years (range, 6 years to 67 years). Computerized tomography scans obtained in 37 cases (74%) had a sensitivity of 86.7% and a specificity of 62.5%. Average length of stay was 2.3 days (median, 1 day). Average operating room time was 69 minutes (range, 40 to 173 minutes). Five patients experienced postoperative complications: 2 had intraperitoneal abscesses, 1 had urinary retention, and 2 had postoperative ileus. No operative conversions or postoperative wound infections occurred. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopy confirmed the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis and allowed the safe, effective treatment of both complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis with minimal hospitalization, recovery and convalescent times, and zero open conversion and wound infections. Laparoscopic appendectomy is advocated as the procedure of choice for patients with clinically suspected appendicitis.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy—is it worthwhile?

Background: Clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis is most difficult in fertile-age women. In this patient group up to 50% of open appendectomies are negative for appendicitis. We conducted a randomized study to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy in young female patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Methods: Fifty female patients between the ages of 16 and 40 years presenting with acute right lower abdominal pain were randomized, 25 to laparoscopy and 25 to an open appendectomy. Diagnostic accuracy, rate of negative appendectomies, safety, and final outcome were compared in the two groups. Results: Diagnosis was established in 96% of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 72% in the open group. There were 11 (44%) unnecessary appendectomies in the open group, but only one (4%) in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.0005). Conclusions: In young women with right lower abdominal pain, laparoscopy can give precise diagnosis and reduce the rate of negative appendectomies. Received: 18 March 1996/Accepted: 12 June 1996     

Improved outcomes for laparoscopic appendectomy compared with open appendectomy in the pediatric population

INTRODUCTION: The appendectomy is a common emergent surgical procedure in the pediatric population. The aim of this study was to examine our institution's experience and outcomes in the appendectomy in the pediatric population early in our transition from open surgery to a predominantly laparoscopic approach. METHODS: We retrospectively studied all pediatric patients (age 20 years) that underwent an appendectomy at a tertiary care center over 2 years. The data collected included patient demographics, comorbidities, operative details, outcomes, and complications. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-three consecutive patients, with a mean age of 9.5 (3.9) years, were included in the study. Forty-four laparoscopic and 179 open appendectomies were performed. Two of the laparoscopic cases were converted to open appendectomies. Significant differences were seen between the two groups, with longer operative times (P < 0.0001) and lower estimated blood loss (P = 0.007) in the laparoscopic group. Operative times improved significantly for the laparoscopic group as the surgeons became more experienced (P = 0.03). The laparoscopic group used intravenous pain medication for a shorter time (0.8 vs. 1.9 days; P = 0.0003) and had a shorter postoperative hospital length of stay (2.2 vs. 3.4 days; P = 0.004). The laparoscopic group had fewer wound infections (2.3% vs. 6.2%; P = 0.3), intra-abdominal abscesses (4.5% vs. 5.6%; P = 0.8), and postoperative ileus (0% vs. 2.2%; P = 0.3), although these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic appendectomy procedure is a safe alternative to open appendectomy in pediatric patients and results in shorter hospital stays with less postoperative pain.     

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.     

Institutioning a clinical practice guideline to decrease the rate of normal appendectomies

With the advent of laparoscopic appendectomy, the rate of normal appendectomies increased at our institution. To decrease our rate of normal appendectomies, we instituted a clinical practice guideline in January 1999 for the preoperative evaluation and treatment of patients with possible acute appendicitis. The medical records of 464 consecutive patients who underwent either open or laparoscopic appendectomy with a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2000, were reviewed. The decision of open versus laparoscopic appendectomy was made at the time of surgery by the attending surgeon. Two hundred twelve patients (116 females, 96 males) underwent an appendectomy for acute appendicitis (142 open, 70 laparoscopic) from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1998, prior to the institution of the guideline. Two hundred fifty-two patients (117 females, 135 males) underwent an appendectomy for acute appendicitis (193 open, 59 laparoscopic) from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2000 (after the guideline was instituted). Prior to the guideline, the normal appendectomy rate was 21.7 per cent (18.3% open, 28.6% laparoscopic). After the guideline was instituted, the normal appendectomy rate was 16.7 per cent (14.5% open, 23.7% laparoscopic). In females, the normal appendectomy rate prior to the guideline was 31.0 per cent (26.6% open, 36.5% laparoscopic) while the normal appendectomy rate after the guideline was 23.1 per cent (19.0% open, 31.6% laparoscopic), P = 0.172. In males, the normal appendectomy rate prior to the guideline was 10.4 per cent (11.5% open, 5.6% laparoscopic) while the normal appendectomy rate after the guideline was 11.1 per cent (11.4% open, 9.5% laparoscopic), P = 0.861. By instituting a guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of possible acute appendicitis, we were able to decrease our rate of normal appendectomies. Although statistical significance was not reached, there is a trend toward decreasing the rate of normal appendectomies in females after the guideline was instituted.     

Comparison of laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy with intracorporal laparoscopic appendectomy and open appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: A laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with less postoperative pain and a shorter postoperative stay than the open technique. However, the open technique is faster and less expensive than the completely laparoscopic method. A laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy has the advantages of both the laparoscopic and open techniques. METHODS: A retrospective study involving 83 patients was performed comparing the three different techniques. The comparison studied operating time, surgical expense, and postoperative stay. RESULTS: The completely laparoscopic method was performed on 24 patients with an average surgical time of 88.9 minutes, average charges of $604, and average postoperative stay of 2.6 days. The open technique was performed on 26 patients with a surgical time of 77.1 minutes, charges of $42, and a postoperative stay of 2.4 days. The laparoscopic-assisted technique was performed on 33 patients with a surgical time of 70.3 minutes, charges of $208, and a postoperative stay of 1.8 days. CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic-assisted method of appendix removal can be performed as efficiently as the open technique but at <67% of the cost of the complete laparoscopic method. The postoperative stay is shorter for the laparoscopic-assisted technique than for the open technique. Thus, the laparoscopic-assisted technique is a cost-effective method for removing the appendix.     

Appendectomy in the pre- and postlaparoscopic eras

The role of laparoscopic appendectomy remains controversial since many authors have suggested that overall morbidity is primarily a function of the degree of appendicitis rather than the operative approach. We have reviewed our appendectomy experience to determine the advantages and/or disadvantages of the laparoscopic technique in cases of acute appendicitis, and furthermore to ascertain whether the extent of disease should affect the surgical approach used. Data were accumulated for all 1158 patients who underwent appendectomy at a single institution during the following three time periods that span the pre- and postlaparoscopic eras: period I (1987 to 1990), period II (1991 to 1993), and period III (1994 to 1997). Cases were categorized with regard to pathologic findings and operative approach (i.e., open or laparoscopic appendectomy). The percentage of appendectomies performed laparoscopically increased with time (0%, 27%, and 79% for periods I, II, and III, respectively). Overall, the total operating room time was slightly shorter for laparoscopic compared to open appendectomy (99 vs. 102 minutes; P <0.05). Operating room times for open appendectomy remained unchanged, but the times for laparoscopic appendectomy decreased from period II to period III (119 to 94 minutes; P <0.001). In cases of gangrenous/perforated appendicitis, the times for laparoscopic appendectomy were significantly shorter than those for open appendectomy (98/115 vs. 120/125 minutes; P <0.001 for both). Overall, the hospital stay was shorter for patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (1.63 vs. 4.21 days; P <0.001), and the difference was maintained in all three time periods. The differences in length of hospital stay for laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy were most dramatic in gangrenous/perforated cases (1.8/3.0 vs. 4.0/9.0 days; P <0.001), whereas there was only a slight difference in cases of simple appendicitis, for example, 1.6 vs. 2.1 days (laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy, period III). There was a significant decrease in the percentage of perforated cases in which surgical treatment had been delayed (>8 hours) (21%, 5%, and 5%) over the three time periods, but the rate of "negative" appendectomies was similar (10%, 8%, and 8%). The complication rates following laparoscopic and open appendectomies during period II were 5.4% and 7.5%, respectively (P >0.05). Laparoscopic appendectomy results in a marked decrease in the length of hospital stay and similar postoperative morbidity compared to open appendectomy. In cases of gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy appears to be especially worthwhile in regard to both operating room time and hospital stay. Presented at the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, New Orleans, La., May 17–20, 1998. Supported by the Harvard Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery.     

A prospective randomized trial comparing open versus laparoscopic appendectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The authors determined whether there was an advantage to laparoscopic appendectomy when compared with open appendectomy. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND DATA: The advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy were questioned because the recovery from open appendectomy is brief. METHODS: From January 15, 1992 through January 15, 1993, 75 patients older than 9 years were entered into a study randomizing the choice of operation to either the open or the laparoscopic technique. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were assigned to the open appendectomy group and 38 patients were assigned to the laparoscopic appendectomy group. Two patients were converted intraoperatively from laparoscopic appendectomies to open procedures. Thirty-one patients (81%) in the open group had acute appendicitis, as did 32 patients (84%) in the laparoscopic group. Mean duration of surgery was 65 minutes for open appendectomy and 87 minutes for laparoscopic appendectomy (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in length of hospitalization, interval until resumption of a regular diet, or morbidity. Duration of both parenteral and oral analgesic use favored laparoscopic appendectomy (2.0 days versus 1.2 days, and 8.0 days versus 5.4 days, p < 0.05). All patients were instructed to return to full activities by 2 weeks postoperatively. This occurred at an average of 25 days for the open appendectomy group versus 14 days for the laparoscopic appendectomy group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomies have a shorter duration of analgesic use and return to full activities sooner postoperatively when compared with patients who underwent open appendectomies. The authors consider laparoscopic appendectomy to be the procedure of choice in patients with acute appendicitis.     

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.