急性阑尾炎患者腹腔镜阑尾切除术后发生粘连性肠梗阻的相关因素分析

目的 探讨急性阑尾炎患者腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)后发生粘连性肠梗阻的相关因素。方法 回顾性分析2015-02—2020-12虞城县人民医院行LA治疗的240例急性阑尾炎患者的临床资料。根据LA后是否发生粘连性肠梗阻分为粘连肠梗阻组(32例)与未粘连肠梗阻组(208例)。收集统计2组患者的基线资料及手术情况,采用单因素和Logistic回归分析研究急性阑尾炎患者LA后发生粘连性肠梗阻的相关因素。结果 单因素分析结果显示,2组患者的病程>24 h、阑尾穿孔、留置腹腔引流管、术后24 h肛门无排气、腹腔残余感染占比差异有统计学意义(P值均<0.05)。Logistic回归分析结果显示,病程、病理类型、留置腹腔引流管、术后24 h肛门无排气、腹腔残余感染是LA后发生粘连性肠梗阻的独立危险因素(OR>1,P<0.05)。结论 病程、病理类型、留置腹腔引流管、术后24 h肛门无排气、腹腔残余感染是LA后发生粘连性肠梗阻的独立危险因素,因而急性阑尾炎患者需及早就医,术者需提高腹腔镜的专业技能,应用腹腔镜下可对腹腔进行全面探查的优势,对腹腔积液严重的患者实施彻底冲洗,术后采取有...     

腹腔镜与开放手术治疗急性穿孔性阑尾炎的对比研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜手术治疗急性穿孔性阑尾炎的手术效果及临床价值。方法:回顾分析2010年9月至2015年9月收治的253例穿孔性阑尾炎患者的临床资料,其中115例行腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA),为LA组;138例行开腹阑尾切除术(open appendectomy,OA),为OA组,对比两组手术时间、肠道功能恢复时间、住院时间、切口感染率、腹腔脓肿发生率。结果:两组均无围手术期死亡病例,均无粪漏发生。LA组较OA组手术时间短[(59.07±11.38)min vs.(79.24±13.84)min,P0.001];肠功能恢复快[(16.77±2.49)h vs.(23.72±3.69)h,P0.001];住院时间短[(5.78±0.98)d vs.(7.24±1.17)d,P0.001],切口感染发生率低(2/115 vs.15/138,P=0.004),术后腹腔脓肿发生率两组差异无统计学意义(6/115 vs.5/138,P=0.536)。结论:LA治疗急性穿孔性阑尾炎较传统手术方式具有明显优势,具有临床推广价值。     

小儿复杂性阑尾炎的腹腔镜治疗

目的 对比分析腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)和开腹阑尾切除术( open appendectomy,OA)治疗伴有坏疽、穿孔及阑尾周围脓肿的儿童阑尾炎的疗效.方法 回顾性分析614例儿童复杂性阑尾炎患者的临床资料,比较LA组(267例)和OA组(347例)手术时间、住院时间、住院费用及术后并发症的发生率.结果 本组614例患者中无手术死亡发生,LA组有7例中转开腹手术,LA组术后住院时间较OA组短(4.6d比8.1d,P=0.00),Trocar孔或切口感染(5.3％比12.8％,P=0.03)、肠梗阻(5.0％比10.0％,P=0.04)及院内感染发生率(9.7％比18.3％,P=0.04)均较OA组低.术后LA组腹腔脓肿发生率较OA组高(4.1％比1.1％,P=0.04),差异有统计学意义.两组的手术时间及费用之间比较差异无统计学意义(均P＞0.05).结论 LA具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少、住院时间短等优点,是治疗儿童复杂性阑尾炎一种安全有效的手术方式,但术后腹腔脓肿发生率偏高.     

腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术治疗儿童复杂性阑尾炎的回顾性研究

目的 对比分析腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)与开腹阑尾切除术(OA)治疗儿童复杂性阑尾炎,以评价腹腔镜治疗儿童复杂性阑尾炎的效果.方法 回顾分析手术治疗儿童复杂性阑尾炎189例临床资料,其中LA 113例,OA 76例.比较两组手术时间、术中出血量少、恢复进食时间、感染性并发症发生率、术后住院天数、抗生素使用时间及手术费用等指标.结果 LA组比OA组手术时间长,手术费用高,差异有统计学意义,但LA组术中出血量少、术后开始进食时间及住院时间均短于OA组,而且切口感染率及腹腔内脓肿发生率较OA组低(P<0.05).虽然LA组术后抗生素使用时间短于OA组,但差异无统计学意义(P=0.113).结论 LA具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少等优点,用于治疗儿童复杂性阑尾炎可行,且安全有效.     

急性阑尾炎腹腔镜与开腹手术的对比分析

目的 探讨腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)治疗急性阑尾炎的价值.方法 比较2008年5月～2010年5月95例急性阑尾炎行腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA组)与87例行开腹阑尾切除术(OA组)的临床资料.结果 LA组93例手术成功,2例中转开腹:1例因阑尾粘连严重,分离困难;l例为阑尾根部坏疽穿孔,切除困难.术后切口感染1例,无腹腔残余脓肿、粘连性肠梗阻,并发症发生率为1.1％ (1/93).OA组切口感染6例(6.9％),腹腔残余脓肿4例(4.6％),粘连性肠梗阻4例(4.6％),并发症发生率为16.1％ (14/87),显著高于LA组(x2=13.269,P=0.000).LA组和OA组手术时间分别为(45.2±10.7)min和(42.5±12.3)min,无统计学差异(t=1.574,P=0.117);LA组术后排气时间(22.7±6.3)h,显著短于OA组(36.4±9.1)h(t=11.807,P=0.000);LA组住院时间(3.8±1.6)d,显著短于OA组(7.4±3.1)d有统计学差异(t=9.881,P=0.000);LA组术后镇痛剂使用率3.2％(3/93),显著低于OA组18.4％ (16/87)(x2=10.949,P =0.001).结论 与0A比较,LA具有疼痛轻、恢复快、住院时间短、并发症少等优点.     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术中转开腹相关危险因素的分析

目的:探讨影响腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)中转开腹的相关因素。方法:回顾分析2014年4月至2016年5月施行LA的患者中6例急性阑尾炎患者中转开腹的临床资料,分析影响中转开腹的相关危险因素。结果:LA中转开腹率为4.2%。单因素分析表明,发病时间、阑尾致密粘连、根部坏疽或穿孔、盲肠后位阑尾与LA中转开腹有关(P0.05)。Logistic回归分析表明,阑尾致密粘连(OR=1.258,P0.05)是LA中转开腹的独立危险因素。结论:阑尾致密粘连是LA中转开腹的独立危险因素。术前应建立合理的评判标准、选择合理的手术时机及手术方式,尽可能避免中转开腹。     

儿童阑尾穿孔的腹腔镜阑尾切除术

目的 :探讨儿童阑尾穿孔腹膜炎行腹腔镜阑尾切除术的优缺点。方法 :分析 30例阑尾穿孔并腹膜炎手术治疗患儿的临床资料 ,其中 15例行LA为腹腔镜组 ,15例开腹阑尾切除术为对照组。比较两组病例的手术时间、术后引流时间、住院时间、术后并发切口感染及腹腔残余感染等情况。结果 :15例LA手术时间 30～ 75min ,平均 5 2min ,几乎无出血 ,术中冲洗并吸尽腹腔内脓液后留置腹腔引流 2～ 3d ;切口感染 1例 ,平均住院 7d。对照组 15例手术时间 4 5～ 110min ,平均 6 4min ,腹腔残余感染 3例 ,切口感染 2例 ,肠粘连 1例。结论 :阑尾穿孔并腹膜炎患儿行LA比常规开腹术恢复快 ,住院时间短 ,切口感染及腹腔残余感染发生率明显降低 ,且切口疤痕小 ,美容效果好。阑尾脓肿形成早期不是LA的禁忌证 ,但阑尾脓肿并广泛包裹者不宜行LA。     

腹腔镜手术与开腹手术治疗小儿急性化脓性阑尾炎的疗效比较

目的:比较小儿急性化脓性阑尾炎行腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)与开腹阑尾切除术(open appendectomy,OA)的疗效。方法:回顾分析手术治疗的102例急性化脓性阑尾炎患儿的临床资料,其中57例行LA,45例行OA,对比两组手术时间、住院时间、肠道排气时间、引流管留置时间、引流管引流量、术后切口感染、术后腹腔脓肿形成及肠粘连等情况。结果:OA组手术时间短于LA组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);LA组术后住院时间、肠道排气时间、引流管留置时间、引流管引流量、术后切口感染、腹腔脓肿发生率优于OA组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);术后肠粘连发生率两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:小儿急性化脓性阑尾炎行LA具有创伤小、康复快、并发症发生率低等优点,在适应证明确的患儿中值得推广应用。     

腹腔镜下阑尾切除术治疗坏疽性阑尾炎

目的探讨腹腔镜下阑尾切除术治疗坏疽性阑尾炎的价值。方法回顾性分析113例坏疽性阑尾炎病人的临床资料,按手术方式分为腹腔镜下阑尾切除组(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)及开腹阑尾切除组(open appendectomy,OA),分析两组间在一般临床资料、手术时间、腹腔引流管放置、术后疼痛评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、术后进食时间、术后并发症(切口感染、腹腔脓肿、麻痹性肠梗阻)、住院时间等方面的差异。结果两组间在一般临床资料方面差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。在腹腔引流管放置、术后24小时疼痛评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)、术后并发症(切口感染、腹腔脓肿、麻痹性肠梗阻)方面差异具有明显统计学意义,LA组明显优于OA组(P0.05)。手术时间上OA略低于LA组,但两组未显示明显统计学差异(P=0.073)。两组在住院时间方面差异未显示出统计学意义(P=0.057)。结论腹腔镜下阑尾切除术治疗坏疽性阑尾炎与开腹手术相比具有术后并发症低、恢复快的优势,在有经验的医生可安全应用。     

不同术式阑尾切除术后切口感染的对比分析一项大型多中心回顾性研究

目的 探讨腹腔镜阑尾切除手术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)后常见并发症切口感染的发生情况.方法 回顾性分析2011-2013年华东地区6家县市级医院所有急性阑尾炎手术患者的临床资料,对LA和开腹阑尾切除术(open appendectomy,OA)后的结果进行对比,并对所有阑尾切除术后导致切口感染的危险因素进行多因素回归分析.结果 9 340例患者中行LA阑尾切除术1 831例(19.6％),开腹阑尾切除术7 509例(80.4％);3年间LA手术开展的比例分别为9.2％、15.0％及32.9％.所有阑尾切除患者的术后切口感染并发症发生率为5.1％,其中LA为2.1％,OA为5.8％,两者差异有统计学意义(x2 =41.22,P＜0.01);3年间LA术后切口感染并发症发生率分别为5.6％、4.4％及3.5％,呈逐年下降趋势(x2=31.59,P＜0.01).多因素回归分析证实,不同手术方式是导致阑尾切除术后并发切口感染的一项独立影响因素(优势比1.37,95％可信区间1.12 ～1.63,P =0.02).结论 LA阑尾切除术后切口感染的发生率逐年下降,LA手术是阑尾切除术后并发切口感染的独立保护因素.     

Copious Irrigation Versus Suction Alone During Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis in Adults

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine whether copious irrigation of peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis effectively reduces the incidence of postoperative complications and improves the postoperative recovery in adults compared with suction alone. Methods: In this prospective randomized trial, adult patients with complicated appendicitis were randomized to “irrigation and suction”(IS) group or “suction only”(SO) group. All surgery was performed with a standardized 3-port laparoscopic approach. The IS group received peritoneal irrigation with a minimum of 2000 mL sterile normal saline. The study primary outcomes included wound infection and postoperative intra-abdominal abscess. The study secondary outcomes included duration of operation, first anal exsufflation time, duration of hospital stay and hospital charges. Chi-squared and t-tests were used to analyze the study data. Results: Between January 2015 and June 2016, a total of 260 patients with complicated appendicitis were enrolled in the study. The peritoneal irrigation resulted in a longer operation time (51.6 ± 16.1 vs. 41.5 ± 15.2 min, p <0.001). There was no significant difference in the rate of wound infection between the two groups. However, the patients who received irrigation had a lower postoperative intra-abdominal abscess rate (3.1% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.039), earlier anal exsufflation (25.2 ± 16.5 vs. 30.7 ± 18.1 hr, p = 0.011), shorter hospital stay (10.2 ± 2.5 vs. 12.5 ± 2.8 days, p <0.001) and lower hospital charges (¥14,592 ± 2,251 vs. 16,674 ± 2,163, p <0.001) compared to those received suction alone. Conclusions: The study findings revealed that copious irrigation of peritoneal cavity during laparoscopic appendectomy could decrease the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess in adult patients with complicated appendicitis. These patients also had faster postoperative recovery and lower hospital charges.     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术对阑尾炎患者血清炎性因子和胃肠功能的影响

目的探讨腹腔镜阑尾切除术对阑尾炎患者血清炎性因子和胃肠功能的影响。 方法选取205年1月至2017年3月于本院接受阑尾切除术治疗的155例阑尾炎患者,根据手术是否引入腹腔镜分为观察组（85例）与对照组（70例）,观察组患者接受腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗,对照组患者接受开腹阑尾切除术治疗,分析两组患者手术前后血清炎性因子水平和术后胃肠功能恢复指标。 结果两组患者术前血清α-肿瘤坏死因子（TNF-α）（t = 0.171、P = 0.865）、C-反应蛋白（CRP）（t = 0.556、P = 0.579）和淀粉样蛋白A（SAA）（t = 0.317、P = 0.752）差异无统计学意义。手术后,观察组患者血清TNF-α（t = 2.634、P = 0.009）、CRP（t = 6.140、P < 0.001）和SAA（t = 2.160、P = 0.032）显著低于对照组,差异均具有统计学意义。观察组患者手术时间显著长于对照组（t = 6.703、P < 0.001）,术中出血量（t = 14.168、P < 0.001）、术后肠鸣音恢复时间（t = 3.859、P < 0.001）、术后肛门排气时间（t = 3.374,P = 0.001）、术后肛门排便时间（t = 2.994、P = 0.003）和术后住院时间（t = 6.917、P < 0.001）均显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义。 结论与开腹阑尾切除术相比,阑尾炎患者腹腔镜阑尾切除术后血清炎性因子水平下降更显著,胃肠功能恢复更快。     

Minilaparoscopic appendectomy

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using 2-mm laparoscopic instruments in the treatment of appendicitis and to identify risk factors that may limit their use. Minilaparoscopic appendectomy was performed through a 2-mm port in the umbilicus for a videoendoscope, a 2-mm working port in the right upper quadrant, and a 5/12-mm suprapubic port for an endoscopic stapler. Minilaparoscopic appendectomy was attempted in 26 consecutive patients with appendicitis. Thirty-two consecutive patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic appendectomy with 5- and 10-mm instruments and videoendoscopes before the availability of 2-mm instrumentation were analyzed for comparison. Statistical comparisons were made by the Student t test and Fisher exact test. Differences were considered statistically significant at a P value less than 0.05. There were no conversions to an open appendectomy in the minilaparoscopic appendectomy or conventional laparoscopic appendectomy group. The mean operative time was 69.5 minutes for the minilaparoscopic appendectomy group and 85.5 minutes for the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy group (P = 0.02). The mean postoperative length of stay was 1.7 days for the minilaparoscopic appendectomy group and 2.5 days for the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy group (P = 0.08). There was no significant difference in the complication rates (P = 0.31). Minilaparoscopic appendectomy was completed in 13 (50.0%) patients. Independent risk factors (P = 0.05) for conversion to 5- or 10-mm ports were a retrocecal appendix and increasing patient age. There were no differences in the mean postoperative length of stay (P = 0.12) or complication rate (P = 0.39) between the two groups, but mean operative time was longer (P = 0.05) in the converted group. Perioperative outcomes for minilaparoscopic appendectomy are comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. The use of 2-mm instrumentation in the management of appendicitis is limited in patients with retrocecal appendicitis. Increasing patient age and a history of abdominal surgery may influence the need to convert 2-mm ports to 5- or 10-mm ports.     

Laparoscopic vs mini-incision open appendectomy

AIM: To compare laparoscopic vs mini-incision open appendectomy in light of recent data at our centre.METHODS: The data of patients who underwen appendectomy between January 2011 and June 2013 were collected. The data included patients' demographic data, procedure time, length of hospital stay, the need for pain medicine, postoperative visual analog scale o pain, and morbidities. Pregnant women and patients with previous lower abdominal surgery were excluded Patients with surgery converted from laparoscopic appendectomy(LA) to mini-incision open appendectomy(MOA) were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: LA and MOA done by the same surgeon. The patients were randomized into MOA and LA groups a computer-generated number. The diagnosis of acute appendicitis was made by the surgeon with physica examination, laboratory values, and radiological tests(abdominal ultrasound or computed tomography). Al operations were performed with general anaesthesia The postoperative vision analog scale score was recorded at postoperative hours 1, 6, 12, and 24. Patients were discharged when they tolerated normal food and passed gas and were followed up every week for three weeks as outpatients.RESULTS: Of the 243 patients, 121(49.9%) underwen MOA, while 122(50.1%) had laparoscopic appendectomy There were no significant differences in operation time between the two groups(P = 0.844), whereas the visua analog scale of pain was significantly higher in the open appendectomy group at the 1st hour(P = 0.001), 6th hour(P = 0.001), and 12 th hour(P = 0.027). The need for analgesic medication was significantly higher in the MOA group(P = 0.001). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of morbidity rate(P = 0.599)The rate of total complications was similar between the two groups(6.5% in LA vs 7.4% in OA, P = 0.599). Al wound infections were treated non-surgically. Six ou of seven patients with pelvic abscess were successfully treated with percutaneous drainage; one patient requiredsurgical drainage after a failed percutaneous drainage. There were no differences in the period of hospital stay, operation time, and postoperative complication rate between the two groups. Laparoscopic appendectomy decreases the need for analgesic medications and the visual analog scale of pain.CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic appendectomy should be considered as a standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Mini-incision appendectomy is an alternative for a select group of patients.     

开腹与腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎的疗效对比

目的:探讨开腹阑尾切除术(open appendectomy,OA)与腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)治疗急性阑尾炎的临床疗效。方法:选择2009年2月至2012年11月收治的197例急性阑尾炎患儿,其中91例行LA(观察组),106例行OA(对照组),对比分析两组患儿手术时间、术后肛门排气时间、住院时间、切口感染、腹腔脓肿及肠梗阻情况。结果:观察组单纯性阑尾炎及化脓性阑尾炎患儿术后肛门排气时间、住院时间均明显短于对照组(P<0.05),但手术时间明显长于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组坏疽穿孔阑尾炎患儿术后肛门排气时间明显短于对照组(P<0.05),手术时间长于对照组(P<0.05),观察组切口感染、腹腔脓肿及肠梗阻发生率明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论:单纯性与化脓性阑尾炎患儿行LA可明显缩短住院时间与肛门排气时间;对于坏疽穿孔性阑尾炎患儿,LA可明显缩短肛门排气时间,降低切口感染、腹腔脓肿发生率。临床应合理选择术式。     

Does use of intraoperative irrigation with open or laparoscopic appendectomy reduce post-operative intra-abdominal abscess?

To date, no study shows a decrease in postoperative abscess with the use of irrigation during appendectomy. Postoperative abscess rate for laparoscopic and open appendectomy is 3.3 and 2.6 per cent. The purpose of this study is to determine if irrigation at appendectomy decreases the postoperative intra-abdominal abscess rate. Retrospective chart review of 176 consecutive appendectomies, open (39%) and laparoscopic (61%), at a university affiliated tertiary care facility from July 2007 to November 2008 for use of intraoperative irrigation was performed. Patients under age 18 were excluded. There were no differences between the irrigation groups in regards to age, sex, or weight. Perforation was observed in 28 per cent (50/176), of which 86 per cent (43/50) of patients received intraoperative irrigation. Eleven patients (9.6%) with irrigation developed postoperative abscess compared with two (3.3%) patients without irrigation (P = 0.22). Our results do not show decrease in postoperative intra-abdominal abscess with use of intraoperative irrigation. Thirteen patients developed postoperative abscess: 11 with irrigation, two without irrigation. Ten of 13 patients who developed abscess were perforated; nine with irrigation and one without. These results suggest routine use of intraoperative irrigation for appendectomies does not prevent intra-abdominal abscess formation, adds extra costs, and may be avoided.     

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.     

The rationale of laparoscopic treatment in acute appendiceal disease

Notwithstanding its widely perceived advantages, laparoscopic appendectomy has not yet met with universal acceptance. The aim of the present work was to illustrate retrospectively the results of a case-control study of laparoscopic vs open appendectomy carried out at our institution. From Jan. 1993 to Dec. 1999 a total of 457 patients (M:F = 210:247; mean age 25.2 +/- 15 years) underwent emergency and/or urgent appendectomy. Among them, 254 (55.5%) were operated on laparoscopically, while 203 (44.5%) were treated by conventional surgery The choice of technique depended upon the availability or otherwise of a team expert in minimally invasive surgery. The laparoscopic technique conversion rate was 3.9% and was mainly due to the presence of dense intraabdominal adhesions. The major intraoperative complication rates were 0.39% and 0% in the laparoscopic and laparotomy groups, respectively (P = ns). Major postoperative complications occurred in 2 and 1%, respectively (P = ns). The postoperative mortality rates were 0.4% and 0.5% in the laparoscopy and laparotomy groups, respectively (P = ns). The reoperation rate was 1.1% in the laparoscopic group as against 0% in the open surgery group (P = ns). Minor postoperative complications were observed in 0.8% and 7.5% of patients in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively (P = 0.001) and consisted mainly of wound infections. Resumption of bowel function was significantly more rapid and the hospital stay significantly shorter in the laparoscopically treated patients. The greater diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy allowed concurrent diseases to be diagnosed in 9% of laparoscopically treated patients with histologically proven appendicitis as against 1.5% of those treated by conventional surgery (P = 0.001). Similarly, among those patients with no evidence of gross and/or microscopic appendicitis, concurrent diseases were detected in 58.4% of the laparoscopic cases as against only 6% of the laparotomy cases (P = 0.0001). Despite the limitations of a retrospective investigation, on the basis of our experience we believe that laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe and effective as conventional surgery, presents a higher degree of diagnostic accuracy and makes for less trauma and a more rapid postoperative recovery. Such features make its use mandatory in female patients of child-bearing age referred for urgent abdominal and/or pelvic surgery.     

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.     

Intraabdominal abscess following open and laparoscopic appendectomy in the pediatric population

Background: Studies comparing intraabdominal abscess (IAA) rates following laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) have shown conflicting results. Methods: The charts of 324 children undergoing appendectomy were reviewed retrospectively to examine the incidence of IAA. Results: Of the 324 appendectomies, 204 (63.0%) were completed laparoscopically and 119 (36.7%) were performed open. The conversion rate was 0.2% (1/324). Of the 15 (4.6%) IAAs, 7 occurred in the LA group (3.4%) and 8 occurred in the OA group (6.7%) [p = not significant (NS)]. The incidence of IAA for perforated appendicitis for LA was 15% (7/46) and that for OA was 10% (7/70) (p = NS). Conclusion: This study demonstrates no statistically significant difference in the rate of IAA among children following LA and OA. LA can be performed for perforated appendicitis without increasing the risk of IAA.