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.     

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     

Perforated appendicitis is not a contraindication to laparoscopy.

Recent studies have reported an increased risk of intra-abdominal abscess formation following laparoscopic operation for perforated appendicitis. We undertook this study to compare laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in the treatment of perforated appendicitis. Records of all patients undergoing an appendectomy between January 1994 and June 1997 were reviewed, classifying appendicitis as acute, gangrenous, or perforated based on the intraoperative findings. Operative procedures were categorized as open, laparoscopic converted to open, or laparoscopic. The study group included 690 patients; four hundred fourteen (60%) were acute, 77 (11%) were gangrenous, and 199 (29%) were perforated. Although mean length of stay was shorter for all patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy, patients with perforated appendicitis had similar length of stay between treatment groups. Mean operative time for open appendectomy was significantly shorter than for converted or laparoscopic appendectomy regardless of diagnosis (P<0.01). Ten patients (1.4%) developed an intra-abdominal abscess: six after open appendectomy (1.7%), one after converted appendectomy (3.7%), and three after laparoscopic appendectomy (1%). There was no significant difference in rate of abscess formation in patients with perforated appendicitis undergoing open, converted, or laparoscopic appendectomy. We conclude that laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis is not associated with an increased rate of intra-abdominal abscess formation.     

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.     

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.     

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 appendectomy is an acceptable alternative for the treatment of perforated appendicitis

Background: Ever since laparoscopy was first applied to the treatment of appendicitis, a controversy has existed as to whether the acknowledged benefits of a minimally invasive approach warrant its preference over the conventional treatment, which historically has had relatively low morbidity. The purpose of this study was to determine if laparoscopic appendectomy should be performed preferentially in cases where surgeons are not limited by technical constraints. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed of 112 patients operated on for suspected appendicitis from June 1995 to July 1996. Forty-eight patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, and 64 had conventional open appendectomy. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed using a three-trocar technique and the endoscopic stapler. Results: The histopathological diagnosis of appendicitis was confirmed in 82.6% of cases. Overall, laparoscopic appendectomy reduced length of hospital stay (1.54 versus 4.09 days; p < 0.0001) compared to conventional open appendectomy, with no significant difference in hospital cost ($6430 versus $6669; p= ns). Although the total OR time was longer in the laparoscopic group (75.8 versus 60.2 min; p < 0.0001), laparoscopy resulted in both a reduction in length of stay (2.17 versus 6.27 days; p < 0.0001) and hospital cost ($7506 versus $10,504; p < 0.02) for cases of perforated appendicitis. Conversion to open appendectomy was performed in 6% of patients, all of whom had perforated appendicitis. Conclusions: Our data suggest that most cases of acute appendicitis with suspected perforation could be managed laparoscopically. Laparoscopic appendectomy significantly reduces length of stay and hospital costs in patients with perforated appendicitis. Received: 3 April 1997/Accepted: 19 August 1997     

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute nonperforated and perforated appendicitis in the obese population

Background

Use of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been increasing in obese patients. We evaluated the outcomes of LA compared with open appendectomy (OA) in obese patients.

Methods

By using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, clinical data of obese patients who underwent LA and OA for suspected acute appendicitis (perforated or nonperforated) from 2006 to 2008 were examined.

Results

A total of 42,426 obese patients underwent an appendectomy during this period. In acute nonperforated cases, LA had a lower overall complication rate (7.17% vs 11.72%; P < .01), mortality rate (.09% vs .23%; P < .01), mean hospital charges ($25,193 vs $26,380; P = .04), and shorter mean length of stay (2.0 vs 3.1 d; P < .01) compared with OA. Similarly, in perforated cases, LA was associated with a lower overall complication rate (22.34% vs 34.65%; P < .01), mortality rate (.0% vs .50%; P < .01), mean hospital charges ($36,843 vs $43,901; P < .01), and a shorter mean length of stay (4.4 vs 6.5 d; P < .01) compared with OA.

Conclusions

LA can be performed safely with superior outcomes compared with OA in obese patients and should be considered the procedure of choice for perforated and nonperforated appendicitis in these patients.     

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.     

RISK FACTORS FOR POST-APPENDICECTOMY INTRA-ABDOMINAL ABSCESS

Background : Appendicectomy is a common emergency operation, after which major complications are uncommon, however when they do occur they are a major cause of concern to patient and surgeon. This study aims to determine the incidence and risk factors for post-appendicectomy intra-abdominal abscess formation. Method : A retrospective review was undertaken of all appendicectomies undertaken in Christchurch Hospital between 1 January and 31 December 1995. Appendicectomies were identified from a database of histology. The patients’ notes were reviewed and the surgical approach, histological diagnosis and postoperative complications identified. Results : A total of 417 appendicectomies was identified of which 331 were open, 66 laparoscopic, and 20 undertaken at laparotomy. Mean day stays for each group were 4.4, 4.2 and 11.5 days, respectively. The percentages of patients with acute appendicitis in each group were 87, 58 and 35%. Histologically the appendix was inflamed in 80% (334) of patients (acute 232, chronic 15, perforated 56 and gangrenous 24). There were six postoperative intra-abdominal abscesses (1.4%), all occurring in the open appendicectomy group when the histology was either perforated or gangrenous appendicitis (P < 0.001). There were no cases of postoperative abscess formation following laparoscopic appendicectomy. All cases of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess were associated with perforated and/or gangrenous appendicitis (P < 0.001). The incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses was 7.5% with a perforated and/or gangrenous appendix. There were two cases of iatrogenic perforation following laparoscopic appendicectomy. Conclusion : The incidence of intra-abdominal abscess is 1.4% of all appendicectomies. The only identified risk factor for development of post-appendicectomy intra-abdominal abscess was the underlying pathology of gangrenous or perforated 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.     

Trends in utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND: Although a number of trials have analyzed the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy, the clinical advantages, and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic appendectomy in the management of acute and perforated appendicitis are still not clearly defined. The aim of this study was to examine utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy using a national administrative database of academic medical centers and teaching hospitals. METHODS: Using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes, we obtained data from the University HealthSystem Consortium Clinical Data Base for all patients who underwent appendectomy for acute and perforated appendicitis between 1999 and 2003 (n = 60,236). Trends in utilization of laparoscopic appendectomy were examined over the 5-year period. The outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy were compared including length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission, complications, observed and expected (risk-adjusted) in-hospital mortality, and costs. RESULTS: Overall, 41,085 patients underwent open appendectomy and 19,151 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. The percentage of appendectomy performed by laparoscopy increased from 20% in 1999 to 43% in 2003 (P <0.01). Compared with patients who underwent open appendectomy, patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were more likely female, more likely white, had a lower severity of illness, and were less likely to have perforated appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (2.5 days vs 3.4 days), lower rate of 30-day readmission (1.0% vs 1.3%), and lower rate of overall complications (6.1% vs 9.6%). There was no significant difference in the observed to expected mortality ratio between laparoscopic and open appendectomy (0.5 vs 0.6, respectively). The mean cost per case was similar between the two groups (US$ 6,242 vs US$ 6,260). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of laparoscopic appendectomy at academic centers has increased more than two-fold between 1999 and 2003. Patients selected for laparoscopic appendectomy have less advanced appendicitis and have a shorter length of stay and fewer complications without increasing the inpatient care cost.     

Day-care laparoscopic appendectomies.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the safety of laparoscopic appendectomy in a day-care setting and to compare patients selected for laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. DESIGN: A retrospective, nonrandomized study. SETTING: A community hospital in a small town in British Columbia. PATIENTS: Ninety-four consecutive patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis. INTERVENTIONS: Each patient underwent laparoscopic or open appendectomy as selected by the operating surgeon. OUTCOME MEASURES: Duration of operation and of hospital stay, morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: The average operating time was 32 minutes for open appendectomy and 36 minutes for laparoscopic appendectomy. Two (4%) of the 52 patients who had a laparoscopic appendectomy had significant complications; 1 of them required reoperation for intra-abdominal abscess. Thirty-nine (75%) of the laparoscopic appendectomies were done as day-care procedures. The average length of stay for the remaining patients was 2.1 days. The overall complication rate for patients who underwent open appendectomy was 20%. The average length of stay for these patients was 3.2 days; no patient was discharged within 24 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy can be safely performed as a day-care procedure, even for selected patients with gangrenous or perforated appendices. Patients typically selected for open appendectomy include children and those with more advanced infection.     

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.     

Laparoscopy should be the approach of choice for acute appendicitis in the morbidly obese

BACKGROUND: The current study compared the outcome of morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. METHODS: We obtained data from the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) database on 1,943 morbidly obese patients who underwent appendectomy for acute or perforated appendicitis between 2002 and 2007. RESULTS: Compared to open appendectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter length of stay (3 vs 4 days) and a lower overall complication rate (9% vs 17%). Most notably, a lower rate of wound infection was noted (1% vs 3%). Within a subset analysis of morbidly obese patients who underwent appendectomy for perforated appendicitis, there was a higher overall complication rate (27% vs 18%) and cost ($16,600 vs $12,300) in the open appendectomy group. CONCLUSION: In the morbidly obese, laparoscopic appendectomy performed for acute and perforated appendicitis is associated with a shorter length of stay and lower morbidity and costs. Laparoscopic appendectomy should be the procedure of choice for the treatment of acute appendicitis in the morbidly obese population.     

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.     

Laparoscopy utilization and outcomes for appendicitis in small children

Purpose

To examine the trends in laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) utilization and outcomes for children 5 years or younger.

Methods

We studied 16,028 inpatient admissions for children 5 years of age or less undergoing an appendectomy for acute appendicitis in 2000, 2003, and 2006 using the Kids' Inpatient Database (KID). Laparoscopy frequency, hospital length of stay, and complications were reviewed.

Results

In 2000, 2003 and 2006 appendectomies were done laparoscopically 11.4%, 18.7% and 31.3% of the time, respectively. Children were more likely to undergo LA at a children's hospital (P < 0.001). LA complications were less likely overall (OR: 0.80, CI: 0.70–0.92, P = 0.002) and in perforated cases (OR: 0.78, CI: 0.67-0.91, P = 0.001). LA decreased hospital length of stay by 0.54 days for all patients and 0.70 days for perforated cases (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Open appendectomy has historically been the standard in children 5 years of age and younger. Laparoscopic appendectomy has slowly gained acceptance for the treatment of appendicitis in smaller children. The use of laparoscopy has increased significantly at all facilities. Furthermore, laparoscopic appendectomy in this age group has a comparatively low complication rate and short hospital length of stay, and is safe in complicated perforated appendicitis cases.     

Perforated Appendicitis: Is Laparoscopy Safe?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopy in children with perforated appendicitis. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of consecutive patients under the age of 18, operated on for perforated appendicitis between September 1997 and December 1999. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were operated on for perforated appendicitis. Eleven appendectomies were performed laparoscopically. Fifty-four patients underwent an open appendectomy. Four laparoscopic appendectomies were converted to an open procedure. The mean operative time was 79 minutes for the laparoscopic group, and 87 minutes for the open group. The mean length of hospital stay was 5.4 days versus 7.6 days for the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively. Neither of these differences was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The above data support the use of laparoscopy in the management of perforated appendicitis in children. In conclusion, laparoscopy is as safe as open appendectomy. Laparoscopy is an effective alternative with a shorter length of hospital stay compared with that for an open appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children.     

Laparoscopic appendicectomy: an 8-year clinical experience

BACKGROUND: For more than a century, open appendectomy through a laparotomy has been the golden standard for the surgical removal of the appendix. Nowadays, many surgeons question the utility of laparoscopic surgery to perform appendectomies because it is commonly stated that the appendix can be removed through a small surgical incision carrying a minimal surgical trauma to the patient. Although open appendectomy is really safe, on the other hand it carries a considerable risk of postoperative complications, is associated with postoperative pain and affects patient s normal activity. Laparoscopic appendectomy was first described in 1983 and, in many studies, it is described to be better than open standard technique for the treatment of appendiceal diseases. The aim of the present study is the retrospective analysis of laparoscopic appendectomies performed in a 8-year period. METHODS: The authors report on 129 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. RESULTS: Conversion rate was 0.7 %, while the laparoscopic procedure was completed in 96 female and 32 male patients. The position of the appendix was behind the cecum in 37 cases, associate diseases were found in 15 cases. Mean operative time was 51 minutes; kind of laparoscopic instrumentation affected the operation time. Histologically there were 71 (55.5 %) focal appendicitis, 22 (17.1 %) suppurative appendicitis, 11 (8.6 %) gangrenous appendicitis, 18 (14.1 %) chronic appendicitis showing signs of previous suppurative episodes and 6 (4.7 %) normal appendix. There were neither in-hospital morbidity nor mortality. Follow-up showed reduced postoperative pain, short hospital stay, fast return to complete social activity. CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that laparoscopic technique can be considered a safe and effective procedure for the removal of the appendix as it has the advantage of allowing faster postoperative recovery; moreover the author recommend a wider and routinely use for appendectomy.     

Laparoscopic versus Open Appendectomy in Children: A Retrospective Comparative Study of 2,332 Cases

Aim The laparoscopic treatment of paediatric appendicitis remains controversial, especially in the presence of complications. This study evaluated the outcomes of open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) by analysing the data from a multicentre study. Methods The authors retrospectively reviewed a series of 2,332 appendectomies (1,506 LA and 826 OA) performed in children and adolescents (median age 8 years) in 9 different centres of paediatric surgery. For the patients operated using laparoscopy, an IN procedure was employed in 921 (61.2%), an OUT procedure in 571 (37.9%) and a MIXED procedure in 14 (0.9%). In the open surgery, a McBurney incision was adopted in 795 patients (96.4%). Results Median duration of surgery was 40 minutes for LA and 45 minutes for OA. Median hospital stay was 3 days (LA) and 4.3 days (OA) in case of simple appendicitis and 5.2 days (LA) and 8.3 days (OA) in case of peritonitis. Complications were recorded in 124 LA cases (8.2%) and 65 OA cases (7.9%). The conversion rate in laparoscopy was only 1.6% (25 cases). The statistical analysis was performed using the Mann–Whitney test, and the main significant difference that emerged was the length of hospital stay, which was in favour of laparoscopy compared with open surgery (P < 0.0001). Conclusions We conclude that in clinical settings where laparoscopic surgical expertise and equipment are available and affordable, LA seems to be an effective and safe alternative to OA. Three out 9 centres participating in our survey perform LA in all patients with a suspicion of appendicitis. Our study shows that laparoscopy significantly reduces hospital stay in case of appendicitis and peritonitis and presents an extremely low conversion rate (1.6%) to open surgery. Laparoscopic transumbilical appendectomy (37.9%) in our series seems to be a simple option, even for less-skilled laparoscopic surgeons.