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.     

经脐单孔与常规腹腔镜阑尾切除手术的比较研究

目的:探讨单孔腹腔镜阑尾切除手术的可行性。方法:对2011年1月—2011年12月收治的122例急性阑尾炎病例,按照随机原则分单孔腹腔镜组(61例)和常规腹腔镜组(61例),对两组的手术时间、术中出血量、肠道功能恢复时间、住院时间、并发症、中转率进行比较。结果:两组在术中出血量、术后肠道功能恢复时间、住院时间及术后并发症的比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),单孔腹腔镜组因粘连(2例)和腹膜后阑尾(1例)中转常规腹腔镜手术;坏疽性(穿孔性)阑尾炎的手术时间,单孔腹腔镜组明显长于常规腹腔镜组(P=0.004);单纯性阑尾炎和化脓性阑尾炎两组的手术时间无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论:选择性对急性阑尾炎行单孔腹腔镜手术治疗是安全可行的;与常规腹腔镜比较,单孔腹腔镜治疗单纯性阑尾炎和化脓性阑尾炎同样具有恢复快、创伤小的优点,且比常规腹腔镜有更好的维护形体的效果。     

Laparoscopic appendectomy in children can be done as a fast-track or same-day surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery has reduced the length of hospital stay for common operations like cholecystectomy, gastric fundoplication, and appendectomy. We have noticed a reduction in length of hospital stay for children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. We, therefore, looked at our data to assess whether laparoscopic appendectomy in children could be performed as fast-track or same-day surgery (< or = 24-hour postoperative stay). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the records of all children who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for suspected appendicitis during a 3-year period (7/97 to 7/00). RESULTS: Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 79 children (44 boys and 35 girls), between 2 to 17 years of age (mean, 11 years). In 4 (5%) children with perforated appendicitis, the laparoscopic appendectomy was converted to an open appendectomy. At operation, 51 (64.5%) had acute appendicitis, 22 (27.8%) had perforated appendicitis, 4 (5%) had ruptured ovarian cysts, and 2 (2.5%) had no pathology. The median operative time was 54 minutes. Total length of stay for all 79 patients was a median of 58 hours, and median postoperative LOS was 35 hours. Complications included wound infection (2), abdominal abscess (4), drug rash (2), and epididymo-orchitis (1). In 57 (72%) children without perforated appendicitis, the total length of hospital stay was a median of 42 hours, while median postoperative length of stay was only 28 hours. Thirty-two (56%) children went home in < or = 24 hours following laparoscopic appendectomy. No significant morbidity was noted in the nonperforated group (drug rash, 1 fever > 24 hrs, 3); and no readmissions or reoperations were necessary on follow-up. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy is safe and effective for treating children with appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy may be safely performed as fast-track or same-day surgery, in select children without perforated appendicitis, with a postoperative stay of < or = 24 hours.     

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.     

Laparoscopic "radical appendectomy" is an effective alternative to endoscopic removal of cecal polyps

BACKGROUND: The endoscopic removal of cecal polyps can be complicated by hemorrhage, perforation, or incomplete resection. Laparoscopic radical appendectomy represents a safe alternative for the definitive resection and accurate pathologic evaluation of selected cecal polyps. METHODS: Patients with cecal cap polyps not involving the ileocecal valve were candidates for laparoscopic radical appendectomy. Intraoperative colonoscopy and resection of the appendix and cecum to the level of the ileocecal valve were accomplished via three midline ports. For each patient, histologic evaluation by frozen section ruled out malignancy and ensured complete resection. RESULTS: Five patients, four of whom had significant medical comorbidities, presented with large adenomatous polyps contained within the cecum. Each polyp was determined to be unresectable endoscopically; therefore, a laparoscopic radical appendectomy was performed. One patient with cirrhosis also underwent intraoperative liver ultrasonography and biopsies, which contributed to the longest operative time and hospital stay. The histologic diagnosis by frozen section was benign for each patient. The mean operative time was 95 minutes, and the mean length of hospital stay was 1.8 days. No postoperative complications were observed during a mean follow-up of 6 months. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic "radical appendectomy" is an effective treatment for selected cecal adenomatous polyps. Our ability to resect the polyps completely and avoid a standard right hemicolectomy supports this approach.     

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     

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.     

Can we afford to do laparoscopic appendectomy in an academic hospital?

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have shown laparoscopic appendectomy to be safe for both acute and perforated appendicitis, but there have been conflicting reports as to whether it is superior from a cost perspective. Our academic surgical group, who perform all operative cases with resident physicians, has been challenged to reduce expenses in this era of cost containment. We recognize resident training is an expensive commodity that is poorly reimbursed, and hypothesized laparoscopic appendectomy was too expensive to justify resident teaching of this procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine if laparoscopic appendectomy is more expensive than open appendectomy. METHODS: From April 2003 to April 2004, all patients undergoing appendectomy for presumed acute appendicitis at our university-affiliated teaching hospital were reviewed; demographic data, equipment charge, minutes in the operating room (OR), hospital length of stay, and total hospital charge were analyzed. OR minute charges were gradated based on equipment use and level of skilled nursing care. Conversions to open appendectomy were included in the laparoscopic group for analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 247 patients underwent appendectomy for preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis, with 152 open (113 inflamed, 37 perforated, 2 normal), 88 laparoscopic (69 inflamed, 12 perforated, 7 normal), and 7 converted (2 inflamed, 4 perforated, 1 normal) operations performed. The majority were men (67%) with a mean age of 31.4 +/- 2.2 years. Overall, there was significant difference (P < .05) in intraoperative equipment charge (125.32 dollars +/- 3.99 dollars open versus 1,078.70 dollars +/- 24.06 dollars lap), operative time charge (3,022.16 dollars +/- 57.51 dollars versus 4,065.24 dollars +/- 122.64 dollars), and total hospital charge (12,310 dollars +/- 772 dollars versus 16,773 dollars +/- 1,319 dollars) but no significant difference in operative minutes (56.3 +/- 1.3 versus 57.4 +/- 2.3), operating room minutes (90.5 +/- 1.7 versus 95.7 +/- 2.5), or hospital days (2.6 versus 2.2). In subgroup analysis of patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, open and laparoscopic groups had equivalent hospital days (1.47 versus 1.49) but significantly different hospital charges (9,632.44 dollars versus 14,251.07 dollars). CONCLUSIONS: Although operative time was similar between the 2 groups, operative and total hospital charges were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group. Unless patient factors warrant a laparoscopic approach (questionable diagnosis, obesity), we submit open appendectomy remains the most cost-effective procedure in a teaching environment.     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术残端夹闭与缝合包埋疗效的Meta分析

目的系统评价腹腔镜阑尾切除术残端直接夹闭与缝合包埋的疗效与安全性。 方法计算机检索Pubmed、Embase、Web of Science、Clinical Trail、Cochrane Library、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据库、中国知网、维普期刊数据库,收集腹腔镜阑尾切除术残端夹闭与缝合包埋相关的随机对照试验（RCT）,检索时限为建库起至2020年1月,对符合纳入标准的研究进行资料提取及质量评价后行荟萃分析。 结果共纳入14项RCT 1 739例患者,两种方法的术后胃肠功能恢复时间无明显统计学差异（MD=-0.61,95% CI：-1.93~0.70,P=0.36）,但应用直接夹闭法处理阑尾残端较缝合包埋法有手术时间短（MD=-14.81,95% CI：-17.20~-12.43,P<0.001）、术中出血量少（MD=-3.54,95% CI：-4.79~-2.29,P<0.001）、总住院时间短（MD=-0.38,95% CI：-0.68~-0.09,P=0.01）及术后住院时间短（MD=-0.20,95% CI：-0.38~-0.03,P=0.02）、术后并发症少（RR=0.70,95% CI：0.50~0.98,P<0.05）的优势;而缝合包埋法有住院费用低的优点（MD=2.84,95% CI：1.56~4.12,P<0.001）。 结论腹腔镜阑尾切除术残端采用直接夹闭法与缝合包埋法各有优势,对于阑尾残端条件好的患者,直接夹闭法可做首选。应综合考虑内外在因素,个性化进行方案选择和处理。     

Appendix diameter: a predictor of wound infection after laparoscopic appendectomy

Our aim was to investigate whether appendix diameter is an independent risk factor for wound infection in laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Patients who underwent LA (n = 582) were grouped into those with wound infections and those without. Possible factors associated with wound infection were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. When the diameter of the appendix was greater than 15 mm, patients were 2.32 times as likely to have a wound infection (95% CI, 1.02 to 5.29; P = 0.045) than if the appendix was less than 10 mm in diameter. Patients with perforated appendices were 2.51 times as likely to have a wound infection (95% CI, 1.25 to 5.02; P = 0.010) than if the appendix was not perforated. Wound infection was associated with longer operation time, return to oral intake, and hospital stay. Appendix diameter may predict postoperative wound infection after laparoscopic appendectomy.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: indications and current use.

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

腹腔镜阑尾切除术50例报告

目的 探讨腹腔镜下阑尾系膜缝扎及残端包埋缝合行阑尾切除术的可行性,手术技巧.方法 回顾分析50例腹腔镜阑尾切除术的临床资料.结果 48例阑尾炎患者手术成功;2例患者转开放手术,其中1例是阑尾周围脓肿,另1例是回盲部肿块.手术时间30～105 min,住院时间3～6 d,平均4 d.术后无出血,肠漏,肠梗阻等并发症.结论 腹腔镜下阑尾系膜的缝扎及残端的包埋缝合行阑尾切除术可行且安全,患者住院时间短,费用低,无钛夹遗留,同时也使外科医师的腹腔镜技术水平得到了很大的提高.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Incidental appendectomy in donors undergoing hepatectomy for living-donor liver transplantation

Background

The aim of this study was to investigate the morbidity associated with appendectomy in living liver donors undergoing hepatectomy.

Methods

The medical records of 338 donors who underwent hepatectomies for living-donor liver transplantation between 2008 and 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into 2 groups on the basis of appendectomy: patients in group A (n = 126) received incidental appendectomies in conjunction with donor hepatectomy, and those in group B (n = 212) underwent hepatectomy alone.

Results

No significant difference in age, gender, or body mass index was found between groups. The wound infection rate (P = .037) and length of hospital stay (P = .0038) were higher in group A than in group B. Intraoperative findings in 126 donors in group A were subserosal (n = 4), retrocecal (n = 6), or hard nodular (n = 11) appendix; hyperemic appendix with edema (n = 9); appendix length ≥8 cm (n = 18); and palpable fecalith (n = 78). Histopathologic examination of appendix specimens revealed lymphoid hyperplasia with a fecalith (n = 32), fecalith only (n = 32), acute appendicitis (n = 20), normal anatomy (n = 18), fibrous obliteration (n = 9), lymphoid hyperplasia (n = 9), Enterobius vermicularis (n = 3), appendiceal neuroma (n = 1), carcinoid tumor (n = 1), and mucoceles (n = 1).

Conclusion

Although incidental appendectomy increased the wound infection rate and length of hospital stay, this procedure is necessary for the prevention of potential complications due to appendicitis when the exploration of the ileocecal region in patients undergoing donor hepatectomy reveals one or more of the following: appendix length ≥8 cm; dropsical, hyperemic, subserosal, nodular, and/or retrocecal appendix; and/or palpable fecaloma.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy. Initial experience in a teaching program.

From February 1990 to December 1991, 16 laparoscopic procedures were performed for right lower quadrant pain. There were nine men and seven women, aged 16 to 47 years (mean, 27.2 years). All procedures were performed by surgical chief residents with prior experience in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, first-assisted by an attending surgeon. The appendix was visualized and a definitive diagnosis was made in all patients. One patient with acute salpingitis underwent diagnostic laparoscopy only; two patients underwent laparotomy (perforated appendicitis, perforated diverticulitis). A fourth patient had an acute torsion of an ovarian cyst managed laparoscopically. Laparoscopic appendectomy was successfully performed in 12 patients (acute appendicitis, 9; fibrosis or chronic inflammation, 2; normal appendix, 1). Mean operative time for laparoscopic appendectomy was 95.7 minutes, and mean postoperative stay was 2.5 days. The authors conclude that operative time, diagnostic accuracy, and complication rates for laparoscopic appendectomy are acceptable. Within the context of a training program, laparoscopic appendectomy provides an opportunity for surgical residents to expand laparoscopic skills.     

257 incidental appendectomies during total laparoscopic hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective observational report analyzes the demographics, blood loss, length of surgical duration, number of days in the hospital, and complications for 821 consecutive patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy over a 11-year period stratified by incidental appendectomy. METHODS: A retrospective chart abstraction was performed. ANOVA and chi-square tests were performed with significance preset at P<0.05. RESULTS: Of 821 consecutive patients undergoing total laparoscopic hysterectomy, 257 underwent elective appendectomy with the ultrasonic scalpel, either as part of their staging, treatment for pelvic pain, or prophylaxis against appendicitis. Comparing the 2 groups, no difference existed in mean age of 50+/-10 years or mean BMI of 27.6+/-6.7. Both groups had a similar mean blood loss of 130 mL. Surgery took less time (137 vs 118 minutes, P<0.0012) and the hospital stay was shorter in the appendectomy group (1.5 vs 1.2, P<0.0001) possibly because it was performed incidentally in most cases. No complications were attributable to the appendectomy, and complication types and rates in both groups were similar. Though all appendicies appeared normal, pathology was documented in 9%, including 3 carcinoid tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Incidental appendectomy during total laparoscopic hysterectomy is not associated with significant risk and can be routinely offered to patients planning elective gynecologic laparoscopic procedures, as is standard for open procedures.     

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.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database

OBJECTIVE: To compare length of hospital stay, in-hospital complications, in-hospital mortality, and rate of routine discharge between laparoscopic and open appendectomy based on a representative, nationwide database. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Numerous single-institutional randomized clinical trials have assessed the efficacy of laparoscopic and open appendectomy. The results, however, are conflicting, and a consensus concerning the relative advantages of each procedure has not yet been reached. METHODS: Patients with primary ICD-9 procedure codes for laparoscopic and open appendectomy were selected from the 1997 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a database that approximates 20% of all US community hospital discharges. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were used to assess the risk-adjusted endpoints. RESULTS: Discharge abstracts of 43757 patients were used for our analyses. 7618 patients (17.4%) underwent laparoscopic and 36139 patients (82.6%) open appendectomy. Patients had an average age of 30.7 years and were predominantly white (58.1%) and male (58.6%). After adjusting for other covariates, laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with shorter median hospital stay (laparoscopic appendectomy: 2.06 days, open appendectomy: 2.88 days, P < 0.0001), lower rate of infections (odds ratio [OR] = 0.5 [0.38, 0.66], P < 0.0001), decreased gastrointestinal complications (OR = 0.8 [0.68, 0.96], P = 0.02), lower overall complications (OR = 0.84 [0.75, 0.94], P = 0.002), and higher rate of routine discharge (OR = 3.22 [2.47, 4.46], P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy has significant advantages over open appendectomy with respect to length of hospital stay, rate of routine discharge, and postoperative in-hospital morbidity.