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.     

Laparoscopic vs open colectomy: outcomes comparison based on large nationwide databases

HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic colectomy has significant advantages over open colectomy in the treatment of diverticular disease with respect to the length of hospital stay, routine hospital discharge, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective secondary data analysis. PATIENTS AND SETTING: Patients with primary International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes for laparoscopic (709 patients [3.8%]) and open sigmoid resection (17 735 patients [96.2%]) were selected from the 1998, 1999, and 2000 Nationwide Inpatient Samples. These databases represent 20% stratified probability samples of all US community hospital discharges. Sampling weights were used to allow generalization of the study findings to the overall US population. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the risk-adjusted association between the surgery type and patient outcomes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of hospital stay, in-hospital complications, in-hospital mortality, and the rate of routine discharge. RESULTS: The patients had a mean age of 59.8 years; they were preponderantly white (89.1%) and female (54.0%). After adjusting for other covariates, laparoscopic sigmoidectomy was associated with a shorter mean hospital stay (laparoscopic sigmoidectomy vs open sigmoidectomy, 7.47 vs 9.37 days; P<.001), fewer gastrointestinal tract complications (odds ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.93; P =.03), a lower overall complication rate (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.88; P =.007), and a higher routine hospital discharge rate (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-3.21; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic sigmoid resection in patients with diverticular disease has statistically and clinically significant advantages over open sigmoid resection with respect to the length of hospital stay, rate of routine hospital discharge, and postoperative in-hospital morbidity.     

急性阑尾炎肥胖患者腹腔镜与开腹手术的对比研究

目的：探讨肥胖的急性阑尾炎患者行腹腔镜手术的效果及优缺点。方法回顾性分析2010年1月～2013年12月80例手术治疗肥胖的急性阑尾炎患者的临床资料,体重指数28～40。开腹组38例,腹腔镜组42例。比较2组手术时间、术中出血量、止痛药物及抗生素应用、术后发热、术后并发症、住院时间及费用的差异。结果腹腔镜组2例中转开腹。2组手术时间差异无显著性（P＞0．05）。与开腹组比较,腹腔镜组术中出血少[（14．98±12．77） ml vs．（31．58±19．00） ml, t＝-4．550, P＝0．000],术后抗生素使用时间短[（2．7±1．0） d vs．（4．1±1．2） d, t＝-5．470, P＝0．000],术后需要止痛少[5．0％（2／40） vs．26．3％（10／38）,χ2＝6．802,P＝0．009],留置引流少[2．5％（1／40） vs．18．4％（7／38）,χ2＝5．367, P＝0．021],术后发热少[5．0％（2／40） vs．23．7％（9／38）,χ2＝5．616, P＝0．018],术后切口愈合不良少[5．0％（2／40） vs．21．1％（8／38）,χ2＝4．493, P＝0．034],住院时间短[（5．9±3．2） d vs．（8．7±4．1） d, t＝-3．345, P＝0．001],但住院费用高[（7800±396）元vs．（4914±434）元, t＝30．716, P＝0．000]。结论对于肥胖的阑尾炎患者,腹腔镜阑尾切除术具有手术创伤小、术后恢复快、疼痛轻、并发症少、住院时间短等优点,住院费用可以接受,是首选治疗方法。     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to use meta-analysis to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy in a pediatric population. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Meta-analysis is a statistical tool that can be used to evaluate the literature in both qualitative and quantitative ways, accounting for variations in characteristics that can influence overall estimate of outcomes of interest. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a pediatric population has not previously been performed. METHODS: Comparative studies published between 1992 and 2004 of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children were included. Endpoints were postoperative pyrexia, ileus, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess formation, operative time, and postoperative hospital stay. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies including 6477 children (43% laparoscopic, 57% open) were included. Wound infection was significantly reduced with laparoscopic versus open appendectomy (1.5% versus 5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-0.75), as was ileus (1.3% versus 2.8%; OR = 0.5, 95% CI, 0.29-0.86). Intra-abdominal abscess formation was more common following laparoscopic surgery, although this was not statistically significant. Subgroup analysis of randomized trials did not reveal significant difference between the 2 techniques in any of the 4 complications. Operative time was not significantly longer in the laparoscopic group, and postoperative stay was significantly shorter (weighted mean difference, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.31). Sensitivity analysis identified lowest heterogeneity when only randomized studies were considered, followed by prospective, recent, and finally large studies. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that laparoscopic appendectomy in children reduces complications. However, we also see the need for further high-quality randomized trials comparing the 2 techniques, matched not only for age and sex but also for obesity and severity of appendicitis.     

Perioperative outcomes after open and endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms in the United States during 2001

OBJECTIVE: Small patient numbers, mixed data from clinical trials, and longitudinal series representing institutional learning curves have characterized previous studies of early outcomes after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. We compared the perioperative outcomes of endovascular and open surgical AAA repair in an unselected sample of patients in a single calendar year using a national administrative database. METHODS: The 2001 National Inpatient Sample database was retrospectively reviewed. This database represents 20% of all-payer stratified sample of non-federal US hospitals. Patients older than 49 years were identified by primary diagnostic codes (International Classification of Disease, ninth revision [ICD-9], 441.4, intact, nonruptured AAA) and procedure codes (ICD-9 38.44 for open, 39.71 for endovascular repair). Patient demographic data (age, sex), comorbid conditions (ICD-9 coded), inpatient complications (ICD-9 coded), length of stay, final discharge disposition (home vs institution vs death), and hospital charges were examined with univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: In calendar year 2001, 7172 patients underwent either open (64%) or endovascular (36%) repair of intact, nonruptured AAAs. Despite comparable rates of preoperative comorbid conditions and a greater proportion of octogenarians (23% vs 16%%; P =.0001), morbidity (18% vs 29%; P =.0001) and mortality (1.3% vs 3.8%; P =.0001) were significantly lower for endovascular repair than for open repair. The median length of stay (2 vs 7 days; P =.0001) and the rate of discharge to an institutional facility versus home (6% vs 14%; P =.0001) were also much lower in the endovascular group than in the open repair group. At multivariate analysis, open AAA repair and age older than 80 years were strong independent predictors (P =.0001 for all) for death (open repair: odds ratio [OR], 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-4.9; age: OR, 14.2; 95% CI, 3.5-58.1), complications (open repair: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.7-2.1; age: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5-2.5), and not being discharged to home (open repair: OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.9-4.1; age: OR, 12.0; 95% CI, 7.0-20.4). Mean hospital charges were significantly greater (difference, $3337; P =.0009) for endovascular repair than for open repair. Extrapolated to the total number of endovascular AAA repairs performed during the single 2001 calendar year, this resulted in a staggering $50.3 million in additional hospital charges. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair of intact AAAs results in a significantly lower number of complications and deaths, shorter hospital stay, and improved likelihood of discharge to home, even in older patients, when compared with open surgical repair. These impressive gains in clinical outcome, however, are achieved at similarly impressive increases in health care costs.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy in the elderly

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has advantages over open appendectomy (OA) in the treatment of appendicitis. It remains, however, unclear whether LA is indicated in the elderly patient population. METHODS: Patients with primary International Classification of Diseases, revision 9, procedure codes for LA (n=32406 patients) and OA (n=112884 patients) were selected from the 1998, 1999, and 2000 Nationwide Inpatient Samples. The end points that were under investigation were the length of hospital stay, the rate of routine discharge, and in-hospital morbidity and mortality rates. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the risk-adjusted association between the surgery type and the patient outcomes. Stratified analyses were performed according to age (65 years and older; less than 65 years old) and to the presence of appendiceal perforation or abscess. RESULTS: After risk adjustment, patients who underwent LA had a significantly shorter mean length of stay (LA, 2.45 days; OA, 3.71 days; P <. 0001), higher rate of routine discharge (odds ratio, 2.80; P <.0001), lower overall complication rate (odds ratio, 0.92; P=.03), and mortality rate (odds ratio, 0.23; P=.001) compared with OA patients. Similar benefits of LA were found in the strata of patients who were less than 65 years old, in elderly patients, and in patients with appendiceal perforation or abscess. CONCLUSION: LA has statistically significant advantages over OA with respect to the length of hospital stay, the rate of routine discharge, and postoperative morbidity and mortality rates for patients who are less than 65 years old, in elderly patients, and in patients with appendiceal abscess or perforation.     

Factors leading to long-term hospitalization after laparoscopic appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Randomized studies demonstrate that laparoscopic appendectomy yields better results compared with open techniques. We sought to identify factors that determine an extended hospital stay among patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. METHODS: This was a prospective study including 669 patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. We analyzed variables that can predict the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Of 669 patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy, 141 stayed in the hospital for > or = 5 days (Group 1), and 97 stayed in the hospital for < or = 1 day after surgery (Group 2). The univariate analysis demonstrated that fever (P<0.0001), nausea and vomiting (P=0.060), leukocytosis (P<0.0001), gangrened or perforated intraoperative appearance of the appendix (P<0.0001), and appendix position behind the ileocecal junction (P<0.001) were related to a longer hospital stay. The multivariate analysis through logistical regression showed that the factors independently and significantly associated with an extended hospital stay were presurgical fever, appendix position behind the ileocecal junction, and intraoperative gangrened or perforated appearance of the appendix. CONCLUSION: Fever, appearance, and position of the appendix are factors related to an extended hospital stay.     

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.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy is safe and efficacious for the elderly: an analysis using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database

Background

Despite increasing use of laparoscopic appendectomy, data demonstrating outcomes of this technique exclusively among the elderly population are scarce. This study aimed to compare 30-day postoperative morbidity and length of hospital stay among elderly patients after appendectomy.

Methods

Appendicitis patients older than 65?years were extracted from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) database. Demographics and rates of complications for patients undergoing open and laparoscopic appendectomies were compared. Uni- and multivariate analyses adjusted for differences between groups compared the end points of major and minor complications as well as the days of hospital stay after initial surgery.

Results

A total of 3,335 patients underwent appendectomy, with 2,235 patients (67%) receiving a laparoscopic procedure. The open appendectomy patients were significantly older and more likely to have various preoperative comorbidities (p?<?0.05). No difference in median operative time between the two techniques was found. Both required 51?min (p?=?0.11). The open cases had higher rates of both major and minor postoperative complications than the laparoscopic cases (p?<?0.0001), both overall and before discharge. Multivariate analysis showed no association between operative approach and major complications, and a reduced risk of minor complications with laparoscopy. Length of surgical stay was longer for the open group than for the laparoscopically treated group (median, 4?days vs 2?days; p?<?0.05). After adjustment, laparoscopy still was significantly associated with a shorter hospital stay than open appendectomy (p?<?0.0001).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe procedure for elderly patients. During the 30-day postoperative period, no correlation with major complications was found, and the findings showed a beneficial association with regard to minor complications. After adjustment for perioperative factors, laparoscopy is associated with a shorter hospital stay than open appendectomy.     

Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy. A prospective randomized comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compare open and laparoscopic appendectomy in a randomized fashion with regard to length of operation, complications, hospital stay, and recovery time. METHODS: Adult patients (older than 14 years of age) with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized to either open or laparoscopic appendectomy over a 9-month period. All patients received preoperative antibiotics. The operative time was calculated as beginning with the incision and ending when the wound was fully closed. Patients that were converted from laparoscopic to open appendectomy were considered a separate group. Return to normal activity and work were determined by questioning during postoperative clinic, telephone, or mailed questionnaire. RESULTS: There was a total of 169 patients randomized, 88 to the open and 81 to the laparoscopic group. The groups were similar demographically. Of the 81 laparoscopic patients, 13 (16%) were converted to open. In the open group, 70 patients (79.5%) had acute appendicitis and 21 (23.9%) had perforative appendicitis. In the laparoscopic group, 62 patients (76.5%) had acute appendicitis and 10 (12.3%) had perforative appendicitis. There was no statistical difference in the return to activity or work between the laparoscopic and open groups. The operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (102.2 minutes vs. 81.7 minutes, p < 0.01). The hospital stay of 2.2 days in the laparoscopic group and 4.3 days in the open group was statistically (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the hospital stay for those with acute appendicitis (1.89 days vs. 2.61 days, p = 0.067) compared with those with a normal appendix but with pelvic inflammatory disease (1.1 days vs. 2.3 days, p = 0.11). There was a significant difference in patients with perforative appendicitis (1.5 days vs. 9.5 days, p < 0.01). The hospital cost for patients having laparoscopic appendectomy was $6077 and for an open appendectomy $7227 (p = 0.164). There were no increased complications associated with the laparoscopic technique. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy is comparable to open appendectomy with regard to complications, hospital stay, cost, return to activity, and return to work. There was a greater operative time involved with the laparoscopic technique. Laparoscopic appendectomy does not offer any significant benefit over the open approach for the routine patient with appendicitis.     

Effect of resident postgraduate year on outcomes after laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis in children

Abstract Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if the postgraduate level of resident in the operating room correlates with outcomes for pediatric patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Subjects and Methods: The charts of all children who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis from 2007 to 2011 at a free-standing children's hospital were reviewed. Outcomes of interest were compared between patient groups based on postgraduate level of the junior-most surgeon in the operating room: (1) junior resident (postgraduate year [PGY]-1, -2, and -3); (2) senior resident (PGY-4 or -5); (3) fellow (PGY-6 or -7); or (4) attending surgeon only. Results: Junior resident (n=327), senior resident (n=129), fellow (n=246), and attending (n=73) groups were similar in terms of age (P=.69), gender distribution (P=.51), race (P=.08), and perforation status (P=.30). Operative time was shorter for senior residents (P=.002), fellows (P<.001), and attending surgeons operating without a resident (P<.001) compared with cases with junior residents. The rate of conversion to an open operation was similar among groups (P=.46). Resident level was not predictive of complications, which occurred in 26 junior resident cases (8.0%; referent), 17 senior resident cases (13.2%; odds ratio [OR] 1.73; P=.11), 33 fellow cases (13.4%; OR 1.71; P=.06), and 8 attending cases (11.0%; OR 1.62; P=.27). Fellow involvement was associated with an increased rate of postoperative percutaneous abscess drainage or re-operation for abscess or bowel obstruction (9.8%; OR 2.31; P=.020). Conclusions: Involvement of junior residents in pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with increased operative time but no higher rate of complications.     

A state-wide review of contemporary outcomes of gastric bypass in Florida: does provider volume impact outcomes?

OBJECTIVES: To report contemporary outcomes of gastric bypass for obesity and to assess the relationship between provider volume and outcomes. BACKGROUND: Certain Florida-based insurers are denying patients access to bariatric surgery because of alleged high morbidity and mortality. SETTINGS AND PATIENTS: The prospectively collected and mandatory-reported Florida-wide hospital discharge database was analyzed. Restrictive procedures such as adjustable gastric banding and gastroplasty were excluded. RESULTS: The overall complication and in-hospital mortality rates in 19,174 patients who underwent gastric bypass from 1999 to 2003 were 9.3% (8.9-9.7) and 0.28% (0.21-0.36), respectively. Age and male gender were associated with increased duration of hospital stay (P < 0.001), increased in-hospital complications [age: odds ratio (OR) = 1.11, CI: 1.08-1.13; male: OR = 1.53, CI: 0.36-1.72] and increased in-hospital mortality (age: OR = 1.51, CI: 1.32-1.73; male: CI = 2.66, CI: 1.53-4.63), all P < 0.001. The odds of in-hospital complications significantly increased with diminishing surgeon or hospital procedure volume (surgeon: OR = 2.0, CI: 1.3-3.1; P < 0.001, 1-5 procedures relative to >500 procedures; hospital volume: OR = 2.1, CI: 1.2-3.5; P < 0.001, 1-9 procedures relative to >500 procedures). The percent change of in-hospital mortality in later years of the study was lowest, indicating higher mortality rates, for surgeons or hospitals with fewer (< or =100) compared with higher (> or =500) procedures. CONCLUSION: Increased utilization of bariatric surgery in Florida is associated with overall favorable short-term outcomes. Older age and male gender were associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Surgeon and hospital procedure volume have an inverse relationship with in-hospital complications and mortality.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy in children with perforated appendicitis

PURPOSE: There is persistent controversy regarding the optimal surgical therapy for children with appendicitis. We have recently adopted laparoscopic appendectomy in lieu of the open technique for children with perforated appendicitis. We hypothesized that laparoscopic appendectomy would be as effective as open appendectomy in preventing postoperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of children admitted to our hospital over a 5-year period with the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. Patients were divided into two groups based on the operative approach: laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy. Demographic data, duration of presenting symptoms, initial white blood cell (WBC) count, length of stay, and complications were abstracted. Data were compared using appropriate statistical analyses. RESULTS: There was no difference between the laparoscopic (n = 43) and open (n = 77) groups with respect to gender, duration of presenting symptoms, initial WBC, or length of stay. However, patients in the laparoscopic group had a significantly lower complication rate than those in the open group (6/43 vs. 23/77, P = 0.05). Infectious complications were no different between groups. Patients in the laparoscopic group tended to be older than patients in the open group (10.6 +/- 3.3 years vs. 8.5 +/- 4.1 years, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy for children with perforated appendicitis has the same infectious complication rate and a lower overall complication rate than open appendectomy. A prospective study with standardized postoperative care would be needed to determine whether laparoscopic appendectomy for children with perforated appendicitis is the treatment of choice, but until then it remains an attractive alternative.     

Advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy in the elderly

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has gained in popularity in recent years. The number of elderly patients undergoing appendectomy has increased as that segment of the population has increased in number; however, the utility and benefits of LA in the elderly population are not well established. We hypothesized that LA in the elderly has distinctive advantages in perioperative outcomes over open appendectomy (OA). We queried the 1997 to 2003 North Carolina Hospital Association Patient Data System for all patients with the primary ICD-9 procedure code for OA and LA. Patients > or = 65 years of age (elderly) were identified and reviewed. Outcomes including length of stay (LOS), charges, complications, discharge location, and mortality were compared between the groups. There were 29,244 appendectomies performed in adult patients (>18 years old) with 2,722 of these in the elderly. The annual percentage of LA performed in the elderly increased from 1997 to 2003 (11.9-26.9%, P < 0.0001). When compared with OA, elderly patients undergoing LA had a shorter LOS (4.6 vs 7.3 days, P = 0.0001), a higher rate of discharge to home (91.4 vs 78.9%, P = 0.0001) as opposed to a step-down facility, fewer complications (13.0 vs 22.4%, P = 0.0001), and a lower mortality rate (0.4 vs 2.1%, P = 0.007). When LA was compared with OA in elderly patients with perforated appendicitis, LA resulted in a shorter LOS (6.8 vs 9.0 days, P = 0.0001), a higher rate of discharge to home (86.6 vs 70.9%, P = 0.0001), but equivalent total charges (dollars 22,334 vs dollars 23,855, P = 0.93) and mortality (1.0 vs 2.98%, P = 0.10). When elderly patients that underwent LA were compared with adult patients (18-64 years old), they had higher total charges (dollars 16,670 vs dollars 11,160, P = 0.0001) but equivalent mortality (0.37 vs 0.15%, P = 0.20). The use of laparoscopy in the elderly has significantly increased in recent years. In general, the safety and efficacy of LA is demonstrated by a reduction in mortality, complications, and LOS when compared with OA. The laparoscopic approach to the perforated appendix in the elderly patient has advantages over OA in terms of decreased LOS and a higher rate of discharge to home as opposed to rehabilitation centers, nursing homes, or skilled nursing care. When compared with all younger adults, the laparoscopic approach in the elderly was associated with equal mortality rates even though hospitalization charges were higher. Laparoscopy may be the preferred approach in elderly patients who require appendectomy.     

Use and outcomes of emergent laparoscopic resection for acute diverticulitis

BackgroundThe use and outcomes of laparoscopic sigmoid resection during emergency admissions for diverticulitis are unknown.MethodsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried for colorectal resections performed for diverticulitis during emergent hospital admissions (2003–2007). Univariate and multivariate analyses including patient, hospital, and outcome variables were performed.ResultsA national estimate of 67,645 resections (4% laparoscopic) was evaluated. The rate of conversion to open operation was 55%. Ostomies were created in 66% of patients, 67% open and 41% laparoscopic. Laparoscopy was not a predictor of mortality (odds ratio [OR] =.70; confidence interval [CI], .32–1.53). Laparoscopy predicted routine discharge (OR = 1.31; CI, 1.06–1.63) and a decreased length of stay (absolute days = ?.78; CI, ?1.19 to ?.37). There was no difference in the cost of hospitalization between the 2 groups (P = .45).ConclusionsIn acute diverticulitis, urgent laparoscopic resection decreases the length of stay. However, it is associated with a high conversion rate, no cost savings, and no difference in mortality.     

Laparoscopic Appendectomy Outcomes on the Weekend and During the Week are no Different: A National Study of 151,774 Patients

Background

The “weekend effect” is defined as increased morbidity and mortality for patients admitted on weekends compared with weekdays. It has been observed for several diseases, including myocardial infarction and renal insufficiency; however, it has not yet been investigated for laparoscopic appendectomy in acute appendicitis—one of the most prevalent surgical diagnoses.

Methods

The present study is based on the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 1999 to 2008. The following outcomes were compared between patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis admitted on weekdays versus weekends: severity of appendicitis, intraoperative and postoperative complications, conversion rate, in-hospital mortality, and length of hospital stay. Unadjusted and risk-adjusted generalized linear regression analyses were performed.

Results

Overall, 151,774 patients were included, mean age was 39.6?years, 52.6% (n?=?79,801) were male, and 25.3% (n?=?38,317) were admitted on weekends. After risk adjustment, the conversion rate was lower [odds ratio (OR): 0.94, p?=?0.004, number needed to harm (NNH): 244], whereas pulmonary complications (OR: 1.12, p?=?0.028, NNH: 649) and reoperations (OR: 1.21, p?=?0.013, NNH: 1,028) were slightly higher on weekends than on weekdays. Overall postoperative complications (OR: 1.03, p?=?0.24), mortality (OR: 1.37, p?=?0.075) and length of hospital stay (mean on weekday: 2.00?days, weekends: 2.01?days, p?=?0.29) were not statistically different.

Conclusions

The present investigation provides evidence that no clinically significant “weekend effect” for patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy exists. Therefore, hospital or staffing policy changes are not justified based on the findings from this large national study.     

急性胆囊炎行腹腔镜胆囊切除术手术时机选择的Meta分析

目的:系统评价腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)治疗急性胆囊炎的最佳手术时机。方法:通过计算机检索万方、中文科技期刊、中国知网等数据库,查找所有比较早期与延期行LC治疗急性胆囊炎疗效的随机对照试验中文文献,检索时限为建库至2016年8月,按照纳入、排除标准由两名独立的研究人员进行文献选择、数据提取及质量评价,使用Rev Man 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入15项研究,总计2 325例患者。本研究所收集的数据经Meta分析提示,与延期LC相比,早期LC具有更低的中转开腹率[OR=0.55,95%CI(0.37,0.83),P=0.004]、更低的并发症发生率[OR=0.64,95%CI(0.45,0.91),P=0.01]、更短的手术时间[MD=-3.69,95%CI(-5.46,-1.92),P<0.0001],差异有统计学意义。结论:相较延期LC,急性胆囊炎发作72 h内早期行LC可降低中转开腹率、并发症发生率,缩短手术时间,可能是治疗急性胆囊炎的最佳手术时机。     

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.     

Insurance status and race represent independent predictors of undergoing laparoscopic surgery for appendicitis: secondary data analysis of 145,546 patients

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that racial and socioeconomic differences lead to inequality in access to health care. It is unknown whether insurance status and race affect the choice of surgical treatment for patients presenting with appendicitis. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with primary ICD-9 procedure codes for laparoscopic and open appendectomy were selected from the 1998, 1999, and 2000 Nationwide (US) Inpatient Samples. The primary predictor variables were insurance status (private, Medicare, Medicaid, other) and race (Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, other). Multiple logistic regression models were used to assess whether insurance status and race are associated with the choice of surgical procedure for patients presenting with appendicitis. RESULTS: Discharge abstracts of 145,546 patients were used for our analyses. There were 32,407 patients (22.3%) who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy and 113,139 patients (77.7%) who had open appendectomy. Although 24.2% of privately insured patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, only 16.9% of Medicare patients, 17.4% of Medicaid patients, and 19.6% of patients in the "other" insurance category were treated using the laparoscopic procedure (p < 0.001). Caucasian patients underwent laparoscopic surgery in 24.8%, African Americans in 18.6%, Hispanics in 19.6%, and other ethnicities in 18.8% of patients (p < 0.001). Compared with the Medicaid subset, and after adjusting for potential confounders such as age, gender, race, patient comorbidity, median ZIP code income, hospital location and teaching status, and presence of abscess or perforation, privately insured patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.26, 95% [CI [1.20, 1.33], p < 0.001) and Medicare patients (OR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.05, 1.30], p = 0.004) were significantly more likely to undergo laparoscopic surgery. Caucasian patients (OR = 1.42, 95% CI [1.33, 1.51], p < 0.001) and Hispanics (OR = 1.12, 95% CI [1.04, 1.20], p = 0.002) were significantly more likely to have laparoscopic appendectomy, compared with African Americans, even after adjusting for the previously mentioned confounders and insurance status. CONCLUSIONS: Even after adjusting for potential confounders, insurance status and race are marked independent predictors of having laparoscopic surgery in patients treated for appendicitis in this sample.     

Laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery: cost-benefit analysis in a single-center randomized trial

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Studies comparing the costs of colorectal resection by laparoscopic (LPS) and open approaches are small sized or not randomized. The main purpose of this study is to compare the hospital costs of LPS and open colorectal surgery in a large series of randomized patients. METHODS: A total of 517 patients with colorectal disease were randomly assigned to LPS (n = 258) or open (n = 259) resection. The following costs were calculated: surgical instruments, operative room (OR) occupation, routine care, postoperative morbidity, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Follow-up for postoperative morbidity was carried out for 30 days after hospital discharge. RESULTS: Operative time was 37 minutes longer in the LPS group. Overall morbidity rate was 18.2% (47 of 258) in the LPS versus 34.7% (90 of 259) in the open group (P = 0.0005). The mean LOS was 9.9 (2.6) days in the LPS group and 12.4 (3.9) days in the open group (P < 0.0001). The additional OR charge in the LPS group was 1171 per patient randomized (864 due to surgical instruments and 307 due to longer time). The saving in the LPS group was 1046 per patient randomized (401 due to shorter LOS and 645 due to the lower cost of postoperative complications). The net balance resulted in 125 extra cost per patient allocated to the LPS group. CONCLUSIONS: The present cost-benefit analysis showed a slight additional cost in the LPS group. The better postoperative short-term outcome in patients receiving LPS had a key role to nearly balance the operative room charges due to laparoscopy.