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.     

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.     

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.     

Intraabdominal abscess following open and laparoscopic appendectomy in the pediatric population

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

Adhesive small bowel obstruction after appendectomy in children: comparison between the laparoscopic and open approach

Introduction

Adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) is a common postoperative complication. Published data in the pediatric literature characterizing SBO are scant. Furthermore, the relationship between the risk of SBO for a given procedure is not well described. To evaluate these parameters, we reviewed the incidence of SBO after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) performed at our institution.

Methods

With institutional review board approval, all patients that developed SBO after appendectomy for appendicitis from January 1998 to June 2005 were investigated. Hospital records were reviewed to identify the details of their postappendectomy SBO. The incidences of SBO after LA and OA were compared with χ² analysis using Yates correction.

Results

During the study period, 1105 appendectomies were performed: 477 OAs (8 converted to OA during laparoscopy) and 628 LAs. After OA, 7 (6 perforated appendicitis) patients later developed SBO of which 6 required adhesiolysis. In contrast, a patient with perforated appendicitis developed SBO after LA requiring adhesiolysis (P = .01). The mean time from appendectomy to the development of intestinal obstruction for the entire group was 46 ± 32 days.

Conclusions

The overall risk of SBO after appendectomy in children is low (0.7%) and is significantly related to perforated appendicitis. Small bowel obstruction after LA appears statistically less common than OA. Laparoscopic appendectomy remains our preferred approach for both perforated and nonperforated appendectomy.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy significantly reduces length of stay for perforated appendicitis

Introduction Though ruptured appendicitis is not a contraindication to laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), most surgeons have not embraced LA as the first-line approach to ruptured appendicitis. In fact, in 2002, the Cochrane Database Review concluded: 1) the clinical effects of LA are “small and of limited clinical relevance,” and 2) the effects of LA in perforated appendicitis require further study. Objective To study the effects of LA vs open appendectomy (OA) among adults with appendicitis. Methods In 2003, 272 adults underwent appendectomy at a large County hospital, and were enrolled in a prospective clinical pathway that detailed their hospital course from time of diagnosis to discharge. Data included patient demographics, time elapse from diagnosis to surgery, surgical technique (LA vs. OA), operative diagnosis (acute vs perforated appendicitis) and post-operative length of stay (LOS). Results Complete data was obtained for 264 (97%) patients. Patient demographics were similar in the LA and OA groups (p > 0.05). Patients with LA had a significantly shorter LOS than OA by 1.6 days (p < 0.05). This LOS was significantly shorter among those with ruptured appendicitis vs. non-ruptured appendicitis (2.0 days vs. 0.3 day reduction, p = 0.0357). Rank-order multiple regression analysis, controlling for all other factors, showed laparoscopy to have a significant effect on postoperative LOS in all appendicitis cases, especially ruptured appendicitis. Conclusions The two-day reduction in LOS among those with ruptured appendicitis who underwent LA was significant enough to overcome the smaller benefit of LA in acute appendicitis. From a hospital utilization point of view, LA should be considered as the first-line approach for all patients with appendicitis.     

Complicated appendicitis in children: is laparoscopic appendectomy appropriate? A comparative study with the open appendectomy—our experience

Purpose

Good outcomes have been reported with laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for uncomplicated appendicitis in children, but the use of laparoscopy for complicated appendicitis in children is more controversial. This is related to a higher incidence of postoperative abdominal and wound infections. The purpose of this trial was to retrospectively compare LA and open appendectomy (OA) for complicated appendicitis and evaluate the efficacy of LA in children with complicated appendicitis.

Methods

The outcome of 128 patients with complicated appendicitis in children was retrospectively analyzed. There were 80 children in the LA group and 48 in the OA group. The appendectomies were performed by a single senior surgeon and his surgical trainees. There was no selection of cases for LA. Data collection included demographics, operative time, resumption of diet, infectious complications (wound infection and intraabdominal abscess), length of hospitalization, and duration of antibiotic use.

Results

There were no cases of LA that required conversion to OA. The operative time for LA (88.5 ± 28.8 minutes for LA vs 71.8 ± 30.6 minutes for OA; t = 3.10; P = .002) was longer. Patients in the LA group returned to oral intake earlier (1.8 ± 0.6 days for LA vs 2.8 ± 0.8 days for OA; t = −8.04; P < .01) and had a shorter length of hospital stay (6.5 ± 2.2 days for LA vs 7.8 ± 2.9 days for OA; t = −2.87; P = .005). The incidence of wound infection (1/80 [1.3%] for LA vs 6/48 [12.5%] for OA; P < .05) and postoperative intraabdominal abscess (2/80 [2.5%] for LA vs 7/48 [14.6%] for OA; P < .05) in LA group was lower. No significant difference was found in the duration of antibiotic administration between the 2 groups (5.8 ± 1.8 days for LA vs 6.3 ± 2.3 days for OA; t = −1.37; P = .174). No mortality was observed in either group.

Conclusions

The minimally invasive laparoscopic technique is feasible, safe, and efficacious for children with complicated appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy should be the initial procedure of choice for most cases of complicated appendicitis in children.     

Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis: A Comparison with Open Appendectomy

Background  Although laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is widely performed in many countries, LA for complicated appendicitis, which includes perforated or gangrenous appendicitis with or without localized or disseminated peritonitis, has not become a common practice yet. Methods  We retrospectively analyzed the clinical records of 230 patients who had undergone appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: 141 had undergone LA, 84 had conventional open appendectomy (OA), and 5 patients had conversion to the open procedure after laparoscopy. The LA group (total LA) was subdivided into “early experience (early LA: cases 1–56)” and “late experience (late LA: case 57 and higher).” We defined the early LA group as the comparison group to minimize selection bias. Results  Patient demographics were similar in the early LA and OA groups (P > 0.05). Wound infection was significantly more frequent in the OA group (P < 0.05). Intra-abdominal infection was equally common in these two groups. The overall rate of postoperative complications was significantly higher in the OA group (32.1%) than in the early LA group (18%; P < 0.05). This incidence was 12.8% in the total LA group. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the early LA group (10.6 ± 3.9 days; P < 0.05), and 8.9 ± 3.7 days in the total LA group. Conclusions  Our findings indicate that LA is safe and useful even for the treatment of complicated appendicitis if performed by an experienced surgeon.     

Comparison of Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy in Children: Data from The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), 2006–2008

Background  

The benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) remain undefined as compared to open appendectomy (OA) in children, particularly in cases of perforated appendicitis. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the outcomes of LA versus OA in perforated and nonperforated appendicitis in children.     

Laparoscopic approach in perforated appendicitis: increased incidence of surgical site infection?

Background

The role of laparoscopy in the setting of perforated appendicitis remains controversial. A retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the early postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) compared to open appendectomy (OA) in patients with perforated appendicitis.

Methods

A total of 1,032 patients required an appendectomy between January 2005 and December 2009. Among these patients, 169 presented with perforated appendicitis. Operation times, length of hospital stay, overall complication rates within 30 days, and surgical site infection (SSI) rates were analyzed.

Results

Out of the 169 evaluated patients, 106 required LA and 63 OA. Although operation times were similar in both groups (92 ± 31 min for LA vs. 98 ± 45 for OA, p = 0.338), length of hospital stay was shorter in the LA group (6.9 ± 3.8 days vs. 11.5 ± 9.2, p < 0.001). Overall complication rates were significantly lower in the LA group (32.1 vs. 52.4 %, p < 0.001), as were incisional SSI (1.9 vs. 22.2 %, p < 0.001). Organ/space SSI rates were similar in both groups (23.6 % after LA vs. 20.6 % after OA, p = 0.657).

Conclusions

For perforated appendicitis, LA results in a significantly shorter hospital stay, fewer overall postoperative complications, and fewer wound infections compared to OA. Organ/space SSI rates were similar for both procedures. LA provides a safe option for treating patients with perforated appendicitis.     

Outcome of laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic (LA) vs open appendectomy (OA) in patients with perforated appendicitis in our center.

Methods

Retrospective review from July 2002 to April 2007 (institutional review board-approved), evaluating 281 patients with perforated appendicitis based on surgical approach. We compared demographics, mean operative time, length of stay (LOS), infectious complications, and follow-up in patients with OA (n = 213) and LA (n = 68).

Results

Laparoscopic appendectomy patients were significantly older (12 vs 9.4 years), heavier (51.8 vs 36.6 kg) and more frequently girls (47.8% vs 34.3%). Mean operative time was longer in LA (72.6 vs 50.2 minutes). Median LOS was 5 days in LA and 6 days in OA. Few patients in each group required a drainage procedure for a persistent abscess (LA 4.4%, OA 4.7%; P = 1.000). Laparoscopic appendectomy patients had fewer wound infections (1.5% vs 9.5%; P = .034), and less follow-up visits were needed (>2 clinic visits 4.5% vs 16.4%; P = .013).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic appendectomy has a shorter median LOS, a trend toward less postoperative infectious complications, and fewer clinic visits than OA, which makes it a safe and effective procedure for patients with perforated appendicitis.     

急性阑尾炎行腹腔镜手术与开腹手术的比较

目的对比分析腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术在治疗急性阑尾炎中的手术效果。方法回顾性分析2009年1月至2011年10月58例行腹腔镜阑尾切除术（LA组）和同期55例行开腹阑尾切除术（OA组）的急性阑尾炎患者的临床资料,比较两种术式手术时间、下床活动时间、术后排气时间、止痛药物使用率、并发症发生率、住院时间及综合费用等指标。结果 LA组与OA组相比上述指标除手术时间外差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少和住院时间短等优点,可作为治疗急性阑尾炎的理想选择。     

Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Perforated Appendicitis

Although laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis is feasible and safe, its application to perforated appendicitis is uncertain. A retrospective study of all patients with perforated appendicitis from 1992 to 1999 in a university hospital was performed. A series of 231 patients were diagnosed as having perforated appendicitis. Of these patients, 85 underwent laparoscopy (LA), among whom 40 (47%) required conversion to an open procedure. An open appendectomy (OA) was performed in 146 patients. The operating time was similar for the two groups. Return of fluid and solid diet intake were faster in LA than OA patients (p <0.01). Postoperative infections including wound infections and abdominal abscesses occurred in 14% of patients in the laparoscopy group and in 26% of those with OA (p < 0.05). The surgeon’s experience correlated with the conversion rate. Laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with a high conversion rate for perforated appendicitis. If successful, it offers patients faster recovery and less risk of infectious complications.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis

Although laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis is feasible and safe, its application to perforated appendicitis is uncertain. A retrospective study of all patients with perforated appendicitis from 1992 to 1999 in a university hospital was performed. A series of 231 patients were diagnosed as having perforated appendicitis. Of these patients, 85 underwent laparoscopy (LA), among whom 40 (47%) required conversion to an open procedure. An open appendectomy (OA) was performed in 146 patients. The operating time was similar for the two groups. Return of fluid and solid diet intake were faster in LA than OA patients (p < 0.01). Postoperative infections including wound infections and abdominal abscesses occurred in 14% of patients in the laparoscopy group and in 26% of those with OA (p < 0.05). The surgeon's experience correlated with the conversion rate. Laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with a high conversion rate for perforated appendicitis. If successful, it offers patients faster recovery and less risk of infectious complications.     

Needlescopic appendectomy

Background: In this paper, we compare our experience with the techniques of needlescopic appendectomy (NA) (2-mm instruments) for the treatment of acute appendicitis with the more conventional approach of a laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Methods: We did a retrospective review of patients who underwent NA for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis between August 1996 and January 2002. Variables including operative time, blood loss, postoperative time to discharge, intra- and postoperative complications were analyzed and compared to data from control patients who had undergone an LA for acute appendicitis. Results: The NA group had a longer average operating time (54.5 ± l3 vs. 42.5 ± 12.6 min, p = 0.0001) and a longer postoperative hospital stay (2.1 ± 1.4 vs. 1.3 ± 1.1 days, p = 0.01). Blood loss was similar for the two groups. Conclusions: With the exception of superior cosmesis, NA appears to have little advantage over the better-established LA; moreover, it has some disadvantages. A clearer benefit of this procedure over LA, as well as improvements in instrumentation, needs to be shown before it can be widely accepted. Presented in poster format at the 8th World Congress of Endoscopic Surgery, NewYork, NY, USA, 13–16 March 2002     

Value of Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Perforated Appendicitis

Background The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with perforated appendicitis. Methods This study involved a total of 73 consecutive patients who had undergone appendectomy for perforated appendicitis between January 1999 and December 2004. While 39 patients underwent open appendectomy (OA) during the first 3 years, the remaining 34 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) during the last 3 years. Results There was no case of LA converted to OA. No significant difference was found in the operating time between the two groups. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with less analgesic use, earlier oral intake restart (LA, 2.6 days; OA, 5.1 days), shorter median hospital stay (LA, 11.7 days; OA, 25.8 days), and lower rate of wound infections (LA, 8.8%; OA, 43.6%). Conclusions These results suggest that LA for perforated appendicitis is a safe procedure that may prove to have significant clinical advantages over conventional surgery.     

Is laparoscopic appendectomy in children associated with an uncommon postoperative complication?

Background Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is controversial due to the high rate of intraabdominal abscess (IAA). We report a postlaparoscopic appendectomy complication (PLAC) observed in pediatric patients discharged after an uneventful postoperative period.Methods In this case series, a review of the medical records of children who underwent LA or open appendectomy (OA) during a 5-year period was performed. The diagnosis of PLAC was based on three well-defined criteria: time of appearance, clinical and laboratory findings, and ultrasonographic characteristic features.Results A total of 374 patients underwent appendectomy (LA, 129 patients; OA, 245 patients). One patient with conversion of LA to OA and 35 patients with gangrenous or perforated appendicitis (seven from the LA group and 28 from the OA group) were excluded from the study. After LA, nine children developed intraabdominal complications during their hospitalization (six infiltrate in the right lower quadrant and three IAA); these were also excluded. Discharge from the department was done when three conditions were fulfilled: normal body temperature, normal leukocyte count, and passage of a stool. Among the 112 LA patients, PLAC was observed in 15 (13.4%), aged 12.5 ± 2.9 years, who were discharged after LA in 2.7 ± 0.9 days. Number of PLAC and time of its appearance were not significantly different in patients with normal or pathological appendix. Sonographic findings of PLAC at admission were fluid alone (n = 11), edematous mesenteric fat (n = 7), thickening of bowel wall (n = 9), and more than one sign (n = 9). At repeated sonography, these signs were present in all patients, and IAA developed in one of them. All children were successfully treated with antibiotics for 10.1 ± 3.9 days, one of whom underwent a CT-guided percutaneous drainage for IAA.Conclusions PLAC may be the result of a slow development of local interstitial infection in the ileocecal area due to mesothelial damage caused by CO₂ pneumoperitoneum and local thermal effect produced by energized systems. This may explain its delayed appearance and the efficacy of the antibiotic treatment.     

Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy

Background: A randomized clinical trial was performed to compare open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Methods: 201 patients with similar characteristics of appendicitis were randomized to either OA or LA. Operative time and technique, reintroduction of diet, postoperative pain, use of analgesia, hospital stay, and complications were documented. Results: 104 patients were allocated to the OA group and 97 to the LA group. Postoperative pain was significantly less in the LA group on the 1st (p < 0.001) and 2nd (p < 0.001) postoperative day, resulting in less use of analgesics on both days (p < 0.001). Restoration of diet was similar in both groups. Mean operative time was longer in the LA group: 61 vs 41 min (p < 0.001). Postoperative complications did not differ in either group, except for wound infections (six OA group vs zero LA group, p < 0.05). Mean hospital stay was similar in both groups. Conclusions: LA results in less postoperative pain and fewer wound infections. The laparoscopic procedure is technically more demanding to perform, resulting in longer operative time.     

开腹和腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗妊娠期急性阑尾炎的对照研究

目的 比较开腹阑尾切除术（open appendectomy,OA）和腹腔镜阑尾切除术（laparoscopic appendectomy,LA）治疗妊娠期急性阑尾炎的安全性及疗效.方法 回顾性分析我院2008年1月至2013年1月收治的68例妊娠早、中期急性阑尾炎的临床资料,其中OA组36例,LA组32例,并进行比对分析.结果 两组病例手术均顺利完成,OA组和LA组在妊娠相关并发症发生率上无明显差异（P＞0.05）;而在术后肛门排气时间、住院时间及术后并发症上,LA组均明显优于OA组,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.结论 LA治疗妊娠早、中期急性阑尾炎是安全可行的,具有创伤小、术后恢复快、并发症少等优点.     

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.