Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in acute appendicitis: A randomized prospective study

Background: Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and effective procedure, as both a diagnostic and therapeutic tool. It seems to be more effective than the corresponding open procedure. Aim of this study is to evaluate a group of patients randomly allocated either to laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) or to open appendectomy (OA). Methods: From January 1998 to December 2002, 252 consecutive and nonselected patients, 155 women and 97 men, were randomized either to LA or OA. Recorded data were operative time, postoperative length, of stay and complications. Results: Mean operative time was 45 min (range 30–120) for OA and 36 min (25–60) for LA, mean postoperative stay was 5.5 days (4–12) for OA and 3.4 days (2–8) for LA. Complication occurred in 20 patients (14.5%) for OA and in four patients (2.6%) for LA. Conclusion: We believe that LA is effective in any kind of clinical situation, with low traumatic impact and best comfort for the patient.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: the risk of postoperative infectious complications.

BACKGROUND: Despite the reported advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), ongoing debate exists about a possible increase in postoperative infectious complication rates especially intraabdominal infections and wound infection, unless wound protection is utilized. METHODS: All consecutive appendectomies (open and laparoscopic) performed over 4 months were included in this prospective study. Demographic details, operative time, time to conversion, infective postoperative complications, and delay in discharge were recorded. The patients were divided into 2 groups, laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA). RESULTS: A total of 134 appendectomies were performed, 80 in the LA group and 54 in the OA group. Twenty-six (19.4%) appendices were perforated at the time of operation. The median patient age was 24 years (range, 7 to 63). Patients included 71 females and 63 males. Operating time in the LA group was longer with a median duration of 51.3 minutes (range, 35 to 100) compared with 40.6 minutes (range, 30 to 95) in the OA group. An extraction bag was used in 59/71 (83%) LA patients. Wound infection was recorded in 6 patients (5/54 in OA and 1/80 in LA). The site of wound infection was the port of specimen extraction in the laparoscopic group, and an extraction bag was not used. Wound infection delayed hospital discharge by an average of 2 days. Intraabdominal abscess formation complicated the outcome in 2 patients (1 in the LA group and 1 in the OA group). CONCLUSION: Wound infection is less common in LA than in OA, and an extraction bag is recommended. Intraabdominal infection rates do not appear to be increased, though the numbers in this study are relatively small. The longer operating time is minimal given the better results, and LA is the optimal approach to the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy is superior to open appendectomy in obese patients

BACKGROUND: There are minimal data comparing laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) with open appendectomy (OA) in obese patients. METHODS: We reviewed consecutive adult patients from 2003 to 2005 who underwent an appendectomy at a University-affiliated teaching hospital. Obesity was defined as a body mass index of 30 or greater. Outcome measures included length of stay, surgical times, intra-abdominal abscesses, wound infections, and hospital charges. RESULTS: There were 116 patients with a mean body mass index of 35. Eighty-five patients underwent LA, 12 were converted to open, 4 of 12 (31%) were perforated. Thirty-one patients underwent OA. Overall, 21 (18%) were perforated. Length of stay for LA was better, 3.4 days versus 5.5 days for OA (P = .02), and wound closure rate was better, 90% for LA versus 68% for OA (P < .01). Other outcome measures were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: LA is associated with shorter lengths of stay, fewer open wounds, and equivalent hospital charges and intra-abdominal abscess rates; and should be considered the procedure of choice for obese patients with appendicitis.     

Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy in overweight patients

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been associated with a faster recovery and less postoperative pain than the open technique. However, few data are available on the clinical outcome of LA in overweight patients. METHODS: A group of 106 patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 26.4, representing the upper quintile of 500 prospectively randomized patients, were included in the study. They were randomized to undergo either laparoscopic or open appendectomy (OA). Operating and anesthesia times, postoperative pain, complications, hospital stay, functional index (1 week postoperatively), sick leave, and time to full recovery were documented. RESULTS: In OA, the operating time for overweight patients was significantly longer than that for patients in the normal weight range (40 vs 35 min, p < 0.05). In LA, there was no difference in operating time between the normal and overweight patients. Overweight patients who underwent LA had longer operating and anesthesia times than their OA counterparts (55 vs 40 min, p < 0.001; and 125 vs 100 min, p < 0.001, respectively). Postoperative pain was significantly greater in overweight patients who underwent OA than in those treated with the laparoscopic technique. Postoperative pain was also significantly greater in overweight patients subjected to OA than in patients of normal weight after 4 weeks; the clinical significance may, however, be of less importance since the values are low (0.26 vs 0.09, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the two operating techniques in terms of complications. Hospital stay was longer for overweight patients than for normal-weight patients undergoing OA (3.0 vs 2.0, p < 0.01). The functional index did not differ between any group of patients. Sick leave was longer for overweight patients who underwent OA than for normal-weight patients treated with the same technique (17 vs 13 days, p < 0.01). In the laparoscopic group, however, there were no differences between the overweight and normal-weight patients. Time to full recovery was greater in overweight patients subjected to OA than in the overweight patients in the LA group (22 vs 15 days, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this study, overweight patients who were submitted to LA had less postoperative pain and a faster postoperative recovery than overweight patients who had OA. LA also abolished some of the negative effects that overweight had on operating time, hospital stay, and sick leave with the open technique. However, anesthesia and operating times were significantly longer in LA for both overweight patients and those with a normal BMI.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy in the elderly

Background This study aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy among the elderly. Methods Data on 53 elderly patients with a diagnosis of suspected appendicitis were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. Among these patients, 24 had undergone laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and 29 had undergone open appendectomy (OA). The indications for either method were based on the patient’s choice. Results No statistically significant difference in operative time was found between the LA (70 ± 28 min) and OA (60 ± 22 min) groups. There was no statistically significant difference in lengths of hospital stay between the LA (4.8 ± 3.0 days) and OA (5.0 ± 3.1 days) groups, and there was a statistically significant difference in the postoperative analgesic doses between the LA (0.5 ± 0.3 doses) and OA (1.7 ± 1.5 doses) groups. No conversion of laparoscopic to open surgery was necessary, and no intraabdominal abscesses developed. Conclusion According to this study, LA is as safe and effective as OA for the elderly. Furthermore, it significantly reduces postoperative wound pain.     

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.     

腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术治疗急性阑尾炎的疗效分析

目的 比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术(laparoscopic appendectomy,LA)和开腹阑尾切除术(open appendectomy,OA)治疗急性阑尾炎的结果.方法 将2005年5月至2010年5月收治的396例行阑尾切除术的急性阑尾炎病人按手术方法分为LA组和OA组,比较分析两组病人的临床资料.结果 LA组与...     

腹腔镜阑尾切除与开腹阑尾切除术的对比研究及Meta分析

目的比较腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术对急性阑尾炎的疗效和手术安全性。方法收集2006年10月至2007年10月问120例急性阑尾炎患者进行前瞻性研究,随机分为两组,分别采用腹腔镜阑尾切除（LA）术式和开腹阑尾切除（OA）术式,对手术时间、术中出血量、术后胃肠功能恢复时间、止痛药物应用时间、开始进食时间、住院天数和术后并发症等指标进行比较分析。并对1996年1月至2008年12月期间的该类前瞻性随机对照研究（RCT）文献进行Meta分析,比较两种术式手术时间、住院天数和并发症等指标。结果本组资料表明,两组手术时间、出血量无明显差异,而LA组肠功能恢复时间、止痛药物应用时间、住院天数明显短于OA组,LA组手术并发症也少于OA组;Meta分析有6组资料纳入,LA住院天数和手术并发症少于OA组,而两组的手术时间无明显差异。结论腹腔镜阑尾切除术具有恢复时间短、术后疼痛轻、住院时间短和并发症发生率低等优点,值得推荐。     

腹腔镜与开腹肝部分切除术的临床疗效对比

目的 探讨腹腔镜肝部分切除术的安全性、可行性.方法 2002年11月至2010年12月我院行腹腔镜下肝部分切除术165例,与同期行传统开腹肝部分切除术170例进行比较.结果 腹腔镜组159例腹腔镜肝部分切除术成功,6例因术中出血中转开腹肝部分切除术;开腹组170例均顺利完成肝部分切除术.腹腔镜肝切除术组住院时间(7.6±1.3 d)显著低于开腹组(14.6±3.3 d)(t=-12.657,P=0.00).腔镜组总住院费用(31767.4±220.1元)显著低于开腹组(35127.3±392.2元)(t=-78.859,P=0.00).腔镜组肝门阻断时间(20.6±8.5 min)与开腹组(18.6±6.5 min)无明显差异(t=2.108,P=0.068).腔镜组术中出血量(420.8±76.5 ml)与开腹组(395.9±96.1 ml)无明显差异(t=2.157,P=0.063).两组术后并发症无明显差异(t=2.011,P=0.156).腹腔镜组手术时间(59.6±12.2 min)显著长于开腹组(42.7±22.6 min),(t=6.941,P-0.001).结论 对位于肝脏边缘、右肝表面或左肝外叶、左半肝、肝右叶下段的良恶性病灶,阻断肝门血流后行腹腔镜肝部分切除或行解剖性肝部分切除术是可行和安全的,且具有创伤小恢复快的特点.与传统开腹肝部分切除术相比除手术时间稍长外,阻断肝门时间、术中出血量、术后并发症及两年生存率无明显差异,而在住院时间和总住院费用方面开腹组明显高于腹腔镜组.     

肥胖患者行腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术疗效的对比研究

目的 对比分析肥胖患者行腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术的临床效果.方法 回顾性分析2008-2010年因急性阑尾炎在中国医科大学附属盛京医院行阑尾切除术的肥胖患者153例的临床资料.153例中,腹腔镜阑尾切除术92例(其中4例转为开腹),开腹阑尾切除术61例,对两种术式的手术时间、术中出血量、术后排气时间、术后止痛药使用频率、术后主要并发症的发生率、住院时间和住院费用进行比较.计数资料比较采用x2检验,计量资料采用t检验.结果 腹腔镜阑尾切除术组在手术时间、术中出血量、术后排气时间、术后止痛药使用频率、术后主要并发症的发生率、住院时间方面均短于或少于开腹阑尾切除术组,差异有统计学意义(手术时间:t=14.0,P＜0.01;术中出血量:t =19.7,P＜0.01;术后排气时间:t=12.3,P＜0.01;术后止痛药使用频率:t=21.01,P＜0.01;术后主要并发症的发生率:x2=40.138,P＜0.01;住院时间:t=17.3,P＜0.01).两者在住院总花费上的差异无统计学意义(=1.434,P =0.154).结论 肥胖患者行腹腔镜阑尾切除术治疗阑尾炎与开腹阑尾切除术相比具有创伤小、恢复快、并发症少和平均住院时间短等优点,是治疗肥胖阑尾炎患者理想的手术方式.     

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic appendectomy is commonly performed and has been presumed to offer economic benefits similar to those of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study was done to examine that premise. METHODS: Two surgical groups contributed consecutively operated patients with a clinical diagnosis of appendicitis. One group did all appendectomies open and the other group did them laparoscopically. Hospital expenses were compared using a single billing formula. Hospital length of stay, time to return to work, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: Operating room times were longer for the laparoscopic group, median 80 minutes, versus median 50 minutes for the open group. Hospital length of stay and return to work were the same, median 1 day and median 10 days, respectively. Wound complications were less common in the laparoscopic group, 0 of 30, than in the open group, 3 of 18; however, there was 1 intra-abdominal abscess in the laparoscopic group. Median cost of the laparoscopic group was $2,915 versus $1,747 for the open group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy is more expensive than appendectomy but does not reduce hospital length of stay nor change the time to return to work; however, wound complications are less common.     

腹腔镜与开腹阑尾切除术的临床比较

目的:比较腹腔镜与开腹手术切除阑尾的优缺点。方法:回顾性分析我院2010年1月1日—2012年3月31日292例行阑尾切除术患者的临床资料,根据手术方法分为单孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术组、多孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术组和开腹阑尾手术组,比较手术时间、出血量、术后排气时间、术后住院时间切口愈合等级及感染率。结果:单孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术组中1例转为多孔法,多孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术组中1例中转开腹,其余患者均完成手术。2例多孔法腹腔镜阑尾手术患者术后并发粘连性肠梗阻,经保守治疗后好转。与传统开腹手术相比,腹腔镜阑尾切除术手术时间短、出血量少、术后排气快、术后住院时间短;对于急性单纯性阑尾炎,单孔腹腔镜手术比多孔法出血更少,瘢痕更小。结论:腹腔镜阑尾切除术对腹部干扰少,单孔法切口更为隐蔽,在熟练掌握手术技术的前提下可以广泛应用。     

小儿腹腔镜阑尾切除与开腹阑尾切除的临床对比研究

【摘要】 目的 对比研究小儿腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)与传统开腹阑尾切除术(OA)的临床疗效及安全性。方法 回顾性分析2009年1月~2012年12月期间进行LA和OA的93例小儿阑尾炎患者的临床资料,对两组手术时间、术中出血情况、术后恢复情况等进行统计对比分析。结果〓两组患儿手术及恢复顺利,术后无严重并发症。两组手术时间及术中出血量差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);LA组术后肛门排气时间、下床活动时间、切口疼痛时间、术后住院天数均低于OA组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 与OA比较,小儿LA具有创伤小、并发症少,恢复快及美容等优势,是治疗小儿阑尾炎理想的手术方式。     

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.     

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.     

腹腔镜与开放手术治疗急性穿孔性阑尾炎的对比研究

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

复杂性阑尾炎术式的抉择：腹腔镜术抑或开腹手术

目的：探讨腹腔镜应用于复杂性阑尾炎的可行性。方法：回顾分析手术治疗复杂性阑尾炎213例患者的临床资料，213例分为腹腔镜阑尾切除术（laparoscopic appendectomy，LA）128例，开腹阑尾切除术（open appendectomy，OA）85例。比较两组的手术时间、术中出血量、切口长度、术中引流管留置率及术后留置时间、术后疼痛视觉模拟评分（visual analogue scale，VAS）、恢复进食时间、感染性并发症（即切口感染、腹腔内脓肿）发生率、术后住院天数、住院费用等指标。结果：LA组比OA组手术时间长，住院总费用高，差异有统计学意义；术中出血量、切口长度、术中引流管留置率及术后留置时间、术后疼痛VAS、恢复进食时间及术后住院天数等指标，IA组均优于OA组；LA组切口感染率较OA组低，腹腔内脓肿发生率两组无显著性差异。两组均无死亡病例。结论：LA具有创伤小、疼痛轻、肠道功能恢复快、切口感染率低、住院时间短等优势，用于治疗复杂性阑尾炎可行、安全、有效。     

腹腔镜阑尾切除术368例报告

目的总结腹腔镜阑尾切除术（laparoscopic appendetectomy，LA）的经验。方法回顾性分析1998年3月～2005年3月我院行LA治疔368例阑尾炎的临床资料，其中单纯性阑尾炎35例，化脓性阑尾炎276例，阑尾穿孔腹膜炎39例，慢性阑尾炎18例。结果5例中转开腹。363例成功完成LA，手术时间22—55min，平均30．5min；术中出血量2-10ml。腹腔残余感染、粘连性肠梗阻各1例，保守治愈；盆腔脓肿1例，腹腔镜下脓肿引流治愈。结论熟练掌握腹腔镜技术治疗阑尾炎可取得满意效果。     

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.