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.     

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy in children after the learning curve.

OBJECTIVES: Despite its increasing popularity, several recent studies comparing laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) with open appendectomy (OA) in children have failed to demonstrate significant improvements in patient outcomes. Many series include the "learning curve," wherein surgeons inexperienced with laparoscopic techniques compare their results with results with OA with its extensive history. This study was designed to investigate outcomes in pediatric appendectomy patients managed by surgeons with extensive laparoscopic experience. METHODS: We preformed a retrospective review of 197 consecutive children undergoing appendectomy for presumed acute appendicitis from January 2002 through May 2004 at a university-affiliated community hospital by pediatric and general surgeons with extensive laparoscopic surgical experience. RESULTS: The study included 117 patients who underwent LA and 80 who underwent OA. Of 122 acute appendicitis cases, mean operating times were 47 minutes (LA) and 48 minutes (OA). The LA group (n=71) had a faster return to full diet (17.6 h vs. 28.6 h, P=0.0008), and shorter postoperative length of stay (LOS) (1.06 d vs. 1.66 d, P<0.0001) compared with the OA group (n = 51). Complication rates, time on intravenous (IV) antibiotics, and IV opiates were similar among the 2 groups. Complicated appendicitis cases (LA, n=34; OA, n=26) were similar with regard to LOS, return to normal bowel function, complication rate and time on IV antibiotics and opiates, but was associated with an increased operation time (LA, 65 min; OA, 51 min, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Following the completion of the laparoscopic surgery learning curve, LA has a comparable operation time and results in a decreased postoperative LOS, and faster return to normal bowel function compared with OA in children with acute nongangrenous, nonperforated 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 versus open appendectomy in children: a randomized controlled trial from a developing country

Background

Acute appendicitis is a common surgical emergency. This study was conducted to compare the outcome in terms of duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and wound infection rate following laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children with acute appendicitis.

Nationwide management of perforated pediatric appendicitis: Interval versus same-admission appendectomy

PurposeAlthough conservative management followed by readmission for interval appendectomy is commonly used to manage perforated appendicitis, many studies are limited to individual or noncompeting pediatric hospitals. This study sought to compare national outcomes following interval or same-admission appendectomy in children with perforated appendicitis.MethodsThe Nationwide Readmission Database was queried (2010–2014) for patients <18 years old with perforated appendicitis who underwent appendectomy using ICD9-CM Diagnosis codes. A propensity score-matched analysis (PSMA) utilizing 33 covariates between those with (Interval Appendectomy) and without a prior admission (Same-Admission Appendectomy) was performed to examine postoperative outcomes.ResultsThere were 63,627 pediatric patients with perforated appendicitis. 1014 (1%) had a prior admission for perforated appendicitis within one calendar year undergoing interval appendectomy compared to 62,613 (99%) Same-Admission appendectomy patients. The Interval Appendectomy group was more likely to receive a laparoscopic (87% vs. 78% same-admission) than open (13% vs. 22% same-admission; p < 0.001) operation. Patients receiving interval appendectomy were more likely to have their laparoscopic procedure converted to open (5% vs. 3%) and receive more concomitant procedures. PSMA demonstrated a higher rate of small bowel obstruction in those receiving Same-Admission appendectomy while all other complications were similar. Although those receiving Interval Appendectomy had a shorter index length of stay (LOS) and lower admission costs, they incurred an additional $8044 [$5341-$13,190] from their prior admission.ConclusionPatients treated with interval appendectomy experienced more concomitant procedures and incurred higher combined hospitalization costs while still having a similar postoperative complication profile compared to those receiving same-admission appendectomy for perforated appendicitis.Level of evidenceIII.Type of studyRetrospective Comparative Study.     

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.     

Open and laparoscopic appendectomy are equally safe and acceptable in children

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate prospectively whether laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) are equally safe and feasible in the treatment of pediatric appendicitis. Methods: A total of 517 children with acute appendicitis were randomly assigned to undergo LA or OA appendectomy, based on the schedule of the attending surgeon on call. Patient age, sex, postoperative diagnosis, operating time, level of training of surgical resident, length of postoperative hospitalization, and minor and major postoperative complications were recorded. Chi-square analysis and the Student t-test were used for statistical analysis. Results: In all, 376 OA and 141 LA were performed. The two groups were comparable in terms of patient demographics and the incidence of perforated appendicitis. The operative time was also similar (47.3 ± 19.7 vs 49.9 ± 12.9 min). The overall incidence of minor or major complications was 11.2% in the OA group and 9.9% in the LA group. Conclusion: Pediatric patients with appendicitis can safely be offered laparoscopic appendectomy without incurring a greater risk for complications. Nevertheless, a higher (but not significantly higher) abscess rate was found in patients with perforated appendicitis who underwent laparoscopy. Presented at the annual meeting of the New England Surgical Society, Boston, MA, USA, 21–23 September 2000     

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.     

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.     

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.     

腹腔镜与开腹手术治疗急性阑尾炎穿孔的比较

目的：探讨腹腔镜治疗急性阑尾炎穿孔的效果和价值。方法回顾性分析2010年1月～2011年2月我院由同一组高年资医师完成的77例穿孔性阑尾炎手术的临床资料,其中腹腔镜阑尾切除术（laparoscopic appendectomy, LA）35例（LA组）,开腹阑尾切除术（open appendectomy, OA）42例（OA组）,比较2组手术时间、肠道功能恢复时间、切口感染率、腹腔脓肿发生率、住院时间、住院费用。结果2组手术时间无显著性差异[（64．1±18．1） min vs．（65．1±13．8） min,t＝0.275,P＝0．784];腹腔脓肿发生率无显著差异[2．9％（1/35） vs．4．8％（2/42）,χ2＝0．000,P＝1．000]。与OA组相比,LA组切口感染率显著降低[5．7％（2/35） vs．26．2％（11/42）,χ2＝5．704,P＝0．017];肠功能恢复时间明显缩短[（26．1±4．6）h vs．（36．1±11．9）h, t＝-4．684,P＝0．000）;住院时间明显缩短[（7．1±2．8）d vs．（9．2±4．8）d, t＝-2．283,P＝0．025];住院费用显著升高[（12．6±2．2）千元vs．（8．1±2．9）千元,t＝7．545,P＝0．000]。结论腹腔镜经验丰富的外科医生应用腹腔镜治疗穿孔性阑尾炎有显著优势,手术费用的增加是唯一缺点。     

Clinical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy

Background:

Appendectomy, being the most common surgical procedure performed in general surgery, is still being performed by both open and laparoscopic methods due to a lack of consensus as to which is the most appropriate method. Because further trials are necessary and few such studies have been performed in developing countries, we decided to evaluate the outcomes of the 2 procedures to share our experience with the international community.

Methods:

Consecutive patients with suspected acute appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic (LA) (n=48) and open (n=52) appendectomy (OA) over a period of 3 years were studied. Clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups in relation to operative time, analgesia used, length of hospital stay, return to work, resumption of a regular diet, and postoperative complications.

Results:

Mean age of patients was 25.8 years in the laparoscopic and 25.5 years in the open group. Patient demographics were similar in both groups (P>0.05). There was significantly less need for analgesia (1.0±0.5 in LA and 1.5±0.6 doses in OA), a short hospital stay (1.4±0.7 in LA and 3.4±1.0 days in OA), early return to work (12.6±3.3 in LA and 19.1±3.1 days in OA), and less time needed to return to a regular diet (20.1±2.9 in LA and 22.0±4.7, P<0.05 in OA) in the laparoscopic appendectomy group. Operative time was significantly shorter (54.9±14.7 in LA and 13.6±12.6 minutes in OA) in the open group. Total number of complications was less in the laparoscopic group; however, there was no statistically significant difference.

Conclusion:

The laparoscopic technique is a safe and clinically beneficial operative procedure. It provides certain advantages over open appendectomy, including short hospital stay, decreased requirement of postoperative analgesia, early food tolerance, and earlier return to normal activities. Where feasible, laparoscopy should be undertaken as the initial procedure of choice for most cases of suspected appendicitis.     

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     

Day case emergency laparoscopic appendectomy

Background Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is associated with a shorter hospital stay and fewer complications than conventional open appendectomy (OA). This study aimed to examine the safety and efficacy of day case emergency LA. Methods The records of patients undergoing emergency LA under the care of two laparoscopic surgeons over a 3-year period (Februrary 2003 to February 2006) were reviewed to examine hospital length of stay (LOS), complications, histology, grade of the operating surgeon, and time required to perform the procedure. Results A total of 104 patients (median age, 25 years; range, 11–72 years; 58 men) underwent LA, with 9 and 66 patients discharged in 8 and 24 hours, respectively (median LOS 22 hours: range 6–170 hours). One patient underwent conversion to OA. Histologically, 86 patients had appendicitis and 18 had normal appendices with another pathology present. The median operative time was 35 min (range, 20–80 min). The complications included three wound infections and two pelvic abscesses not requiring further operative intervention. Conclusion Day case emergency LA is safe and effective for treating selected patients.     

腹腔镜治疗小儿阑尾炎148例分析

目的总结腹腔镜阑尾切除术（LA）治疗儿童阑尾炎的经验。方法回顾性分析2004年1月至2011年4月行LA治疗儿童阑尾炎患儿共148例,对比同期139例开腹阑尾切除术（OA）患儿临床资料,比较术中出血量、术后肠功能恢复时间、术后住院时间、切口感染、置腹腔引流率、拔腹腔引流管时间、腹腔脓肿发生率、肠梗阻发生率、再次手术率差异、手术时间等指标。结果IA组与OA组比较,两组中术中出血量、术后肠功能恢复时间、术后住院时间、切口感染、腹腔脓肿发生率、肠梗阻发生率、再次手术率差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;置腹腔引流率、拔腹腔引流管时间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;LA组较OA组手术时间长,差异有统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论LA适于治疗各型儿童阑尾炎,安全有效,术后并发症少,美容效果佳,是阑尾炎治疗的一种较好的方法。     

A comparative study of routine laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the outcomes of routine laparoscopy and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients with suspected appendicitis. This is a retrospective study of the outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy compared with outcomes for patients undergoing open appendectomy (OA) during the time that LA came into use. METHOD: Results of patients managed with routine laparoscopy and LA for suspected acute appendicitis were reviewed and analyzed. The preoperative and intraoperative findings were recorded. The clinical outcomes were compared with those of patients undergoing OA in the preceding 10 months. RESULTS: During the LA study period, 97 patients (47 men) with the median age of 34 years (range, 18 to 79) presented with clinical features of acute appendicitis. With the exclusion of 5 patients with open operations and 10 patients with other pathologies, 82 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (Group A) for appendicitis. Thirty-one (37.8%) patients had complicated appendicitis (perforated or gangrenous appendicitis). Conversions were required in 6 patients (7.3%). During the OA period, 125 patients (57 men) with the median age of 42 (range, 19 to 79) years were operated on. With the exclusion of 6 patients with other pathologies, 119 underwent OA for acute appendicitis (Group B). Fifty-one (42.9%) had either perforated or gangrenous appendicitis. The median durations of surgery in Group A and Group B were 80 minutes (range, 40 to 195) and 60 minutes (range, 25 to 260), respectively (P < 0.005). Postoperative complication rates were comparable between the 2 groups (13.4% in Group A versus 15.8% in Group B). The median hospital stay for patients in Group A and Group B were 3.0 days (range, 1 to 47) and 4.0 days (range, 1 to 47), respectively (P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that routine laparoscopy and LA for suspected acute appendicitis is safe and is associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay. Other intra-abdominal pathologies can also be diagnosed more accurately with the laparoscopic approach.     

Matched analysis of nonoperative management vs immediate appendectomy for perforated appendicitis

Background

The role of nonoperative therapy vs immediate appendectomy in the management of children with perforated appendicitis remains undefined. The objective of this study was to rigorously compare these management options in groups of patients with matched clinical characteristics.

Methods

Multicenter case-control study was conducted from 1998 to 2003. We compared patients treated nonoperatively vs those undergoing appendectomy to identify differences in 12 clinical parameters. We then generated a second control group of patients matched for these variables and compared the following outcomes in these clinically similar groups: complication rate, abscess rate, and length of stay (LOS). Analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat principles, using χ², Fisher exact, and Student t tests.

Results

The only significant difference between patients treated nonoperatively and those treated by appendectomy was the duration of pain on presentation (6.8 vs 3.1 days of pain).We created a second control group of patients undergoing immediate appendectomy matched on duration of pain on presentation to patients treated nonoperatively. These groups continued to be clinically comparable for the other 11 parameters. Compared to this matched control group, the nonoperative group had fewer complications (19% vs 43%, P < .01), fewer abscesses (4% vs 24%, P < .01), and a trend for shorter LOS (6.5 ± 5.7 vs 8.8 ± 6.7 days, P = .08).

Conclusions

When nonoperative management for perforated appendicitis was studied using appropriately matched clinical controls, we found that it resulted in a lower complication rate and shorter LOS in the subset of patients presenting with a long duration of pain. Our data suggest that nonoperative management should be prospectively evaluated in children with perforated appendicitis presenting with a history of pain exceeding 5 days.     

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.