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.
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.
Authors: B D Matthews; G Mostafa; K L Harold; K W Kercher; P R Reardon; B T Heniford Journal: Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 1.719
Authors: K H Long; M P Bannon; S P Zietlow; E R Helgeson; W S Harmsen; C D Smith; D M Ilstrup; Y Baerga-Varela; M G Sarr Journal: Surgery Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: R Shalaby; A Elsaied; S Shehata; Sh Shehata; A Hamed; O Alsamahy; Y Ashour; I Elsayaad; M Shahin Journal: Hernia Date: 2019-05-25 Impact factor: 4.739