BACKGROUND: Although the laparoscopic approach for perforated appendicitis is commonly performed, there is some controversy over its use because of postoperative complications. These may be associated with various types of disease entities, from gangrenous change to diffuse peritonitis with abscess formation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and benefits of the laparoscopic approach for perforated appendicitis, including cases complicated by abscess, compared to open. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1747 patients underwent treatment for appendicitis over a period of 3 years. The diagnosis of perforated appendicitis was made by radiology, operative finding, and pathology. Of our five attending surgeons, three performed open surgery for perforated appendicitis, while two performed laparoscopy. RESULTS: There were 474 patients (27%) with perforated appendicitis without abscess (156 underwent laparoscopy, 318 underwent open) and 113 patients (6.4%) with perforated appendicitis and abscess (44 underwent laparoscopy, 69 underwent open). The duration for resumption of diet and hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopy group than in the open group. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between patients who had no abscess with laparoscopy and those with open: 5 intra-abdominal abscesses and 10 wound infections versus 11 intra-abdominal abscesses and 25 wound infections (P = 0.88, 0.12), and between patients who had abscesses with laparoscopy and those with open: 4 intra-abdominal abscesses and 3 wound infections versus 6 intra-abdominal abscesses and 6 wound infections (P = 0.94, 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic approach may be a safe, effective treatment for perforated appendicitis, even in the presence of an abscess.
BACKGROUND: Although the laparoscopic approach for perforated appendicitis is commonly performed, there is some controversy over its use because of postoperative complications. These may be associated with various types of disease entities, from gangrenous change to diffuse peritonitis with abscess formation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and benefits of the laparoscopic approach for perforated appendicitis, including cases complicated by abscess, compared to open. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1747 patients underwent treatment for appendicitis over a period of 3 years. The diagnosis of perforated appendicitis was made by radiology, operative finding, and pathology. Of our five attending surgeons, three performed open surgery for perforated appendicitis, while two performed laparoscopy. RESULTS: There were 474 patients (27%) with perforated appendicitis without abscess (156 underwent laparoscopy, 318 underwent open) and 113 patients (6.4%) with perforated appendicitis and abscess (44 underwent laparoscopy, 69 underwent open). The duration for resumption of diet and hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopy group than in the open group. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between patients who had no abscess with laparoscopy and those with open: 5 intra-abdominal abscesses and 10 wound infections versus 11 intra-abdominal abscesses and 25 wound infections (P = 0.88, 0.12), and between patients who had abscesses with laparoscopy and those with open: 4 intra-abdominal abscesses and 3 wound infections versus 6 intra-abdominal abscesses and 6 wound infections (P = 0.94, 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic approach may be a safe, effective treatment for perforated appendicitis, even in the presence of an abscess.