BACKGROUND: Currently, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) provides a safe and effective alternative to open appendectomy (OA), but its use remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency and safety of LA through a metaanalysis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA and OA published between January 1992 and February 2010 were included in this study. Strict literature appraisal and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. A metaanalysis then was performed to evaluate operative time, hospital cost, postoperative complications, length of analgesia, bowel function recovery, day liquid diet began, hospital stay, and return to work and normal activity. RESULTS: The metaanalysis comprised 25 RCTs involving 4,694 patients (2,220 LA and 2,474 OA cases). No significant differences were found between the LA and OA groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), or type of appendiceal inflammation. Compared with OA, LA showed advantages of fewer postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.98; p = 0.04), less pain (length of analgesia: weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.53; 95% CI, -0.91 to -0.15; p = 0.007), earlier start of liquid diet (WMD, -0.51; 95% CI, -0.75 to -0.28; p < 0.0001), shorter hospital stay (WMD, -0.68; 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.35; p < 0.0001), and earlier return to work (WMD, -3.09; 95% CI, -5.22 to -0.97; p = 0.004) and normal activity (WMD, -4.73; 95% CI, -6.54 to -2.92; p < 0.00001), but a comparable hospital cost (WMD of LA/OA ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.40; p = 0.47) and a longer operative time (WMD, 10.71; 95% CI, 6.76-14.66; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: Despite the longer operative time, LA results in less postoperative pain, faster postoperative rehabilitation, a shorter hospital stay, and fewer postoperative complications than OA. Therefore, LA is worth recommending as an effective and safe procedure for acute appendicitis.
BACKGROUND: Currently, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) provides a safe and effective alternative to open appendectomy (OA), but its use remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the efficiency and safety of LA through a metaanalysis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA and OA published between January 1992 and February 2010 were included in this study. Strict literature appraisal and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. A metaanalysis then was performed to evaluate operative time, hospital cost, postoperative complications, length of analgesia, bowel function recovery, day liquid diet began, hospital stay, and return to work and normal activity. RESULTS: The metaanalysis comprised 25 RCTs involving 4,694 patients (2,220 LA and 2,474 OA cases). No significant differences were found between the LA and OA groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), or type of appendiceal inflammation. Compared with OA, LA showed advantages of fewer postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-0.98; p = 0.04), less pain (length of analgesia: weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.53; 95% CI, -0.91 to -0.15; p = 0.007), earlier start of liquid diet (WMD, -0.51; 95% CI, -0.75 to -0.28; p < 0.0001), shorter hospital stay (WMD, -0.68; 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.35; p < 0.0001), and earlier return to work (WMD, -3.09; 95% CI, -5.22 to -0.97; p = 0.004) and normal activity (WMD, -4.73; 95% CI, -6.54 to -2.92; p < 0.00001), but a comparable hospital cost (WMD of LA/OA ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.40; p = 0.47) and a longer operative time (WMD, 10.71; 95% CI, 6.76-14.66; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSION: Despite the longer operative time, LA results in less postoperative pain, faster postoperative rehabilitation, a shorter hospital stay, and fewer postoperative complications than OA. Therefore, LA is worth recommending as an effective and safe procedure for acute appendicitis.
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: A Hellberg; C Rudberg; E Kullman; L Enochsson; G Fenyö; H Graffner; B Hallerbäck; B Johansson; B Anderberg; J Wenner; I Ringqvist; S Sörensen Journal: Br J Surg Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: R C Frazee; J W Roberts; R E Symmonds; S K Snyder; J C Hendricks; R W Smith; M D Custer; J B Harrison Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1994-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: L F Sánchez-Peralta; F M Sánchez-Margallo; J L Moyano-Cuevas; J B Pagador; S Enciso; E J Gómez-Aguilera; J Usón-Gargallo Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: F Ceci; S Orsini; A Tudisco; M Avallone; F Aiuti; V Di Girolamo; F Stefanelli; F De Angelis; A Martellucci; A Costantino; C Di Grazia; S Nicodemi; B Cipriani; A Napoleoni; R Mosillo; S Corelli; G Casciaro; E Spaziani; F Stagnitti Journal: G Chir Date: 2013 Jul-Aug
Authors: Salomone Di Saverio; Mauro Podda; Belinda De Simone; Marco Ceresoli; Goran Augustin; Alice Gori; Marja Boermeester; Massimo Sartelli; Federico Coccolini; Antonio Tarasconi; Nicola De' Angelis; Dieter G Weber; Matti Tolonen; Arianna Birindelli; Walter Biffl; Ernest E Moore; Michael Kelly; Kjetil Soreide; Jeffry Kashuk; Richard Ten Broek; Carlos Augusto Gomes; Michael Sugrue; Richard Justin Davies; Dimitrios Damaskos; Ari Leppäniemi; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Andrew B Peitzman; Gustavo P Fraga; Ronald V Maier; Raul Coimbra; Massimo Chiarugi; Gabriele Sganga; Adolfo Pisanu; Gian Luigi De' Angelis; Edward Tan; Harry Van Goor; Francesco Pata; Isidoro Di Carlo; Osvaldo Chiara; Andrey Litvin; Fabio C Campanile; Boris Sakakushev; Gia Tomadze; Zaza Demetrashvili; Rifat Latifi; Fakri Abu-Zidan; Oreste Romeo; Helmut Segovia-Lohse; Gianluca Baiocchi; David Costa; Sandro Rizoli; Zsolt J Balogh; Cino Bendinelli; Thomas Scalea; Rao Ivatury; George Velmahos; Roland Andersson; Yoram Kluger; Luca Ansaloni; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: F Paul Buckley; Hannah Vassaur; Sharon Monsivais; Daniel Jupiter; Rob Watson; John Eckford Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 4.584