Matthew G R Allaway1, Guy D Eslick1,2, Michael R Cox3,4. 1. Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Nepean Hospital, Clinical Sciences Building, P. O. Box 67, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia. 2. The Whiteley-Martin Research Centre, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, Australia. 3. Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Nepean Hospital, Clinical Sciences Building, P. O. Box 67, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia. m.cox@sydney.edu.au. 4. The Whiteley-Martin Research Centre, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, NSW, Australia. m.cox@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the most common acute conditions managed by general surgeons is acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) is the surgical technique used by many surgeons. The aims of this study were to define our unit's negative appendicectomy rate and compare the outcomes associated with removal of a normal appendix with those for acute appendicitis in patients having LA. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective case note review of patients undergoing LA for suspected acute appendicitis was performed. Patients were divided into positive and negative appendicectomy groups based on histology results. The positive group was subdivided into uncomplicated and complicated (perforated and/or gangrenous) appendicitis. Outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: There were 1413 patients who met inclusion criteria, 904 in the positive group and 509 in the negative group, an overall negative appendicectomy rate of 36.0%. Morbidity rates (6.3% vs. 6.9%; P = 0.48) and types of morbidity were the same for negative appendicectomy and uncomplicated appendicitis. There was no significant difference in complication severity (all P > 0.17) or length of stay (2.3 vs. 2.6 days; P = 0.06) between negative appendicectomy and uncomplicated appendicitis groups. Patients with complicated appendicitis had a significantly higher morbidity rate compared to negative and uncomplicated groups (20.1% vs. 6.3% and 20.1% vs. 6.9%; both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The morbidity of negative LA is the same as LA for uncomplicated appendicitis. The morbidity of LA for complicated appendicitis is significantly higher. The selection criteria for LA in our unit needs to be reviewed to address the high negative appendicectomy rate and avoid unnecessary surgery and its associated morbidity.
BACKGROUND: One of the most common acute conditions managed by general surgeons is acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) is the surgical technique used by many surgeons. The aims of this study were to define our unit's negative appendicectomy rate and compare the outcomes associated with removal of a normal appendix with those for acute appendicitis in patients having LA. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective case note review of patients undergoing LA for suspected acute appendicitis was performed. Patients were divided into positive and negative appendicectomy groups based on histology results. The positive group was subdivided into uncomplicated and complicated (perforated and/or gangrenous) appendicitis. Outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: There were 1413 patients who met inclusion criteria, 904 in the positive group and 509 in the negative group, an overall negative appendicectomy rate of 36.0%. Morbidity rates (6.3% vs. 6.9%; P = 0.48) and types of morbidity were the same for negative appendicectomy and uncomplicated appendicitis. There was no significant difference in complication severity (all P > 0.17) or length of stay (2.3 vs. 2.6 days; P = 0.06) between negative appendicectomy and uncomplicated appendicitis groups. Patients with complicated appendicitis had a significantly higher morbidity rate compared to negative and uncomplicated groups (20.1% vs. 6.3% and 20.1% vs. 6.9%; both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The morbidity of negative LA is the same as LA for uncomplicated appendicitis. The morbidity of LA for complicated appendicitis is significantly higher. The selection criteria for LA in our unit needs to be reviewed to address the high negative appendicectomy rate and avoid unnecessary surgery and its associated morbidity.
Authors: M Chiarugi; P Buccianti; L Decanini; R Balestri; L Lorenzetti; M Franceschi; E Cavina Journal: Acta Chir Belg Date: 2001 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.090
Authors: Emily M Webb; Alexander Nguyen; Zhen J Wang; Joseph W Stengel; Antonio C Westphalen; Fergus V Coakley Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.959
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