V L Vallina1, J M Velasco, C S McCulloch. 1. Department of Surgery, Rush North Shore Medical Center, Rush Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center/Rush Medical College, Skokie, Illinois.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to prospectively define the impact of laparoscopy on the management of patients with a presumed diagnosis of appendicitis. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: While the role of laparoscopy in the management of cholelithiasis is well established, its impact on the management of acute appendicitis needs to be objectively defined and compared to that of conventional management. Several authors have predicted that laparoscopic appendectomy will become the preferred treatment for appendicitis. METHODS: Two groups of consecutive patients with similar clinical characteristics of acute appendicitis were compared. Data on the laparoscopic group were compiled prospectively on standardized forms; data on the conventional group were collected retrospectively. Operative time, hospital stay, analgesia, cost, and return to normal activities were noted. RESULTS: Seventeen consecutive patients who underwent appendectomy were compared to 18 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopy (16 of these 18 had laparoscopic appendectomy). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of clinical characteristics and appendiceal histopathology. The mean operative times were 61 +/- 4.1 minutes and 46 +/- 2.9 minutes for the laparoscopy and conventional groups, respectively (p < 0.01). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic appendectomy group, with 81% of patients being discharged on their first postoperative day (p < 0.001). The laparoscopic appendectomy patients required significantly less narcotic analgesia (p < 0.02). Return to normal activity was not significantly different between the two groups. The average total cost of laparoscopic appendectomy was 30% greater than that of conventional appendectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy is a useful adjunct to the management of patients with a presumed clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to prospectively define the impact of laparoscopy on the management of patients with a presumed diagnosis of appendicitis. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: While the role of laparoscopy in the management of cholelithiasis is well established, its impact on the management of acute appendicitis needs to be objectively defined and compared to that of conventional management. Several authors have predicted that laparoscopic appendectomy will become the preferred treatment for appendicitis. METHODS: Two groups of consecutive patients with similar clinical characteristics of acute appendicitis were compared. Data on the laparoscopic group were compiled prospectively on standardized forms; data on the conventional group were collected retrospectively. Operative time, hospital stay, analgesia, cost, and return to normal activities were noted. RESULTS: Seventeen consecutive patients who underwent appendectomy were compared to 18 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopy (16 of these 18 had laparoscopic appendectomy). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of clinical characteristics and appendiceal histopathology. The mean operative times were 61 +/- 4.1 minutes and 46 +/- 2.9 minutes for the laparoscopy and conventional groups, respectively (p < 0.01). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic appendectomy group, with 81% of patients being discharged on their first postoperative day (p < 0.001). The laparoscopic appendectomy patients required significantly less narcotic analgesia (p < 0.02). Return to normal activity was not significantly different between the two groups. The average total cost of laparoscopic appendectomy was 30% greater than that of conventional appendectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy is a useful adjunct to the management of patients with a presumed clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
Authors: Chad G Ball; Andrew W Kirkpatrick; David R Williams; Jeffrey A Jones; J D Polk; James M Vanderploeg; Mark A Talamini; Mark R Campbell; Timothy J Broderick Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Ulrich Guller; Sheleika Hervey; Harriett Purves; Lawrence H Muhlbaier; Eric D Peterson; Steve Eubanks; Ricardo Pietrobon Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: G Zaninotto; M Rossi; M Anselmino; M Costantini; S Pianalto; N Baldan; D Pizzato; E Ancona Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 4.584