A B Johnson1, M E Peetz. 1. Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, H124C, 1364 Clifton Rd, Northeast, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ever since laparoscopy was first applied to the treatment of appendicitis, a controversy has existed as to whether the acknowledged benefits of a minimally invasive approach warrant its preference over the conventional treatment, which historically has had relatively low morbidity. The purpose of this study was to determine if laparoscopic appendectomy should be performed preferentially in cases where surgeons are not limited by technical constraints. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of 112 patients operated on for suspected appendicitis from June 1995 to July 1996. Forty-eight patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, and 64 had conventional open appendectomy. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed using a three-trocar technique and the endoscopic stapler. RESULTS: The histopathological diagnosis of appendicitis was confirmed in 82.6% of cases. Overall, laparoscopic appendectomy reduced length of hospital stay (1.54 versus 4.09 days; p < 0.0001) compared to conventional open appendectomy, with no significant difference in hospital cost ($6430 versus $6669; p = ns). Although the total OR time was longer in the laparoscopic group (75.8 versus 60.2 min; p < 0.0001), laparoscopy resulted in both a reduction in length of stay (2.17 versus 6.27 days; p < 0.0001) and hospital cost ($7506 versus $10,504; p < 0.02) for cases of perforated appendicitis. Conversion to open appendectomy was performed in 6% of patients, all of whom had perforated appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that most cases of acute appendicitis with suspected perforation could be managed laparoscopically. Laparoscopic appendectomy significantly reduces length of stay and hospital costs in patients with perforated appendicitis.
BACKGROUND: Ever since laparoscopy was first applied to the treatment of appendicitis, a controversy has existed as to whether the acknowledged benefits of a minimally invasive approach warrant its preference over the conventional treatment, which historically has had relatively low morbidity. The purpose of this study was to determine if laparoscopic appendectomy should be performed preferentially in cases where surgeons are not limited by technical constraints. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of 112 patients operated on for suspected appendicitis from June 1995 to July 1996. Forty-eight patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, and 64 had conventional open appendectomy. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed using a three-trocar technique and the endoscopic stapler. RESULTS: The histopathological diagnosis of appendicitis was confirmed in 82.6% of cases. Overall, laparoscopic appendectomy reduced length of hospital stay (1.54 versus 4.09 days; p < 0.0001) compared to conventional open appendectomy, with no significant difference in hospital cost ($6430 versus $6669; p = ns). Although the total OR time was longer in the laparoscopic group (75.8 versus 60.2 min; p < 0.0001), laparoscopy resulted in both a reduction in length of stay (2.17 versus 6.27 days; p < 0.0001) and hospital cost ($7506 versus $10,504; p < 0.02) for cases of perforated appendicitis. Conversion to open appendectomy was performed in 6% of patients, all of whom had perforated appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that most cases of acute appendicitis with suspected perforation could be managed laparoscopically. Laparoscopic appendectomy significantly reduces length of stay and hospital costs in patients with perforated appendicitis.
Authors: Jimmy B Y So; Ee-Cherk Chiong; Edmond Chiong; Wei-Keat Cheah; David Lomanto; Peter Goh; Cheng-Kiong Kum Journal: World J Surg Date: 2002-09-26 Impact factor: 3.352
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