Journals / Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of complications of open and laparoscopic appendectomy

Pages
5–10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As for gallbladder operations, LA is likely to be the gold standard in AA treatment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: Evaluations of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) as surgicaltreatment for acute appendicitis (AA) have yielded varying results.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This assessment of the results observedat a single institution and some of the literature fidings is provided as a contribution to the discussion about the superiority of different techniques in different patient groups.Materials and Methods: The patient charts and electronic data of 1587 patients who underwent an OA or LA procedure between June 2014 and August 2018 were retrospectively reviewed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As for gallbladder operations, LA is likely to be the gold standard in AA treatment.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Introduction: Evaluations of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) as surgicaltreatment for acute appendicitis (AA) have yielded varying results. This assessment of the results observedat a single institution and some of the literature fidings is provided as a contribution to the discussion about the superiority of different techniques in different patient groups.Materials and Methods: The patient charts and electronic data of 1587 patients who underwent an OA or LA procedure between June 2014 and August 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients younger than 18 years of age and patients with any pathology other than AA were excluded from the study. A total of 1423patients, 877 males (61.6%) and 546 females (38.4%), were included in the study. Patients who underwent OAwere classifid as Group I (n=771, 54.2%) and patients who underwent LA comprised Group II (n=652, 45.8%).Results: The mean age of the patients was 32.27±11.85 years, the mean duration of the operation was 59.77±20.24 minutes, the mean length of follow-up was 24.46±13.70 months, and the mean length of hospital stay was 1.61±1.14 days. The mean duration of the procedure was shorter in the OA group (58.8±20.9minutes) compared with the LA group (60.88±19.38 minutes) (p=0.002). The percentage of female patientswas higher in the LA group (42.94%) than in the OA group (34.50%) (p=0.001). The wound site infection ratewas higher in the OA group (9.9%) compared with the LA group (9.05%). The rate of complications requiringhospitalization was higher after OA (3.5%) compared with LA (2.3%), and the rate of complications requiring re-operation was also higher with OA (1.03%) compared with LA (0.3%). However, the difference in all parameters was statistically insignifiant.Conclusion: Both OA and LA are safe methods to treat AA. The rate of postoperative complications and the length of an OA operation have been decreasing progressively over the years; however, a preference for LA has been increasing over time. As for gallbladder operations, LA is likely to be the gold standard in AA treatment.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇELİK, Y., ERBİL, O. A. (2019). Comparison of complications of open and laparoscopic appendectomy. Laparoscopic Endoscopic Surgical Science, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 1, 5–10. https://ajindex.com/articles/345112

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 1990;132:910–25
  2. McBurney C. IV. The Incision Made in the Abdominal Wall in Cases of Appendicitis, with a Description of a New Method of Operating. Ann Surg 1894;20:38–43
  3. Semm K. Endoscopic appendectomy. Endoscopy 1983;15:59– 64
  4. Litynski GS. Kurt Semm and the fiht against skepticism: endoscopic hemostasis, laparoscopic appendectomy, and Semm’s impact on the “laparoscopic revolution”. JSLS 1998;2:309–13
  5. Li X, Zhang J, Sang L, Zhang W, Chu Z, Li X, et al. Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy-a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Gastroenterol 2010;10:129
  6. Ruffolo C, Fiorot A, Pagura G, Antoniutti M, Massani M, Caratozzolo E, et al. Acute appendicitis: what is the gold standard of treatment? World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:8799–807
  7. Cipe G, Idiz O, Hasbahceci M, Bozkurt S, Kadioglu H, Coskun H, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: where are we now? Chirurgia (Bucur) 2014;109:518–22
  8. McGrath B, Buckius MT, Grim R, Bell T, Ahuja V. Economics of appendicitis: cost trend analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy from 1998 to 2008. J Surg Res 2011;171:e161–8
  9. Tzovaras G, Baloyiannis I, Kouritas V, Symeonidis D, Spyridakis M, Poultsidi A, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in men: a prospective randomized trial. Surg Endosc 2010;24:2987–92
  10. Ingraham AM, Cohen ME, Bilimoria KY, Pritts TA, Ko CY, Esposito TJ. Comparison of outcomes after laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 222 ACS NSQIP hospitals. Surgery 2010;148:625–35; discussion 635–7
  11. Ohtani H, Tamamori Y, Arimoto Y, Nishiguchi Y, Maeda K, Hirakawa K. Meta-analysis of the results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic and open surgery for acute appendicitis. J Gastrointest Surg 2012;16:1929– 39
  12. Masoomi H, Mills S, Dolich MO, Ketana N, Carmichael JC, Nguyen NT, et al. Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), 2006-2008. J Gastrointest Surg 2011;15:2226–31
  13. Xiao Y, Shi G, Zhang J, Cao JG, Liu LJ, Chen TH, et al. Surgical site infection after laparoscopic and open appendectomy: a multicenter large consecutive cohort study. Surg Endosc 2015;29:1384–93
  14. Tümay LV, Güner OS, Zorluoğlu A. Laparoscopic Appendectomy Experience 132 Cases. Journal of Diseases of the Colo