Cargando…

Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Why It Should Be Done

OBJECTIVE: Notwithstanding its widely perceived advantages, laparoscopic appendectomy has not yet met with universal acceptance. The aim of the present work is to illustrate retrospectively the results of a case-control experience with laparoscopic versus open appendectomy carried out at our institu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Agresta, Ferdinando, De Simone, Paolo, Michelet, Ivan, Bedin, Natalino
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2003
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3021349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14626402
_version_ 1782196376877137920
author Agresta, Ferdinando
De Simone, Paolo
Michelet, Ivan
Bedin, Natalino
author_facet Agresta, Ferdinando
De Simone, Paolo
Michelet, Ivan
Bedin, Natalino
author_sort Agresta, Ferdinando
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Notwithstanding its widely perceived advantages, laparoscopic appendectomy has not yet met with universal acceptance. The aim of the present work is to illustrate retrospectively the results of a case-control experience with laparoscopic versus open appendectomy carried out at our institution. METHODS: Between January 1993 and November 2000, 555 patients (M:F = 210:345; mean age 25.2±15 years) underwent emergency or urgent appendectomy, or both. Of them, 322 (52%) were operated on laparoscopically, and 233 (48%) were treated via conventional surgery, according to the presence of a well-trained surgical team. RESULTS: The laparoscopic group conversion rate was 3.1% (10/322) and was mainly due to the presence of dense intraabdominal adhesions. Major intraoperative complications ranged as high as 0.3% (1/322) and 0%, respectively, in the laparoscopic and conventional groups (P=ns). Major postoperative complications were 1.6% (5/312) vs 0.8% (2/243), respectively (P=ns). Postoperative mortality was 0.3% (1/312) and 0.4% (1/243) in the laparoscopic and conventional subsets of patients. Reinterventions were 0.9% (3/322) in the laparoscopic patients versus nil in the open group (P=ns). Minor postoperative complications were observed in 0.6% (2/312) and 6.5% (16/243) of patients, respectively, in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, and consisted mainly of wound infections (P=0.001). Flatus passage and hospitalization were significantly more rapid among the laparoscopic patients. The greater diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy allowed the diagnosis of concurrent diseases in 12% (30/254) versus 1.5% (3/199) of patients with histology proven appendicitis treated via laparoscopy versus laparotomy (P<0.01). Similarly, among those patients without gross or microscopic evidence of appendicitis, or both gross and microscopic evidence, concurrent diseases were detected in 57.3% (39/68) of laparoscopic patients versus 8.8% (3/34) in the conventional ones (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Even if limited by its retrospective nature, the present experience shows that laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe and effective as conventional surgery, has a higher diagnostic yield, causes less trauma, and offers a more rapid postoperative recovery. Such features make laparoscopy a challenging alternative to laparotomy in premenopausal women referred for urgent abdominal or pelvic surgery, or both.
format Text
id pubmed-3021349
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2003
publisher Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-30213492011-02-17 Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Why It Should Be Done Agresta, Ferdinando De Simone, Paolo Michelet, Ivan Bedin, Natalino JSLS Scientific Papers OBJECTIVE: Notwithstanding its widely perceived advantages, laparoscopic appendectomy has not yet met with universal acceptance. The aim of the present work is to illustrate retrospectively the results of a case-control experience with laparoscopic versus open appendectomy carried out at our institution. METHODS: Between January 1993 and November 2000, 555 patients (M:F = 210:345; mean age 25.2±15 years) underwent emergency or urgent appendectomy, or both. Of them, 322 (52%) were operated on laparoscopically, and 233 (48%) were treated via conventional surgery, according to the presence of a well-trained surgical team. RESULTS: The laparoscopic group conversion rate was 3.1% (10/322) and was mainly due to the presence of dense intraabdominal adhesions. Major intraoperative complications ranged as high as 0.3% (1/322) and 0%, respectively, in the laparoscopic and conventional groups (P=ns). Major postoperative complications were 1.6% (5/312) vs 0.8% (2/243), respectively (P=ns). Postoperative mortality was 0.3% (1/312) and 0.4% (1/243) in the laparoscopic and conventional subsets of patients. Reinterventions were 0.9% (3/322) in the laparoscopic patients versus nil in the open group (P=ns). Minor postoperative complications were observed in 0.6% (2/312) and 6.5% (16/243) of patients, respectively, in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, and consisted mainly of wound infections (P=0.001). Flatus passage and hospitalization were significantly more rapid among the laparoscopic patients. The greater diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy allowed the diagnosis of concurrent diseases in 12% (30/254) versus 1.5% (3/199) of patients with histology proven appendicitis treated via laparoscopy versus laparotomy (P<0.01). Similarly, among those patients without gross or microscopic evidence of appendicitis, or both gross and microscopic evidence, concurrent diseases were detected in 57.3% (39/68) of laparoscopic patients versus 8.8% (3/34) in the conventional ones (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Even if limited by its retrospective nature, the present experience shows that laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe and effective as conventional surgery, has a higher diagnostic yield, causes less trauma, and offers a more rapid postoperative recovery. Such features make laparoscopy a challenging alternative to laparotomy in premenopausal women referred for urgent abdominal or pelvic surgery, or both. Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons 2003 /pmc/articles/PMC3021349/ /pubmed/14626402 Text en © 2003 by JSLS, Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits for noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not altered in any way.
spellingShingle Scientific Papers
Agresta, Ferdinando
De Simone, Paolo
Michelet, Ivan
Bedin, Natalino
Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Why It Should Be Done
title Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Why It Should Be Done
title_full Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Why It Should Be Done
title_fullStr Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Why It Should Be Done
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Why It Should Be Done
title_short Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Why It Should Be Done
title_sort laparoscopic appendectomy: why it should be done
topic Scientific Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3021349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14626402
work_keys_str_mv AT agrestaferdinando laparoscopicappendectomywhyitshouldbedone
AT desimonepaolo laparoscopicappendectomywhyitshouldbedone
AT micheletivan laparoscopicappendectomywhyitshouldbedone
AT bedinnatalino laparoscopicappendectomywhyitshouldbedone