RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Appendicectomy is the most frequently performed emergency general surgical procedure. Previous research has highlighted discrepancies between initial intraoperative laparoscopic diagnoses and subsequent histopathology reports following appendicectomy. In the United Kingdom (UK), routine histopathological examination is the established practice, ensuring precise diagnosis of appendiceal specimens. This retrospective analysis aims to compare intraoperative laparoscopic assessments of the appendix with corresponding histopathology findings. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 418 consecutive emergency laparoscopic appendectomies at Peterborough City Hospital in the UK between April 2018 and June 2019 for suspected appendicitis. Intraoperative findings were compared with histopathological examination outcomes using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Of the 418 appendectomies analysed, we found a substantial agreement between surgeons and pathologists (kappa = 0.71, P < 0.001) in detecting overall abnormalities of appendices. This agreement was also high for detecting inflamed appendices (kappa = 0.72, P < 0.001). However, of the six neoplastic lesions confirmed in the pathologists' final report, only two were suspected during laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: While laparoscopic assessments of the appendix demonstrate a statistically significant and improved agreement with histopathological findings in detecting abnormal and inflamed appendices, the ability of surgeons to identify neoplasia appears suboptimal based on our small sample of neoplasia cases. The data strongly support the continued practice of routine histopathological examination following appendicectomy due to its crucial role in avoiding missed diagnoses and ensuring better patient outcomes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Jejunal feeding is an invaluable method by which to improve the nutritional status of patients undergoing neoadjuvant and surgical treatment of oesophageal malignancies. However, the insertion of a feeding jejunostomy can cause significant postoperative morbidity. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing placement of feeding jejunostomy by conventional laparotomy with an alternative laparoscopic approach. METHODS: A retrospective review of data prospectively collected at the Oxford Oesophagogastric Centre between August 2017 and July 2019 was performed including consecutive patients undergoing feeding jejunostomy insertion. RESULTS: In the study period, 157 patients underwent jejunostomy insertion in the context of oesophageal cancer therapy, 126 (80%) by open technique and 31 (20%) laparoscopic. Pre-operative demographic and nutritional characteristics were broadly similar between groups. In the early postoperative period jejunostomy-associated complications were noted in 54 cases (34.4%) and were significantly more common among those undergoing open as compared with laparoscopic insertion (38.1% vs. 19.3%, P = 0.049). Furthermore, major complications were more common among those undergoing open insertion, whether as a stand-alone or at the time of staging laparoscopy (n = 11/71), as compared with insertion at the time of oesophagectomy (n = 3/86, P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: This report represents the largest to our knowledge single-centre comparison of open vs. laparoscopic jejunostomy insertion in patients undergoing oesophagectomy in the treatment of gastroesophageal malignancy. We conclude that the laparoscopic jejunostomy insertion technique described represents a safe and effective approach to enteral access which may offer superior outcomes to conventional open procedures.