Systemic glucocorticoid exposure and postoperative infection risk in 143,782 appendectomy patients-a Danish longitudinal nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids are conventionally associated with increased postoperative infection risk. It is necessary to clarify if preoperative glucocorticoid exposure is associated with postoperative infection in appendectomy patients and if the association is different for open and laparoscopic appendectomies. METHODS: A Danish nationwide study of appendectomy patients between 1996 and 2018. Exposures were defined as high (≥ 5 mg) versus no/low (< 5 mg) glucocorticoid exposure in milligram prednisone-equivalents/day preoperatively. The main outcome was any postoperative infection. Then, 90-day cumulative incidences (absolute risk) and adjusted hazard ratios (relative risk) of the outcome were calculated for high versus no/low glucocorticoid exposure within all appendectomies and within open and laparoscopic subgroups. Propensity-score matching was used for sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Of 143,782 patients, median age was 29 years, 74,543 were female, and 7654 experienced at least one infection during the 90-day follow-up. The 90-day cumulative incidence for postoperative infection was 5.3% within the no/low glucocorticoid exposure group and 10.0% within the high glucocorticoid exposure group. Compared to no/low glucocorticoid exposure, adjusted hazard ratios for 90-day postoperative infection with high glucocorticoid exposure were 1.25 [95% CI 1.02-1.52; p = 0.03] for all appendectomies, 1.59 [1.16-2.18; p = 0.004] for laparoscopic appendectomies, and 1.09 [0.85-1.40; p = 0.52] for open appendectomies (pinteraction < 0.001). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Preoperative high (≥ 5 mg/day) glucocorticoid exposure was associated with increased absolute risk of postoperative infections in open and laparoscopic appendectomies. The relative risk increase was significant for laparoscopic but not open appendectomies, possibly due to lower absolute risk with no/low glucocorticoid exposure in the laparoscopic subgroup.

Impact of surgical site infection after open and laparoscopic surgery among paediatric appendicitis patients: A meta-analysis.

Operative site wound infection is one of the most frequent infections in surgery. A variety of studies have shown that the results of laparoscopy might be superior to those of an open procedure. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of clarity as to whether there is a difference between open and laparoscopy with respect to the occurrence of wound infections in different paediatric operations. In this review, we looked at randomized, controlled studies that directly measured the rate of wound infection following an appendectomy with a laparoscope. We looked up four main databases for randomized, controlled studies that compare the treatment of paediatric appendicitis with laparoscopy. The surgeries included appendectomy. Through our search, we have determined 323 related papers and selected five qualified ones to be analysed according to the eligibility criteria. Five trials were also assessed for the quality of the documents. In the 5 trials, there were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of post-operative wound infection among the paediatric appendectomy and the open-access group (odds ratio [OR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-1.15, p = 0.13). The four trials did not show any statistically significant difference in abdominal abscesses among the laparoscopic and open-access treatment groups (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.90-3.01, p = 0.11). The four trials did not reveal any statistically significant difference in operating time (mean difference, -4.36; 95% CI, -17.31 to 8.59, p = 0.51). In light of these findings, the use of laparoscopy as compared with the open-approach approach in paediatric appendectomies is not associated with a reduction in the risk of wound infection.

Perforated appendicitis treated with laparoscopic appendicectomy or open appendicectomy: A meta-analysis.

Aim: This analysis compared the impact of laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) and open appendicectomy (OA) on treating adult perforated appendicitis (PA). Methods: Articles relating to LA and OA in treating PA were retrieved from databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase since their founding to January 2022. These articles were independently filtered based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two investigators. The quality of these articles was assessed and article data were extracted. Dichotomous data were presented in the form of odd's ratio (OR), whereas continuous data were in the form of weighted mean difference (WMD). The included articles reported at least one of the following outcomes: intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), wound infection, operative time, hospital stay and complications. Results: Three randomised control trials (198 LA cases vs. 205 OA cases) and 12 case - control trials (914 LA cases vs. 2192 OA cases) were included. This analysis revealed that although the IAA formation rate was similar in the LA and OA groups (OR: 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-1.88), the wound infection rate was lower in the LA group (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.28-0.51). Furthermore, LA was associated with shorter hospital stay (WMD: -1.43 days, 95% CI: -2.33--0.52) and fewer complications than OA (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.57). Conclusion: LA has significant benefits in treating PA and is associated with better post-operative outcomes such as shorter hospital stay, lower incidence of wound infection and other complications. However, more studies with randomised and large-sample populations are still required to determine the clinical benefit of LA in treating PA.

The clinical impact of frailty on the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing appendectomy: propensity score-matched analysis of 2011-2017 US hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The presence of clinical frailty can pose an escalated risk toward surgical outcomes including in cases that involve minimally invasive procedures. Given this premise, we evaluate the effects of frailty on post-appendectomy outcomes using a national in-hospital registry. METHODS: 2011-2017 National Inpatient Sample was used to isolate inpatient appendectomy cases; the population as stratified using Johns Hopkins ACG clinical frailty, expressed as either binary or ternary (prefrailty, frailty, and without frailty) indicators. The controls were matched to frailty-present groups using propensity score matching and compared to various endpoints, including mortality, length of stay (LOS), hospitalization costs, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Post-match, there were 11,758 with and without frailty per binary; and 1236 frail, 10,522 pre-frail with respective equal number controls per ternary indicator. Using binary term, frail patients had higher mortality (4.22 vs 1.49% OR 2.92 95%CI 2.45-3.47), LOS (14.3 vs 5.35d p < 0.001), and costs ($160,700 vs $64,141 p < 0.001). In multivariate, frail patients had higher mortality (aOR 2.77 95%CI 2.32-3.31), as well as higher rates of postoperative complications. Using ternary term, frail patients had higher mortality (5.02 vs 2.27% OR 2.28 95%CI 1.45-3.59), LOS (18.9 vs 5.66 day p < 0.001) and costs ($200,517 vs $66,193 p < 0.001). In multivariate, frail patients had higher mortality (aOR 2.16 95%CI 1.35-3.43) and complications. Those with pre-frailty had higher mortality (4.12 vs 1.47% OR 2.88 95%CI 2.39-3.46), LOS (13.8 vs 5.34 day p < 0.001) and costs ($156,022 vs $63,772 p < 0.001). In multivariate, pre-frailty patients had higher mortality (aOR 2.79 95%CI 2.31-3.37) and complications. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty and prefrailty (using the ternary indicator) are associated with increased postoperative mortality and complication in patients who undergo appendectomy; given this finding, it is imperative that these vulnerable patients are identified early in the preoperative phase and are provided risk-modifying measures to ameliorate risks and optimize outcomes.

Laparoscopic appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis-a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Over the last years, laparoscopic appendectomy has progressively replaced open appendectomy and become the current gold standard treatment for suspected, uncomplicated appendicitis. At the same time, though, it is an ongoing discussion that antibiotic therapy can be an equivalent treatment for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety and efficacy of antibiotic therapy and compare it to the laparoscopic appendectomy for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: The PubMed database, Embase database, and Cochrane library were scanned for studies comparing laparoscopic appendectomy with antibiotic treatment. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction. The primary endpoint was defined as successful treatment of appendicitis. Secondary endpoints were pain intensity, duration of hospitalization, absence from work, and incidence of complications. RESULTS: No studies were found that exclusively compared laparoscopic appendectomy with antibiotic treatment for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: To date, there are no studies comparing antibiotic treatment to laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, thus emphasizing the lack of evidence and need for further investigation.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nonoperative management versus open and laparoscopic surgery for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in Colombia.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer's perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: LA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: LA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer's perspective in the Colombian health system.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on appendicitis treatment in Germany-a population-based analysis.

PURPOSE: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common reasons for emergency medical consultation. While simple appendicitis can be treated with antibiotics or surgery, complex appendicitis including gangrene, abscess, and perforation requires appendectomy. During the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, an overall drop in emergency room consultations was observed. We therefore aimed to investigate the incidence and treatment strategies of acute appendicitis during that period. METHODS: Data of insurance holders with the ICD code for "acute appendicitis" or OPS procedure of appendectomy of a major health insurance company in Germany were analyzed retrospectively. Groups were built, containing of the means of March-June of 2017, 2018, and 2019, defined as "pre-COVID group" with the "COVID group," defined as data from March to June of 2020. Data was analyzed by age, sex, comorbidities, length of hospital stay, diagnoses, and treatment. Data of the COVID group was analyzed for simultaneous COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 pandemic of early 2020, an overall reduction by 12.9% of patients presenting with acute appendicitis was noticeable. These results were mainly due to decreased rates of uncomplicated appendicitis, while complicated appendicitis was scarcely affected. Especially in the group of females < 40 years, a drastic reduction was visible. Rates of extended surgery did not change. Likewise, the complication rate like appendix stump leakage or need for re-operation did not differ. In March 2020, 4.8% of acute appendicitis patients had concomitant COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSION: In line with the overall drop of emergency room visits during the COVID-19 pandemic of spring 2020 in Germany, a significantly lowered number of patients with uncomplicated appendicitis were noticeable, whereas complicated appendicitis did not differ. Also, treatment and complication rate of acute appendicitis did not change. These findings might be a hint that acute appendicitis is not a progressing disease but caused by different entities for uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and therefore another clue that uncomplicated appendicitis can be treated with antibiotics or observation. Nevertheless provided data does not cover outpatient treatment; therefore, no statement observation or antibiotics in outpatients can be made.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in pediatric patients with complicated appendicitis: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is a common condition in the pediatric population. In patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is preferred as compared to open appendectomy (OA). However, in patients with complicated appendicitis (CA), as defined as suppurative, gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, or appendicitis with periappendicular abscess formation, the decision to perform OA or LA remains unclear. METHODS: The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to. An electronic database search from 1997 to 2017 was performed using the Cochrane, Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, Embase, and Web of Knowledge databases. Data analysis, including subgroup analysis of randomized-control trials, was performed using RevMan 5.3. Assessment of methodological and statistical heterogeneity, as well as publication bias of the included studies, was performed. RESULTS: Six randomized-control trials (296 LA versus 373 OA) and 33 case-control trials (3106 LA versus 4149 OA) were analyzed. Compared to OA, LA has a shorter length of stay (WMD = - 0.96, 95% CI - 1.47 to - 0.45) and a lower rate of surgical site infection (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.25-0.54), although the rates of intraabdominal abscess formation were similar (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.71-1.43). LA was also shown to have lower readmission rates, lower incidences of postoperative ileus or intestinal obstruction, lower incidence of reoperation, as well as a shorter time taken to oral intake. Operative time for OA was shorter than LA (WMD = 12.44, 95% CI 2.00-22.87). CONCLUSION: While studies in the past have associated LA with higher rates of intraabdominal abscess in patients with CA, our meta-analysis has shown that they were similar. Considering this, together with other improved postoperative outcomes, LA should be the procedure of choice in pediatric patients presenting with CA.

Incidence and risk of venous thromboembolism in patients following appendectomy: a nationwide cohort study.

Surgery may lead to poor blood flow and hypercoagulation. Few studies have investigated the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Asian patients following appendectomy. We conducted a nationwide cohort study to investigate the risk of VTE in patients who underwent appendectomy compared with those who did not in Taiwan. We studied the entire hospitalized population in Taiwan from 2000 to 2012, with a follow-up period extending to the end of 2013. We identified patients who underwent appendectomy in Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database as the appendectomy cohort, and selected a nonappendectomy cohort from the general population that was 4:1 frequency-matched by age (5-year interval), sex, and index year for each appendectomy case. We used Cox models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for symptomatic VTE in the appendectomy cohort for comparison with the nonappendectomy cohort. The appendectomy cohort exhibited a higher incidence of symptomatic VTE than the nonappendectomy cohort (5.90 vs. 3.29 per 10,000 person-years). After adjustment for covariates, a 1.68-fold HR for symptomatic VTE was observed in the appendectomy cohort (95% CI 1.56-1.81). Compared with the nonappendectomy cohort, the patients who underwent open appendectomy had a 1.73-fold increased adjusted HR for symptomatic VTE (95% CI 1.61-1.87). Laparoscopic appendectomy was not significantly associated with symptomatic VTE. An 8.15-fold higher adjusted HR for VTE was observed in patients who underwent appendectomy within the first month after surgery compared with the nonappendectomy cohort. Open appendectomy carried an increased risk of symptomatic VTE. Laparoscopic appendectomy was not significantly associated with symptomatic VTE.

Laparoscopy versus open appendectomy for elderly patients, a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis in elderly patients is associated with increased risk of postoperative complications. The choice between laparoscopy and open appendectomy remains controversial in treating elderly patients with appendicitis. METHODS: Comprehensive search of literature of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials was done in January 2019. Studies compared laparoscopy and open appendectomy for elderly patients with appendicitis were screened and selected. Postoperative mortality, complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess and operating time, length of hospital stay were extracted and analyzed. The Review Manage 5.3 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Twelve studies with 126,237 patients in laparoscopy group and 213,201 patients in open group. Postoperative mortality was significantly lower following laparoscopy (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.39). Postoperative complication and wound infection were reduced following laparoscopy ((OR, 0.65 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.67; OR,0.27, 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.32). Intra-abdominal abscess was similar between LA and OA (OR,0.44;95% CI, 0.19 to 1.03). Duration of surgery was longer following laparoscopy and length of hospital stay was shorter following laparoscopy (MD, 7.25, 95% CI, 3.13 to 11.36; MD,-2.72, 95% CI,-3.31 to - 2.13). CONCLUSIONS: Not only laparoscopy is safe and feasible, but also it is related with decreased rates of mortality, post-operative morbidity and shorter hospitalization.

Laparoscopic Approach To A Rare Interstitial Incisional Hernia Following Appendectomy.

Among the complications of an open appendectomy is the presentation of an incisional hernia. An interstitial or interparietal hernia is the one in which the hernia sac is present between the muscle layers of the abdominal wall which makes the presentation of a post-operative incisional interstitial hernia quite a rarity. A 52-year-old female was admitted through the outpatient clinic presenting with the complaints of discomfort and a bulge felt in the right hypochondrium for the last 3 years. Radiological investigations were able to delineate an interstitial incisional hernia through the previous open appendectomy scar. A laparoscopic approach to repair of this hernia was successfully undertaken without any complications. This is an interesting case of incisional hernia that may pose a diagnostic challenge to the unsuspecting surgeon with an unusual presentation which may cause unnecessary delays in treatment as well as unnecessary operations. Very few comparable cases can be found in literature.

Evidence of surgical outcomes fluctuates over time: results from a cumulative meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: In surgical trials, complex variables such as equipment development and surgeons' learning curve are involved. The evidence obtained in these trials can thus fluctuate over time. We explored the stability of the evidence obtained during surgery by conducting a cumulative meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for open and laparoscopic appendectomy. METHODS: We conducted a cumulative meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy for acute appendicitis, a topic with the greatest number of trials in the gastroenterological surgical field. We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and CINAHL databases up to September 2014 and reviewed the bibliographies. Outcomes were the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess, incidence of wound infection, operative time, and length of hospital stay. We used the 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) of effect size for the significance test. RESULTS: Sixty-four trials were included in this analysis. Of the 51 trials addressing intra-abdominal abscesses, our cumulative meta-analysis of trials published up to and including 2001 demonstrated statistical significance in favor of open appendectomy (cumulative odds ratio [OR] 2.35, 95 % CI 1.30-4.25). The effect size in favor of open procedures began to disappear after 2001, leading to an insignificant result with an overall cumulative OR of 1.32 (95 % CI 0.84-2.10) when laparoscopic appendectomy was compared with open appendectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence regarding treatment effectiveness changed over time, after treatment effectiveness became significant in trials comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomy. Observing only the 95 % confidence interval of effect size from a meta-analysis may not provide conclusive results.

Comparison of Laparoscopic Appendectomy with open appendectomy in Treating Children with Appendicitis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze feasibility and curative effect of laparoscopic appendectomy in the treatment of pediatric appendicitis and compare it with open appendectomy. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty patients were selected for this study and randomly divided into open appendectomy group (130 cases) and laparoscopic appendectomy group (130 cases). Patients in open appendectomy group underwent traditional open appendectomy, while patients in laparoscopic appendectomy were treated with laparoscopic appendectomy. Incision length, blood loss during operation, duration of operation, time to leave bed, anus exhausting time, time to take food, catheter drainage time, urinary catheterization time, time of using antibiotics, use of pain killer and incidence of complications such as incision infection, residual abscess and intestinal obstruction were compared between two groups. RESULTS: We found relevant indexes including length of incision, amount of bleeding and duration of operation in laparoscopic appendectomy group were better than open appendectomy group after surgery; and differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). Indexes such as time to out of bed, time to take food, exhaust time, drainage time, catheterization time and application time and use of antibiotics in laparoscopic appendectomy group were all superior to open appendectomy group, and differences had statistical significance (P<0.05). Incidence of complications in laparoscopic appendectomy group was much lower than open appendectomy group and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy has advantages of small trauma, sound curative effect, low incidence of complications and rapid recovery and can effectively relieve pain of children suffering from appendicitis. Hence it is worth promotion and should be preferred.

Efficacy of transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy for appendicitis: a four-year experience at a single center.

PURPOSE: To compare the surgical outcomes after transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) and open appendectomy (OA) at a single institution. METHODS: We compared the surgical outcomes for 94 consecutive patients who underwent TULAA between April 2010 and March 2014 to those for 91 consecutive patients who underwent OA between April 2006 and March 2010. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the clinicopathological backgrounds between the two groups. Although the lengths of the operations were similar in both groups, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the TULAA group (4.7 days vs. 5.4 days, P = 0.02). The need for abdominal drain insertion was significantly reduced in the TULAA group owing to sufficient intraperitoneal exploration (P = 0.03). The incidence of postoperative complications was also lower in the TULAA group, but the difference was not significant (8.6 % vs. 12.1 %, P = 0.31). In complicated cases, a lower incidence of surgical site infection was confirmed in the TULAA group (6.7 % vs. 20.7 %, P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated that TULAA provided better surgical outcomes, especially a faster recovery. TULAA could be an effective procedure incorporating both open and laparoscopic techniques, and can be implemented as a standard procedure for the treatment of appendicitis, regardless of disease severity.

Should appendectomy be performed laparoscopically? Clinical prospective randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been described in 1983, and its superiority over open appendectomy (OA) is still being debated. Currently, there is no agreement on the advantages of LA. Postoperative pain is reported to be lower along with a faster return to normal activities in LA. However, some studies do not support these findings. In our study, we aimed to compare the outcomes and cost effectiveness of LA and OA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were prospectively randomized into LA (31 patients) and OA (32 patients) groups. Demographic data, pre- and postoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, white blood cell (WBC) count, duration of surgery and hospitalization, complications, and pain scores (VAS) were recorded. Cost was calculated for both groups. Return to normal activities was evaluated by phone calls at the first and second week and 1 month after surgery. RESULTS: There was a significant postoperative decrease in WBC count in the LA group (p<0.01). There were no differences between LA and OA groups in terms of postoperative CRP levels (p>0.05). The rates of wound infection and abscess were similar (p>0.05), while post-operative pain and time to return to normal activities were higher in the OA group (p<0.01). There was a positive correlation between BMI and operative time in the LA group (p<0.01), while BMI and operative time did not show a correlation in the OA group (p>0,05). The average cost in the LA and OA groups were 1960.5±339.05 and 687.115±159.5 TL, respectively. CONCLUSION: LA is an effective method in the treatment of acute appendicitis due to less pain and faster recovery. LA can be the choice of treatment in acute appendicitis, with utilization of re-useable and cheaper vascular sealing devices.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in obese patients: A meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies.

BACKGROUND: A meta-analysis of different kinds of studies was performed to assess outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in obese patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective and prospective studies enrolling patients with a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m(2) were included. Primary outcomes were days of hospital stay, surgical procedure duration, and overall post-operative complication rate. Secondary outcomes were wound infection and intra-abdominal abscesses formation rate, hospital charges. RESULTS: Laparoscopic appendectomy showed to be significantly associated with lower wound infection (P < 0.001) and post-operative complication rate (P < 0.001). Surgical time was considered as a hallmark of technical challenge and resulted diminished in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.018). Although not clinically relevant per se, the statistically significant shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001) was probably the reason of decreased hospital charges (P < 0.001). Intra-abdominal abscesses formation rate was higher in the open appendectomy group (P = 0.058), although slightly above the statistical significance threshold. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic approach seemed to show relevant advantages compared to open appendectomy, but a large prospective trial is necessary to collect high quality data and investigate long-term outcomes.

Effect of Fascia Closure with Triclosan-Coated Polydioxanone Suture on Surgical Site Infection in Open Appendectomy Wounds: A Comparative Study.

Background: Interest in surgical site infections (SSI) has been sustained over the years because its occurrence may be ruinous to the overall success of surgical operations. The use of antimicrobial suture has been associated with a reduction in SSI, but its role in open appendectomy has not been evaluated. Objective: This study compared the effect of fascia closure with triclosan-coated polydioxanone (PDS) with plain PDS on SSI in appendectomy wounds. Materials and Methods: Ninety-three consecutive patients who had open appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis were randomised to either have fascia closure with triclosan-coated PDS (TCS) or plain PDS. Post-operative wound infection rates were compared. Results: SSI occurred in three of the 93 patients (3.2%), two of these occurred in the plain suture group, while one occurred in the TCS group (4.2% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.6). All three SSIs were superficial. Staphylococcus aureus was the predominant organism isolated in the infected wounds. Conclusion: The use of triclosan-coated polydioxanone for fascia closure in open appendectomy did not significantly affect the rate or severity of SSI. Further studies, perhaps evaluating the use of TCS in a different anatomical plane or complicated appendicitis are recommended.

The Impact of Laparoscopic Appendectomy and Open Appendectomy on B7-H3-Mediated Intrinsic Immune Response in Children with Acute Suppurative Appendicitis.

Purpose: Surgery impairs immune function and increases postoperative complications. B7H3, a co-stimulatory molecule, plays a crucial role in immune regulation. The present study examined the impact of B7H3 on the postoperative immune response in children with acute suppurative appendicitis (ASA) by comparing preoperative and postoperative B7H3 levels in laparoscopic surgery (LA) and open appendectomy (OA). Patients and Methods: 198 pediatric ASA patients were enrolled. The researcher group performed LA, while the control group performed OA. Perioperative time, recovery time of gastrointestinal function, time to pass gas, length of incision, and length of hospitalization were compared in the perioperative period. Additionally, an ELISA assay was conducted to examine the levels of inflammatory factors and B7H3 and CD28. Short-term postoperative complications were also evaluated. Results: Compared with the control group, the research group had a short operative time, gastrointestinal function recovery time, gas time, and hospitalization time. The short-term complication rate was significantly lower in the research group. More importantly, B7H3 and CD28 were insignificantly different preoperatively, but they were all reduced postoperatively. Moreover, the reduction was more pronounced in the research group. The same results were noted in inflammatory factors and immune markers, which were non-significant different preoperatively and were typically reduced postoperatively, particularly in the research group. Finally, postoperative B7H3 was positively correlated with both inflammatory factors and immune cell levels. Conclusion: B7H3 was reduced in both postoperative periods, and the reduction was more pronounced in the LA group. B7H3 may be involved in postoperative recovery by modulating postoperative inflammation and immune responses.

Laparoscopic appendectomy in complicated appendicitis: Is it safe?

BACKGROUND: Because of lack of good evidence supporting laparoscopic approach for complicated appendicitis, we carried out this study to evaluate efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in management of patients with complicated appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was carried out in Surgical Department, Minia University, Egypt involving 214 patients underwent appendectomy for complicated appendicitis over three years. 132 patients underwent LA and remaining 82 patients underwent OA. Parameters studied included operating time, return to oral feeding, postoperative pain, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, duration of abdominal drainage and hospital stay. RESULTS: There were four conversions, two due to extensive cecal adhesions and two due to friable appendix. LA took longer time to perform (p = 0.0002) but with less use of analgesics (p < 0.0001), shorter hospital stay (p < 0.0001), shorter duration of abdominal drainage (p < 0.0001) and lower incidence of wound infection (p = 0.0005). Nine patients in LA and seven patients in OA group developed intra-abdominal abscess treated successfully with sonographic guided percutaneous drainage. Postoperative ileus was recorded in two patients in LA group and three patients in OA group, chest infection in one patient in OA group, hernia in one patient in LA and fecal fistula was present in one patient in OA. Overall complications were significantly lower in laparoscopy group and managed conservatively with no mortality in either group. CONCLUSIONS: LA in complicated appendicitis is feasible and safe with lower incidence of complications than OA and should be the initial choice for all patients with complicated appendicitis.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy versus Open Appendectomy in Acute Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgical procedure performed. Appendectomy is performed by either open or laparoscopic methods. However, there is lack of consensus regarding the most appropriate method. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy in the treatment of acute appendicitis. METHODS: Fifty-two patients undergoing appendectomy were analyzed in this prospective comparative study, with 26 patients each in laparoscopic and open group. The outcomes were measured in terms of operative time, postoperative pain at 4, 6 and 12 hours, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications according to modified Clavien Dindo classification and cost analysis. RESULTS: Laparoscopic group had longer time after completion of surgery till exit from operation theatre (30 min in laparoscopic and 20 min in open, p<0.01) and significantly higher cost (Nrs. 26295 for laparoscopic and Nrs. 19575 for open, p<0.01) than open appendectomy. Operative time, time from entering operation theatre till being kept in operation table, time from being kept in operation table till initiation of anesthesia, postoperative pain at 4,6 and 12 hours and postoperative complications were insignificant in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that laparoscopic appendectomy group had longer recovery time after operation and was costlier than open appendectomy. Thus, the decision of the operative procedure can be based on the patient's preference.