Fear for the intraabdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy: not realistic.

BACKGROUND: The risk for intraabdominal abscess (IAA) after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is still a matter of debate. The aim of the present study was to evaluate postoperative complications after open (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy, in particular in perforated appendicitis (PA). METHODS: In the period 1999-2002, 331 appendectomies were performed for histological proven appendicitis, 144 by the open and 187 by the laparoscopic technique. Parameters were conversion rate, perforation, wound infection, and IAA. RESULTS: Conversion to OA was done in 20 cases (10.7%). Perforated appendicitis led more frequently to conversion than simple appendicitis (23.5 vs 7.8%; p = 0.007). Perforated appendicitis was equally seen in the open and laparoscopic technique (15 vs 18%). Wound infections after OA, converted and LA for acute appendicitis were 3 of 144 (2.1%), 1 of 20 (5.0%) and 1 of 167 (0.6%), respectively (NS). IAA formation did not differ among the three procedures (3.5 vs 0 vs 3.6%). In PA the rate of IAA formation was increased. However, the risk was not influenced by the technique: Two patients after the OA, none after a converted procedure, and two patients after LA formed an abscess (9.5 vs 0 vs 7.7% [NS]). CONCLUSION: LA does not lead to more intraabdominal abscesses than the open technique; even for perforated appendicitis the laparoscopic technique can be used safely.

Complications and feasibility of laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic abdominal pain. A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: A retrospective study was done to determine whether laparoscopic adhesiolysis benefits patients with chronic abdominal pain. Factors that influence complications and feasibility of laparoscopic adhesiolysis were evaluated. METHODS: 174 consecutive operations in 157 patients were retrospectively analyzed for factors which might influence the complication rate and the feasibility of laparoscopic adhesiolysis. RESULTS: In 128 out of 174 procedures a complete adhesiolysis was performed. We had to accept an incomplete adhesiolysis in 39 other patients and in 7 patients a primary conversion was needed. We noticed 16 major complications. Two patients died. Relief of pain was recorded in 80% of patients after short follow-up. The number of previous abdominal operations and patient age significantly affected the outcome of surgery. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic abdominal pain seems to be a feasible and effective operation with considerable risk.

Time-action analysis of instrument positioners in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Instrument positioners can position and lock a laparoscopic instrument. This study uses time-action analysis to evaluate objectively whether IPs can substitute for a surgical assistant efficiently and safely. METHODS: In four hospitals, 78 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were randomly assisted by a surgical assistant or an instrument positioner (AESOP and PASSIST) The efficiency and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomies were analyzed with respect to time, number and type of actions, positioning accuracy, and peroperative complications. A questionnaire evaluated the difficulties for each operation and the comfort of instrument positioner use. RESULTS: The PASSIST and AESOP were able to replace the surgical assistant during laparoscopic cholecystectomies without significantly changing either the efficiency or the safety of the operation. The questionnaire showed that the surgeons preferred to operate with an instrument positioner. CONCLUSION: This study assessed objectively that instrument positioners can substitute for a surgical assistant efficiently and safely in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomies.

Laparoscopic adhesiolysis in patients with chronic abdominal pain: a blinded randomised controlled multi-centre trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic adhesiolysis for chronic abdominal pain is controversial and is not evidence based. We aimed to test our hypothesis that laparoscopic adhesiolysis leads to substantial pain relief and improvement in quality of life in patients with adhesions and chronic abdominal pain. METHODS: Patients had diagnostic laparoscopy for chronic abdominal pain attributed to adhesions; other causes for their pain had been excluded. If adhesions were confirmed during diagnostic laparoscopy, patients were randomly assigned either to laparoscopic adhesiolysis or no treatment. Treatment allocation was concealed from patients, and assessors were unaware of patients' treatment and outcome. Pain was assessed for 1 year by visual analogue score (VAS) score (scale 0-100), pain change score, use of analgesics, and quality of life score. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Of 116 patients enrolled for diagnostic laparoscopy, 100 were randomly allocated either laparoscopic adhesiolysis (52) or no treatment (48). Both groups reported substantial pain relief and a significantly improved quality of life, but there was no difference between the groups (mean change from baseline of VAS score at 12 months: difference 3 points, p=0.53; 95% CI -7 to 13). INTERPRETATION: Although laparoscopic adhesiolysis relieves chronic abdominal pain, it is not more beneficial than diagnostic laparoscopy alone. Therefore, laparoscopic adhesiolysis cannot be recommended as a treatment for adhesions in patients with chronic abdominal pain.