Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized comparison. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for confirmed appendicitis. [Laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy in suspected acute appendicitis in female patients]. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children: a prospective randomised study. A prospective, randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy. Laparoscopic Appendectomy Study Group. Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. Prospective randomized study of outcomes. Needlescopic, laparoscopic, and open appendectomy: a comparative study. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized trial of 81 patients. Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. A randomized clinical trial. Laparoscopic appendectomy: differences between male and female patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: prospective randomized trial.
Whether laparoscopy offers a benefit over open surgery in the management of acute appendicitis or not remains a subject of controversy despite the publication of numerous randomized studies. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) with open appendectomy (OA) and to ascertain its therapeutic benefit.
                Adult patients older than 14 years presenting with signs and symptoms suggestive of acute appendicitis were randomized to undergo either LA or OA from January 2006 to December 2007. Comparisons were based on operating time, time until return to a general diet, time until return to normal activity and work, length of hospital stay, billed charges, and postoperative complications.
                The study enrolled 220 patients: 108 to undergo OA and 112 to undergo LA. The groups were similar in terms of clinicopathologic characteristics. The operating time seemed to be shorter for the OA patients than for the LA patients, but the difference was not significant (LA, 30 +/- 15.2 min vs. OA, 28.7 +/- 16.3 min; p > 0.05). The hospital stay of 4.1 +/- 1.5 days for the LA group and 7.2 +/- 1.7 days for the OA group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Laparoscopic appendectomy remained associated with a shorter time until return to a general diet (LA, 20.2 +/- 12.4 h vs. OA, 36.5 +/- 10 h; p < 0.05), to normal activity (LA, 9.1 +/- 4.2 days vs. OA, 13.7 +/- 5.8 days; p < 0.05), and to work (LA, 21.2 +/- 3.5 days vs. OA, 27.7 +/- 4.9 days; p < 0.05). The billed charges appeared to be higher for LA (LA, 5,720.3 +/- 115.7 yuan vs. OA, 5,310 +/- 575.4 yuan), but this difference failed to be clinically important or statistically significant (p > 0.05). Wound infections were more common after OA (n = 14) than after LA (n = 0) (p < 0.05). Intraabdominal abscesses occurred for two patients in the LA group and nine patients in the OA group (p < 0.05). Postoperative ileus occurred with frequencies of 0% in the LA group and 7.4% in the OA group (p < 0.05). The rate for overall complications was significantly lower in the LA group.
                Laparoscopic appendectomy is a useful tool in the treatment of acute appendicitis. Its advantages lie in its minimal invasiveness, its better cosmetic outcome, its lower rate of complications based on surgical expertise and state-of-the-art equipment. It can be recommended as an adoptable method for the routine patient with appendicitis. Laparoscopy is safe for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. This study compared recovery after laparoscopic (LA) and open appendicectomy (OA) for confirmed appendicitis, carried out by experienced surgeons in an educational setting.
                One hundred and sixty-three patients with laparoscopically confirmed appendicitis suitable for LA were randomized prospectively to either LA or OA in a blinded fashion. The primary endpoint was time to full recovery. Secondary endpoints were operating time, complications, hospital stay and functional status.
                There was no significant difference between LA and OA in time to full recovery (9 and 11 days respectively; P = 0.225). Operating time was 55 min in the LA group and 60 min in the OA group (P = 0.416). The complication rate was 8.6 and 11.0 per cent respectively (P = 0.696), and median hospital stay was 2 days in both groups (P = 0.192). Functional status was significantly better in the LA group 7-10 days after operation (P = 0.045).
                There was no difference in time to full recovery after LA and OA in patients with laparoscopically confirmed appendicitis. A trend towards better physical activity was noted after the laparoscopic procedure. The aim of the study is to analyse the own data and try to discuss if laparoscopic appendectomy offers any advantages in treating young women suffering from pain in right lower abfdominal quadrant.
                The study was conducted on 148 patients admitted from October 1993 to December 1998 with diagnosis of of pain in right iliac fossa and operated on with a laparoscopic (LA group: 75 cases) or open approach (OA group: 73 cases). Patients were prospectively randomized on the surgical approach adopted, following a randomized list.
                The operative time in LA group was significantly (p < 0.001) longer (87.2 minutes) than for OA group (65.2 minutes). In 2 patients (2.7%) the operation had to be converted. Diagnosis had remained unknown in 16 patients (21.9%) of OA group, in spite of only one case (1.4%) with laparoscopic technique. We didn't observed intraoperative complications. Pain in the first and second postoperative days, evaluated on the use of pain medication, was significantly less in patients in group LA (p < 0.01). There were no deaths. Postoperative complications occurred in 4 patients (5.5%) of group LA, and in 8 patients (10.9%) of group OA. Hospital stay was significantly shorter for those having laparoscopic appendectomy (p < 0.001).
                The main advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy consist more in diagnostic accuracy, than in less postoperative pain, less hospital stay and less postoperative complications.
                Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and accurate approach. 43 children between the ages of 7 and 15 years with clinical symptoms of acute appendicitis were randomised to an open appendectomy (OA) or a laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). There were 15 acute cases of appendicitis and 5 perforated appendices in the OA group and 17 acute appendicitis, 3 cases of perforated appendices and 3 other diagnoses in the LA group. The operative time was a little shorter in the OA group. There were no differences in hospital stay or the postoperative course of the patients. In the LA group, there were two minor complications, no other complications were seen. When comparing the two surgical methods in the consistent group of patients with non-perforated acute appendicitis no statistical differences were seen in the operative time, hospital stay or in the recovery of the patients between the OA and the LA groups.We conclude that LA has no significant benefit over OA in routine use. In paediatric patients we recommend an open approach for clinically typical acute appendicitis, but there should be no hesitation to choose laparoscopic approach when the clinical diagnosis is unclear. While the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy are clear, the benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) are more subtle. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to evaluate whether LA is deserving of more widespread clinical application than it has yet received.
                Two hundred fifty-three patients with a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized into three groups. LA with an endoscopic linear stapler (LAS) (U.S. Surgical Corp., Norwalk, Connecticut) was performed on 78 patients, LA with catgut ligatures (LAL) on 89, and open appendectomy (OA) on 86. LA was performed with a three-trocar technique. OA was accomplished through a right lower-quadrant transverse incision. Data with normal distributions were analyzed by analysis of variance. Nonparametric data were analyzed with either the Kruskal-Wallis H test or Fisher's exact test.
                The mean operative times for the procedures were 66 +/- 24 minutes (LAS), 68 +/- 25 minutes (LAL), and 58 +/- 27 minutes (OA). The relative brevity of OA compared to LAS and LAL was statistically significant (P < 0.01). Conversion to open procedures was approximately as frequent in the LAS group (n = 5) and the LAL (n = 6). One OA, 2 LAS, and 11 LAL patients experienced vomiting postoperatively (P < 0.05). Two intra-abdominal abscesses occurred in LAS, 4 in LAL, and 0 in OA patients (P = NS). Wound infections were more common following OA (n = 11) than LAL (n = 4) or LAS (n = 0) (P < 0.05, < 0.001). The mean length of postoperative hospital stay was 2.16 +/- 3.2 days (LAS), 2.98 +/- 2.7 days (LAL), and 2.83 +/- 1.6 (OA) (P < 0.05 OA versus LAS). The number of days patients required pain medications overall was not different between groups, but a subgroup analysis of 134 patients who rated their postoperative pain on a visual analogue scale revealed a significantly lower mean level among patients undergoing LA (LAS and LAL) versus OA (P < 0.001). Patients undergoing LA resumed regular activities sooner than those undergoing OA (9 +/- 9 days versus 14 +/- 11 days, P < 0.001). Rates of readmission to the hospital were similar for all procedures.
                Laparoscopic appendectomy appears to have distinct advantages over open appendectomy. The laparoscopic procedures produced less pain and allowed more rapid return to full activities, and LAS required shorter hospital stays. The only disadvantages to the laparoscopic approach were slightly increased operative time for both procedures, and increased emesis following LAL. To compare open appendectomy (OA) with laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for length of the operation, complications, postoperative pain control, length of hospitalization, postdischarge recovery time, and hospital charges.
                Prospective randomized clinical trial of patients with acute appendicitis.
                Tertiary care, urban teaching hospital.
                A population-based sample of patients (aged > or = 12 years; weight, > 49.7 kg) admitted to a surgical teaching service with a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Patients were prospectively randomized to either OA or LA during a 20-month period (from April 1, 1994, to December 31, 1995). Fifty-seven patients were initially enrolled in the study; 7 did not complete the study because of a protocol violation. All remaining patients completed the study, including postdischarge follow-up.
                Two (7.4%) of the 27 patients in the LA group required conversion to OA because of technical difficulties. One patient (in the OA group) underwent a second surgical procedure for drainage of a pelvic abscess. Three patients (in the LA group) required second surgical procedures. For analysis, no crossovers were allowed and all patients remained in their originally randomized group.
                Length of the operation, intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative pain control, length of hospitalization, postdischarge recovery time, and hospital charges.
                Fifty patients (19 women and 31 men) were examined. Twenty-seven patients underwent LA, 2 requiring conversion to an OA. Twenty-three patients underwent an OA. Patient demographics were similar between groups. Statistical differences between the 2 groups were found for (1) length of the operation (median, 81.7 vs 66.8 minutes, LA vs OA groups: P < .002), (2) operating room charges (median, $3191 vs $1514, LA vs OA group; P < .001), and (3) total hospital charges (median, $5430 vs $3673, LA vs OA group; P < .001). No statistical differences between the 2 groups were found for (1) length of hospitalization (median, 1.1 vs 1.2 days, LA vs OA group), (2) pain control (mean, 4 vs 3.7 of 10 [0 indicates least pain; 10, most pain], LA vs OA group), (3) recovery time (time necessary before returning to work or school) (median, 14.0 days for both groups), and (4) complications (5 vs 1, LA vs OA group).
                Laparoscopic appendectomies and OAs are comparable for complications, postoperative pain control, length of hospitalization, and recovery time. Patients who underwent an OA had a shorter operative time and lower operating room and hospital charges. Laparoscopic appendectomy does not offer any proved benefits compared with the open approach for the routine patient with acute appendicitis. The benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy appear to be controversial. Since 1994, several abdominal procedures have been completed by using the needlescopic technique, but there appear to be no prospective studies to demonstrate the perceived benefits of needlescopic appendectomy. The authors compared open, laparoscopic, and needlescopic appendectomy in a randomized fashion with regard to duration of surgery, length of hospitalization, analgesic dosage, and surgery-associated complications. From March to July 1998, 75 patients admitted at the emergency station of the authors' hospital with a final diagnosis of acute appendicitis without tumor formation were randomized to receive one of the three treatment categories: open (OA), laparoscopic (LA), and needlescopic (nLA) appendectomy. Laparoscopic and needlescopic appendectomy were performed by using a three-port technique, although the size of the trocar used varied. There were 26 patients in the OA group, 23 in the LA group, and 26 in the nLA group. The mean operation durations for the OA, LA, and nLA groups were 55.4 +/- 28.0 minutes, 69.1 +/- 48.8 minutes, and 62.3 +/- 26.3 minutes, respectively, and these were not significantly different from one another. The mean number of the analgesic doses (Pethidine 1 mg/kg) required was 1.3 +/- 1.2 mg/kg, 0.5 +/- 0.8 mg/kg, and 0.2 +/- 0.6 mg/kg, respectively. Significant differences were noted when comparing the OA with the LA or nLA groups (OA vs. LA, P = 0.02; OA vs. nLA, P = 0.0002; LA vs. nLA, P = 0.06). The mean oral intake durations were 32.2 +/- 16.9 hours, 21.0 +/- 14.6 hours, and 20.8 +/- 16.4 hours, respectively, after surgery for the OA, LA, and nLA groups, and the between-group differences were statistically significant for the OA versus LA group ( P = 0.004) and for the OA versus nLA group ( P = 0.003). The mean durations of hospitalization for the OA, LA, and nLA groups were 3.6 +/-1.8 days, 2.8 +/- 1.4 days, and 2.4 +/- 0.9 days, and difference was detected between the OA and the nLA groups ( P = 0.02). The OA group rendered a greater wound-complication rate and ileus than did the other two groups, but the differences were not detected between the three categories ( P = 0.065, 0.6935). The result of the current study confirmed that the nLA procedure is a feasible and safe one. The nLA procedure provided substantial advantages over the OA procedure in the contexts of diminished postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay without significant increases in postoperative complication rate or surgical time. To compare the efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) in the treatment of acute appendicitis.
                A prospective randomized trial.
                A university teaching hospital.
                Eighty-one patients with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis were prospectively randomized to undergo either LA or OA. The two groups were matched for age and sex.
                LA or OA.
                Number of days in hospital and time to full recovery.
                The mean hospital stay for LA was 3.23 days compared with 3.03 days for OA (p < 0.001). The mean number of narcotic injections required for patients in the LA group was 4.05 compared with 5.58 for patients in the OA group (p < 0.001). The mean time to complete recovery for patients in the LA group was 9.0 days compared with 16.2 days for patients in the OA group (p < 0.001). The mean operative time for LA was 73.8 minutes compared with 45.0 minutes for OA (p < 0.001). Three patients in the LA group had intra-abdominal abscesses (p > 0.25). No significant difference in wound infection rates was demonstrated (p > 0.05). Similarly, pain scores at 7 and 28 days showed no significant difference (p > 0.05).
                With LA significantly fewer narcotic injections are required and there is a more rapid return to normal activities. LA takes longer to perform and was associated with three intra-abdominal abscesses. In cases of simple acute appendicitis the hospital stay for LA is significantly shorter. A randomized clinical trial was performed to compare open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).
                201 patients with similar characteristics of appendicitis were randomized to either OA or LA. Operative time and technique, reintroduction of diet, postoperative pain, use of analgesia, hospital stay, and complications were documented.
                104 patients were allocated to the OA group and 97 to the LA group. Postoperative pain was significantly less in the LA group on the 1st (p < 0.001) and 2nd (p < 0.001) postoperative day, resulting in less use of analgesics on both days (p < 0.001). Restoration of diet was similar in both groups. Mean operative time was longer in the LA group: 61 vs 41 min (p < 0.001). Postoperative complications did not differ in either group, except for wound infections (six OA group vs zero LA group, p < 0.05). Mean hospital stay was similar in both groups.
                LA results in less postoperative pain and fewer wound infections. The laparoscopic procedure is technically more demanding to perform, resulting in longer operative time. The role of laparoscopy in the management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis remains controversial. It has been suggested that laparoscopy is useful mainly in young women of reproductive age because of the high incidence of wrong diagnosis in these patients.
                Different management protocols for patients with suspected acute appendicitis were prospectively used in male and female patients; women of reproductive age were treated laparoscopically, while men were randomised to open or laparoscopic appendectomy.
                From September 2002 to September 2005, 132 patients-54 women and 78 men-with suspected acute appendicitis were treated according to the protocol. The incidence of wrong diagnosis in female patients was high (26% and the conversion rate low (5.5%). In contrast, in the laparoscopic male subgroup, these rates showed a reverse relationship (5.2% and 18.5%, respectively). Morbidity did not differ between female and male patients or between the 2 arms of the male group. Laparoscopic appendectomy took longer to perform without affecting significantly the needs for postoperative analgesia, the duration of hospital stay and the time to return to normal activities when compared with open appendectomy in men.
                Laparoscopic appendectomy is at least as safe as the open procedure in the male population, although it does not appear to offer any obvious advantage over the open procedure. The diagnostic advantage that laparoscopy offers to fertile women makes the procedure attractive for this population. Although classic open surgery is simple, expeditious, and effective, it has some drawbacks, including wound sepsis, delayed recovery, operative difficulties, and possibility of unnecessary appendectomies for false appendicitis. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability and safety of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in a prospectively randomized trial. Seventy nonselective patients with suspected appendicitis were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 35, 17 male) or open appendectomy (n = 35, 15 male) and operated on an emergency basis. Operative findings, operating time, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay were compared. We found that LA is associated with a shorter hospital stay, fewer postoperative complications, and better diagnostic accuracy, and it is recommended as the procedure of choice for the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis.
In those clinical settings where surgical expertise and equipment are available and affordable, diagnostic laparoscopy and LA (either in combination or separately) seem to have various advantages over OA. Some of the clinical effects of LA, however, are small and of limited clinical relevance. In spite of the mediocre quality of the available research data, we would generally recommend to use laparoscopy and LA in patients with suspected appendicitis unless laparoscopy itself is contraindicated or not feasible. Especially young female, obese, and employed patients seem to benefit from LA.