"Minimally invasive surgery for a burst appendix appears to be more successful and less costly in the long run than the traditional operation a new study hints.  Using the gentler technique called laparoscopy a surgeon makes small cuts in the abdomen before inserting a tiny camera inside then performing the operation by watching a television monitor.  Doctors say this type of operation hurts patients less afterward than the conventional open method which involves one long incision in the abdomen of up to  inches.  But experiments comparing the two kinds of procedure have yielded mixed outcomes and some experts remain unconvinced that laparoscopy is worth its higher upfront cost.  The new study in the Annals of Surgery doesnt settle that question. But it does suggest that laparoscopy could actually save thousands of dollars for some patients when all costs  including physician fees hospital fees and readmissions  are considered.  You really want to look at the total cost because thats what society has to pay said Dr. Dmitry Oleynikov who heads the Center for Advanced Surgical Technology at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha and led the new study.  Overall this study shows benefit from laparoscopy on every aspect including cost he told Reuters Health.  Appendix removals are one of the most common surgeries in the U.S. with some  procedures done every year Oleynikov added.  Sponsored With his colleagues he looked back at some  such surgeries done at dozens of academic medical centers in the U.S.  roughly  open procedures and  laparoscopic ones.  For uncomplicated cases of appendicitis in which the appendix is still intact the tabs for the two surgeries came out about the same at just over .  People who had the laparoscopic procedures also had lower death rates at . percent versus . percent fewer readmissions and a slightly shorter stay at the hospital.  When the appendix had burst however the open surgery racked up a considerably higher bill. On average it cost  compared to  for the laparoscopic surgery.  Yet again the patients who had laparoscopy fared much better than those who had conventional surgery.  In healthy individuals the death rate is very small for all groups of patients. But when you become sicker laparoscopy is better said Oleynikov. Substantial savings could be seen if open surgery is done in a laparoscopic fashion.  But he acknowledged that the study has major limitations. First it looks only at academic medical centers. And second its not a randomized controlled trial which means the patients being compared could be different in important ways explaining at least part of the outcomes of the two types of surgery.  Indeed those who had laparoscopy were younger and usually had less severe disease which could have biased the results in favor of the minimally invasive procedure.  SOURCE bit.lyoOWUTt httpbit.lyoOWUTt Annals of Surgery online July  ."