Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 3/2006

01.03.2006

Laparoscopic appendectomy significantly reduces length of stay for perforated appendicitis

verfasst von: S. Towfigh, F. Chen, R. Mason, N. Katkhouda, L. Chan, T. Berne

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 3/2006

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

Though ruptured appendicitis is not a contraindication to laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), most surgeons have not embraced LA as the first-line approach to ruptured appendicitis. In fact, in 2002, the Cochrane Database Review concluded: 1) the clinical effects of LA are “small and of limited clinical relevance,” and 2) the effects of LA in perforated appendicitis require further study.

Objective

To study the effects of LA vs open appendectomy (OA) among adults with appendicitis.

Methods

In 2003, 272 adults underwent appendectomy at a large County hospital, and were enrolled in a prospective clinical pathway that detailed their hospital course from time of diagnosis to discharge. Data included patient demographics, time elapse from diagnosis to surgery, surgical technique (LA vs. OA), operative diagnosis (acute vs perforated appendicitis) and post-operative length of stay (LOS).

Results

Complete data was obtained for 264 (97%) patients. Patient demographics were similar in the LA and OA groups (p > 0.05). Patients with LA had a significantly shorter LOS than OA by 1.6 days (p < 0.05). This LOS was significantly shorter among those with ruptured appendicitis vs. non-ruptured appendicitis (2.0 days vs. 0.3 day reduction, p = 0.0357). Rank-order multiple regression analysis, controlling for all other factors, showed laparoscopy to have a significant effect on postoperative LOS in all appendicitis cases, especially ruptured appendicitis.

Conclusions

The two-day reduction in LOS among those with ruptured appendicitis who underwent LA was significant enough to overcome the smaller benefit of LA in acute appendicitis. From a hospital utilization point of view, LA should be considered as the first-line approach for all patients with appendicitis.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Clinical Classifications for Health Policy Research: Hospital Inpatient Statistics (1996) HCUP-3 Research Note, Summary. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville, MD. Retrieved March 4, 2005 at http://www.ahrq.gov/data/his96/ Clinical Classifications for Health Policy Research: Hospital Inpatient Statistics (1996) HCUP-3 Research Note, Summary. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville, MD. Retrieved March 4, 2005 at http://​www.​ahrq.​gov/​data/​his96/​
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Flum DR, Koepsell T (2002) The clinical and economic correlates of misdiagnosed appendicitis: nationwide analysis. Arch Surg 137: 799–804PubMed Flum DR, Koepsell T (2002) The clinical and economic correlates of misdiagnosed appendicitis: nationwide analysis. Arch Surg 137: 799–804PubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Guller U, Hervey S, Purves H, Muhlbaier LH, Peterson ED, Eubanks S, Pietrobon R (2004) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database. Ann Surg 239: 43–52PubMed Guller U, Hervey S, Purves H, Muhlbaier LH, Peterson ED, Eubanks S, Pietrobon R (2004) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database. Ann Surg 239: 43–52PubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Hale DA, Molloy M, Pearl RH, Schutt DC, Jaques DP (1997) Appendectomy: a contemporary appraisal. Ann Surg 225: 252–261CrossRefPubMed Hale DA, Molloy M, Pearl RH, Schutt DC, Jaques DP (1997) Appendectomy: a contemporary appraisal. Ann Surg 225: 252–261CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Heinzelmann M, Simmen HP, Cummins AS, Largiader F (1995) Is laparoscopic appendectomy the new “gold standard”? Arch Surg 130: 782–785PubMed Heinzelmann M, Simmen HP, Cummins AS, Largiader F (1995) Is laparoscopic appendectomy the new “gold standard”? Arch Surg 130: 782–785PubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Hellberg A, Rudberg C, Kullman E, Enochsson L, Fenyo G, Graffner H, Hallerback B, Johansson B, Anderberg B, Wenner J, Ringqvist I, Sorensen S (1999) Prospective randomized multicentre study of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. Br J Surg 86: 48–53CrossRefPubMed Hellberg A, Rudberg C, Kullman E, Enochsson L, Fenyo G, Graffner H, Hallerback B, Johansson B, Anderberg B, Wenner J, Ringqvist I, Sorensen S (1999) Prospective randomized multicentre study of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. Br J Surg 86: 48–53CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Ignacio RC, Burke R, Spencer D, Bissell C, Dorsainvil C, Lucha PA (2004) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: what is the real difference? Results of a prospective randomized double-blinded trial. Surg Endosc 18: 334–337CrossRefPubMed Ignacio RC, Burke R, Spencer D, Bissell C, Dorsainvil C, Lucha PA (2004) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: what is the real difference? Results of a prospective randomized double-blinded trial. Surg Endosc 18: 334–337CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Katkhouda N, Friedlander MH, Grant SW, Achanta KK, Essani R, Paik P, Velmahos G, Campos G, Mason R, Mavor E (2000) Intraabdominal abscess rate after laparoscopic appendectomy. Am J Surg 180: 456–459CrossRefPubMed Katkhouda N, Friedlander MH, Grant SW, Achanta KK, Essani R, Paik P, Velmahos G, Campos G, Mason R, Mavor E (2000) Intraabdominal abscess rate after laparoscopic appendectomy. Am J Surg 180: 456–459CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Martin LC, Puente I, Sosa JL, Bassin A, Breslaw R, McKenney MG, Ginzburg E, Sleeman D (1995) Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized comparison. Ann Surg 222: 256–261PubMed Martin LC, Puente I, Sosa JL, Bassin A, Breslaw R, McKenney MG, Ginzburg E, Sleeman D (1995) Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized comparison. Ann Surg 222: 256–261PubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Moore DE, Speroff T, Grogan E, Poulose B, Holzman MD (2005) Cost perspectives of laparoscopic and open appendectomy. Surg Endosc 19: 374–378CrossRefPubMed Moore DE, Speroff T, Grogan E, Poulose B, Holzman MD (2005) Cost perspectives of laparoscopic and open appendectomy. Surg Endosc 19: 374–378CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Mutter D, Vix M, Bui A, Evrard S, Tassetti V, Breton JF, Marescaux J (1996) Laparoscopy not recommended for routine appendectomy in men: results of a prospective randomized study. Surgery 120: 71–74PubMed Mutter D, Vix M, Bui A, Evrard S, Tassetti V, Breton JF, Marescaux J (1996) Laparoscopy not recommended for routine appendectomy in men: results of a prospective randomized study. Surgery 120: 71–74PubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Nguyen NT, Zainabadi K, Mavandadi S, Paya M, Stevens CM, Root J, Wilson SE (2004) Trends in utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. Am J Surg 188: 813–820PubMed Nguyen NT, Zainabadi K, Mavandadi S, Paya M, Stevens CM, Root J, Wilson SE (2004) Trends in utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. Am J Surg 188: 813–820PubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Kum CK, Eypasch E, Miserez M, Paul A (1995) The E.A.E.S. Consensus Development Conferences on laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and hernia repair. Consensus statements—September 1994. The Educational Committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 9: 550–563PubMed Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Kum CK, Eypasch E, Miserez M, Paul A (1995) The E.A.E.S. Consensus Development Conferences on laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and hernia repair. Consensus statements—September 1994. The Educational Committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 9: 550–563PubMed
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Pedersen AG, Petersen OB, Wara P, Ronning H, Qvist N, Laurberg S (2001) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. Br J Surg 88: 200–205PubMed Pedersen AG, Petersen OB, Wara P, Ronning H, Qvist N, Laurberg S (2001) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. Br J Surg 88: 200–205PubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EAM (2004) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue. 4, Art.No.: CD001546. pub2, The Cochrane Collaboration, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EAM (2004) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue. 4, Art.No.: CD001546. pub2, The Cochrane Collaboration, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA
16.
Metadaten
Titel
Laparoscopic appendectomy significantly reduces length of stay for perforated appendicitis
verfasst von
S. Towfigh
F. Chen
R. Mason
N. Katkhouda
L. Chan
T. Berne
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2006
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 3/2006
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0249-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2006

Surgical Endoscopy 3/2006 Zur Ausgabe

Review article/Dynamic manuscript

Minimal access adrenal surgery

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

CME: 2 Punkte

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht, PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske Das Webinar S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“ beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.