Introduction Laparoscopic appendectomy for nonperforated appendicitis is associated with improved outcomes. This study compares laparoscopic appendectomy and open appendectomy in cases of a perforated appendix by assessing surgical site infection, mean operating time, and length of hospital stay. Materials and methods This study was a prospective randomized study conducted at the Department of Surgery, Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, from January 2016 to January 2017, by randomly allotting the laparoscopic or the open appendectomy technique to 130 patients by the lottery method. Patients having a perforated appendix were included after they provided informed consent. Data were entered and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, US). Results The frequency of wound site infection was significantly higher in open appendectomy (27.69%) than in the laparoscopic approach (10.77%; p=0.01). Mean hospital stay was slightly longer in the laparoscopic approach (4.38 ± 1.09 days) than in open appendectomy (4.18 ± 0.77 days; p=0.23). Mean operating time for laparoscopic appendectomy and open appendectomy was 46.98 ± 2.99 minutes and 53.02 ± 2.88 minutes, respectively (p<0.000). Conclusion Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with fewer surgical site infections and shorter mean operating time than an open appendectomy.

Spigelian hernia is a rare abdominal wall hernia. It constitutes about 0.12% of all abdominal wall herniae; the peak occurrence being between the ages of 40-70 years with a male to female ratio of 1:1.18. Owing to the rarity of the disease, lack of physician experience and absence of typical hernia-like symptoms, it is a fairly difficult condition to diagnose. There is a 20% incidence of strangulation reported in the literature. The elective treatment of a Spigelian hernia is surgical: open or laparoscopic. The latter is preferred due to reduced mortality, shorter hospital stay, better cosmetic result and perhaps a lower recurrence rate. Reported here is a case of Spigelian hernia that presented to our institution, a level 1 trauma centre, as a complication of laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

To compare the use of ultrasonic dissector and suture ligation for mesoappendix in laparoscopic appendectomy in terms of mean operative time and per-operative bleed. MethodologyThis was a randomized controlled trial conducted at Surgical Unit II, Holy Family Hospital over a period of six months. All patients with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis who presented in the emergency department of Holy Family Hospital on the call days of Surgical Unit II undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy were included in the study. After taking informed consent about the respective procedure, patients were allocated to two groups using computer-generated random numbers. Group A was operated using harmonic scalpel and in Group B suture ligation was done. Total time required to ligate the mesoappendix or to cauterize it using the harmonic scalpel was measured in minutes. Data was entered and analyzed in SPSS version 21.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). ResultsA total of 110 patients were enrolled in the study according to the inclusion criteria of the study. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups. Patients in Group A were operated using harmonic scalpel whereas patients in Group B were operated by suture ligation for dealing the mesoappendix in laparoscopic appendectomy. Mean operative time to ligate the mesoappendix for Group A patients was 1.56 (SD = 0.68) minutes while that of Group B was 21.07 (SD = 2.84) minutes. There was no per-operative bleeding in case of Group A while its incidence was 24% of patients in Group B. Results were statistically significant. ConclusionThe conclusion of the study is that the use of harmonic scalpel was better than suture ligation for ligating the mesoappendix in laparoscopic appendectomy in terms of mean operative time and per operative bleed, hence it's preferable over the later in laparoscopic appendectomy.

No abstract