Randomized controlled trial with sequential design of laparoscopic <i>versus</i>
 conventional appendicectomy

Reiertsen, O; Larsen, Stig; Trondsen, Erik; Edwin, Bjørn; Færden, Arne E.; Rosseland, Arne R.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2168.1997.02694.x

Cited by 71 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally, the available data show no clear evidence of patient benefit after LA [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16]. Most of the published studies revealed a lower wound infection rate after LA which is in fact the sole advantage [3, 4, 7].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Switzerland: A Prospective Audit of 2,179 Cases

Schäfer

Krähenbühl

Frei³

et al. 2000

Dig Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: Since its introduction in 1983, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has not replaced the conventional open procedure. The patient benefit seems limited to a decreased wound infection rate, and the overall morbidity and mortality rates remain equal to those of open appendectomy. Methods: The data (collected by the Swiss Association of Laparoscopic and Thoracoscopic Surgery) from 2,179 patients undergoing LA at 84 surgical institutions in Switzerland between January 1995 and December 1997 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: More than 90% of all patients had no intra- or postoperative complications. However, perforated appendicitis was associated with more complications, in particular a threefold increased wound infection rate (9.2 vs 3.5%). Furthermore, the conversion and reoperation rates of perforated appendicitis were significantly increased compared to ’simple’ acute appendicitis (25.5 and 10.4% vs 4.8 and 2.1%, respectively). LA performed with a stapling device is superior to LA performed with loops, although the difference is not significant. Conclusion: Therefore, LA is a safe and effective procedure. The postoperative morbidity and mortality rates are comparable to those of open appendectomy, which is still the most commonly used procedure in Switzerland. The question of whether perforated appendicitis is better treated laparoscopically or by the open procedure cannot be answered with our data.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Switzerland: A Prospective Audit of 2,179 Cases

Schäfer

Krähenbühl

Frei³

et al. 2000

Dig Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…LA was revealed to be an effective procedure that could be performed in a short time. Over the years, many studies have compared OA and LA (6)(7)(8)(9)(10). In a prospective randomized study conducted by Hansen et al (6) on the effectiveness of LA, it was found that LA resulted in less wound infection, decreased analgesic need, and earlier RTNA but had a longer operation time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of open appendectomy and laparoscopic appendectomy with laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting and glove endobag techniques: A prospective observational study

Aziret¹,

Çetinkünar²,

Erdem³

et al. 2017

Turk J Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTIONAcute appendicitis is one of the most common causes of acute abdomen in all ages. It occurs more frequently in men than in women (male/female: 1.3/1); the mean and median ages related to this pathology are 31.3 and 22 years, respectively (1-3). Open appendectomy (OA), which was first described by McBurney (4) in 1894, is the most frequently performed emergency abdominal operation in the world. However, the use of the laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) procedure has rapidly increased since it was first described by Semm in 1984 (5). Although LA is commonly performed for acute appendicitis, it is not always the best treatment choice. Many studies comparing LA and OA with respect to treatment and follow-up have been conducted. These studies have reported less postoperative surgical-site infection, decreased need for analgesics, much greater visualization, rapid healing, shorter hospital stay times, and earlier return to normal activity (RTNA) rates associated with LA (6-10). However, because of the high costs related to endostaplers, endoclips, and knottings, LA is not the most efficient operation technique (11, 12).Our aim in this study is to prospectively compare OA and LA performed with laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting and glove endobag; we also wish to demonstrate that the latter is a facile and effective alternative LA procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS Methodology and EthicsThis study was conducted in the Surgery Department at Kars Harakani State Hospital during the period from May 2014 to April 2015. A total of 72 patients who were treated for acute appendicitis were eligible for the study. These 72 patients were divided into two groups: the LA group (group 1) (n=36) and the OA group (group 2) (n=36). All the patients were evaluated in terms of age; gender; perioperative symptoms Objective: Despite the recent increase in the use of laparoscopic appendectomy procedures to treat acute appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy is not necessarily the best treatment modality. The aim of this study is to examine the value of laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting and glove endobag in terms of various parameters and in terms of reducing the costs related to laparoscopic appendectomy procedures.Material and Methods: Seventy-two acute appendicitis patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy and open appendectomy surgery were enrolled in the study and were evaluated prospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 was treated with laparoscopic appendectomy using laparoscopic intracorpreal knotting and glove endobag (n=36) and group 2 was treated with open appendectomy (n=36). The two groups were statistically compared in terms of preoperative symptoms and signs, laboratory and imaging findings, operation time and technique, pain score, gas and stool outputs, duration of hospital stay, return to normal activity, and complications. Results:No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in relation to gender, age, body mass index, or pre-operation findings, which include...

show abstract

“…The laparoscopic approach for patient with suspected appendicitis improves the diagnostic accuracy and is therefore recommended. [70].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Laparoscopic versus Open Appendectomy for the Treatment of Acute Appendicitis

Mishra¹,

Hanna²,

Cuschieri³

2008

WJOLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract::Open appendectomy is the 'gold standard' for the treatment of acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy though widely practiced has not gained universal approval. Although it is a generally safe operation, postoperative complications occur in few patients. Laparoscopic appendectomy was first described in 1983. Reports of early studies were equivocal with few studies evaluating analgesic requirements and the length of hospital stay. This study was aimed to compare laparoscopic with open appendectomy and ascertain the therapeutic benefit, if any, in the overall management of acute appendicitis. Key words:Laparoscopic appendectomy, Appendectomy, Appendicitis, Laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy Introduction:

show abstract

Randomized controlled trial with sequential design of laparoscopic versus conventional appendicectomy

Abstract: The laparoscopic procedure is at least as good as conventional appendicectomy. Initial laparoscopy reduces the rate of misdiagnosis.

Cited by 71 publications

References 15 publications

Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Switzerland: A Prospective Audit of 2,179 Cases

Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Switzerland: A Prospective Audit of 2,179 Cases

Comparison of open appendectomy and laparoscopic appendectomy with laparoscopic intracorporeal knotting and glove endobag techniques: A prospective observational study

Laparoscopic versus Open Appendectomy for the Treatment of Acute Appendicitis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About