World journal of surgery · 2009
Laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: a comparison with open appendectomy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Katsuno Goutaro, Nagakari Kunihiko, Yoshikawa Seiichiro, Sugiyama Kazuyoshi, Fukunaga Masaki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is widely performed in many countries, LA for complicated appendicitis, which includes perforated or gangrenous appendicitis with or without localized or disseminated peritonitis, has not become a common practice yet.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical records of 230 patients who had undergone appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: 141 had undergone LA, 84 had conventional open appendectomy (OA), and 5 patients had conversion to the open procedure after laparoscopy. The LA group (total LA) was subdivided into "early experience (early LA: cases 1-56)" and "late experience (late LA: case 57 and higher)." We defined the early LA group as the comparison group to minimize selection bias.
RESULTS: Patient demographics were similar in the early LA and OA groups (P > 0.05). Wound infection was significantly more frequent in the OA group (P < 0.05). Intra-abdominal infection was equally common in these two groups. The overall rate of postoperative complications was significantly higher in the OA group (32.1%) than in the early LA group (18%; P < 0.05). This incidence was 12.8% in the total LA group. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the early LA group (10.6 +/- 3.9 days; P < 0.05), and 8.9 +/- 3.7 days in the total LA group.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that LA is safe and useful even for the treatment of complicated appendicitis if performed by an experienced surgeon.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical records of 230 patients who had undergone appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: 141 had undergone LA, 84 had conventional open appendectomy (OA), and 5 patients had conversion to the open procedure after laparoscopy. The LA group (total LA) was subdivided into "early experience (early LA: cases 1-56)" and "late experience (late LA: case 57 and higher)." We defined the early LA group as the comparison group to minimize selection bias.
RESULTS: Patient demographics were similar in the early LA and OA groups (P > 0.05). Wound infection was significantly more frequent in the OA group (P < 0.05). Intra-abdominal infection was equally common in these two groups. The overall rate of postoperative complications was significantly higher in the OA group (32.1%) than in the early LA group (18%; P < 0.05). This incidence was 12.8% in the total LA group. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the early LA group (10.6 +/- 3.9 days; P < 0.05), and 8.9 +/- 3.7 days in the total LA group.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that LA is safe and useful even for the treatment of complicated appendicitis if performed by an experienced surgeon.