Surgical endoscopy · 2013
Intra-abdominal collections following laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy: an experience of 516 consecutive cases at a district general hospital.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Wilson Daniel G G, Bond Amanda K, Ladwa Nikhil, Sajid Muhammad S, Baig Mirza K, Sains Parvinderpal
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to evaluate the incidence of intra-abdominal collections (IACs) in all patients undergoing laparoscopic (LA) and open appendicectomy (OA) from April 2009 to October 2011 in a district general hospital with expertise in minimally invasive surgery (MIS).
METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing appendicectomy in the specified time period was carried out. IACs were identified from various in-hospital data resources. Severity of appendicitis was assessed from histology reports.
RESULTS: 516 patients were identified, of whom 242 (47 %) underwent OA and 274 (53 %) LA. Twenty-six (5 %) patients were found to have IACs postoperatively. Fifteen (5.5 %) IACs were identified in the laparoscopic group and 11 (4.5 %) in the open group. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of developing IACs in open versus laparoscopic groups [odds ratio (OR) 1.22, confidence interval (CI) 0.55-2.70, P = 0.63]. Patients were twelve times more likely to develop IACs with an appendix identified as being necrotic or perforated on histology (OR 12.24, CI 5.29-28.32, P < 0.0001). There was a trend towards shorter total hospital stay in the LA (3.58 days, CI 3.0-4.1 days) compared with OA (4.31 days, CI 3.7-4.9 days, P = 0.082) group, although this was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Increased rates of IAC following LA have been identified in some studies. Our series shows that, in a centre with adequate MIS experience, the IAC rate following LA is comparable to that of the open approach and should not deter surgeons with adequate support and resources.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing appendicectomy in the specified time period was carried out. IACs were identified from various in-hospital data resources. Severity of appendicitis was assessed from histology reports.
RESULTS: 516 patients were identified, of whom 242 (47 %) underwent OA and 274 (53 %) LA. Twenty-six (5 %) patients were found to have IACs postoperatively. Fifteen (5.5 %) IACs were identified in the laparoscopic group and 11 (4.5 %) in the open group. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of developing IACs in open versus laparoscopic groups [odds ratio (OR) 1.22, confidence interval (CI) 0.55-2.70, P = 0.63]. Patients were twelve times more likely to develop IACs with an appendix identified as being necrotic or perforated on histology (OR 12.24, CI 5.29-28.32, P < 0.0001). There was a trend towards shorter total hospital stay in the LA (3.58 days, CI 3.0-4.1 days) compared with OA (4.31 days, CI 3.7-4.9 days, P = 0.082) group, although this was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Increased rates of IAC following LA have been identified in some studies. Our series shows that, in a centre with adequate MIS experience, the IAC rate following LA is comparable to that of the open approach and should not deter surgeons with adequate support and resources.