The efficiency of laparoscopy in patients with complicated appendicitis

A. Kocataş, E. Kınacı, M. Bozkurt, E. Gemici, C. Akarsu, O. Kones, Murat Gönenç, H. Alış
{"title":"The efficiency of laparoscopy in patients with complicated appendicitis","authors":"A. Kocataş, E. Kınacı, M. Bozkurt, E. Gemici, C. Akarsu, O. Kones, Murat Gönenç, H. Alış","doi":"10.5455/JTOMC.2016.09.101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: Laparoscopic approach for complicated appendicitis (CA) is a controversial issue. Although it has been generally recommended, conflicting results have been reported in literature. The aim of this study is to obtain the current results regarding laparoscopic surgery for CA. Material and Methods: Patients who underwent surgery for acute appendicitis between July 2009 and January 2011 in Dr Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Appendicitis was considered as CA when there were one of the following criteria; existence of accompanying intra-abdominal abscess, peritonitis, gangrene or perforation confirmed by a histopathological examination. The patients with CA were divided into two groups, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) group and open appendectomy (OA) group. Demographics, perioperative findings and postoperative course were compared. Results: 846 patients with the diagnosis of appendicitis underwent surgery at our center. Of these, 124 cases were complicated appendicitis. Eighty-five (68.5%) and 39 (31.5%) patients underwent to LA and OA, respectively. The mean ages in two groups were compatible (p=0.224). The mean body mass index was significantly higher in LA group. Presence of accompanying abscess and use of intra-abdominal drain were similar in both groups (p>0.05). Duration of operation was significantly higher in LA group (76.133.7 vs 57.8 22.5) (p=0.001). Although postoperative intra-abdominal abscess formation was slightly higher in LA groups (7 cases vs 1 case), there was no difference in postoperative complication between two groups. Length of hospitalization was also not different in both groups. Time to oral feeding was significantly earlier in LA group. Conclusion: Laparoscopy in complicated appendicitis can be the first choice with no increase in postoperative complications. However, the longer operation time is still a problem for laparoscopic technique despite increasing experience. According to us, future studies should be focused on this problem.","PeriodicalId":17427,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Turgut Ozal Medical Center","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Turgut Ozal Medical Center","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5455/JTOMC.2016.09.101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Aim: Laparoscopic approach for complicated appendicitis (CA) is a controversial issue. Although it has been generally recommended, conflicting results have been reported in literature. The aim of this study is to obtain the current results regarding laparoscopic surgery for CA. Material and Methods: Patients who underwent surgery for acute appendicitis between July 2009 and January 2011 in Dr Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Appendicitis was considered as CA when there were one of the following criteria; existence of accompanying intra-abdominal abscess, peritonitis, gangrene or perforation confirmed by a histopathological examination. The patients with CA were divided into two groups, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) group and open appendectomy (OA) group. Demographics, perioperative findings and postoperative course were compared. Results: 846 patients with the diagnosis of appendicitis underwent surgery at our center. Of these, 124 cases were complicated appendicitis. Eighty-five (68.5%) and 39 (31.5%) patients underwent to LA and OA, respectively. The mean ages in two groups were compatible (p=0.224). The mean body mass index was significantly higher in LA group. Presence of accompanying abscess and use of intra-abdominal drain were similar in both groups (p>0.05). Duration of operation was significantly higher in LA group (76.133.7 vs 57.8 22.5) (p=0.001). Although postoperative intra-abdominal abscess formation was slightly higher in LA groups (7 cases vs 1 case), there was no difference in postoperative complication between two groups. Length of hospitalization was also not different in both groups. Time to oral feeding was significantly earlier in LA group. Conclusion: Laparoscopy in complicated appendicitis can be the first choice with no increase in postoperative complications. However, the longer operation time is still a problem for laparoscopic technique despite increasing experience. According to us, future studies should be focused on this problem.
腹腔镜治疗复杂性阑尾炎的疗效观察
目的:腹腔镜下治疗复杂性阑尾炎(CA)是一个有争议的问题。虽然它被普遍推荐,但在文献中报道了相互矛盾的结果。本研究的目的是获得目前关于CA腹腔镜手术的结果。材料和方法:回顾性分析2009年7月至2011年1月在Dr Sadi Konuk培训和研究医院接受急性阑尾炎手术的患者。当有以下条件之一时,阑尾炎被认为是CA;伴有腹内脓肿、腹膜炎、坏疽或穿孔,经组织病理学检查证实。将CA患者分为腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)组和开放式阑尾切除术(OA)组。比较人口统计学、围手术期表现和术后病程。结果:846例诊断为阑尾炎的患者在我中心行手术治疗。其中合并阑尾炎124例。LA和OA患者分别为85例(68.5%)和39例(31.5%)。两组患者平均年龄相近(p=0.224)。LA组平均体重指数显著高于LA组。两组患者伴发脓肿及腹腔引流的情况相似(p>0.05)。LA组手术时间明显高于LA组(76.133.7 vs 57.8 22.5) (p=0.001)。虽然LA组术后腹内脓肿形成略高(7例vs 1例),但两组术后并发症无差异。两组的住院时间也无差异。LA组口服喂养时间明显提前。结论:腹腔镜是治疗复杂阑尾炎的首选方法,且不增加术后并发症。然而,尽管腹腔镜手术的经验越来越丰富,但手术时间较长仍然是腹腔镜技术的一个问题。我们认为,未来的研究应该集中在这个问题上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信