Rodríguez G, Tellechea M, Antúnez C, Perdomo M, Hernández G, Ruso L

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 128-131
PDF size: 103.50 Kb.

ABSTRACT

This is a report about a retrospective, longitudinal and comparative study of the result of the treatment on 208 patients who were carriers of acute appendicitis and were operated through a video-laparoscopic approach (100 cases) and through conventional surgery (108 cases). All the patients were operated by the same group of surgeons. The following indicators are established in order to perform the comparative analysis: time of appendicitis evolution, evaluation of the surgical anesthetic risk (SAR), operation time, oral-via reinstallation, peristaltism recovery, deambulation, hospital stay period, and complications. The mortality was zero in both groups. The conversion into open surgery was necessary in the 6% of the patients. A less global rate of complications for laparoscopic surgery (14 vs 37%; p ‹ 0.001) was verified, but this happened due to a longer operation time in the laparoscopic approach (25 vs 76 min P ‹ 0.001) and the parietal infections were significantly more in the conventional via (3 vs 12%, p ‹ 0.001). The present analysis allows to conclude that video-laparoscopic appendectomy is a secure procedure with an acceptable conversion index. It usually goes along with a less global mortality than the conventional via, without any increase in the very same mortality of the disease, but without avoiding the formation of post-operative abscesses and with a longer operation time tan in open appendectomy. Moreover, there are proven established advantages for the minimally invasive approach with regard to a better comfort in the post-operative period.

REFERENCES

1. Simonowitz D, White I. Postoperative complication of appendicectomy. Clin Gastroenterol 1971; 8: 429.

2. Lewis FR, Holcroft JW, Boey J, Dunphy JE. Appendicitis: a critical review of diagnosis and treatment in 1,000 cases. Arch Surg 1975; 110: 677.

3. Mc Burney C. The incision made in the abdominal wall in case of appendicitis with a description of a new method of operating. Ann Surg 1894; 15: 20-38.

4. Hellberg A, Kullman E, Enochsson L, Fenyo G, Graffner H, Hallerback B et al. Prospective randomized multicentre study of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. Br J Surg 1999; 86: 48-53.

5. Ortega A, Hunter J, Peters J, Swanstrom L, Schirmer B. Laparoscopic appendectomy study group A prospective, randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy. Br J Surg 1995; 169: 208-13.

6. Mc Call J, Sharples K, Jadallah F. Systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open appendicectomy. Br J Surg 1997; 84: 1045-50.

7. Pedersen A, Petersen O, Wara P, Ronning H, Qvist N, Lauberg S. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 200-05.

8. Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EAM. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis (Review) Cochrane database Reviews 2002: (issue 4).

9. Golub R, Siddiqui F, Pohl D. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a metaanalysis. J Am Coll Surg 1998; 186: 545-53.

10. Katkhouda N, Mason RJ, Towfigh SH. Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy: a prospective, randomized, double blind study. Adv Surg 2006; 40: 1-19.

11. Krisher SL, Browne A, Dibbins A, Tkacz N, Curci M. Intraabdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis. Arch Surg 2001; 136: 438-41.

12. Frazee RC, Bohanon WT. Laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Arch Surg 1996; 131: 509-12.

13. Kathouda N, Fredlander M, Grant S, Achanta K, Essani R, Pa Velmahos G et al. Intraabdominal abscess rate after laparoscopic appendectomy. Am J Surg 180: 456-61.