Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “APPENDECTOMY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Hospital- and patient-level characteristics and the risk of appendiceal rupture and negative appendectomy in children.

CONTEXT: The rates of appendiceal rupture and negative appendectomy in children remain high despite efforts to reduce them. Both outcomes are used as measures of hospital quality. Little is known about the factors that influence these rates. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between hospital- and patient-level characteristics and the rates of appendiceal rupture and negative appendectomy in children. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective review using the Pediatric Health Information System database containing information on 24,411 appendectomies performed on children aged 5 to 17 years at 36 pediatric hospitals in the United States between 1997 and 2002. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of negative appendectomy and appendiceal rupture; the odds ratio (OR) of negative appendectomy and appendiceal rupture by hospital, patient age, race, and health insurance status, and hospital fiscal year and appendectomy volume. Negative appendectomy rate was defined as the number of patients with appendectomy but without appendicitis divided by the total number of appendectomies. RESULTS: The median negative appendectomy rate was 3.06% (range, 1%-12%) and the median appendiceal rupture rate was 35.08% (range, 22%-62%). The adjusted OR for appendiceal rupture was higher in Asian children (1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-2.23) and black children (1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30) compared with white children. Children without health insurance and children with public insurance had increased odds of appendiceal rupture compared with children who had private health insurance (adjusted OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.22-1.53 for self-insured; adjusted OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.34-1.64 for public insurance). No correlation existed between negative appendectomy rate and race, health insurance status, or hospital appendiceal rupture rate. The negative appendectomy rate improved as the hospital appendectomy volume increased. CONCLUSION: The rate of appendiceal rupture in school-aged children was associated with race and health insurance status and not with negative appendectomy rate and therefore is more likely to be associated with prehospitalization factors such as access to care, quality of care, and patient or physician education.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Appendectomy protects against the development of ulcerative colitis and reduces its recurrence: results of a multicenter case-controlled study in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: Studies in the US and Europe have shown that appendectomy may prevent the development of ulcerative colitis, but no detailed study has been conducted in Japan, where ulcerative colitis is uncommon and the population is racially homogeneous. In addition, there has been no detailed analysis of the relationship between appendectomy and the clinical course of ulcerative colitis. In this multicenter clinical study, we evaluated the effects of appendectomy on ulcerative colitis in Japan. METHODS: A case-control study was undertaken in seven medical institutions comparing the incidence of appendectomy and tonsillectomy in 325 patients with ulcerative colitis and 325 controls matched for age (10-yr intervals) and sex. Disease duration, extent, and prognosis were determined in 21 patients with ulcerative colitis who underwent appendectomies and 304 patients with ulcerative colitis who did not undergo appendectomies. RESULTS: Appendectomy was performed in a significantly lower percentage of patients in the ulcerative colitis group (21/325, 6.5%) than in the control group (53/325, 16.3%) (p < 0.001) (odds ratios = 0.355, 95% CI = 0.208-0.603). In contrast, no significant difference was observed between the groups with respect to tonsillectomy. The mean age (25.7 +/- 10.9 yr) of patients with ulcerative colitis at the time of appendectomy was significantly higher than the mean age (20.1 +/- 8.7 yr) of patients in the control group at the time of appendectomy (p < 0.05). The incidence of proctitis was higher in the appendectomy group than in the group that did not undergo appendectomies (38.1% vs 18.1%). In addition, the recurrence rates were significantly lower in the appenectomy group than in the group that did not undergo appendectomies (57. 1% vs 78.6%, p < 0.05), although both groups were similar in composition as to sex, age, duration of disease, smoking status, and previous medical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that appendectomy has a negative association with and perhaps a preventive effect on the development of ulcerative colitis in the Japanese population. Furthermore, appendectomy also appears to reduce the extent and recurrence of ulcerative colitis.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To asses the role of laparoscopic appendectomy in the treatment of acute as well as chronic appendicitis on the basis of our own experiences. METHODOLOGY: From the set of 849 patients treated with appendectomy (from January 1993 to December 2000) 331 were singled out, i.e.; those unable to work for some time and thus being on sickness benefit who asked for a medical certificate. They were operated on for either acute or chronic appendicitis. RESULTS: In our set of 331 patients (158 males, 173 females, the average age 29.4) open appendectomy was performed on 179 patients and laparoscopic appendectomy on 152. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 43 males (28%) and 109 females (72%); open appendectomy in 115 males (64%) and 64 females (36%). Laparoscopic appendectomy took 53.7 +/- 18.1 minutes, open appendectomy took 43.6 +/- 8.99 minutes. The time of work disablement is longer in open appendectomy (open appendectomy: 41.2 +/- 9.91 days; laparoscopic appendectomy; 29.1 +/- 15.11 days). A significant difference (p < 0.00001) can be seen in the length of hospitalization (laparoscopic appendectomy: 5.0 +/- 2.75 days, open appendectomy: 8.3 +/- 2.83 days). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo laparoscopic appendectomy spent less time in hospital, and they can return to work rather earlier. On the other hand the time of surgery is longer. Higher cost is compensated for with shorter hospitalization and early return to work.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1993

A review of the results of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.

Proponents of laparoscopic appendectomy emphasize the advantages of laparoscopic operation--decreased hospitalization, paralytic ileus, postoperative pain and wound complications, including infection. This study compared open laparoscopic appendectomy with laparoscopic appendectomy. To compare the two techniques, patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy at four hospitals were compared with patients undergoing open appendectomy during a six month period. Excluded were incidental appendectomies and patients with perforated appendicitis. An equal number of pediatric patients undergoing laparoscopic and open procedures were included in the analysis to avoid bias, because most of the laparoscopic appendectomies were performed in the adult patient population (age of more than 16 years). A University Medical Center, a Veterans Administration and two community hospitals were the settings. Patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 54) had an average age of 25.7 +/- 1.5 (range of six to 59 years). These patients were compared with 121 patients undergoing open appendectomy whose average age was 23.7 +/- 1.8 (range of three to 83 years). The race and gender distribution were similar in the two groups. Traditional open appendectomy was compared with a group of patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Variables evaluated were operating room time, number of patients who reported nausea, days until patient tolerated a regular diet, days of hospitalization, postoperative pain medication and wound infection rate. Results are expressed as the mean plus or minus standard error of the mean. Analysis of variance was used to compute continuous variables and Fischer's exact test was used for discrete variables. The laparoscopic approach was attempted in 61 patients and completed in 54 patients. Open appendectomy was performed upon 121 patients. Nineteen patients (18 who underwent open operation and one patient who underwent laparoscopic operation) were excluded from further analysis because of perforated appendicitis. The open procedure took less time (p < 0.05). However, there were more wound infections than in the laparoscopic group (seven of 103 versus zero of 53; p = 0.09). Patients with acute appendicitis recuperated more quickly from the laparoscopic procedure, as evidenced by the time until eating regular diet, period of hospitalization, incidence of nausea and pain medications on postoperative day one (p < 0.05). The absence of wound infections after laparoscopic appendectomy can be attributed to the practice of placing the appendix in a sterile bag or into the trocar sleeve before removal from the abdomen. Laparoscopic appendectomy reduces the period of hospitalization, postoperative ileus, nausea and postoperative pain in patients with acute appendicitis.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Adolescent↗
PubMed1993

Appendectomy incidental to cholecystectomy among elderly Medicare beneficiaries.

To assess the risks of adverse outcomes after appendectomy incidental to cholecystectomy among elderly Medicare beneficiaries, 8,936 persons undergoing cholecystectomy with incidental appendectomy and 44,461 persons undergoing cholecystectomy without incidental appendectomy were studied. Controlling for age, race, gender and co-morbidity status, the risk for wound infection in persons with incidental appendectomy was 83 percent higher than in persons without incidental appendectomy (95 percent confidence interval, 1.53 to 2.18). The risks for having other adverse outcomes, including other infections, extensive intrahospital complications and mortality rate at 30 days, were also higher for the former group, although these differences were not statistically significant. In addition, the demographic characteristics and health status of persons undergoing cholecystectomy with incidental appendectomy with persons undergoing cholecystectomy only were compared. Males, persons of younger ages, of white race or with no co-morbid conditions, were significantly more likely to undergo cholecystectomy with incidental appendectomy. Variables to control for differences in the demographic characteristics and health status between persons receiving and not receiving incidental appendectomy were included in the regression models for adverse outcomes. However, these models may not completely control for differences between the two groups. As a result, the actual relationship between incidental appendectomy and adverse outcomes may be underestimated. The preventive effect of incidental appendectomy on morbidity and mortality rates from future instances of appendicitis was assessed by determining the remaining lifetime risk for acute appendicitis. For persons 65 to 69 years of age, 115 incidental appendectomies would be required to prevent one future instance of appendicitis and 4,472 incidental appendectomies would be needed to prevent a single future death from acute appendicitis. Because incidental appendectomy increases the risk for wound infection among persons undergoing cholecystectomy and because the lifetime risk for acute appendicitis is relatively low for persons of this age group, surgeons should carefully consider the risks and benefits of incidental appendectomy in the elderly.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2001

Intra-abdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis.

HYPOTHESIS: The incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess is higher after laparoscopic compared with open appendectomy for perforated appendicitis. METHODS: A historical cohort study of pediatric patients operated on for suspected appendicitis by open appendectomy or laparoscopic appendectomy compares the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess for each procedure. SETTING: A tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Five hundred thirty-eight pediatric patients were operated on for suspected appendicitis at our institution between 1974 and 1999. Of these, 453 were included in the study. Of the excluded patients, 9 had incomplete medical records, 69 had normal or interval appendectomies, and 7 had appendixes removed by methods other than laparoscopy or right lower quadrant incision. INTERVENTIONS: Open appendectomy performed through a right lower quadrant incision or laparoscopic appendectomy performed through a 3-trocar approach by 1 of 3 pediatric surgeons at our institution. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess after laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. RESULTS: In perforated appendicitis (170 patients), the incidence of postoperative abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy was 24% vs 4.2% after open appendectomy. The relative risk ratio of developing a postoperative abscess after perforated appendicitis was 5.6 (confidence interval, 2.1-16.0) after laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. The results remained significant when controlled for age, sex, intraoperative irrigation, and preoperative antibiotics. Postoperative abscess in all acute, gangrenous, and perforated appendicitis after laparoscopic appendectomy was 6.4% vs 3.0% after open appendectomy. This was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: There is a significant increase in the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess with perforated appendicitis after laparoscopic compared with open appendectomy in pediatric patients.

Abdominal Abscess↗
PubMed2001

Minilaparoscopic appendectomy.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of using 2-mm laparoscopic instruments in the treatment of appendicitis and to identify risk factors that may limit their use. Minilaparoscopic appendectomy was performed through a 2-mm port in the umbilicus for a videoendoscope, a 2-mm working port in the right upper quadrant, and a 5/12-mm suprapubic port for an endoscopic stapler. Minilaparoscopic appendectomy was attempted in 26 consecutive patients with appendicitis. Thirty-two consecutive patients undergoing conventional laparoscopic appendectomy with 5- and 10-mm instruments and videoendoscopes before the availability of 2-mm instrumentation were analyzed for comparison. Statistical comparisons were made by the Student t test and Fisher exact test. Differences were considered statistically significant at a P value less than 0.05. There were no conversions to an open appendectomy in the minilaparoscopic appendectomy or conventional laparoscopic appendectomy group. The mean operative time was 69.5 minutes for the minilaparoscopic appendectomy group and 85.5 minutes for the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy group (P = 0.02). The mean postoperative length of stay was 1.7 days for the minilaparoscopic appendectomy group and 2.5 days for the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy group (P = 0.08). There was no significant difference in the complication rates (P = 0.31). Minilaparoscopic appendectomy was completed in 13 (50.0%) patients. Independent risk factors (P = 0.05) for conversion to 5- or 10-mm ports were a retrocecal appendix and increasing patient age. There were no differences in the mean postoperative length of stay (P = 0.12) or complication rate (P = 0.39) between the two groups, but mean operative time was longer (P = 0.05) in the converted group. Perioperative outcomes for minilaparoscopic appendectomy are comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. The use of 2-mm instrumentation in the management of appendicitis is limited in patients with retrocecal appendicitis. Increasing patient age and a history of abdominal surgery may influence the need to convert 2-mm ports to 5- or 10-mm ports.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1993

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: is there really any benefit?

Laparoscopic appendectomy is emerging as a popular treatment modality for acute appendicitis. Although claims have been made to potential superiority over traditional appendectomy, comparisons of operative difficulty, hospital stay, hospital costs, complication rates, postoperative pain, and convalescence have not been well studied. Two hundred consecutive patients presenting with signs and symptoms of acute appendicitis underwent appendectomy. Traditional appendectomy was employed in 101 patients, while 99 underwent laparoscopy. Successful laparoscopic appendectomy was possible in 89 patients who were compared with the 101 patients with traditional appendectomy. There were two pregnant patients with appendicitis in each group. The incidence of acute appendicitis was 72 per cent for traditional appendectomy and 74 per cent for laparoscopic appendectomy. Operating time was significantly longer with laparoscopic appendectomy (60.1 vs 45.4 minutes, P = 0.0001). This was reflected in higher (although not significant) hospital costs ($8,683 vs $6,213). Post-op hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic appendectomy (2.7 vs 3.8 days, P = 0.001). Complication rates were no different between the two groups. Post-op pain, as evaluated by a patient grading scale, was less for laparoscopic appendectomies up to the third post-op week (P = 0.003). The amount of IM pain medication was greater with traditional appendectomy (P = 0.009). Convalescence was significantly shorter with laparoscopic appendectomy as measured by: 1) return to normal household activity (7.8 vs 13.2 days, P = 0.016), 2) returned ability to exercise (19.7 vs 29.0 days, P = 0.009), 3) patient feeling well enough to return to work (14.1 vs 19.2 days, P = 0.032), and 4) actual return to work (15.4 vs 20.5 days, P = 0.038).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed1996

Intraabdominal abscesses following laparoscopic and open appendectomies.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this review was to evaluate the incidence of postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation following laparoscopic and open appendectomies. METHODS: The current study retrospectively examines appendectomies performed during the period from January 1993 to July 1994. Excluded were cases which were started laparoscopically but converted to open procedures. There were 1,287 cases identified; 597 were perforated (46%), 114 were gangrenous (9%), and 576 were acute (45%). These diagnoses represent intraoperative diagnoses. RESULTS: Of the 576 appendectomies for acute appendicitis, 64 (11%) were performed laparoscopically. There were four intraabdominal abscesses (0.7%), all occurring after open procedures. Of the 114 appendectomies for gangrenous appendicitis, 16 (14%) were done laparoscopically. There were two postoperative abscesses (1.8%), one following an open and one following a laparoscopic procedure. There was no significant difference in abscess rate between laparoscopic and open appendectomies for either acute or gangrenous appendicitis. Of the 597 appendectomies for perforated appendicitis, 28 (5%) were done laparoscopically. There were 19 postoperative abscesses in the whole group, accounting for a 3.2% abscess rate. Sixteen abscesses occurred after open appendectomies and three occurred after laparoscopic appendectomies (2.9% vs 11%, P = 0.054). The preoperative diagnosis was incorrectly identified as acute appendicitis in 95 cases subsequently found to have perforated appendicitis; there was only 1 postoperative abscess in this group. There was no difference in postoperative stay in the open vs laparoscopic group (6.3 days vs 6.1 days). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in the rate of postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation between laparoscopic and open appendectomies in cases of acute or gangrenous appendicitis. However, laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis was associated with an important trend toward a higher rate of postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation than open appendectomy. This observation calls for closer prospective scrutiny of laparoscopic appendectomy in the setting of perforated appendicitis.

Abdominal Abscess↗
PubMed2004

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children with uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis.

PURPOSE: To address whether laparoscopic appendectomy could be an alternative to conventional open appendectomy in children with complicated appendicitis as well as uncomplicated appendicitis, a retrospective study comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomies was performed. METHODS: One hundred patients who were treated by immediate appendectomy, either laparoscopically or by the open method, between May 2000 and August 2003 were included in the study. There were 53 patients in the laparoscopic appendectomy group and 47 patients in the open appendectomy group. RESULTS: The operating time was significantly longer for laparoscopic appendectomy than for open appendectomy (P < .001). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with uncomplicated appendicitis (P = .001). Thirteen of the 100 patients (13.0%) had 15 postoperative complications including wound infection (n = 8), intraabdominal abscess (n = 4), stitch abscess (n = 2), and small bowel obstruction (n = 1). In both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, there was no significant difference between laparoscopic and open appendectomies in the complication rates, and the incidences of each complication did not differ between the procedures. Among the 14 patients with generalized peritonitis, postoperative complications were seen in 5 patients (35.7%). Although the presence of generalized peritonitis was associated significantly with postoperative complications (P = .017), there was no significant association between the procedure and complications. Overall treatment costs were increased by 26.0% in laparoscopic appendectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy should remain an option in children with uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, and when laparoscopy is selected, consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure is essential.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

The safety of incidental appendectomy at the time of abdominal hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the complication rates of incidental appendectomies in women who undergo benign gynecologic procedures. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective case-controlled study of patients who did (n=100 women) or did not (n=100 women) undergo incidental appendectomies at the time of an abdominal hysterectomy between June 1995 and January 2001. Information was abstracted from hospital and clinic records and a gynecologic oncology database. Data were obtained about age, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, the number of days with nothing by mouth, the length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications (cellulitis, fever, ileus, pneumonia, thromboembolic disease). Data were analyzed with the use of two-sample t tests, Wilcoxon Rank sum tests, chi(2) tests, and multiple logistic regressions. RESULTS: There was no difference in preoperative diagnosis or operative procedure for either group. The number of patients in the group that did have incidental appendectomy versus the group that did not have incidental appendectomy with additional procedures at the time of abdominal hysterectomy was bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (66 vs 61 women), unilateral oophorectomy (19 vs 19 women), lysis of adhesions (9 vs 8 women), and others (12 vs 8 women). Compared with the group that did not have incidental appendectomy, the group that did have incidental appendectomy was younger (mean age+/-SD: 44+/-9.6 years vs 48+/-13.6 years, P=.02) and had a lower mean body mass index (26.1+/-6.0 kg/m(2) vs 29.8+/-8.9 kg/m(2), P=.0009). No significant differences were found between the two groups (the group that did have incidental appendectomy vs the group that did not have incidental appendectomy, respectively) with respect to the following postoperative complications: fever (40 vs 27 women), cellulitis (1 vs 2 women), wound collection (4 vs 6 women), wound dehiscence (1 vs 5 women), wound abscess (7 vs 6 women), ileus (3 vs 2 women), and urinary tract infection (4 vs 10 women). The mean length of hospital stay was significantly longer in the group that did have incidental appendectomy than in the group that did not have incidental appendectomy (3.6+/-1.52 days vs 3.1+/-1.1 days, P=.006). However, the difference was no longer significant when patients who were fed electively on the postoperative day 2 were excluded from the analysis (3.16+/-1.13 days vs 3.04+/-1.13 days, P=.507). Thirty-one percent of the histologic specimens were abnormal, with fibrous obliteration being most common, and there was one case of acute appendicitis. CONCLUSION: An incidental appendectomy at the time of benign gynecologic procedures does not increase postoperative complication rates or length of hospital stay. The inclusion of incidental appendectomies in all abdominal hysterectomies could potentially decrease the morbidity and mortality rates because of appendicitis in elderly women.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Short-stay open appendectomy.

PURPOSE: This report describes a minimally invasive short-stay open appendectomy technique which improves the length of stay in comparison to traditional open appendectomy and improves the cost of hospitalization in comparison to laparoscopic appendectomy. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective analysis reviewed 100 consecutive children treated with traditional open appendectomy and 100 consecutive children treated with a minimally invasive short-stay open technique with local infiltration of bupivacaine hydrochloride. Data collected for each child included age, sex, diagnosis, operative time, return to activity time, complications, length of stay, and hospital charge. RESULTS: The mean length of stay (LOS) was reduced from 2.7 days for traditional open appendectomy patients to 1.0 day for minimally invasive short-stay open appendectomy. The mean hospital charge (HC) for this short-stay open appendectomy, US dollars 6795, was significantly less than the mean HC for traditional open appendectomy (US dollars 8162), and for laparoscopic appendectomy (US dollars 7668). CONCLUSION: This short-stay open appendectomy technique offers an efficacious alternative to both traditional open appendectomy and laparoscopic appendectomy.

Anesthetics, Local↗
PubMed2004

[Transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted "one-trocar" appendectomy -- TULAA -- as an alternative operation method in the treatment of appendicitis].

INTRODUCTION: Appendectomy is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in general surgery and laparoscopic appendectomy represents the beginning of minimal invasive era in visceral surgery. But until yet, laparoscopic appendectomy is not the standard method for removal of the appendix and the discussion about the value and the advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy is still going on between the opponents and advocates of this method. In this article we present the transumbilical laparoscopic assisted "one-trocar" appendectomy (TULAA) as an alternative procedure for appendectomy and our experiences with this technique, which is up to now not very well known in Germany. METHOD: From November 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002, we performed appendectomy in 350 patients. 163 patients (46.6 %) underwent TULAA in the technique of Begin. All of them were examined two weeks and three months after surgery. RESULTS: In 94.5 % the "one-trocar" appendectomy was successful and there were no intraoperative complications. The mortality was 0 %. Conversion to the open procedure was necessary in 3 patients (1.8 %), respectively introduction of accessory trocars was necessary in 6 patients (3.7 %). In 111 from 163 patients (68.1 %) appendectomy was performed because of acute appendicitis. In 14.1 % we detected additional secondary findings during the laparoscopy. The postoperative complication rate was 3.6 %. CONCLUSION: The transumbilical laparoscopic assisted "one-trocar" appendectomy complements the minimal invasive procedures in visceral surgery. The operating technique combines the simplicity and the safety of conventional appendectomy with the survey of laparoscopic appendectomy. It minimizes the trauma of surgery and shows a perfect cosmetic result.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2002

Appendectomy protects against the development of ulcerative colitis but does not affect its course.

OBJECTIVES: Appendectomy has been shown to protect against the development of ulcerative colitis. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of appendectomy on the clinical features and natural history of colitis. METHODS: A total of 259 consecutive adults patients with ulcerative colitis were studied. Of the patients, 20 had undergone appendectomy (12 before onset of colitis and eight after diagnosis). RESULTS: The frequency of appendectomy was significantly less than in a group of 280 controls, which comprised partners of the patients and a group from the community (OR = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.14-0.44). This was even more significant if only the 12 patients who underwent surgery before the onset of colitis were considered (OR = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.07-0.28). Patients with prior appendectomy developed symptoms of ulcerative colitis for the first time at a significantly later age than those without appendectomy (42.5 +/- 6.5 vs 32.1 +/- 0.8 yr; p < 0.01) or those who had appendectomy after the onset of colitis (24.6 +/- 3.4 yr; p < 0.05). Appendectomy did not influence disease extent, need for immunosuppressive treatment with azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine (as a marker of resistant disease), or the likelihood of colectomy. Five patients in the appendectomy group had clinical evidence of primary sclerosing cholangitis (25%). This was more common than in those without appendectomy (8%; OR = 4.09; 95% CI = 1.04-13.60). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that although appendectomy may delay onset of colitis, it does not influence its course. However, it is associated with the development of primary sclerosing cholangitis. Appendectomy is unlikely to be of benefit in established ulcerative colitis.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1993

Laparoscopic appendectomy. A safety and cost analysis.

To assess the feasibility of laparoscopic appendectomy, we reviewed hospital records and charge data for all patients older than age 15 years who underwent appendectomy between November 1990 and July 1992. Fifty-eight patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy and 206 patients underwent conventional appendectomy. Intraoperative (1.9%) and postoperative (5.8%) complication rates were low. The rate of conversion to conventional appendectomy was 7.7%. Hospital stay and charge analysis was performed on a cohort of 52 patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy and 180 patients undergoing conventional appendectomy. Total costs were similar. The most notable difference between the two groups was the operating room supply charge; this negated any cost savings achieved by the reduced length of stay following laparoscopic appendectomy. Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe alternative to conventional appendectomy; it shortens hospital stay and allows patients to resume normal activity more quickly than conventional appendectomy.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

A clinical outcome and cost analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy are controversial, and the results of recent clinical studies have contradictory conclusions. We performed a cost analysis comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomies to assess potential efficacy of the laparoscopic approach. METHODS: All patients operated on for suspected acute appendicitis at the University of Washington Medical Center (UWMC) from January 1, 1991 through January 1, 1995 were analyzed. Potential benefits of the laparoscopic approach were examined in five major categories: hospital length of stay, total hospital charges, operative time, operating room charges, and postoperative complications. Patients were stratified according to the presence or absence of perforation for outcome analysis. RESULTS: There were 163 appendectomies performed in 82 men and 81 women. Twenty-seven (17%) patients had laparoscopic evaluation, of which 21 underwent attempted laparoscopic appendectomy. Among nonperforated patients, laparoscopic appendectomy did not reduce hospital stay compared with open appendectomy, but did lead to greater hospital charges ($7760 vs $5064; P < 0.001). Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group (104 vs 74 minutes; P < 0.001) compared with open appendectomies. Operating room charges for laparoscopic appendectomies exceeded charges for the open approach ($4740 vs $1870; P < 0.001). Complication rates were similar (laparoscopic, 19% vs open, 16%; NS). The false diagnostic rate for women was four times greater than for men among patients undergoing open appendectomy (31% vs 8%; P < 0.01). Patients with perforation undergoing a midline incision had a longer hospital stay (9.5 vs 5.9; P < 0.02) than patients operated on through a right lower quadrant incision. CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis, laparoscopic appendectomy, while safe, was more expensive and was not associated with better clinical outcome compared with open appendectomy patients.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2003

Histopathology of interval (delayed) appendectomy specimens: strong association with granulomatous and xanthogranulomatous appendicitis.

Patients who present with a ruptured acute appendicitis are often treated with antibiotic therapy and drainage followed by a delayed or interval appendectomy. We noticed interval appendectomy specimens with granulomatous inflammation and postulated that interval appendectomy may lead to granulomatous appendicitis. To test this hypothesis, we reviewed the histopathology of all interval appendectomy specimens within a 4-year period and compared them with a control group of patients who had acute appendicitis and underwent routine acute appendectomy. All slides were randomized and reviewed blindly to assess the inflammatory patterns, with special attention given to the presence of granulomas and other Crohn-like features. Twenty-two cases of interval appendectomy were found. The interval between symptom onset and appendectomy ranged from 30 to 95 days with a mean of 58 days, whereas all 44 control patients had surgery within 72 hours of symptoms onset. Thirteen (59.1%) of the 22 interval appendectomy cases contained granulomas compared with only 3 of 44 controls (P < 0.0001). Eight (36.4%) of the interval appendectomy cases had xanthogranulomatous inflammation compared with none in the acute appendicitis group (P < 0.0001). A Crohn-like appearance was seen in 11 (50.0%) of the interval appendectomy cases and 1 of the controls (P < 0.0001). Follow-up data were available in 8 of 11 cases with Crohn-like features; none developed Crohn disease during an average follow-up period of 23 months. Delayed or interval appendectomy specimens often have a characteristic inflammatory pattern that includes granulomas, xanthogranulomatous inflammation, mural fibrosis/thickening, and transmural chronic inflammation. Without the appropriate clinical history, these changes may be misinterpreted as Crohn disease.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Laparoscopic appendectomy in children.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy have not yet been clearly demonstrated. The present study evaluated our early experience with laparoscopic appendectomy in children, in terms of its safety, effectiveness, technical difficulties, and economics. METHODS: We reviewed the records of 50 cases involving laparoscopic appendectomy performed at our affiliated institutions between September, 1994, and September, 1996. Patient age ranged from 6 to 18 years (mean, 14 years). Thirty-two patients had acute nonperforated appendicitis, six had perforated appendicitis, two had fibrosis of the appendix, and ten had a histologically normal appendix. RESULTS: In five patients the laparoscopic procedures were converted to open appendectomies because of technical difficulties. There were postoperative complications in four patients: one incomplete appendectomy which subsequently required an open appendectomy for completion, one pelvic abscess, one bowel obstruction, and one minor wound infection. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and effective procedure. It takes longer operative time than open appendectomy. Length of hospitalization and incidence of postoperative complications are equivalent to those of open appendectomy. Economic benefits are difficult to assess at present. In sum, we believe that with better training, surgical techniques and equipment, laparoscopic appendectomy will eventually become the surgical procedure of choice in appendicitis.

Adolescent↗