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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

Can we afford to do laparoscopic appendectomy in an academic hospital?

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have shown laparoscopic appendectomy to be safe for both acute and perforated appendicitis, but there have been conflicting reports as to whether it is superior from a cost perspective. Our academic surgical group, who perform all operative cases with resident physicians, has been challenged to reduce expenses in this era of cost containment. We recognize resident training is an expensive commodity that is poorly reimbursed, and hypothesized laparoscopic appendectomy was too expensive to justify resident teaching of this procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine if laparoscopic appendectomy is more expensive than open appendectomy. METHODS: From April 2003 to April 2004, all patients undergoing appendectomy for presumed acute appendicitis at our university-affiliated teaching hospital were reviewed; demographic data, equipment charge, minutes in the operating room (OR), hospital length of stay, and total hospital charge were analyzed. OR minute charges were gradated based on equipment use and level of skilled nursing care. Conversions to open appendectomy were included in the laparoscopic group for analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 247 patients underwent appendectomy for preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis, with 152 open (113 inflamed, 37 perforated, 2 normal), 88 laparoscopic (69 inflamed, 12 perforated, 7 normal), and 7 converted (2 inflamed, 4 perforated, 1 normal) operations performed. The majority were men (67%) with a mean age of 31.4 +/- 2.2 years. Overall, there was significant difference (P < .05) in intraoperative equipment charge (125.32 dollars +/- 3.99 dollars open versus 1,078.70 dollars +/- 24.06 dollars lap), operative time charge (3,022.16 dollars +/- 57.51 dollars versus 4,065.24 dollars +/- 122.64 dollars), and total hospital charge (12,310 dollars +/- 772 dollars versus 16,773 dollars +/- 1,319 dollars) but no significant difference in operative minutes (56.3 +/- 1.3 versus 57.4 +/- 2.3), operating room minutes (90.5 +/- 1.7 versus 95.7 +/- 2.5), or hospital days (2.6 versus 2.2). In subgroup analysis of patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, open and laparoscopic groups had equivalent hospital days (1.47 versus 1.49) but significantly different hospital charges (9,632.44 dollars versus 14,251.07 dollars). CONCLUSIONS: Although operative time was similar between the 2 groups, operative and total hospital charges were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group. Unless patient factors warrant a laparoscopic approach (questionable diagnosis, obesity), we submit open appendectomy remains the most cost-effective procedure in a teaching environment.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed1996

Laparoscopy not recommended for routine appendectomy in men: results of a prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic appendectomy has now gained wider acceptance in clinical practice, particularly in the treatment of women with right iliac fossa pain. However, the precise role of laparoscopic appendectomy in men is unclear, and this study was therefore undertaken to examine this specific issue in a prospective randomized trial. METHODS: One hundred men between the ages of 16 and 65 years who had suspected appendicitis were recruited and randomized to undergo either open or laparoscopic appendectomy. Both groups were compared in terms of their clinical parameters, duration of anesthetic and operation times, postoperative pain, duration of ileus, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: The histologic confirmation of appendicitis was present in 94% of the cases for both groups of patients. Laparoscopic appendectomy required significantly longer anesthetic time (72.5 minutes versus 55 minutes) and actual operating time (45 minutes versus 25 minutes) compared with open appendectomy. Postoperative pain as measured by visual analog scale on postoperative days 1 and 2 were not significantly different between the patients who underwent laparoscopic and open surgery with values of 4.7 versus 4.4 and 2.1 versus 2.2, respectively. Also no significant difference was seen between the laparoscopic and open appendectomy groups in the recovery of bowel function (24.7 hours versus 21 hours) and in the length of hospital stay (4.9 days versus 5.3 days). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this prospective randomized trial showed that there were no significant advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy for the treatment of male patients with suspected appendicitis. We recommend that the use of laparoscopy be limited to men with atypical pain of uncertain diagnosis and in obese patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

The association of elevated percent bands on admission with failure and complications of interval appendectomy.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The routine use of interval appendectomy for the treatment of perforated appendicitis, with or without abscess, remains controversial. The purpose of this study is to confirm the efficacy of this approach and to identify factors associated with failures and complications. METHODS: All patients (n = 101) with their clinical diagnosis of perforated appendicitis confirmed with imaging were treated prospectively with fluids and intravenous antibiotics (clindamycin, ceftazidime) and were discharged home on oral fluids and analgesics regardless of fever. Intravenous antibiotics were continued at home until the patients were afebrile for 48 hours, and their white blood cell and differential counts were normal. Patients were readmitted at 8 to 12 weeks for an interval appendectomy. Failure to improve by 72 hours of antibiotic therapy mandated an early appendectomy. P values were determined by chi(2) analysis and Student's t test. RESULTS: The 79 patients (78%) successfully treated with interval appendectomy had an overall 6.3% complication rate, and total hospitalization averaged 5.2 days. The treatment in 21 of 22 patients (22%) requiring early appendectomy failed because of a clinical picture suggesting small bowel obstruction. The patients with the failed procedures had a complication rate of 50% and were hospitalized an average of 12.8 days. The overall complication rate for the 101 patients was 15.8%, and the overall total hospitalization was 6.9 days. Patients requiring early appendectomy had a more frequent finding resembling a small bowel obstruction on their initial x-ray (50% v 13%, P = .004) and a higher percent band count on their initial differential blood cell count (22.6% v 7.6%, P<0.0001) than did those successfully treated with interval appendectomy. An initial band count <15% was predictive of an uncomplicated course (84% positive predictive value). CONCLUSIONS: Interval appendectomy without complications is successful in the majority of patients with perforated appendicitis. An elevated initial band count > or =15% is associated with an increased likelihood of failure and complications.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

Appendectomy and subsequent risk of inflammatory bowel diseases.

BACKGROUND: Case-control studies have reported an inverse relationship between appendectomy and the risk of ulcerative colitis, but the association has not been confirmed in prospective studies. METHODS: Using national hospital discharge registry data in Denmark, the authors followed up 154,434 patients who underwent appendectomy during the period 1977 to 1989 to investigate whether they had subsequent hospitalizations for ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Ratios of observed-to-expected first hospitalizations for inflammatory bowel diseases served as measures of the relative risk (RR). RESULTS: Hospitalization for ulcerative colitis occurred in 84 patients who had appendectomies versus 97.0 expected (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.07). RRs were not significantly reduced in subgroups defined by sex, age, time since appendectomy, calendar period, or cause of appendectomy. Hospitalization for Crohn's disease occurred in excess (RR = 2.88; 95% CI, 2.45-3.39; n = 150), notably in the first year after appendectomy (RR = 10.83; 95% CI, 8.49-13.62; n = 73); but after 5 years, the RR was not significantly elevated. CONCLUSIONS: This large population-based cohort study failed to support a significant inverse association between appendectomy and ulcerative colitis risk in the first decade after the operation. The excess of Crohn's disease shortly after appendectomy most likely reflects differential diagnostic problems in patients newly presenting with abdominal pain.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

The cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic appendectomy.

The first 26 attempted laparoscopic appendectomies for the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis were compared with an age and sex matched control group of patients randomly selected from those operated on for acute appendicitis during the previous 6 month period. Both groups were comparable in terms of severity of disease, absolute white count, previous surgery, and co-morbidity. The mean operative time for the laparoscopic appendectomy group was 73 min vs 36 min for the open group (p < 0.001), but the morbidity (12% vs 38%) was significantly less (p < 0.01). The length of stay was shorter (2.8 vs 3.4 days) but this failed to achieve statistical significance. The time to full recovery was significantly (p < 0.01) shorter (11.1 vs 23.7 days). Hospital charges for laparoscopic appendectomy were higher (but not significantly) than for open appendectomy. The results of this study confirm that laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and effective alternative to open appendectomy which results in a more rapid return to full activity but incurs higher hospital charges. The overall cost effectiveness of laparoscopic appendectomy should be even greater than that of open appendectomy.

Adult↗
PubMed1995

Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy. A prospective randomized comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The authors compare open and laparoscopic appendectomy in a randomized fashion with regard to length of operation, complications, hospital stay, and recovery time. METHODS: Adult patients (older than 14 years of age) with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized to either open or laparoscopic appendectomy over a 9-month period. All patients received preoperative antibiotics. The operative time was calculated as beginning with the incision and ending when the wound was fully closed. Patients that were converted from laparoscopic to open appendectomy were considered a separate group. Return to normal activity and work were determined by questioning during postoperative clinic, telephone, or mailed questionnaire. RESULTS: There was a total of 169 patients randomized, 88 to the open and 81 to the laparoscopic group. The groups were similar demographically. Of the 81 laparoscopic patients, 13 (16%) were converted to open. In the open group, 70 patients (79.5%) had acute appendicitis and 21 (23.9%) had perforative appendicitis. In the laparoscopic group, 62 patients (76.5%) had acute appendicitis and 10 (12.3%) had perforative appendicitis. There was no statistical difference in the return to activity or work between the laparoscopic and open groups. The operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (102.2 minutes vs. 81.7 minutes, p < 0.01). The hospital stay of 2.2 days in the laparoscopic group and 4.3 days in the open group was statistically (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the hospital stay for those with acute appendicitis (1.89 days vs. 2.61 days, p = 0.067) compared with those with a normal appendix but with pelvic inflammatory disease (1.1 days vs. 2.3 days, p = 0.11). There was a significant difference in patients with perforative appendicitis (1.5 days vs. 9.5 days, p < 0.01). The hospital cost for patients having laparoscopic appendectomy was $6077 and for an open appendectomy $7227 (p = 0.164). There were no increased complications associated with the laparoscopic technique. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy is comparable to open appendectomy with regard to complications, hospital stay, cost, return to activity, and return to work. There was a greater operative time involved with the laparoscopic technique. Laparoscopic appendectomy does not offer any significant benefit over the open approach for the routine patient with appendicitis.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Introduction of appendiceal CT: impact on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation rates.

UNLABELLED: OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of appendiceal computed tomography (CT) availability on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation rates. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Appendiceal CT is 98% accurate. However, its impact on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation rates has not been reported. METHODS: The authors reviewed the medical records of 493 consecutive patients who underwent appendectomy between 1992 and 1995, 209 consecutive patients who underwent appendectomy in 1997 (59% of whom had appendiceal CT), and 206 patients who underwent appendiceal CT in 1997 without subsequent appendectomy. RESULTS: Before appendiceal CT, 98/493 patients (20%) taken to surgery had a normal appendix. After CT availability, 15/209 patients (7%) taken to surgery had a normal appendix; 7 patients did not have CT, 5 patients had surgery despite a negative CT, and 3 patients had a false-positive CT. Negative appendectomy rates were lowered overall (20% to 7%), in men (11% to 5%), in women (35% to 11%), in boys (10% to 5%), and in girls (18% to 12%). Appendiceal perforation rates dropped from 22% to 14% after CT availability. CT excluded appendicitis in 206 patients in 1997 who avoided appendectomy and identified alternative diagnoses in 105 of these patients (51%). CONCLUSION: The availability of appendiceal CT coincided with a drop in the negative appendectomy rate from 20% to 7% in all patients, and to only 3% in patients with a positive CT. Perforation rates decreased from 22% to 14%. Appendiceal CT can be advocated in nearly all female and many male patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1987

Prospective analysis of the effect of incidental appendectomy on infection rate after cholecystectomy.

I prospectively studied 100 patients to see whether "incidental appendectomy" with cholecystectomy affects wound infection rate. Randomization resulted in groups similar in age, habitus, and sex. Forty-seven patients had appendectomy. The most frequent gallbladder disease was chronic calculous cholecystitis. Positive cultures were obtained from 11% of gallbladders. The mean age of patients with gallbladder bacteria was 14.5 years older than that of the series. True pathologic changes were seen in 6% of appendices. Average operative time was extended six minutes by appendectomy. Length of postoperative hospital stay was unchanged by the addition of appendectomy. There were no infections in the patients without appendectomy and one (2%) in the group with appendectomy. The total 1% infection rate is considerably below most reported rates. There was no difference in infection rate between groups with and without appendectomy (P = .47). Unless the procedure is technically difficult, appendectomy with elective cholecystectomy does not increase the chance of infection.

Appendectomy↗
PubMed2005

Worse clinical course of disease in Crohn's patients with previous appendectomy.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of previous appendectomy in a series of Crohn's disease (CD) patients on the clinical characteristics and course of disease. METHODS: Demographic and clinical data were retrospectively analysed for 129 consecutive outpatients (68 men and 61 women, median age 38 years) with CD. For each patient, information concerning appendectomy, indication for surgery (acute/chronic) and the date of surgery were recorded. The date of the appendectomy in relation to the date of CD diagnosis was carefully assessed in order to evaluate the precise relationship between the two events. A total of 129 CD patients who had not undergone previous appendectomy served as controls. The severity of disease was assessed retrospectively by evaluating the need for systemic steroids, immunosuppressants and surgical treatment for CD, particularly resective procedures. RESULTS: Forty-one CD patients (31.8%) underwent appendectomy before the diagnosis of disease. Appendectomy before diagnosis showed a negative association with colonic disease localization and with articular manifestations. In addition, the 41 patients with previous appendectomy had a significantly greater risk of surgery, particularly resective. Multivariate analysis confirmed appendectomy performed before diagnosis as an independent risk factor for surgery; on the contrary, colonic site and inflammatory type of disease were independent factors protecting against surgery. Although current smokers were at an increased risk of surgical treatment, a smoking habit alone did not seem to be relevant at the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate a worse clinical course of CD in patients appendicectomized before diagnosis.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2007

Evaluation of race and insurance status as predictors of undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy in children.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the relationship of race and socioeconomic factors and the method used for appendectomies in children (open vs. laparoscopic). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have shown racial and insurance-related differences associated with the management of appendicitis in adults. It is not known whether these differences are observed in children. METHODS: Children (<15 years) undergoing appendectomy from 1996 to 2002 were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Severity of appendicitis and underlying chronic illnesses were determined by ICD-9 codes. Hospital characteristics evaluated included teaching status and location, children's hospital status, and volume of appendectomies. Hierarchical unadjusted and risk-adjusted logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Among 72,189 children undergoing an appendectomy for appendicitis, 11,714 (16%) underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy. Multivariate analysis showed that whites were more likely to undergo a laparoscopic appendectomy than blacks (odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25, P = 0.01) but not other races. A significant interaction between payer source and children's hospital designation was observed, with the odds of children with private insurance undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy being significantly higher than those without private insurance at nonchildren's hospitals but not at children's hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant racial and insurance-related differences in use of laparoscopic appendectomy in children that are most evident at nonchildren's hospitals. These findings provide evidence that factors at hospitals dedicated to children may lead to better access to new technologies.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

US as a primary diagnostic tool in relation to negative appendectomy: six years experience.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of ultrasonography (US) on the rate of appendectomy after false-positive diagnosis of acute appendicitis (negative appendectomy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were analyzed in 736 pediatric patients (mean age, 13.2 years) who had undergone appendectomy between 1995 and 2000. Histologic data were compared in patients who underwent US with those who did not undergo imaging prior to surgery. US was performed by a radiologist or a pediatric surgeon or both. RESULTS: A total of 643 (87.4%) of the 736 pediatric patients underwent preoperative US, and 93 (12.6%) of the 736 did not undergo preoperative US. Of the 736 patients, 97 (13.2%) underwent negative appendectomy. Thirty-four (36.6%) of the 93 patients who underwent appendectomy with no preoperative US and 63 (9.8%) of the 643 patients who underwent preoperative US underwent negative appendectomy. There was a significant association between US and positive appendectomy (P <.001). CONCLUSION: US in pediatric patients suspected of having appendicitis can significantly lower the negative appendectomy rate.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

CT predictors of failed laparoscopic appendectomy.

PURPOSE: To identify computed tomographic (CT) signs that may help predict possible failure of laparoscopic appendectomy and subsequent conversion to open appendectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 234 consecutive patients who underwent preoperative CT and in whom laparoscopic appendectomy was attempted, 26 required conversion to open appendectomy. Conversion was correlated with the following CT findings: appendix location, appendicolith, cecal wall thickening involving the base of the appendix, lymphadenopathy, and appendiceal diameter. The extent of inflammation was graded by using a six-point scale: 0 meant normal appendix; 1, possibly abnormal appendix (6-mm diameter without other abnormality); 2, abnormal appendix (diameter > or = 6 mm with wall enhancement) without adjacent fat stranding; 3, abnormal appendix surrounded by fat stranding; 4, abnormal appendix surrounded by fat stranding and fluid; and 5, inflammatory mass or abscess. Student t and chi2 tests were used for statistical analysis of interval and nominal values, respectively. RESULTS: Although there was a significant difference in appendiceal diameter between the patients in whom laparoscopic appendectomy was successfully completed (11.3 mm +/- 3.5 [SD]) and those who required conversion (12.9 mm +/- 3.9), no distinct cutoff point was identified. Of the five CT findings evaluated, none was a significant predictor of conversion to open appendectomy. Eleven (7%) of 164 patients with a CT inflammation grade of 0-3 required conversion, whereas 15 (21%) of 70 patients with a grade of 4 or 5 required conversion (P <.04). CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with appendicitis can be treated with laparoscopic appendectomy. Nevertheless, patients who require conversion to open appendectomy tend to have high CT inflammation grades of 4 or 5, which indicate the presence of periappendiceal fluid or an inflammatory mass or abscess.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2004

The effect of hospital volume of pediatric appendectomies on the misdiagnosis of appendicitis in children.

BACKGROUND: Although appendicitis is a common pediatric surgical condition, it is often misdiagnosed. Because higher hospital volume has been associated with improved outcome for many surgical procedures, the current study investigates whether hospital volume of pediatric appendectomies is associated with misdiagnosis of appendicitis in children. METHODS: The Kids' Inpatient Database is a national sample of pediatric discharges from 2521 hospitals in 22 states in 1997. In this study, misdiagnosis was defined as a patient with a principal International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision procedure code for nonincidental appendectomy without a corresponding diagnosis code for appendicitis. Hospitals were stratified into 5 groups based on the number of nonincidental appendectomies performed on children in 1997: lowest (<1 per month), low (>or=1 per month but <1 per week), medium (1-2 per week), high (2-3 per week), and highest (>or=3 per week). Using generalized estimating equations to control for clustering within hospitals, we developed a logistic regression model of the effect of hospital volume on misdiagnosis while adjusting for patient age, gender, race, and insurance status. RESULTS: In the database, 37,109 nonincidental appendectomies were performed on children 1 to 18 years old in 1997. Of those, 3103 (8.4%) were misdiagnosed. Of all appendectomies, 24,655 (66.4%) were performed at lowest- or low-volume hospitals. After adjusting for patient characteristics, lowest- (odds ratio [OR]: 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0-2.2) and low- (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1-2.3) volume hospitals had a significantly increased likelihood of misdiagnosis compared with highest-volume hospitals. Misdiagnosis at medium- (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.0-2.2) and high- (OR: 1.4; 95% CI: 0.9-2.2) volume hospitals was similar to misdiagnosis at lower-volume hospitals, although not statistically different from highest-volume hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Almost two thirds of pediatric appendectomies are performed at hospitals performing <1 pediatric appendectomy per week. Lower hospital volume of pediatric appendectomies is associated with a significantly increased likelihood of misdiagnosis of appendicitis in children.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

[Laparoscopic appendectomy in children--a new fashion or a privilege].

Whether laparoscopic appendectomy is superior to open appendectomy for simple and perforated appendicitis in children is still debatable. To answer this question, surgical experience of three experienced pediatric surgeons in a single institution was studied during one year in all cases of laparoscopic appendectomy. From January 2003 to January 2004, all laparoscopic appendectomies were reviewed for operative technique, advantages, disadvantages, operative time and length of stay. There were 44 laparoscopic appendectomies in children aged 4 to 19 years. Operating time dropped from 52 minutes at the beginning to less than 25 minutes at the end of year. Operating time in perforated appendicitis was slightly longer, from 58-65 minutes. Length of stay was 1-2 days for simple cases, and maximum 5 days for perforated ones. There were no postoperative complications such as abscess, bowel obstruction, bleeding, wound infection or mortality. Laparoscopic appendectomy is at least as safe and effective, if not superior to, as open appendectomy for both, simple and perforated appendicitis. Postoperative pain is less, and recovery is faster. Laparoscopic appendectomy is our procedure of choice in pediatric surgery.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Prophylactic appendectomy: is it worth to be done?

There are still many controversial issues in prophylactic appendectomy. In this retrospective study, we have appraised the reasons and results of prophylactic appendectomies performed between January 1997 and August 1999. Sixty four prophylactic appendectomy cases were included in this study and all resected specimens were submitted to histopathological analysis. In 23 patients with incisional hernias, a prophylactic appendectomy was performed as, in the future, dense adhesions may lead to difficult appendectomy. Additional appendectomy had no negative effect on perioperative complications, compared with the patients without appendectomies. In conclusion, in the presence of optimal conditions, prophylactic appendectomy can be performed safely.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2000

Comparison of appendectomy medical expense and clinical outcome between fee for service and prospective payment system.

Since the introduction of national health insurance on March 1st 1995 in Taiwan, another 9 items (including appendectomy) were introduced into the Taiwan/prospective payment system (T/PPS). The modified T/PPS was based on those complicated appendectomy cases with secondary diagnosis or second operation where a total fee over 37,500 New Taiwan (NT) dollars was paid by National Health Insurance Bureau (NHIB) according to the real cost. The T/PPS was implemented in October 1997 due to the continuously increasing financial burden of medical expenses on the NHIB. The purpose of this study is (1) to compare the length of stay (LOS) and total medical expense of appendectomy of fee for service (FFS) and T/PPS and (2) to compare the clinical outcome of wound healing after discharge of the two systems by telephone interview. Our study investigated 100 consecutive appendectomy cases under FFS payment system and 99 consecutive appendectomy cases under T/PPS. We retrospectively analyzed LOS, operation time, and hospital cost of different items through chart review and computer data. Our results revealed that the LOS and operation time of T/PPS were significantly shorter than those of FFS (both p < 0.01). The total hospital cost, fee for room service, treatment, pharmacy, examination and anesthesia in T/PPS were also significantly less than those in FFS (all p < 0.01, except for anesthesia p < 0.05). There existed positive correlation between total hospital cost and LOS, operation time, fee for room service, treatment, pharmacy, examination and anesthesia both for T/PPS and FFS. To evaluate the clinical outcome of appendectomy between T/PPS and FFS, we interviewed 73 T/PPS cases and 73 FFS cases by telephone and chart review. Our results revealed that there were no significant differences in frequencies of having painful incision, clear incision wound on the day of discharge, and removal of stitches at hospital (p all > 0.05). We concluded that compared to FFS, T/PPS can decrease LOS and total hospital cost of appendectomy, and T/PPS's clinical outcome of appendectomy in T/PPS showed no significant difference from that in FFS.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications for quality assurance.

Debate continues as to what should be the appropriate "negative" appendectomy rate for patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. The controversy centers around balancing the complications of appendectomy for a normal appendix with those for a perforated appendix. By using a decision analysis approach to the probable outcomes of appendectomy for a normal appendix, acute appendicitis, and perforated appendicitis, this study provides one answer to this question. These outcomes are based on a review of the results of over 10,000 appendectomies. There is an inverse relationship between the normal appendectomy rate and perforated appendicitis rate. The overall complication rate in patients suspected of having appendicitis improved when the rate of perforated appendicitis was lowered, even if this meant raising the negative appendectomy rate. The perforation rate seemed to level off at approximately 10 per cent. The quality of surgical care delivered to a given population should not be judged solely on the normal appendectomy rate, but this rate should be interpreted in the light of the perforated appendicitis rate. Quality assurance assessments should focus first on perforated appendicitis and only later on normal appendectomy.

Appendectomy↗
PubMed1990

Guidelines for therapeutic decision in incidental appendectomy.

Incidental appendectomy is contraindicated in patients whose conditions are unstable, patients previously diagnosed with Crohn's disease, patients with an inaccessible appendix, patients undergoing radiation treatment, patients who are pathologically or iatrogenically immunosuppressed and patients with vascular grafts or other foreign material. In patients ten to 30 years of age--the age group associated with a higher incidence of acute appendicitis--who are otherwise healthy, incidental appendectomy is effective in preventing morbidity and death associated with acute appendicitis. In patients 30 to 50 years of age, incidental appendectomy should be left to the discretion of the surgeon. In this age group, the physician should give special consideration to the gender of the patient and the desire for future childbirth. In patients more than 50 years of age, the incidence of acute appendicitis decreases and the risk associated with operation and prolonged anesthesia is such that an incidental appendectomy is not beneficial. In mentally handicapped patients less than 50 years of age and who are physically healthy, incidental appendectomy should be performed. An inversion technique should be used in all instances of incidental appendectomy. In otherwise clean cases in which incidental appendectomy is anticipated, prophylactic antibiotics may be of value. Patients undergoing procedures that may compromise access to the appendix in the future should undergo incidental appendectomy.

Adult↗