Comparison of intracorporeal knot-tying suture (polyglactin) and titanium endoclips in laparoscopic appendiceal stump closure: a prospective randomized study.
ABSTRACT Laparoscopic appendectomy is a well-described surgical technique. However, concerns still exist regarding whether the closure of the appendiceal stump should be done with a clip, an endoloop, staples, or other techniques. Therefore, several modifications to the original technique with new materials have been introduced for appendiceal stump closure. The aim of this study was to compare intracorporeal (polyglactin) knot-tying suture with titanium endoclips in appendiceal stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy.
The study was carried out as a prospective randomized clinical trial between April 2010 and February 2011. Patients with a presentation of appendicitis were included into the study. Two groups were defined-patients with the titanium endoclip and patients with the knot-tying (polyglactin) suture. The results in terms of operating time, complication rates, and hospital stay were analyzed.
Sixty-one patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were enrolled in the titanium endoclip group (n=30) or the knot-tying (polyglactin) suture group (n=31). No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups in terms of the distribution of age, sex percentage, appendix localization, and histopathologic diagnosis (P>0.05). One patient required a second operation on postoperative day 10 because of intraperitoneal abscess. The mean operative time for the endoclip group (41.27 ± 12.2 min) was shorter than that for the knot-tying group (62.81 ± 15.4 min) (P=0.001). No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups in terms of hospital stay, follow-up time, and preoperative and postoperative complications (P>0.05).
In laparoscopic appendectomy, using a titanium endoclip for optimizing and controlling the appendiceal stump closure is safe and is associated with shorter operation time. This also simplifies the procedure, so it can be a useful alternative to intracorporeal knot-tying for appendiceal stump closure.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in developed countries. The treatment of acute appendicitis is either open or laparoscopic appendectomy. The latter has gained wide acceptance in the past years, although the debate on the true merits of laparoscopic appendectomy is still on going. Some authors prefer this approach as the gold standard for all patients, but in our opinion a tailored approach is warranted for specific patient groups. In addition, a standardised guideline on the technical aspects is still lacking. In the current article, open versus laparoscopic appendectomy and several technical aspects, such as stump closure, appendix extraction and single incision are discussed laparoscopic appendectomy are being addressed. In the future perspectives we will briefly discuss the third 'newly' introduced antibiotic treatment.Best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology 02/2014; 28(1):211-224. · 2.48 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The surgical community and the medical device industry enjoy a fruitful cooperation for the benefit of patients, but during the last years several high-risk products have led to problems and scandals, thus highlighting the need for reforms in European CE marking requirements. In October 2013, the European Parliament voted on a draft regulation on medical devices that intends to replace the current directives in 2014. This article offers guidance to surgeons on how to select and assess medical devices for clinical use. Examples include artificial sphincters, surgical meshes, as well as single-incision and robot-assisted surgery. It is important that surgeons have a basic understanding of the requirements for CE marking of new medical devices. Because device performance rather than effectiveness is required for European market entry, surgeons (and their patients) are often left with the burden of using potentially harmful devices. In addition, potential problems concerning the safety or effectiveness of approved devices are concealed by the lack of data transparency. Because regulatory reforms were blocked at the European level, many member states will now seek other ways of restricting the use of medical devices with unknown effectiveness. One interesting model in this regard is to link the reimbursement of new medical devices to the conduct of clinical trials. Surgeons should develop a structured multidisciplinary approach to innovation management in their hospitals before using a new high-risk device. The key question is how to strike the right balance between innovation and safety.Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery 02/2014; · 1.89 Impact Factor