Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy: An Analysis of Outcomes in 17,199 Patients Using ACS/NSQIP

Emory Endosurgery Unit, Division of General and Gastrointestinal Surgery, 1364 Clifton Rd NE, Suite H-124, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery (Impact Factor: 2.8). 12/2010; 14(12):1955-62. DOI: 10.1007/s11605-010-1300-1
Source: PubMed


The current study was undertaken to evaluate the outcomes for open and laparoscopic appendectomy using the 2008 American College of Surgeons: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS/NSQIP) Participant Use File (PUF). We hypothesized that laparoscopic appendectomy would have fewer infectious complications, superior perioperative outcomes, and decreased morbidity and mortality when compared to open appendectomy.
Using the Current Procedural Technology (CPT) codes for open (44950) and laparoscopic (44970) appendectomy, 17, 199 patients were identified from the ACS/NSQIP PUF file that underwent appendectomy in 2008. Univariate analysis with chi-squared tests for categorical data and t tests or ANOVA tests for continuous data was used. Binary logistic regression models were used to evaluate outcomes for independent association by multivariable analysis.
Of the patients, 3,025 underwent open appendectomy and 14,174 underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. Patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy had significantly shorter operative times and hospital length of stay. They also had a significantly lower incidence of superficial and deep surgical site infections, wound disruptions, fewer complications, and lower perioperative mortality when compared to patients undergoing open appendectomy.
Using the ACS/NSQIP PUF file, we demonstrate that laparoscopic appendectomy has better outcomes than open appendectomy for the treatment of appendicitis. While the operative treatment of appendicitis is surgeon specific, this study lends support to the laparoscopic approach for patients requiring appendectomy.

29 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Case control studies that randomly assign patients with diagnosis of acute appendicitis to either surgical or non-surgical treatment yield a relapse rate of approximately 14% at one year. It would be useful to know the relapse rate of patients who have, instead, been selected for a given treatment based on a thorough clinical evaluation, including physical examination and laboratory results (Alvarado Score) as well as radiological exams if needed or deemed helpful. If this clinical evaluation is useful, the investigators would expect patient selection to be better than chance, and relapse rate to be lower than 14%. Once the investigators have established the utility of this evaluation, the investigators can begin to identify those components that have predictive value (such as blood analysis, or US/CT findings). This is the first step toward developing an accurate diagnostic-therapeutic algorithm which will avoid risks and costs of needless surgery. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be a single-cohort prospective observational study. It will not interfere with the usual pathway, consisting of clinical examination in the Emergency Department (ED) and execution of the following exams at the physician's discretion: full blood count with differential, C reactive protein, abdominal ultrasound, abdominal CT. Patients admitted to an ED with lower abdominal pain and suspicion of acute appendicitis and not needing immediate surgery, are requested by informed consent to undergo observation and non operative treatment with antibiotic therapy (Amoxicillin and Clavulanic Acid). The patients by protocol should not have received any previous antibiotic treatment during the same clinical episode. Patients not undergoing surgery will be physically examined 5 days later. Further follow-up will be conducted at 7, 15 days, 6 months and 12 months. The study will conform to clinical practice guidelines and will follow the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved on November 2009 by Maggiore Hospital Ethical Review Board (ID CE09079). Trial Registration identifier: NCT01096927.
    BMJ Open 02/2011; 1(1):e000006. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2010-000006 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over the last three decades more surgeons have used laparoscopic appendectomy as their surgical approach of choice in the management of patients with appendicitis. This includes special groups of patients, namely, pediatric, pregnant, and obese patients. Laparoscopy has the benefit of lower morbidity, decreased rate of wound complications, faster recovery, shorter length of hospital stay, and faster return to work over open appendectomy.
    World Journal of Surgery 03/2011; 35(7):1515-8. DOI:10.1007/s00268-011-1032-8 · 2.64 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: Clinical diagnosis has been dramatically altered by technologic advances and is now often based almost exclusively on imaging. The clinician must mindfully weigh patient-specific risks of radiation against the values of diagnostic yield and avoiding other risks. One concern is the balance between short-term adverse events and long-term radiogenic cancer risk. This article outlines aspects of radiation risk in the context of diagnostic imaging and presents two examples of consideration of radiation and nonradiation risks. CONCLUSION: Selecting the optimum procedure for an individual patient requires consideration of many factors of benefit and risk. Too much attention to radiogenic risk may distract attention from other risks and potential benefits. This may not be in the patient's best interest.
    American Journal of Roentgenology 04/2011; 196(4):762-7. DOI:10.2214/AJR.10.5982 · 2.73 Impact Factor
Show more