Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis in Elderly Patients

Department of Surgery, Sahmyook Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.
Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology 10/2011; 27(5):241-5. DOI: 10.3393/jksc.2011.27.5.241
Source: PubMed


The appendectomy is the most common emergent surgical procedure in elderly patients. The increasing number of elderly persons has been accompanied by an increase in the number of cases of acute appendicitis in the elderly. In order to understand the clinical significance of a laparoscopic appendectomy for elderly patients with appendicitis, we investigated the results of a laparoscopic appendectomy for treating patients over 60 years of age with appendicitis and compared them with the results for an open technique.
We studied retrospectively patients over 60 years of age who underwent an appendectomy with either a laparoscopic (LA) or open (OA) technique for appendicitis between July 2007 and December 2009. There were 30 patients in the LA group and 47 patients in the OA group. The demographic data, operative time, length of the hospital stay, bowel movement, pain control, cost, complications and pre-existing disease were assessed.
There were no significant differences between the LA and the OA groups with respect to pre-existing diseases, gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and the number of cases of complicated appendicitis, operative time, length of hospital stay, and times of analgesics use. However, the proportion of early gas out (within POD #2) was significantly greater in the LA group (80% vs. 57%, P < 0.05), and postoperative complications were significantly lower in the LA group (7% vs. 32%, P < 0.01). The costs for the two groups were not significantly different.
A laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and effective procedure in elderly patients and is not associated with any increase in morbidity. It can be recommended for routine use in treating elderly patients with appendicitis.

Download full-text


Available from: Hyunnam Baek, Apr 27, 2015
49 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Notwithstanding its widely perceived advantages, laparoscopic appendectomy has not yet met with universal acceptance. The aim of the present work was to illustrate retrospectively the results of a case-control study of laparoscopic vs open appendectomy carried out at our institution. From Jan. 1993 to Dec. 1999 a total of 457 patients (M:F = 210:247; mean age 25.2 +/- 15 years) underwent emergency and/or urgent appendectomy. Among them, 254 (55.5%) were operated on laparoscopically, while 203 (44.5%) were treated by conventional surgery The choice of technique depended upon the availability or otherwise of a team expert in minimally invasive surgery. The laparoscopic technique conversion rate was 3.9% and was mainly due to the presence of dense intraabdominal adhesions. The major intraoperative complication rates were 0.39% and 0% in the laparoscopic and laparotomy groups, respectively (P = ns). Major postoperative complications occurred in 2 and 1%, respectively (P = ns). The postoperative mortality rates were 0.4% and 0.5% in the laparoscopy and laparotomy groups, respectively (P = ns). The reoperation rate was 1.1% in the laparoscopic group as against 0% in the open surgery group (P = ns). Minor postoperative complications were observed in 0.8% and 7.5% of patients in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively (P = 0.001) and consisted mainly of wound infections. Resumption of bowel function was significantly more rapid and the hospital stay significantly shorter in the laparoscopically treated patients. The greater diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy allowed concurrent diseases to be diagnosed in 9% of laparoscopically treated patients with histologically proven appendicitis as against 1.5% of those treated by conventional surgery (P = 0.001). Similarly, among those patients with no evidence of gross and/or microscopic appendicitis, concurrent diseases were detected in 58.4% of the laparoscopic cases as against only 6% of the laparotomy cases (P = 0.0001). Despite the limitations of a retrospective investigation, on the basis of our experience we believe that laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe and effective as conventional surgery, presents a higher degree of diagnostic accuracy and makes for less trauma and a more rapid postoperative recovery. Such features make its use mandatory in female patients of child-bearing age referred for urgent abdominal and/or pelvic surgery.
    Chirurgia italiana 03/2000; 52(2):171-8.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Although laparoscopic appendectomy is becoming the procedure of choice over open appendectomy in the treatment of appendicitis, its role in the elderly has not been widely studied. The objective of this study was to compare the 30-day outcomes after laparoscopic versus open for appendicitis in the elderly patients. Methods: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS/NSQIP) databases for years 2005-2009, 3,674 patients (age >65 years) who underwent an appendectomy for appendicitis were identified. Seventy-two percent of the procedures were performed laparoscopically. In addition to aggregate cohort analysis, propensity score 1:1 matching was used to minimize the treatment selection bias. The association between surgical approach and morbidity, mortality, and length of stay (LOS) were analyzed. Results: In the aggregate cohort analysis, patients who underwent an open appendectomy had a higher rate of minor morbidity (9.3% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.001), overall morbidity (13.4% vs. 8.2%, p < 0.001), and mortality (2% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.003). However, in the matched cohort analysis, open appendectomy was only associated with a higher rate of minor morbidity (9.3% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.002) and overall morbidity (13.4% vs. 10.1%; p = 0.02) but similar mortality rates (2% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.313). In matched cohort analysis, open appendectomy also was associated with a higher rate of superficial surgical site infection (SSI) (3.8% vs. 1.4%; p < 0.001) and a lower rate of organ/space SSI (1.3% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.009). Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter LOS in both aggregate and matched cohorts compared with open appendectomy (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Within ACS NSQIP hospitals, elderly patients benefited from a laparoscopic approach to appendicitis with regards to a shorter LOS and a lower minor and overall morbidity. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with lower superficial SSI and higher organ/space SSI rates.
    Surgical Endoscopy 10/2012; 27(4). DOI:10.1007/s00464-012-2557-0 · 3.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic procedures for removal of the appendix by the three-port technique as an alternative to conventional appendicectomy have gained wide popularity, but they have been criticized for technical difficulty, more time consumption, and high cost. We have compared conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) and laparoscope-assisted appendicectomy (LAA). In period from August 2010 to January 2012, 77 patients underwent appendicectomy by a minimally invasive procedure (39 LA and 38 LAA), at Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata. All the 39 cases of LA were completed successfully, but of the 38 cases, LAA could be completed only in 32 cases. Of the six cases where LAA could not be completed, five were converted to LA [three because of excessive body mass index (BMI) and two because of bleeding]. One case had to be converted to open appendicectomy because of excessive bleeding. In LA, the mean duration of surgery was less than that in LAA (18.18 versus 24.39 min). Wound infections were more common in LAA compared to LA (six versus two). Severe postoperative pain was present in eight cases in LAA compared to two in LA. On day 2, 79.487 % patients undergoing LA were discharged compared to 28.947 % in LAA. LA is better as a minimally invasive procedure. LAA can only be done in patients with lower BMI, is more time consuming, has more complications, more incidence of postoperative pain, wound infections, and longer hospital stay.
    Indian Journal of Surgery 01/2013; DOI:10.1007/s12262-013-0824-5 · 0.26 Impact Factor
Show more