Our experience with selective laparoscopy through an open appendectomy incision in the management of suspected appendicitis.

Department of Surgery, University Hospital, Dooradoyle, Limerick, Ireland.
American journal of surgery (Impact Factor: 2.36). 09/2007; 194(2):231-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.10.030
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT An accurate preoperative diagnosis of suspected appendicitis at times can be extremely difficult. We report our experience with a simple strategy of selective laparoscopy through an open appendectomy incision after finding a noninflamed appendix in the management of suspected appendicitis.
Patients presenting with suspected appendicitis after regular office hours (6 pm to 8 am weekdays and weekends) were recruited prospectively from January 2002 to December 2003. Laparoscopy through an open appendectomy incision was performed only when the appendix was found to be normal.
Twenty-five (18.5%) of 135 patients underwent laparoscopy through an open appendectomy incision because of a normal-looking appendix. Laparoscopy through an open appendectomy incision helped to identify additional intra-abdominal pathology in 13 (52%) of the 25 patients; thus improving the overall detection rate of underlying pathology from 81.5% (110 of 135) to 91.2% (123 of 135).
Selective laparoscopy through an open appendectomy incision in patients with a noninflamed appendix is a simple technique that can identify potentially fatal pathology and also maintains a valuable training opportunity for young surgeons to perform open abdominal surgery. We recommend using this technique in the management of suspected appendicitis.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Computed tomography (CT) and ultrasonography (US) do not improve the overall diagnostic accuracy for acute appendicitis. Retrospective review. University tertiary care center. Seven hundred sixty-six consecutive patients undergoing appendectomy for suspected appendicitis from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1999. Epidemiology of acute appendicitis and the roles of clinical assessment, CT, US, and laparoscopy. The negative appendectomy rate was 15.7%, and the incidence of perforated appendicitis was 14.6%. A history of migratory pain had the highest positive predictive value (91%), followed by leukocytosis greater than 12 x 10(9)/L (90.1%), CT (83.8%), and US (81.3%). The false-negative rates were 60% for CT and 76.1% for US. Emergency department evaluation took a mean +/- SD of 5.2 +/- 5.4 hours and was prolonged by US or CT (6.4 +/- 7.4 h and 7.8 +/- 10.8 h, respectively). The duration of emergency department evaluation did not affect the perforation rate, but patients with postoperative complications had longer evaluations (mean +/- SD, 8.0 +/- 12.7 h) than did those without (4.8 +/- 3.3 h) (P =.04). Morbidity was 9.1%, 6.4% for nonperforated cases and 19.8% for perforated cases. Seventy-six patients had laparoscopic appendectomy, with a negative appendectomy rate of 42.1%, compared with 15.4% for open appendectomy (P<.001). Laparoscopy, however, had minimal morbidity (1.3%) and correctly identified the abnormality in 91.6% of patients who had a normal-appearing appendix. Migratory pain, physical examination, and initial leukocytosis remain reliable and accurate in diagnosing acute appendicitis. Neither CT nor US improves the diagnostic accuracy or the negative appendectomy rate; in fact, they may delay surgical consultation and appendectomy. In atypical cases, one should consider the selective use of diagnostic laparoscopy instead.
    Archives of Surgery 05/2001; 136(5):556-62. · 4.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The frequency of computed tomography (CT) ordered by emergency department physicians at our facility was noted to sharply increase in early 1998 after a New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) article recommending routine CT in patients with suspected appendicitis. Numerous studies have proven the accuracy of CT for detecting acute appendicitis; however, the most appropriate use of CT continues to evolve. We sought to evaluate the effect of increased CT use on negative appendectomy rate and perforation rate at our institution and to better delineate in whom CT is most beneficial. CT use was retrospectively evaluated and found to sharply increase in April 1998. The authors then reviewed the medical records of 291 consecutive patients undergoing appendectomy 18 months before and after the NEJM article. Patients with interval appendectomies and those 12 years of age or younger were excluded. The remaining 226 patients constitute the study cohort. The study cohort was then divided into the two groups. The "Discriminate Group" consists of patients from the 18 months before the NEJM article impact and a period of selective CT use. The "Indiscriminate Group" comprises patients from the subsequent 18 months in which CT use was substantially higher and routinely obtained before surgical evaluation. After chart review an objective clinical score (Alvarado score) was assigned to each patient. Comparison was then made between the two groups on perforation rate, negative appendectomy rate, time delay to operating room, and Alvarado score. Additionally patients undergoing preoperative CT were compared with those without CT. These groups were also evaluated on the basis of negative appendectomy rate, perforation rate, and delay to the operating room. CT in patients with abdominal symptoms associated with appendicitis increased from 188 in the Discriminate Group to 1035 in the Indiscriminate Group. In the Discriminate Group the negative appendectomy rate was 15.1 per cent. After the indiscriminate use of CT the negative appendectomy rate decreased to 13.3 per cent, but this was not significant. Males experienced a decrease in the negative appendectomy rate from 10.1 to 6.9 per cent, whereas the rate for females increased slightly from 21.3 to 22.9 per cent. Again we found no statistical significance in these changes. The overall perforation rate of 17.9 per cent in the first 18 months decreased to 13.3 per cent in the following 18 months but again was not statistically significant. The Alvarado scores between the Discriminate and Indiscriminate groups were 6.7 and 7.3, respectively (P = 0.02). Patients with preoperative CT averaged 11.9 hours to the operating room compared with 6.5 hours for those without CT (P = 0.03). Use of CT did not decrease perforation rate but did globally reduce negative exploration (P = 0.05). This reduction in negative exploration however was not discriminated by sex. CT use in suspected acute appendicitis has greatly increased over the past several years. The dramatic increase in CT use at our institution has not resulted in dramatic decreases in negative appendectomy rate or statistically significant changes in perforation rate. The optimal use of CT in evaluating patients with suspected appendicitis has yet to be determined. Surgical consultation should be obtained early to avoid indiscriminate tests.
    The American surgeon 12/2001; 67(11):1017-21. · 0.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic techniques are increasingly used in common surgical procedures. Many of these procedures are used to teach basic surgical trainees (BST) and therefore introduction of these techniques may have implications for training. To establish whether the introduction of laparoscopic techniques reduced the opportunity of BSTs to perform surgical procedures. Patients undergoing hernia repair or appendicectomy in 1991 (when laparoscopy was first introduced) and 1997 (when laparoscopy was readily available) were identified using the Hospital In-Patient Enquiry (HIPE) database. The principal operator and whether the procedure was open or laparoscopic were identified by chart review. The data showed a 50% reduction in the number of appendicectomies performed by BSTs following the introduction of laparoscopic techniques. The number of hernia repairs performed by BSTs has been preserved but the proportion by BSTs fell from 10 to 6%. The proportion of BST-performed procedures carried out laparoscopically has been reduced compared with the registrar-performed group. The use of minimally invasive techniques has had a negative effect on surgical training. Appropriate measures must be taken to minimise this and such measures should include a structured approach to laparoscopic training and greater access to laparoscopic training facilities.
    Irish Journal of Medical Science 03/2003; 172(1):27-9. · 0.57 Impact Factor


Available from
Jun 1, 2014