These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: is there really any benefit?
    Author: Schroder DM, Lathrop JC, Lloyd LR, Boccaccio JE, Hawasli A.
    Journal: Am Surg; 1993 Aug; 59(8):541-7; discussion 547-8. PubMed ID: 8338286.
    Abstract:
    Laparoscopic appendectomy is emerging as a popular treatment modality for acute appendicitis. Although claims have been made to potential superiority over traditional appendectomy, comparisons of operative difficulty, hospital stay, hospital costs, complication rates, postoperative pain, and convalescence have not been well studied. Two hundred consecutive patients presenting with signs and symptoms of acute appendicitis underwent appendectomy. Traditional appendectomy was employed in 101 patients, while 99 underwent laparoscopy. Successful laparoscopic appendectomy was possible in 89 patients who were compared with the 101 patients with traditional appendectomy. There were two pregnant patients with appendicitis in each group. The incidence of acute appendicitis was 72 per cent for traditional appendectomy and 74 per cent for laparoscopic appendectomy. Operating time was significantly longer with laparoscopic appendectomy (60.1 vs 45.4 minutes, P = 0.0001). This was reflected in higher (although not significant) hospital costs ($8,683 vs $6,213). Post-op hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic appendectomy (2.7 vs 3.8 days, P = 0.001). Complication rates were no different between the two groups. Post-op pain, as evaluated by a patient grading scale, was less for laparoscopic appendectomies up to the third post-op week (P = 0.003). The amount of IM pain medication was greater with traditional appendectomy (P = 0.009). Convalescence was significantly shorter with laparoscopic appendectomy as measured by: 1) return to normal household activity (7.8 vs 13.2 days, P = 0.016), 2) returned ability to exercise (19.7 vs 29.0 days, P = 0.009), 3) patient feeling well enough to return to work (14.1 vs 19.2 days, P = 0.032), and 4) actual return to work (15.4 vs 20.5 days, P = 0.038).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]