Is Laparoscopic Appendectomy the New 'Gold Standard'?
Michael Heinzelmann, MD;
Hans Peter Simmen, MD;
Annetta S. Cummins, MD;
Felix Largiadèr, MD
Arch Surg. 1995;130(7):782-785.
Abstract
| |
Objectives
To determine the efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy compared with open appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis and to compare the morbidity between the two groups.
Design
Prospective sampling of 102 patients who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy and laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis and retrospective hospital chart review of 204 patients who underwent open appendectomy for acute appendicitis.
Results
The mean±SD duration of surgery was 83±29 minutes in the laparoscopic group and 64±30 minutes in the open appendectomy group (P<.001). Hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (P<.04). There was no difference in the complication rate between the patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (13%) and the patients who underwent open appendectomy (11%). The occurrence of postoperative ileus was correlated with the duration of operation (P<.01) but not with laparoscopic appendectomy.
Conclusions
The results confirm that laparoscopic appendectomy had a longer time of surgery, a shorter hospital stay, and no difference in complications. Further investigation will likely establish that laparoscopic appendectomy can be considered the "gold standard."
(Arch Surg. 1995;130:782-785)
Author Affiliations
From the Department of Surgery, University of Zürich (Switzerland).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Acute Appendicitis: Influence of Early Pain Relief on the Accuracy of Clinical and US Findings in the Decision to Operate—A Randomized Trial
Vermeulen et al.
Radiology 1999;210:639-643.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Laparoscopic vs Open Appendectomy: Prospective Randomized Study of Outcomes
Minne et al.
Arch Surg 1997;132:708-712.
ABSTRACT
Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis
Frazee and Bohannon
Arch Surg 1996;131:509-512.
ABSTRACT
|
