This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

Arch Surg. 2001;136:1327.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

We read with great interest the ARCHIVES article by Krisher et al.¹ The hypothesis is fraught with limitations and lacks power. The following factors must be included for the study result to be considered conclusive: length of surgery, whether there was a delay in surgical intervention (because a delay allows time for lymph node translocation), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, stapled stump or endoloop for stump, duration of antibiotic use, and amount of irrigation used.

Although it is true that laparoscopic appendectomy involves prolonged operating time, it is nonetheless unfortunate that the role of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of patients with appendicitis is still debated. Many recent randomized controlled trials legitimize the benefit of laparoscopic appendectomy compared with open appendectomy.

We would like to present 2 hypotheses concerning why there is an associated increase in the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess in patients with a perforated appendix who . . . [Full Text of this Article]