This is the Scientific Surgery Archive, which contains all randomized clinical trials in surgery that have been identified by searching the top 50 English language medical journal issues since January 1998. Compiled by Jonothan J. Earnshaw, former Editor-in-Chief, BJS
Short‐term complications and long‐term morbidity of laparoscopic and open appendicectomy in a national cohort. BJS 2014; 101: 1135-1142.
Published: 30th June 2014
Authors: R. E. Andersson
Background
Laparoscopic appendicectomy has been proposed as the standard for surgical treatment of acute appendicitis, based on controversial evidence. This study compared outcomes after open and laparoscopic appendicectomy in a national, population‐based cohort.
Method
All patients who underwent open or intended laparoscopic appendicectomy in Sweden between 1992 and 2008 were identified from the Swedish National Patient Register. The outcomes were analysed according to intention to treat with multivariable adjustment for confounding factors and survival analytical techniques where appropriate.
Results
A total of 169 896 patients underwent open (136 754) or intended laparoscopic (33 142) appendicectomy. The rate of intended laparoscopic appendicectomy increased from 3·8 per cent (425 of 11 175) in 1992 to 32·9 per cent (3066 of 9329) in 2008. Laparoscopy was used most frequently in middle‐aged patients, women and patients with no co‐morbidity. The rate of conversion from laparoscopy to open appendicectomy decreased from 75·3 per cent (320 of 425) in 1992 to 19·7 per cent (603 of 3066) in 2008. Conversion was more frequent in women and those with perforated appendicitis, and the rate increased with age and increasing co‐morbidity. After adjustment for co‐variables, compared with open appendicectomy, laparoscopy was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (by 0·06 days), a lower frequency of negative appendicectomy (adjusted odds ratio (
Conclusion
The outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendicectomy showed a complex and contrasting pattern and small differences of limited clinical importance. The choice of surgical method therefore depends on the local situation, the surgeon's experience and the patient's preference.
Full textYou may also be interested in
Randomized clinical trial
Authors: K. Misawa, Y. Mochizuki, M. Sakai, H. Teramoto, D. Morimoto, H. Nakayama et al.
Randomized clinical trial
Authors: R. J. Hopkins, T. Irvine, G. G. Jamieson, P. G. Devitt, D. I. Watson
Randomized clinical trial
Authors: B. Sunde, F. Klevebro, A. Johar, G. Johnsen, A.‐B. Jacobsen, N. I. Glenjen et al.
Original article
Authors: Y. Baba, T. Yagi, K. Kosumi, K. Okadome, D. Nomoto, K. Eto et al.
Original article
Authors: Å. A. Fretland, V. J. Dagenborg, G. M. Waaler Bjørnelv, D. L. Aghayan, A. M. Kazaryan, L. Barkhatov et al.
Original article
Authors: J. A. Elliott, L. O'Byrne, G. Foley, C. F. Murphy, S. L. Doyle, S. King et al.
Original article
Authors: W. H. Allum, E. C. Smyth, J. M. Blazeby, H. I. Grabsch, S. M. Griffin, S. Rowley et al.
Systematic review
Authors: N. Moody, A. Adiamah, F. Yanni, D. Gomez
Article
Authors: Y. Y. Broza, S. Khatib, A. Gharra, A. Krilaviciute, H. Amal, I. Polaka et al.
Original article
Authors: S. Ahlin, C. Cefalù, I. Bondia‐Pons, E. Capristo, L. Marini, A. Gastaldelli et al.
Original article
Authors: A.‐H. Chen, W.‐H. Chan, Y.‐H. Lee, J.‐H. Tseng, T.‐S. Yeh, C.‐T. Chiu et al.
Original article
Authors: J. X. Lin, C. Yoon, J. Desiderio, B. C. Yi, P. Li, C. H. Zheng et al.