Page 11 - World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery

Laparoscopic vs Mini-incision Open Appendectomy
The results of this study were comparable with results of the study LA group, 31 patients resumed their normal activity by 1 week while
20
21
conducted by Naraintran et al. and Kushwah et al. In this study, 16 patients returned to normal work between 1–2 weeks (p <0.001).
the assessment of the postoperative pain was done by using VAS Our results were in agreement with the results of the studies by
21
18
on day 1 at 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery followed by further Islam et al., Kushwa et al., and Shaikh et al. 22
assessment on day 2, 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, and then 4 weeks
after surgery. The postoperative pain score was less in LA group as conclusIon
compared to MIA group and was statistically significant in favor of
LA group. This study was comparable with the results of Naraintran We conclude that LA is safe and minimally invasive procedure
21
22
20
et al. Kushwah et al., and Shaikh et al. In this study, total for the management of appendicitis. The main advantages of
analgesia required in postoperative period was assessed and LA are less intraoperative time, less pain, less analgesic need,
calculated as the average number of analgesic injections needed early recovery, quick resumption of routine activities, and better
by each patient during the first 24 hours and the need for analgesic cosmetic results.
tablets after 24 hours. The difference was statistically significant in
favor of LA as the average number of analgesic injections needed Acknowledgments
was 2.05 in MIA group as compared to 1.41 in LA group. The The authors acknowledge the immense help received from the
statistically significant difference was also seen in the number of scholars whose articles are cited and included in references of
oral analgesic tablets needed by the patients at home. It was 5.3 this manuscript. The authors are also grateful to authors/editors/
for the MIA group and 3.2 for the LA group. publishers of all those articles, journals, and books from where the
Wound infection was not seen in any of the patients who literature for this article has been reviewed and discussed.
underwent LA. On the other hand, wound infection was seen
in six patients who had undergone MIA, which was again orcId
statistically significant (p <0.027). Our results are in agreement
21
with the results of other studies conducted by Naraintran et al. Shams Ul Bari https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5245-5440
23
and Pedersen et al. This higher rate of wound infection in MIA
group was because these cases were operated in emergency references
theatre where chances of getting infection and developing 1. Prystowsky JB, Pugh CM, Nagle AP. Current problems in surgery.
wound infections are more. While all LAs were performed in Appendicitis. Curr Probl Surg 2005;42(10):688–742. DOI: 10.1067/j.
main theatre as laparoscope is not available in emergency theatre cpsurg.2005.07.005.
of our hospital. Those who developed wound infection were 2. Majeed AW, Troy G, Nicholl JP, et al. Randomized, prospective,
managed conservatively with IV antibiotics and daily dressings. single-blind comparison of laparoscopic versus small-incision
Two patients with wound infection had wound dehiscence and cholecystectomy. Lancet 1996;347(9007):989–994. DOI: 10.1016/
needed secondary suturing. s0140-6736(96)90143-9.
Two patients from MIA group developed intra-abdominal 3. Hellberg A, Rudberg C, Kullman E, et al. Prospective randomized
multicentre study of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. Br
abscess and both patients were managed conservatively with J Surg 1999;86(1):48–53. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.00971.x.
intravenous fluids and intravenous antibiotics and were discharged 4. Heikkinen TJ, Haukipuro K, Hulkko A. Cost-effective appendectomy.
after complete recovery without any intervention. On the other Open or laparoscopic? A prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc
hand, one patient from LA group reported back to hospital, five 1998;12(10):1204–1208. DOI: 10.1007/s004649900821.
days after discharge from hospital with sepsis. The patient was 5. Katkhouda N, Mason RJ, Towfigh S, et al. Laparoscopic versus open
evaluated with ultrasonography and CT abdomen which revealed appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study. Ann
large intra-abdominal abscess. The patient was taken for diagnostic Surg 2005;242(3):439–448. DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000179648.75373.2f.
laparoscopy and about 1 L of pus was drained; normal saline washes 6. Ellis H, Nathanson LK. Maingot’s abdominal operations. In: Michael
JZ, Stanley WA, Douglas SS, editors. Appendix and Appendectomy,
were given and drain was placed and finally patient was discharged 11th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2007, pp.589–608.
after five days. The p-value was statistically insignificant (p = 1). Our 7. Frazee RC, Roberts JW, Symmonds RE, et al. A prospective randomized
9
results were comparable with studies of Chung et al. and Garbutt trial comparing open versus laparoscopic appendectomy. Ann Surg
24
et al. In this study, four patients from MIA group developed 1994;219(6):725–728. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199406000-00017.
ileus, while none of the patients from LA group developed ileus 8. Golub R, Siddiqui F, Pohl D. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy:
(p = 0.118). Results of this study were in contrast to the results of A meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg 1998;186:545–553. DOI: 10.1016/
the study done by Shaikh et al. 22 s1072-7515(98)00080-5.
In this study, 3 patients from MIA group developed intestinal 9. Chung RS, Rowland DY, Li P. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled
trials of laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy. Am J Surg
obstruction during a follow-up period of 4 weeks and were 1999;177(3):250–256. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9610(99)00017-3.
managed conservatively. Our results were comparable with the 10. Sauerland S, Lefering R, Holthausen U, et al. Laparoscopic vs
8
results of the study done by Golub et al. and Biondi et al. 25 conventional appendectomy: A meta-analysis of randomized
In MIA group, 8 patients resumed orals between 12–24 hours controlled trials. Arch Surg 1998;383(3–4):289–295. DOI: 10.1007/
while 44 patients resumed orals 24 hours after surgery. On the s004230050135.
other hand, in a LA group, 36 patients resumed orals by 12 hours, 11. Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EA. Laparoscopic versus open
10 patients resumed orals between 12–24 hours and 3 patients surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
resumed orals 24 hours after surgery. This was statistically significant 2002;1:CD001546. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001546.
in favor of LA (p <0.001). Our results are in agreement with the results 12. Deshmukh S, Verde F, Johnson PT, et al. Anatomical variants and
pathologies of the vermix. Emerg Radiol 2014;21:543–552. DOI:
of study conducted by Shaikh et al. 22 10.1007/s10140-014-1206-4.
In MIA group, only 2 patients returned to routine work within 13. Uptal D. Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. Chin J Dig Dis
2 weeks, while 50 patients resumed normal work after 2 weeks. In 2005;6:165–169. DOI: 10.1111/j.1443-9573.2005.00225.x.

World Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery, Volume 15 Issue 3 (September–December 2022) 197