Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children: a prospective randomised study. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for confirmed appendicitis. A prospective, randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy. Laparoscopic Appendectomy Study Group. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: prospective randomized trial. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized trial of 81 patients. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized comparison. Laparoscopic appendectomy: An unnecessary and expensive procedure in children? [Laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy in suspected acute appendicitis in female patients]. Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. A randomized clinical trial. Needlescopic, laparoscopic, and open appendectomy: a comparative study. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. Laparoscopic versus open surgical exploration in premenopausal women with suspected acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy. Prospective randomized study of outcomes. A quality of life comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches in acute appendicitis: a randomised prospective study. [Post-appendectomy immunologic competence in pediatric age. The results do not always match expectations. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy]. The utility of laparoscopy in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in women of reproductive age. Randomized study of the value of laparoscopy before appendicectomy. Laparoscopic appendectomy: differences between male and female patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Laparoscopy reduces unnecessary appendicectomies and improves diagnosis in fertile women. A randomized study. [Laparoscopic or classical appendectomy? A prospective randomized study]. Laparoscopic appendectomy-is it worthwhile? A prospective, randomized study in young women. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: prospective randomized trial. Cost-effective appendectomy. Open or laparoscopic? A prospective randomized study. Diagnostic laparoscopy reduces unnecessary appendicectomy in fertile women. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in females with a clinical diagnosis of appendicitis. Effect of laparoscopy on bacteremia in acute appendicitis: a randomized controlled study. Laparoscopy not recommended for routine appendectomy in men: results of a prospective randomized study. Laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with a body mass index of 25 or greater: results of a double blind, prospective, randomized trial. [Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy: a prospective randomized study]. Laparoscopic vs open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a prospective, randomized trial. [Does laparoscopy increase the bacteriological risk of appendectomy? Results of a randomized prospective study]. Randomized controlled trial with sequential design of laparoscopic versus conventional appendicectomy. The comparison of laparoscopic and open ventral hernia repairs: a prospective randomized study. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open abdominal rectopexy for rectal prolapse. Randomized, single-blinded trial of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children: effects on postoperative analgesia. A comparison between open versus laparoscopic assisted colonic pouches for rectal cancer. A randomized prospective study of laparoscopy and laparotomy in the management of benign ovarian masses. Inflammatory response is no different in children randomized to laparoscopic or open appendectomy. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding versus open vertical banded gastroplasty: a prospective randomized trial. Value of laparoscopic assistance for vaginal hysterectomy with prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy. Abdominal access in gynaecological laparoscopy: a comparison between direct optical and blind closed access by Verres needle. Acute nonspecific abdominal pain: A randomized, controlled trial comparing early laparoscopy versus clinical observation. Randomized clinical trial of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the treatment of morbid obesity. [Clinical comparison of laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) and total laparoscopy hysterectomy (TLH) in women with benign disease of uterus--a prospective randomized study]. Hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis: a randomized trial. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study. A comparative study between laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy in men.
43 children between the ages of 7 and 15 years with clinical symptoms of acute appendicitis were randomised to an open appendectomy (OA) or a laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). There were 15 acute cases of appendicitis and 5 perforated appendices in the OA group and 17 acute appendicitis, 3 cases of perforated appendices and 3 other diagnoses in the LA group. The operative time was a little shorter in the OA group. There were no differences in hospital stay or the postoperative course of the patients. In the LA group, there were two minor complications, no other complications were seen. When comparing the two surgical methods in the consistent group of patients with non-perforated acute appendicitis no statistical differences were seen in the operative time, hospital stay or in the recovery of the patients between the OA and the LA groups.We conclude that LA has no significant benefit over OA in routine use. In paediatric patients we recommend an open approach for clinically typical acute appendicitis, but there should be no hesitation to choose laparoscopic approach when the clinical diagnosis is unclear. Laparoscopy is safe for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. This study compared recovery after laparoscopic (LA) and open appendicectomy (OA) for confirmed appendicitis, carried out by experienced surgeons in an educational setting.
                One hundred and sixty-three patients with laparoscopically confirmed appendicitis suitable for LA were randomized prospectively to either LA or OA in a blinded fashion. The primary endpoint was time to full recovery. Secondary endpoints were operating time, complications, hospital stay and functional status.
                There was no significant difference between LA and OA in time to full recovery (9 and 11 days respectively; P = 0.225). Operating time was 55 min in the LA group and 60 min in the OA group (P = 0.416). The complication rate was 8.6 and 11.0 per cent respectively (P = 0.696), and median hospital stay was 2 days in both groups (P = 0.192). Functional status was significantly better in the LA group 7-10 days after operation (P = 0.045).
                There was no difference in time to full recovery after LA and OA in patients with laparoscopically confirmed appendicitis. A trend towards better physical activity was noted after the laparoscopic procedure. While the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy are clear, the benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) are more subtle. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to evaluate whether LA is deserving of more widespread clinical application than it has yet received.
                Two hundred fifty-three patients with a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized into three groups. LA with an endoscopic linear stapler (LAS) (U.S. Surgical Corp., Norwalk, Connecticut) was performed on 78 patients, LA with catgut ligatures (LAL) on 89, and open appendectomy (OA) on 86. LA was performed with a three-trocar technique. OA was accomplished through a right lower-quadrant transverse incision. Data with normal distributions were analyzed by analysis of variance. Nonparametric data were analyzed with either the Kruskal-Wallis H test or Fisher's exact test.
                The mean operative times for the procedures were 66 +/- 24 minutes (LAS), 68 +/- 25 minutes (LAL), and 58 +/- 27 minutes (OA). The relative brevity of OA compared to LAS and LAL was statistically significant (P < 0.01). Conversion to open procedures was approximately as frequent in the LAS group (n = 5) and the LAL (n = 6). One OA, 2 LAS, and 11 LAL patients experienced vomiting postoperatively (P < 0.05). Two intra-abdominal abscesses occurred in LAS, 4 in LAL, and 0 in OA patients (P = NS). Wound infections were more common following OA (n = 11) than LAL (n = 4) or LAS (n = 0) (P < 0.05, < 0.001). The mean length of postoperative hospital stay was 2.16 +/- 3.2 days (LAS), 2.98 +/- 2.7 days (LAL), and 2.83 +/- 1.6 (OA) (P < 0.05 OA versus LAS). The number of days patients required pain medications overall was not different between groups, but a subgroup analysis of 134 patients who rated their postoperative pain on a visual analogue scale revealed a significantly lower mean level among patients undergoing LA (LAS and LAL) versus OA (P < 0.001). Patients undergoing LA resumed regular activities sooner than those undergoing OA (9 +/- 9 days versus 14 +/- 11 days, P < 0.001). Rates of readmission to the hospital were similar for all procedures.
                Laparoscopic appendectomy appears to have distinct advantages over open appendectomy. The laparoscopic procedures produced less pain and allowed more rapid return to full activities, and LAS required shorter hospital stays. The only disadvantages to the laparoscopic approach were slightly increased operative time for both procedures, and increased emesis following LAL. Although classic open surgery is simple, expeditious, and effective, it has some drawbacks, including wound sepsis, delayed recovery, operative difficulties, and possibility of unnecessary appendectomies for false appendicitis. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability and safety of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in a prospectively randomized trial. Seventy nonselective patients with suspected appendicitis were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 35, 17 male) or open appendectomy (n = 35, 15 male) and operated on an emergency basis. Operative findings, operating time, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay were compared. We found that LA is associated with a shorter hospital stay, fewer postoperative complications, and better diagnostic accuracy, and it is recommended as the procedure of choice for the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. To compare the efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) in the treatment of acute appendicitis.
                A prospective randomized trial.
                A university teaching hospital.
                Eighty-one patients with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis were prospectively randomized to undergo either LA or OA. The two groups were matched for age and sex.
                LA or OA.
                Number of days in hospital and time to full recovery.
                The mean hospital stay for LA was 3.23 days compared with 3.03 days for OA (p < 0.001). The mean number of narcotic injections required for patients in the LA group was 4.05 compared with 5.58 for patients in the OA group (p < 0.001). The mean time to complete recovery for patients in the LA group was 9.0 days compared with 16.2 days for patients in the OA group (p < 0.001). The mean operative time for LA was 73.8 minutes compared with 45.0 minutes for OA (p < 0.001). Three patients in the LA group had intra-abdominal abscesses (p > 0.25). No significant difference in wound infection rates was demonstrated (p > 0.05). Similarly, pain scores at 7 and 28 days showed no significant difference (p > 0.05).
                With LA significantly fewer narcotic injections are required and there is a more rapid return to normal activities. LA takes longer to perform and was associated with three intra-abdominal abscesses. In cases of simple acute appendicitis the hospital stay for LA is significantly shorter. Whether laparoscopy offers a benefit over open surgery in the management of acute appendicitis or not remains a subject of controversy despite the publication of numerous randomized studies. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) with open appendectomy (OA) and to ascertain its therapeutic benefit.
                Adult patients older than 14 years presenting with signs and symptoms suggestive of acute appendicitis were randomized to undergo either LA or OA from January 2006 to December 2007. Comparisons were based on operating time, time until return to a general diet, time until return to normal activity and work, length of hospital stay, billed charges, and postoperative complications.
                The study enrolled 220 patients: 108 to undergo OA and 112 to undergo LA. The groups were similar in terms of clinicopathologic characteristics. The operating time seemed to be shorter for the OA patients than for the LA patients, but the difference was not significant (LA, 30 +/- 15.2 min vs. OA, 28.7 +/- 16.3 min; p > 0.05). The hospital stay of 4.1 +/- 1.5 days for the LA group and 7.2 +/- 1.7 days for the OA group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Laparoscopic appendectomy remained associated with a shorter time until return to a general diet (LA, 20.2 +/- 12.4 h vs. OA, 36.5 +/- 10 h; p < 0.05), to normal activity (LA, 9.1 +/- 4.2 days vs. OA, 13.7 +/- 5.8 days; p < 0.05), and to work (LA, 21.2 +/- 3.5 days vs. OA, 27.7 +/- 4.9 days; p < 0.05). The billed charges appeared to be higher for LA (LA, 5,720.3 +/- 115.7 yuan vs. OA, 5,310 +/- 575.4 yuan), but this difference failed to be clinically important or statistically significant (p > 0.05). Wound infections were more common after OA (n = 14) than after LA (n = 0) (p < 0.05). Intraabdominal abscesses occurred for two patients in the LA group and nine patients in the OA group (p < 0.05). Postoperative ileus occurred with frequencies of 0% in the LA group and 7.4% in the OA group (p < 0.05). The rate for overall complications was significantly lower in the LA group.
                Laparoscopic appendectomy is a useful tool in the treatment of acute appendicitis. Its advantages lie in its minimal invasiveness, its better cosmetic outcome, its lower rate of complications based on surgical expertise and state-of-the-art equipment. It can be recommended as an adoptable method for the routine patient with appendicitis. Laparoscopic Appendectomy (LA) is a safe procedure in adults resulting in shorter hospitalization and sooner return to activity. The relative merits of LA and open appendectomy (OA) are evaluated in this first prospective and randomized study in children.
                A total of 129 children with appendicitis were included. Forty-three boys and 45 girls, age 1 to 16 years, were enrolled. Randomization was determined by sealed assignment card. OA utilized a 3- to 4-cm right lower quadrant, muscle-splitting incision. Wounds were closed without drains. Antibiotics, when used, consisted of gentamycin, clindamycin, and ampicillin. LA was performed by experienced surgeons utilizing a 3-trocar technique with reusable instruments. Twenty-one children (24%) were perforated. Patients were discharged as soon as they were taking a diet and afebrile. Statistical comparisons were by Fisher's Exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.
                There were no differences in postoperative analgesia, resumption of oral intake, length of hospitalization, return to normal activities, or morbidity. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with longer operating times and increased cost.
                Laparoscopic appendectomy in children is not associated with the same advantages reported in adults. LA is a more expensive alternative and offers no advantages related to pain relief, length of stay, return to normal activities, or morbidity.
                Copyright 2002 by W.B. Saunders Company. The aim of the study is to analyse the own data and try to discuss if laparoscopic appendectomy offers any advantages in treating young women suffering from pain in right lower abfdominal quadrant.
                The study was conducted on 148 patients admitted from October 1993 to December 1998 with diagnosis of of pain in right iliac fossa and operated on with a laparoscopic (LA group: 75 cases) or open approach (OA group: 73 cases). Patients were prospectively randomized on the surgical approach adopted, following a randomized list.
                The operative time in LA group was significantly (p < 0.001) longer (87.2 minutes) than for OA group (65.2 minutes). In 2 patients (2.7%) the operation had to be converted. Diagnosis had remained unknown in 16 patients (21.9%) of OA group, in spite of only one case (1.4%) with laparoscopic technique. We didn't observed intraoperative complications. Pain in the first and second postoperative days, evaluated on the use of pain medication, was significantly less in patients in group LA (p < 0.01). There were no deaths. Postoperative complications occurred in 4 patients (5.5%) of group LA, and in 8 patients (10.9%) of group OA. Hospital stay was significantly shorter for those having laparoscopic appendectomy (p < 0.001).
                The main advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy consist more in diagnostic accuracy, than in less postoperative pain, less hospital stay and less postoperative complications.
                Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe and accurate approach. A randomized clinical trial was performed to compare open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).
                201 patients with similar characteristics of appendicitis were randomized to either OA or LA. Operative time and technique, reintroduction of diet, postoperative pain, use of analgesia, hospital stay, and complications were documented.
                104 patients were allocated to the OA group and 97 to the LA group. Postoperative pain was significantly less in the LA group on the 1st (p < 0.001) and 2nd (p < 0.001) postoperative day, resulting in less use of analgesics on both days (p < 0.001). Restoration of diet was similar in both groups. Mean operative time was longer in the LA group: 61 vs 41 min (p < 0.001). Postoperative complications did not differ in either group, except for wound infections (six OA group vs zero LA group, p < 0.05). Mean hospital stay was similar in both groups.
                LA results in less postoperative pain and fewer wound infections. The laparoscopic procedure is technically more demanding to perform, resulting in longer operative time. The benefits of laparoscopic appendectomy appear to be controversial. Since 1994, several abdominal procedures have been completed by using the needlescopic technique, but there appear to be no prospective studies to demonstrate the perceived benefits of needlescopic appendectomy. The authors compared open, laparoscopic, and needlescopic appendectomy in a randomized fashion with regard to duration of surgery, length of hospitalization, analgesic dosage, and surgery-associated complications. From March to July 1998, 75 patients admitted at the emergency station of the authors' hospital with a final diagnosis of acute appendicitis without tumor formation were randomized to receive one of the three treatment categories: open (OA), laparoscopic (LA), and needlescopic (nLA) appendectomy. Laparoscopic and needlescopic appendectomy were performed by using a three-port technique, although the size of the trocar used varied. There were 26 patients in the OA group, 23 in the LA group, and 26 in the nLA group. The mean operation durations for the OA, LA, and nLA groups were 55.4 +/- 28.0 minutes, 69.1 +/- 48.8 minutes, and 62.3 +/- 26.3 minutes, respectively, and these were not significantly different from one another. The mean number of the analgesic doses (Pethidine 1 mg/kg) required was 1.3 +/- 1.2 mg/kg, 0.5 +/- 0.8 mg/kg, and 0.2 +/- 0.6 mg/kg, respectively. Significant differences were noted when comparing the OA with the LA or nLA groups (OA vs. LA, P = 0.02; OA vs. nLA, P = 0.0002; LA vs. nLA, P = 0.06). The mean oral intake durations were 32.2 +/- 16.9 hours, 21.0 +/- 14.6 hours, and 20.8 +/- 16.4 hours, respectively, after surgery for the OA, LA, and nLA groups, and the between-group differences were statistically significant for the OA versus LA group ( P = 0.004) and for the OA versus nLA group ( P = 0.003). The mean durations of hospitalization for the OA, LA, and nLA groups were 3.6 +/-1.8 days, 2.8 +/- 1.4 days, and 2.4 +/- 0.9 days, and difference was detected between the OA and the nLA groups ( P = 0.02). The OA group rendered a greater wound-complication rate and ileus than did the other two groups, but the differences were not detected between the three categories ( P = 0.065, 0.6935). The result of the current study confirmed that the nLA procedure is a feasible and safe one. The nLA procedure provided substantial advantages over the OA procedure in the contexts of diminished postoperative pain and shorter hospital stay without significant increases in postoperative complication rate or surgical time. This prospective clinical study was done because our initial retrospective review suggested that laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) offers no significant advantages over open appendectomy (OA) yet is significantly more expensive. From July 1992 to August 1993, 57 patients were approached preoperatively for randomization to either LA (n = 19) or OA (n = 18). There were no statistically significant differences between the LA and OA groups in operative risk: mean age, 28 +/- 2 vs 26 +/- 2 years; percent female, 26% vs 22%; body mass index, 24 +/- 0.8 vs 26 +/- 1.2 kg/m2. All patients were either ASA class I or class II, 78% in each group being class II. The differences between the LA and OA groups in mean operating time required (93 +/- 12 vs 87 +/- 8 minutes), postoperative intramuscular narcotic analgesic usage (24 +/- 6 vs 26 +/- 6 hours), postoperative hospital stay (57 +/- 12 vs 66 +/- 10 hours), and return to normal activity (20 +/- 6 vs 14 +/- 3 days) were also not significant. However, LA was much more expensive because of higher operating room charges. The mean total hospital bill was $4,600 +/- $160 for the LA group and $1,700 +/- $70 for the OA group. This prospective study corroborated our previous analysis. Laparoscopic appendectomy is safe, effective, and expensive and overall has no greatly significant advantages over open appendectomy. To assess the utility of laparoscopic versus conventional surgical exploration in premenopausal women with suspected acute appendicitis.
                Female patients aged 15-45 years in whom an independent decision to undertake surgical exploration had been made, were randomised to laparoscopic or open procedures. Comparison of patient groups was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.
                Eighteen patients underwent laparoscopic exploration, with 1 procedure requiring conversion to lower midline laparotomy. Open surgical exploration was performed primarily in 16 patients. Postoperative complications (3 patients versus 1 patient) and diagnostic errors (5 patients versus 1 patient) were more frequent in patients undergoing open surgical procedures. Laparoscopic procedures tended to be of longer duration than open operations, but were generally associated with slightly more favourable indices of postoperative recovery (analgesic requirement, postoperative hospitalisation, return to normal activity, return to work). In patients found not to have acute appendicitis, the difference in mean postoperative hospitalisation following laparoscopic intervention (2.6 days) and conventional surgery (3.4 days) approached statistical significance (p < 0.1).
                Laparoscopy may carry some diagnostic advantage over open surgery in premenopausal women with suspected acute appendicitis. Patients found not to have acute appendicitis have a marginally shorter period of hospitalisation after laparoscopic intervention. The outcome following laparoscopic appendicectomy for confirmed acute appendicitis is at least equivalent to that achieved with conventional appendicectomy. Laparoscopic exploration is an acceptable option in premonopausal women requiring surgery for suspected acute appendicitis. To compare open appendectomy (OA) with laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for length of the operation, complications, postoperative pain control, length of hospitalization, postdischarge recovery time, and hospital charges.
                Prospective randomized clinical trial of patients with acute appendicitis.
                Tertiary care, urban teaching hospital.
                A population-based sample of patients (aged > or = 12 years; weight, > 49.7 kg) admitted to a surgical teaching service with a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Patients were prospectively randomized to either OA or LA during a 20-month period (from April 1, 1994, to December 31, 1995). Fifty-seven patients were initially enrolled in the study; 7 did not complete the study because of a protocol violation. All remaining patients completed the study, including postdischarge follow-up.
                Two (7.4%) of the 27 patients in the LA group required conversion to OA because of technical difficulties. One patient (in the OA group) underwent a second surgical procedure for drainage of a pelvic abscess. Three patients (in the LA group) required second surgical procedures. For analysis, no crossovers were allowed and all patients remained in their originally randomized group.
                Length of the operation, intraoperative and postoperative complications, postoperative pain control, length of hospitalization, postdischarge recovery time, and hospital charges.
                Fifty patients (19 women and 31 men) were examined. Twenty-seven patients underwent LA, 2 requiring conversion to an OA. Twenty-three patients underwent an OA. Patient demographics were similar between groups. Statistical differences between the 2 groups were found for (1) length of the operation (median, 81.7 vs 66.8 minutes, LA vs OA groups: P < .002), (2) operating room charges (median, $3191 vs $1514, LA vs OA group; P < .001), and (3) total hospital charges (median, $5430 vs $3673, LA vs OA group; P < .001). No statistical differences between the 2 groups were found for (1) length of hospitalization (median, 1.1 vs 1.2 days, LA vs OA group), (2) pain control (mean, 4 vs 3.7 of 10 [0 indicates least pain; 10, most pain], LA vs OA group), (3) recovery time (time necessary before returning to work or school) (median, 14.0 days for both groups), and (4) complications (5 vs 1, LA vs OA group).
                Laparoscopic appendectomies and OAs are comparable for complications, postoperative pain control, length of hospitalization, and recovery time. Patients who underwent an OA had a shorter operative time and lower operating room and hospital charges. Laparoscopic appendectomy does not offer any proved benefits compared with the open approach for the routine patient with acute appendicitis. The study aimed to evaluate the utility of a laparoscopic approach in the management of patients with right lower abdominal pain and in the quality of life after the operation.
                Patients with suspected appendicitis were included in the study. They were randomly assigned either to treatment with a traditional open approach or with a laparoscopic approach. The patients' data, including demographic data, complications and gastro-intestinal quality of life index scores, were collected at the 6th week and 6th month and compared between the groups.
                Overall, 83 appendectomies were performed. Other pathologies were ovulation bleeding, ovarian cyst, Meckel's diverticulum, ectopic pregnancy and leiomyoma of the uterus. Negative appendectomy rate was 7%. Severe infection occurred in five of the open group. The advantages of the laparoscopy also showed significantly in hospital stay (55.80 +/- 20.97 hours vs. 75.06 +/- 35.14 hours), the need for narcotics and in visual analog score, as well as in the gastrointestinal quality of life index (85.88 +/- 9.73 vs 101.30 +/- 9.31). The quality of life is still better in the long-term (95.14 +/- 8.45 vs 120.36 +/- 10.25). When the groups were compared according to the subgroups of gastro-intestinal quality of life index, except for disease-specific items, in all categories a significant improvement was seen in the laparoscopically treated patients. This improvement was observed in the follow-up period also. However, the hospital costs (987.50 +/- 77.25 USD vs. 406.27 +/- 100.59 USD) and operative time (56.25 +/- 10.9 vs. 49.41 +/- 11.76 minutes) still continued to be a problem for the laparoscopic group.
                Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe method, which also has advantages of diagnostic procedure for other pathologies, a better quality of life both in the early and late period, and a short hospital stay. The important advantage is also seen in the late period with better quality of life. Impairment of immune function after surgery may be the main mechanism causing increased susceptibility to infection. In our study we evaluated the post-operative immunocompetence in pediatric patients, treated for acute appendicitis by laparotomy or by laparoscopy, with the intent to clarify the difference between the immune responses induced by two different surgical approaches.
                Two groups of twenty children suffering from acute appendicitis were randomly allocated for laparoscopic or laparotomic surgery. Immunologic function was assessed by a count of lymphocyte subsets and monocytes expressing human leukocyte antigen DR (HLA-DR), using FITC or PE-labeled monoclonal antibodies and a FACScan cytofluorimeter. Blood samples were obtained immediately before the surgical therapy, and 2 and 8 days after therapy. For statistical analysis the continuous variables were compared by Student's t-Test. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant.
                In the post-operative period the counts of T-lymphocytes and monocytes expressing HLA-DR were similar in both groups. Overall, no statistically significant differences were observed; in particular, we did not find any impairment of immune function.
                This study demonstrates the lack of impairment of cell-mediated immune function after surgery in children treated by laparotomy and by laparoscopy. The physiological integrity of children can probably explain this finding, since in the case of adults numerous papers have reported an immunological depression, more pronounced after laparotomy than after laparoscopy. To see whether laparoscopy improves the accuracy of a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis in women of reproductive age, and to determine what the long-term sequelae are of not removing an appendix deemed at laparoscopy to be normal.
                The initial part of the study was undertaken during 1991-1992. Female patients between 16 and 45 years were eligible for inclusion once a clinical decision had been made to perform an appendicectomy for suspected acute appendicitis. Following consent, patients were randomized into two groups. One group had open appendicectomy, as planned. The other group had laparoscopy, followed by open appendicectomy only if the appendix was seen to be inflamed or was not visualized. The end points for the study were the clinical outcomes of all patients, and the results of histology, where appropriate. An attempt was made to contact all patients at 10 years to determine whether they had had a subsequent appendicectomy, or had been diagnosed with another abdominal condition that might be relevant to the initial presentation in 1991-1992.
                Laparoscopic assessment was correct in all cases in which the appendix was visualized. Diagnostic accuracy was improved from 75% to 97%. Laparoscopy was associated with no added complications, no increase in hospital stay in patients who went on to appendicectomy, and a reduction in hospital stay for those who underwent laparoscopy alone. No patients developed a problem over the 10-year follow-up period from having a normal-looking appendix not removed at laparoscopy.
                Laparoscopic assessment of the appendix is reliable, and to leave a normal-looking appendix at laparoscopy does not appear to cause any long-term problems. Two groups of 30 women with clinical signs of appendicitis were randomized to immediate appendicectomy or diagnostic laparoscopy. In the latter group, appendicectomy was performed if a diagnosis of acute appendicitis was established or if the appendix could not be visualized. Eleven patients undergoing immediate operation had unnecessary appendicectomy, compared with two having laparoscopy. This difference of 30 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval 11-49 per cent) was significant (P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in postoperative morbidity rate in the two groups. Diagnostic laparoscopy is a useful preliminary investigation in women with clinical signs of acute appendicitis. The role of laparoscopy in the management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis remains controversial. It has been suggested that laparoscopy is useful mainly in young women of reproductive age because of the high incidence of wrong diagnosis in these patients.
                Different management protocols for patients with suspected acute appendicitis were prospectively used in male and female patients; women of reproductive age were treated laparoscopically, while men were randomised to open or laparoscopic appendectomy.
                From September 2002 to September 2005, 132 patients-54 women and 78 men-with suspected acute appendicitis were treated according to the protocol. The incidence of wrong diagnosis in female patients was high (26% and the conversion rate low (5.5%). In contrast, in the laparoscopic male subgroup, these rates showed a reverse relationship (5.2% and 18.5%, respectively). Morbidity did not differ between female and male patients or between the 2 arms of the male group. Laparoscopic appendectomy took longer to perform without affecting significantly the needs for postoperative analgesia, the duration of hospital stay and the time to return to normal activities when compared with open appendectomy in men.
                Laparoscopic appendectomy is at least as safe as the open procedure in the male population, although it does not appear to offer any obvious advantage over the open procedure. The diagnostic advantage that laparoscopy offers to fertile women makes the procedure attractive for this population. The aim of this study was to study the value of diagnostic laparoscopy prospectively in fertile women scheduled for acute appendectomy.
                For this study, 110 women, with acute abdominal pain ages 15 to 47 years, in whom the surgeon had decided to perform an appendectomy, were randomized to either open appendectomy or diagnostic laparoscopy, then open appendectomy if necessary.
                Appendicitis was diagnosed in 66% of the women after open surgery, and in 73% after laparoscopy. During laparoscopy, was appendicitis misdiagnosed in only 7% of the women, from whom the appendix unnecessarily removed, whereas 34% in the open surgery group had a healthy appendix removed. No appendicitis was missed in the laparoscopic group. The relative risk of removing a healthy appendix in open surgery was 6.6 relative risk (range, 2-21 C.I.) as compared with laparoscopy. Among the women with a healthy appendix, a gynecologic diagnosis was found in 73% after laparoscopy, as compared with 17% after open surgery.
                Laparoscopy reduces unnecessary appendectomies and improves diagnosis in fertile women. Though laparoscopic appendectomy started endoscopic surgery in general surgery, it has yet not reached the acceptance as is the case with cholecystectomy. The application of this technique in possibly bland appendices and reports that the technique was accompanied by severe complications, increases the scepticism about it. This made us decide to start a randomized controlled trial: laparoscopic vs. conventional appendectomy. More than 1000 endoscopic interventions mainly performed at the gallbladder and the stomach and 165 prospectively documented and partly treated patients with acute appendicitis were the basis to start this trial. "Acute Appendicitis" was diagnosed on the basis of clinical symptoms by means of the computer-aided questionnaire of the EC-study "Acute Abdominal Pain", a self-developed validated diagnostic score, the macroscopic findings and the careful assessment of the histology of the resected appendix. Beside the technical feasibility, principle end-points were mainly intensity and course of postoperative pain measured by means of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in lying, standing and moving position and the postoperative consumption of analgesics. We assessed a difference of 15 points on the VAS as clinically relevant. Of 57 patients with acute appendicitis we performed open appendectomy in 23 and laparoscopy in 34 patients according to randomization. In 9 patients of the laparoscopy group it was necessary to change over to open appendectomy for different reasons resulting in a direct comparison of 25 laparoscopies versus 23 open appendectomies. There were no differences between sociodemographic and preclinical data in both groups.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis is most difficult in fertile-age women. In this patient group up to 50% of open appendectomies are negative for appendicitis. We conducted a randomized study to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy in young female patients with suspected acute appendicitis.
                Fifty female patients between the ages of 16 and 40 years presenting with acute right lower abdominal pain were randomized, 25 to laparoscopy and 25 to an open appendectomy. Diagnostic accuracy, rate of negative appendectomies, safety, and final outcome were compared in the two groups.
                Diagnosis was established in 96% of patients in the laparoscopic group and in 72% in the open group. There were 11 (44%) unnecessary appendectomies in the open group, but only one (4%) in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.0005).
                In young women with right lower abdominal pain, laparoscopy can give precise diagnosis and reduce the rate of negative appendectomies. To study comparative results between laparoscopic and open appendectomy, all the patients with suspected acute appendicitis who presented between January 1992 and December 1994 (N = 210) were randomized into two groups: laparoscopic (LA, n = 106) and open appendectomy (OA, n = 104). Patient demographics, pathological findings, operative time, postoperative course, and cost were analyzed. Age, gender, previous laparotomy, intraoperative diagnosis, and perforated appendix rate were comparable between both groups. Mean operative time was longer in the LA group (p < 0.05). Earlier resumption of a regular diet, shorter postoperative stay, and less postoperative analgesia also were observed in the LA group (p < 0.05). Postoperative morbidity and hospital readmissions were similar in both groups (p > 0.05). Higher operative cost was observed in the LA group, but global cost was lower in this group (p < 0.05). Laparoscopic appendectomy shows a more comfortable postoperative course (oral resumption, postoperative stay, and analgesia) over open appendectomy, with similar postoperative morbidity. The LA group showed more operative but less global cost. Laparoscopy in patients with a clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis has not gained wide acceptance, and its use remains controversial.
                In a randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy, 583 of 828 consecutive patients consented to participate. Three hundred and one patients were allocated to open appendicectomy and 282 patients to laparoscopy, 65 of whom required conversion to open appendicectomy. Length of stay in hospital was the primary endpoint, while operating time, postoperative morbidity, duration of convalescence and cosmesis were secondary endpoints.
                Intention-to-treat analysis revealed an equally short hospital stay in the two groups (median 2 days). The median time to return to normal activity (7 versus 10 days) and work (10 versus 16 days) was significantly shorter following laparoscopy. Laparoscopy was associated with fewer wound infections (P < 0.03) and improved cosmesis (P < 0.001), but the operating time was longer (60 versus 40 min). Laparoscopy was associated with more intraperitoneal abscesses (5 versus 1 per cent) but, adjusted for a greater number of gangrenous or perforated appendices in this group, the difference failed to reach statistical significance.
                Hospital stay was equally short, whereas laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with fewer wound infections, faster recovery, earlier return to work and improved cosmesis. A prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy in patients with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis was conducted between October 1992 and April 1994. Of the 158 patients randomized, 7 patients were excluded because of protocol violations (conversion to laparotomy in 4, appendix not removed in 3). The 151 patients randomized to either a laparoscopic (n = 79) or an open appendectomy (n = 72) showed no difference in sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) rating, or previous abdominal surgery. The histologic classification of normal, catarrhal, inflamed, suppurative, and gangrenous appendicitis was not different between the two groups. Conversion from laparoscopic to open appendectomy was necessary in seven patients (9%) who had advanced forms of appendiceal inflammation. When compared to open appendectomy the laparoscopic group had a longer median operating time (63 minutes versus 40 minutes), fewer wound infections (2% versus 11%), less requirement for narcotic analgesia, and an earlier return to normal activity (median 7 days versus 14 days). There was no difference in morbidity, and both groups had a median time to discharge of 3 days. Laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe as open appendectomy; and despite the longer operating time, the advantages such as fewer wound infections and earlier return to normal activity make it a worthwhile alternative for patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA). Methods: Forty consecutive patients were randomized to either the LA (n = 19) or OA (n = 21) group.
                The medians of operative times in the LA and OA groups were 31.5 and 41 min, respectively. The total operation room times were 91 and 82 min, respectively. There was no significant difference in postoperative pain or fatigue, but return to normal life was faster in the LA group (14 versus 26. 5 days). The median hospital costs per patient were 8,538 and 6,788 FIM ($1 US = 4.6 FIM) in the LA and OA groups, respectively; but the total costs among working patients were lower in the LA group (20, 963 versus 27,778 FIM) due to faster return to work.
                Laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe as open appendectomy. The hospital costs are higher, but LA offers significant cost savings to the payer for working patients. To assess the value of laparoscopy in the accurate diagnosis of appendicitis in women of child-bearing age.
                Prospective randomised trial.
                University hospital, Kuwait.
                100 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria between July 1988 and March 1990.
                50 patients were randomised to have diagnostic laparoscopy followed by appendicectomy if necessary, and the other 50 to have immediate appendicectomy.
                Avoidance of unnecessary appendicectomy, length of operating time, and length of stay in hospital.
                19 of 50 patients in the study group did not require appendicectomy (38%). One patient required an emergency operation for an ectopic pregnancy. Of the remaining 30, only 4 of the removed appendixes showed no histological abnormality (13%). There were no complications of laparoscopy.
                Laparoscopy is a safe and effective way of diagnosing acute appendicitis and should be used more often. Appendectomy can be performed using either a laparoscopic technique (LT) or an open technique (OT). We compared the following items operative, anesthesia, length of stay, post-operative pain, medicine, wound healing, days to return to normal activity in both groups.
                This study was carried out at King Fahad Hospital, Hofuf, Al-Hassa, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, from January 1999 to April 2000. We randomly assigned 60 female patients to appendectomy by LT or OT. The 2 groups were compared concerning demographic data. The differences were considered statistically significant at a P value < 0.05.
                The open group had shorter anesthesia and operative time (68, 50 versus 85, 65 minutes). The laparoscopic group had a significant reduced postoperative narcotic requirement (P<0.05), quicker reintroduction of diet and quicker return to normal activity.
                Laparoscopic appendectomy in female patients with clinical diagnosis of appendicitis is the procedure of choice for the diagnosis and the management of acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy is increasingly used in treating acute appendicitis. Several controlled series have demonstrated the clinical benefit of the procedure. However, some basal pathophysiologic changes caused by the laparoscopy still need clarification, i.e., whether laparoscopy can give rise to bacteremia. The purpose of this randomized controlled study in 30 patients undergoing surgery due to suspected acute appendicitis, either by an open classic technique or by a laparoscopic technique, was (by collecting samples for blood culturing pre-, peri-, and postoperatively) to evaluate whether laparoscopy during carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum could induce bacteremia. Six patients of 12 in the group treated by laparoscopy presented positive blood cultures peri- and postoperatively. No positive blood cultures were demonstrated in the open operated group. The difference was significant (P = 0.0183). The clinical significance of these findings should be clarified in further clinical investigations. Laparoscopic appendectomy has now gained wider acceptance in clinical practice, particularly in the treatment of women with right iliac fossa pain. However, the precise role of laparoscopic appendectomy in men is unclear, and this study was therefore undertaken to examine this specific issue in a prospective randomized trial.
                One hundred men between the ages of 16 and 65 years who had suspected appendicitis were recruited and randomized to undergo either open or laparoscopic appendectomy. Both groups were compared in terms of their clinical parameters, duration of anesthetic and operation times, postoperative pain, duration of ileus, and length of hospital stay.
                The histologic confirmation of appendicitis was present in 94% of the cases for both groups of patients. Laparoscopic appendectomy required significantly longer anesthetic time (72.5 minutes versus 55 minutes) and actual operating time (45 minutes versus 25 minutes) compared with open appendectomy. Postoperative pain as measured by visual analog scale on postoperative days 1 and 2 were not significantly different between the patients who underwent laparoscopic and open surgery with values of 4.7 versus 4.4 and 2.1 versus 2.2, respectively. Also no significant difference was seen between the laparoscopic and open appendectomy groups in the recovery of bowel function (24.7 hours versus 21 hours) and in the length of hospital stay (4.9 days versus 5.3 days).
                The results of this prospective randomized trial showed that there were no significant advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy for the treatment of male patients with suspected appendicitis. We recommend that the use of laparoscopy be limited to men with atypical pain of uncertain diagnosis and in obese patients. The reported advantages of the laparoscopic approach to appendectomy are shortened hospital stay, less postoperative pain, and earlier return to usual activities (work). However, a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial comparing laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy in active-duty males failed to disclose a benefit of laparoscopic appendectomy with regards to postoperative pain and return to work. The aim of our study was to compare open and laparoscopic appendectomy in overweight patients.
                We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind study to determine whether laparoscopic appendectomy or the open procedure in overweight patients offers a significant reduction in lost workdays, postoperative pain, or operative time from. Open appendectomy in overweight patients (those with a body mass index > or =25) may be more difficult due to excessive subcutaneous adipose tissue. The open incision may be of considerable size, which may result in increased postoperative pain and a prolonged convalescence.
                There was a statistically significant increase in operative time for laparoscopic appendectomy of 11 minutes. As expected, the aggregate incision length for open appendectomy was twice that of the laparoscopic appendectomy.
                The data from this prospective, randomized, double-blind study failed to demonstrate any significant reduction in lost workdays, postoperative pain, or operative time with laparoscopic appendectomy. The discussion about laparoscopic appendectomy has increased since the introduction of this method. Randomized comparisons are still feasible, whereas this cannot be stated for other laparoscopic procedures (e.g., laparoscopic cholecystectomy). This randomized controlled trial included 170 patients. Open appendectomy was employed in 83 patients, and 87 were treated laparoscopically. The treatment groups were comparable regarding age, sex, Broca index, ASA classification, preliminary operations, and preoperative leucocytes. No statistically significant differences could be found with respect to surgical and general complications, operating time, consumption of analgesics and antibiotics, and return to work. The analysis revealed a statistically significant shorter hospital stay, a shorter time until return to normal physical activity, and a shorter duration of complaints for the laparoscopic group. We were unable to demonstrate any statistically significant advantage in using the open procedure. The feasibility of laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (Lap-RYGBP) for morbid obesity is well documented. In a prospective randomized trial, we compared laparoscopic and open surgery.
                51 patients (48 females, mean (+/- SD) age 36 +/- 9 years and BMI 42 +/- 4 kg/m2) were randomly allocated to either laparoscopy (n = 30) or open surgery (n = 21). All patients were followed for a minimum of 1 year.
                In the laparoscopy group, 7 patients (23%) were converted to open surgery due to various procedural difficulties. In an analysis, with the converted patients excluded, the morphine doses used postoperatively were significantly (p < 0.005) lower in the laparoscopic group compared to the open group. Likewise, postoperative hospital stay was shorter (4 vs 6 days, p < 0.025). Six patients in the laparoscopy group had to be re-operated due to Roux-limb obstruction in the mesocolic tunnel within 5 weeks. The weight loss expressed in decrease in mean BMI units after 1 year was 14 +/- 3 and 13 +/- 3 after laparoscopy and open surgery, respectively (not significant).
                Both laparoscopic and open RYGBP are effective and well received surgical procedures in morbid obesity. Reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay and shorter sick-leave are obvious benefits of laparoscopy but conversions and/or reoperations in 1/4 of the patients indicate that Lap-RYGBP at present must be considered an investigational procedure. The authors compare the risk of bacteraemia in open and laparoscopic appendectomy in a prospective randomized study.
                35 patients with a presumptive diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized to have conventional open or laparoscopic surgical procedures. Before randomization, patients signed a consent form to participate in the study. Patients who were converted from laparoscopic to open appendectomy (3 cases), HIV+, allergic to Augmentin or who had contraindications to laparoscopic surgery were excluded from the study. A total of 32 patients were randomized: 17 to open (group I) and 15 to laparoscopic surgery (group II). There were no significant differences with regard to age, ASA score, symptoms or macroscopic aspect of the appendix. Two patients had a normal appendix, 12 had acute appendicitis, 14 gangrenous appendicitis and 4 ruptured or abscessed appendicitis. All patients received preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (Augmentin) after blood cultures (H1) were drawn. Five other blood cultures were performed in standard medium and medium neutralizing Augmentin: at the time of opening the peritoneum (H2), after appendectomy (H3), after closure of the abdomen (H4), and at 6 (H5) and 12 hours (H6) after the operation. Bacterial cultures from the appendix site were performed before (P1) and after (P2) appendectomy.
                The operative mortality rate after conventional or laparoscopic appendectomy was nil. The incidence of post-operative morbidity was 4 cases in group I and 2 cases in group II. No positive bacterial culture was obtained in 17 patients. The distribution of these patients was similar in groups I and II. Samples P1 and P2 were positive in 5 cases. Nine of 27 cases with negative P1 became positive in P2 (33%). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the appearance of the appendix. Only two patients had positive blood cultures at H1. One of them had blood cultures at H3, H4 positive for a second germ.
                A low risk of bacteraemia exists for both open and laparoscopic appendectomy. This risk did not appear to increase for laparoscopy. Conventional and laparoscopic surgical procedures led to positive peritoneal bacterial cultures after appendectomy in 33% of cases. A prospective study including 272 patients with suspected appendicitis was performed. The aims were to evaluate the representativity of the study group and to compare diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy with conventional appendicectomy.
                The study was an open, randomized, single-centre trial with sequential design. One hundred and eight patients were randomized between laparoscopy or conventional appendicectomy, of whom 84 had acute appendicitis. Duration of postoperative convalescence was the major endpoint.
                The study patients were representative of the eligible population regarding age and stage of appendicitis. The risk of unnecessary appendicectomy was significantly (P = 0.03) lower after laparoscopy. The mean difference in duration of postoperative convalescence was 4.7 days in favour of of laparoscopic appendicectomy (P = 0.07), and 26 min in duration of operation in favour of conventional appendicectomy (P < 0.01). No differences were detected in postoperative hospital stay, pain assessment or complications.
                The laparoscopic procedure is at least as good as conventional appendicectomy. Initial laparoscopy reduces the rate of misdiagnosis. The laparoscopic approach has emerged in the search for a surgical technique to decrease the morbidity associated with conventional repair of ventral hernias. In this study we aimed to compare the results of our open and laparoscopic ventral hernia repairs prospectively.
                Between January 2001 and October 2005, a total of 46 patients diagnosed with ventral hernias (primary and incisional) who were admitted to our surgical unit and accepted to be included in this study group were examined. All patients were divided into laparoscopic repair (n = 23) and open repair (n = 23) subgroups in a randomized fashion. The patients' demographic characteristics, operation times, body mass indices, sizes of fascial defects, hernia locations, durations of hospital stay, presence and degrees of postoperative pain, and postoperative minor and major complications were analysed and compared. All the data were expressed as means +/- SDs. Chi-square and Wilcoxon tests were used for statistical analysis, and P < 0.05 was accepted as a significant statistical value (SPSS 11.0 for Windows).
                The demographic characteristics of both groups were similar. Women predominated, especially in the laparoscopy group (P < 0.05). The comparison of the results revealed that the major advantage of laparoscopy was the shortened postoperative hospital stay and the reduced incidence of mesh infection (P < 0.05, P < 0.05). On the other hand, operation time was significantly longer in the laparoscopy group (P < 0.05). The major complications encountered in the laparoscopy group were ileus and a missed enterotomy. The most frequent minor complication was seroma, which was significantly more frequent in the laparoscopy group (P < 0.05). Postoperative pain assessment revealed similar results in both groups (P > 0.05).
                The laparoscopic approach appears to be as effective as open repairs in the treatment of ventral hernias. Advanced surgical skill, laparoscopic experience and high technology are mandatory factors for successful ventral hernia repair. The objectives of this study were to compare both subjective clinical outcomes and the objective stress response of laparoscopic and open abdominal rectopexy in patients with full-thickness rectal prolapse. Abdominal rectopexy for patients with rectal prolapse is well suited for a laparoscopic approach as no resection or anastomosis is necessary.
                Forty patients with a full-thickness rectal prolapse were randomized before operation to a laparoscopic group and an open group. They agreed to conform to a clinical pathway (CP) of liquid diet (CP1) and full mobility (CP2) on day 1, solid diet (CP3) on day 2 and discharge (CP4) before day 5. Their compliance was monitored by an assessor blinded to the operative group, who also rated pain and mobility. Patient-controlled morphine use was documented. Neuroendocrine and immune stress response and respiratory function were measured.
                Some 75 per cent of all clinical pathway objectives of early recovery were achieved in the laparoscopic group compared with 37 per cent in the open group (P < 0.01). Significant differences in favour of laparoscopy were noted with regard to narcotic requirements, and pain and mobility scores. Differences in objective measures of stress response favouring laparoscopy were found for urinary catecholamines, interleukin 6, serum cortisol and C-reactive protein. No differences were noted in respiratory function but significant respiratory morbidity was greater in the open group (P < 0.05). None of the measured outcomes, subjective or objective, favoured the open group apart from operating time, which was significantly shorter (153 versus 102 min; P < 0.01).
                This study has demonstrated significant subjective and objective differences in favour of a laparoscopic technique for abdominal rectopexy. The advantages were all short term but no evidence of any adverse effect on longer-term outcomes was observed. The benefit of laparoscopy to patients has been clearly established in adults undergoing cholecystectomy. Results are less clear for appendectomy. The current study was undertaken to compare the respective 3-day postoperative periods after laparoscopic and open appendectomy in children.
                Sixty-three children (aged 8-15 yr) scheduled for appendectomy were randomly assigned to two groups: open and laparoscopic. Postoperative evaluation included delay of postoperative recovery (walking and feeding), pain assessment by visual analog scale during the 3 subsequent days, amount of nalbuphine administered via a patient-controlled analgesia system during the first 48 h and responses by children, parents, and nurses on the overall quality of analgesia.
                There was no difference between groups for demographic data (particularly macroscopic aspect of appendix) analgesia, sedation, delay before eating and walking, incidence of urinary retention, nausea, vomiting. Operative time was long (P < or = to 0.05) in the laparoscopic group (54 +/- 17 min) than in the open group (39 +/- 18 min). Thirty five percent of the children had pain at the shoulder in the LAP group versus ten percent in the open group (P < or = 0.05).
                Laparoscopy did not improve analgesia and postoperative recovery after appendectomy in children. The aim of this prospective study was to compare the surgical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic assisted vs. open ultralow anterior resection (ULAR) with the creation of a colonic pouch-anal anastomosis. Patients undergoing ULAR with creation of a colonic pouch and who either had conventional open (CO) or laparoscopic assisted (LA) surgery in colorectal cancer were studied and compared. There were 33 patients, 22 in CO group and 11 in LA group. The groups were comparable for age, sex, tumour and anastomotic heights from anal verge, stage of disease, length of specimen removed and duration of surgery. Incisions were significantly shorter in the LA group (median, 9 cm vs. 16 cm, p = 0.01). Less parenteral analgesia was required in the LA group (2 days vs. 3 days, p = 0.05), but there were no significant differences in the time to passage of flatus, commencement of oral fluids or solid foods and length of hospital stay. There was no difference in morbidity or mortality. With regards to patients with Dukes A to C disease only, at a median of 12 months of follow-up, there was no patient with local or port site recurrence in the LA group. In the CO group, there was one local recurrence and two with distal metastases. In conclusion, laparoscopic assisted ULAR with colonic J pouch anal anastomosis is feasible, easy to perform and safe. It s advantages include significantly shorter incision and lower analgesic requirements postoperatively. Return of bowel function and length of hospital stay, however, are comparable to those of conventional open surgery. Our purpose was to compare the results of laparoscopy with laparotomy in the management of ovarian masses not suspected to be malignant.
                In a prospective randomized study 102 patients requiring surgical management of ovarian masses were randomly assigned to laparoscopy (52) or laparotomy (50) in a teaching hospital from July 1994 to September 1995. Inclusion criteria was tumor not suspected to be malignant with a diameter of < or = 10 cm as measured by ultrasonography. All operations were performed by trainees under the supervision of an experienced surgeon. Statistical analysis included t tests and chi2 tests.
                There were no differences in demographic characteristics between the two groups nor any difference in the size of ovarian masses, adnexal adhesion score, or frequency of bilateral disease. All the ovarian masses were benign. Endometriotic cysts and dermoid cysts were the most common disorder in the two groups. Cystectomy was performed in > 70% of cases in each group. Operating time was not increased with the laparoscopic approach, and the frequency of inadvertent rupture of the ovarian masses was just as high as in laparotomy. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significant reduction in operative morbidity (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.88), postoperative pain and analgesic requirement, hospital stay, and recovery period. Patients in general were satisfied with the operation, but significantly more patients were satisfied with the laparoscopy scar.
                Operative laparoscopy should replace laparotomy in the management of benign ovarian masses. Previous studies suggest that the inflammatory response after laparoscopic appendectomy is less pronounced than after open surgery.
                To compare the clinical course and serum levels of a variety of immunoinflammatory markers in children randomized to either laparoscopic or open appendectomy for nonperforated appendicitis.Materials and Methods: Children with the diagnosis of appendicitis were randomized to either laparoscopicor open appendectomy after informed consent for participation in the study was obtained. Body temperature,leukocyte count, hematocrit and serum levels of the inflammatory markers c-reactive protein, interleukin (IL)-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-, sTNF-R, IL-1Ra, sIL-2R, and IL-8 were determined at six different times: Before anesthesia induction, at skin incision, after wound closure, as well as 12, 24, and 72 hours postoperatively.Length of in-hospital stay was assessed as well. Parameters with normal distribution were compared by Student test for independent samples, all others were compared by the Mann-Whitney U test. P 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
                A total of 47 patients with appendicitis were recruited and randomized. Retrospectively, four patients in the open group and three in the laparoscopic group were excluded from the analysis because perforated appendicitis was described on their histopathologic report, leaving an equal number of patients in each study cohort(n = 20 each). There was no significant difference in demographic variables including age, body weight,and duration of symptoms. There were also no significant differences in body temperature, hematocrit, leukocytecount, or any of the inflammatory markers mentioned above. Average postoperative length of stay without any complications was 6.2 +/-2.5 days in the open group and 4.3 +/- 1.1 days in the laparoscopic group (P 0.01).
                We found no differences in inflammatory parameters after open and laparoscopic appendectomy for nonperforated appendicitis. However, surgeons send their laparoscopically operated patients home earlier. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) and open vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG) are treatment modalities for morbid obesity. However, few prospective randomized clinical trials (RCT) have been performed to compare both operations.
                100 patients (50 per group) were included in the study. Postoperative outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), complications, percent excess weight loss (%EWL), BMI and reduction in total comorbidities. Follow-up in all patients was 2 years.
                LOS was significantly shorter in the LAGB group. 3 LAGB were converted to open (1 to gastric bypass). Directly after VBG, 3 patients needed relaparotomies due to leakage, of which one (2%) died. After 2 years, 100% follow-up was achieved. BMI and %EWL were significantly decreased in both groups but significantly more in the VBG group compared to the LAGB group (31.0 kg/m2 and 70.1% vs 34.6 and 54.9% respectively). Co-morbidities significantly decreased in both groups in time. 2 years after LAGB, 20 patients needed reoperation for pouch dilation/slippage (n=12), band leakage (n=2), band erosion (n=2) and access-port problems (n=4). In the VBG group, 18 patients needed revisional surgery due to staple-line disruption (n=15), narrow outlet (n=2) or insufficient weight loss (n=1). Furthermore, 8 VBG patients developed an incisional hernia.
                This RCT demonstrates that, despite the initial better weight loss in the VBG group, based on complication rates and clinical outcome, LAGB is preferred. It had a shorter LOS and less postoperative morbidity. This study was undertaken to compare morbidity for women undergoing laparoscopy-assisted vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy (LAVHO) and vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral oophorectomy without laparoscopic assistance (VHO).
                Between April 1, 2002, and February 1, 2004, a prospective randomized study at Marseille University Hospital (La Conception) included 48 patients who underwent a hysterectomy with prophylactic bilateral oophorectomy for benign uterine conditions. These patients were allocated to 2 groups (LAVHO vs VHO). The study variables were duration of surgery and of hospitalization and surgical and postoperative complications.
                There was no significant difference in the duration of surgery between the LAVHO and VHO groups (100.2 +/- 27.9 vs 83.9 +/- 34.6, P = .08). The rate of complications was significantly higher in the LAVHO group (13/24 [54.1%] vs 6/24 [25%], P = .039).
                The overall complication rate was higher with LAVHO than VHO. It thus appears that laparoscopic assistance is not useful in performing vaginal hysterectomies with prophylactic bilateral oophorectomies in patients without other related disorders (endometriosis, adhesions, adnexal anomalies). Complications associated with initial abdominal entry are a prime concern for laparoscopic surgeons. In order to minimize first access-related complications in laparoscopy, several techniques and technologies have been introduced in the past years. This investigation compares two laparoscopic access techniques.
                194 women underwent laparoscopic surgery for simple ovarian cysts: 93 were assigned to direct optical access (DOA) abdominal entry (group I), and 101 women to classical closed method by Verres needle, pneumoperitoneum and trocar entry (group II). The following parameters were compared: time required for entry into abdomen, occurrence of vascular and/or bowel injury, blood loss. The results were analyzed using SAS software. p-value<0.05 was considered as significant.
                No statistically significant differences were observed in the occurrence of blood loss and minor vascular injury between the two techniques, as well as minor bowel injuries; time for of abdominal entry, instead, were significantly reduced in the DOA group.
                The results of the preliminary comparison between the DOA and the Verres methods, commonly used by gynecologists, suggests that the visual entry system confers a statistical advantage over closed entry technique with Verres needle, in terms of time saving and due to the minor vascular and bowel injuries, thus enabling a safe and expeditious, visually-guided, entry for surgeons.
                2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved. To evaluate, in a prospective, randomized, single-institution trial, the role of early laparoscopy in the management of nonspecific abdominal pain (NSAP) in young women.
                Women aging from 13 to 45 years, admitted for NSAP at the emergency department, were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, previous appendectomy, contraindications to laparoscopy, diagnosis of malignancy, or chronic disease. NSAP was defined as an abdominal pain in right iliac or hypogastric area lasting more than 6 hours and less than 8 days, without fever, leukocytosis, or obvious peritoneal signs and uncertain diagnosis after physical examination and baseline investigations including abdominal sonography. Patients were randomly assigned to early (<12 hours from admission) laparoscopy group (LAP) or to clinical observation group (OBS). After discharge a follow-up was carried out.
                From January 2001 to February 2004, 508 female patients without previous abdominal surgery were evaluated in admitting area for acute right iliac or hypogastric abdominal pain, in 373 patients diagnosis was established for obvious signs or with baseline investigations. Of the remaining 135 patients, 31 were excluded from study for various reasons, 53 patients were randomly assigned to LAP and 51 to OBS. Groups were similar for age, mean BMI, white blood cell count, and duration of pain. During hospitalization diagnosis was established in 83.4% of the LAP and in 45.1% of OBS (P < 0.05). Twenty patients of OBS (39.2%) were operated during observation because of worsening of symptoms or appearance of peritoneal sign. Diagnoses in LAP were appendicitis in 16 patients (30.1%), pelvic inflammatory disease in 7 (13.2%), carcinoid in 1 (1.9%), other in 18 (33.9%), no diagnosis in 11 (20.7%); diagnoses in OBS were appendicitis in 3 patients (5.8%), pelvic inflammatory disease in 8 (15.6%), other in 12 (23.5%), and no diagnosis in 28 (54.9%). Mean length of hospital stay was 3.7 +/- 0.8 days in LAP and 4.7 +/- 2.4 days in OBS (P < 0.05); no differences were found regarding mortality, morbidity, radiation dose, and analgesia. Mean follow-up time was 29.3 months (range, 12-60 months) for LAP and 30.6 months for OBS (range, 12-60 months). After 3 months from discharge, 20% of patients in LAP and 52% in OBS had recurrent abdominal pain (P < 0.05); after 12 months, 16% in LAP and 25% in OBS (P = not significant). Six patients in OBS required readmission for surgery.
                Compared with active clinical observation, early laparoscopy did not show a clear benefit in women with NSAP. A higher number of diagnosis and a shorter hospital stay in the LAP group did not led to a significant reduction in symptoms recurrences at 1 year. : Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGBP) has increased in popularity since the introduction of the laparoscopic procedure, but this approach requires extensive surgical skill and the learning curve is steep. The present study examined the suitability of hand-assisted laparoscopy for RYGBP.
                In a prospective trial, 50 patients (median age 38 years, body mass index 45 kg/m(2)) were randomized to either hand-assisted (n = 25) or open (n = 25) RYGBP. The hand-assisted device was introduced through a right subcostal incision. Laparoscopic staplers were also used in the open group, allowing a short upper midline incision. The gastrojejunostomy was made by means of a circular stapler and the Roux limb placed behind the colon and excluded stomach.
                The postoperative outcome, with respect to morphine consumption, complications, hospital stay (6 days) and weight loss, was similar in the two groups. The operating time was significantly longer in the hand-assisted group (150 versus 85 min; P < 0.001) but there was no conversion to open operation. One patient in the hand-assisted group was reoperated owing to leakage and one patient developed an incisional hernia after open RYGBP.
                The hand-assisted technique was feasible and allowed good working conditions in all patients. However, the postoperative outcome was excellent in both groups and there was no advantage to the hand-assisted technique.
                Copyright 2004 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. To compare two techniques of hysterectomy.
                Prospective, randomised study.
                Institute for the Mother and Child Care, Prague.
                85 patients randomized into two groups--laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH). The criteria studied were length of the procedure, blood loss, complication rate, uterus weight, rate of conversions, consumption of analgesics, inflammatory response.
                Mean length of the procedure for LAVH, TLH was 85 and 111 min, respectivelly, the mean blood loss 306 and 184 ml. There was no difference in inflammatory response and use of antibiotics. Consumption of analgesics was higher in the TLH group. Conversions to laparotomy occurred only in the LAVH group. Only in the TLH group we noticed serious postoperative complications.
                LAVH seems to be the preferable technique of hysterectomy for benign diseases of the uterus. The aim of the study was to evaluate postoperative recovery after hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis and familial adenomatous polyposis in a randomized controlled trial.
                Sixty patients were randomized for hand-assisted laparoscopic (n = 30) or open surgery (n = 30). Primary outcome parameter was postoperative recovery in the 3 months after surgery, measured by quality of life questionnaires (SF-36 and GIQLI). Secondary parameters were postoperative morphine requirement and surgical parameters, viz. operating time, morbidity, hospital stay, and costs.
                There was no difference between the 2 procedures in quality of life assessment in the 3 months after surgery. There was a significant decline in quality of life on all scales of the SF-36 (P < 0.001) and total GIQLI score (P < 0.001) in the first 2 weeks in both groups (no significant difference between the groups). Quality of life returned to baseline levels after 4 weeks. Operating times were longer in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group (210 and 133 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in morphine requirement. Neither morbidity nor postoperative hospital stay differed between the laparoscopic and open group (20% versus 17%, in 10 versus 11 days, respectively). Median overall costs were 16.728 for the hand-assisted laparoscopic procedure and 13.406 for the open procedure (P = 0.095).
                Recovery measured using quality of life questionnaires is comparable for hand-assisted laparoscopic or open restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. The laparoscopic approach is as safe, but more costly than the open procedure. The value of laparoscopy in appendicitis is not established. Studies suffer from multiple limitations. Our aim is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a prospective randomized double blind study.
                Two hundred forty-seven patients were analyzed following either laparoscopic or open appendectomy. A standardized wound dressing was applied blinding both patients and independent data collectors. Surgical technique was standardized among 4 surgeons. The main outcome measures were postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures included evaluation of pain and activity scores at base line preoperatively and on every postoperative day, as well as resumption of diet and length of stay. Activity scores and quality of life were assessed on short-term follow-up.
                There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (18.5% versus 17% in the laparoscopic and open groups respectively), but some early complications in the laparoscopic group required a reoperation. Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (80 minutes versus 60 minutes; P = 0.000) while there was no difference in the pain scores and medications, resumption of diet, length of stay, or activity scores. At 2 weeks, there was no difference in the activity or pain scores, but physical health and general scores on the short-form 36 (SF36) quality of life assessment forms were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Appendectomy for acute or complicated (perforated and gangrenous) appendicitis had similar complication rates, regardless of the technique (P = 0.181).
                Unlike other minimally invasive procedures, laparoscopic appendectomy did not offer a significant advantage over open appendectomy in all studied parameters except quality of life scores at 2 weeks. It also took longer to perform. The choice of the procedure should be based on surgeon or patient preference. One hundred men between the age of 15 and 65 admitted to Ain Shams Specialized Hospital and El Demerdash Hospital, Cairo, and to the Saudi German Hospital, Saudi Arabia between November 1998 and December 2000 were randomized to undergo either open or laparoscopic appendicectomy. Both groups were compared in terms of clinical parameters, duration of anaesthesia, operative time, duration of ileus and length of hospital stay. The histologic confirmation of appendicitis was present in 92% in both groups. Laparoscopic appendectomy required significantly longer anaesthetic time (78 minutes versus 51) and operating time (49 minutes versus 23) compared with open appendectomy. No significant difference was noticed between laparoscopic and open appendectomy groups in the recovery of bowel function (24 hours versus 21) and in the length of hospital stay (4.9 days versus 5.3). The result showed no significant advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy for the treatment of male patients with suspected appendicitis.
In those clinical settings where surgical expertise and equipment are available and affordable, diagnostic laparoscopy and LA (either in combination or separately) seem to have various advantages over OA. Some of the clinical effects of LA, however, are small and of limited clinical relevance. In spite of the mediocre quality of the available research data, we would generally recommend to use laparoscopy and LA in patients with suspected appendicitis unless laparoscopy itself is contraindicated or not feasible. Especially young female, obese, and employed patients seem to benefit from LA.