Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jaschinski T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6517145 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic appendicectomy has gained wide acceptance as an alternative to open appendicectomy during pregnancy. However, data regarding the safety and optimal surgical approach to appendicitis in pregnancy are still controversial.MethodsThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing laparoscopic and open appendicectomy in pregnancy identified using PubMed and Scopus search engines from January 1990 to July 2011. Two reviewers independently extracted data on fetal loss, preterm delivery, wound infection, duration of operation, hospital stay, Apgar score and birth weight between laparoscopic and open appendicectomy groups.ResultsEleven studies with a total of 3415 women (599 in laparoscopic and 2816 in open group) were included in the analysis. Fetal loss was statistically significantly worse in those who underwent laparoscopy compared with open appendicectomy; the pooled relative risk (RR) was 1·91 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·31 to 2·77) without heterogeneity. The pooled RR for preterm labour was 1·44 (0·68 to 3·06), but this risk was not statistically significant. The mean difference in length of hospital stay was - 0·49 (-1·76 to - 0·78) days, but this was not clinically significant. No significant difference was found for wound infection, birth weight, duration of operation or Apgar score.ConclusionThe available low-grade evidence suggests that laparoscopic appendicectomy in pregnant women might be associated with a greater risk of fetal loss.
| S-EPMC3494303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTraditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis.MethodsWe performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.MethodsWe performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer's perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.ResultsLA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient.ConclusionsLA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer's perspective in the Colombian health system.
| S-EPMC8194214 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction. Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in the pediatric population. The peak incidence occurs in the first decade of life, while it is uncommon to face appendicitis in children younger than 5 years of age. Laparoscopy is now demonstrated to be the optimal approach also to treat complicated appendicitis, but in very young children this standardized operation is not always easy to perform. Material and Methods. From January 2009 to December 2015 we operated on 525 acute appendicitis, with 120 patients less than 5 years of age. Results. 90 children had a complicated appendicitis (localized or diffuse peritonitis): 43 (48%) were operated on by open approach and 47 (52%) by laparoscopy. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was greater in the open appendectomy group (63% versus 26%) and all severe complications requiring reintervention (6% of cases: 3 postoperative abscesses resolved with ultrasound guided percutaneous abscess drainage; 1 tubal surgery for salpingitis; 1 adhesion-related ileus requiring relaparotomy) were mostly associated with open surgery. Conclusions. Laparoscopic surgery resulted as the best approach for treating complicated appendicitis also in younger children, with minor and less severe postoperative complications compared to open surgery.
| S-EPMC5055972 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEndoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) is a new and minimally invasive technique for the treatment of acute appendicitis. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and clinical outcomes of ERAT versus laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.MethodsWe adopted propensity score matching (1:1) to compare ERAT and laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis between April 2017 and March 2020. We reviewed 2880 patients with suspected acute appendicitis, of whom 422 patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis met the matching criteria (ERAT 79; laparoscopic appendectomy 343), yielding 78 pairs of patients.ResultsThe rate of curative treatment within 1 year after ERAT was 92.1 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 83.8 % to 96.3 %). The percentage of patients recording visual analog scale values of ≤ 3 for pain at 6 hours after treatment was 94.7 % (95 %CI 87.2 % to 97.9 %) in the ERAT group, which was significantly higher than that in the laparoscopic appendectomy group (83.3 %; 95 %CI 73.5 % to 90.0 %). Median procedure time and median hospital length of stay were significantly lower in the ERAT group compared with the laparoscopic appendectomy group. At 1 year, the median recurrence time was 50 days (interquartile range 25-127) in the ERAT group. The overall adverse event rate was 24.4 % (95 %CI 14.8 % to 33.9 %) in the laparoscopic appendectomy group and 18.4 % (95 %CI 9.7 % to 27.1 %) in the ERAT group, with no significant difference between the two groups.ConclusionERAT was a technically feasible method of treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis compared with laparoscopic appendectomy.
| S-EPMC9329065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Laparoscopic resection is increasingly used in colorectal cancer (CRC). It has been suggested to carry short-term benefits in safety, recovery, and preservation on immune function for patients with CRC. However, the impact of laparoscopic resection on natural killer (NK) cells is largely unclear. METHODS:A total of 200 patients with CRC across Dukes A/B/C stages were randomly assigned to laparoscopic or open resection. The blood samples were collected before and after the surgery. The total number of NK cells was quantified by flow cytometer. Lytic units 35 toward K562 was used to quantify NK cells activity. The outcomes between the groups across pathological stages were also analyzed. RESULTS:The number and activity of NK cells decreased after the surgery in both groups. The laparoscopic group showed a faster recovery rate of NK cells function than the control group as assessed by cell count and lytic activity. Natural killer cells were impaired in a higher degree in patients at Dukes B/C stages. The recovery of NK cells to baseline level at day 7 postsurgery was observed in the laparoscopic group across all 3 stages. CONCLUSION:Generally, laparoscopically assisted surgery resulted in a better preservation on NK cells function. A better outcome was observed in patients with CRC at Dukes B/C stages.
| S-EPMC7092650 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of mortality worldwide and in the UK. Surgical resection is the main curative treatment modality available and using a laparoscopic vs. an open approach may have a direct influence on the inflammatory response, influencing cancer biology and potentially the recurrence kinetics by promoting cancer growth. This systematic review aims to compare laparoscopic with open surgery for the treatment of colon cancer with a specific focus on the moment of the recurrence. We included randomised controlled trials in intended curative surgery for colon cancer in adults. Studies investigating laparoscopic vs. open resection as an intended curative treatment for patients with confirmed carcinoma of the colon. The two co-primary outcomes were the time to recurrence and the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at three and five years. Meta-analyses were done on the mean differences. After selection, we reviewed ten randomised controlled trials. Most of the trials did not display a statistically significant difference in either DFS or OS at three or at five years when comparing laparoscopic to open surgery. Groups did not differ for the OS and DFS, especially regarding the time needed to observe the median recurrence rate. The quality of evidence (GRADE) was moderate to very low. We observed no difference in the recurrence kinetics, OS or DFS at three or five years when comparing laparoscopic to open surgery in colon cancer.
| S-EPMC8466495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction:For a long time, the comprehensive application of minimally invasive techniques in lower gastrointestinal (GI) surgery was substantially impaired by inherent anatomical and technical complexities. Recently, several new techniques such as robotic operating platforms and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) have revolutionized the minimally invasive approach. This review aims to depict the current state of the art and evaluates the advantages and drawbacks in regard to perioperative outcome and quality of oncological resection. Methods:A systematic literature search was performed using the search terms 'colorectal cancer', 'rectal cancer', 'minimally invasive surgery', 'laparoscopic surgery', and 'robotic' to identify relevant studies reporting on robotic surgery (RS) either alone or in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (LS). Publications on taTME were analyzed separately. Results:69 studies reporting on RS with a total of 20,872 patients, and 17 articles on taTME including 881 patients, were identified. Conclusion:Both RS and taTME can facilitate a minimally invasive approach for lower GI surgery in an increasing number of patients. Furthermore, combining both techniques might become an auspicious approach in selected patients; further prospective and randomized trials are needed to verify its benefits over conventional laTME.
| S-EPMC5869491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is associated with improved recovery and similar cancer outcomes at 3 and 5 years in comparison with open surgery. However, long-term survival rates have rarely been reported. Here, we present survival and recurrence rates of the Dutch patients included in the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial at 10-year follow-up.Between March 1997 and March 2003, patients with non-metastatic colon cancer were recruited by 29 hospitals in eight countries and randomised to either laparoscopic or open surgery. Main inclusion criterion for the COLOR trial was solitary adenocarcinoma of the left or right colon. The primary outcome was disease-free survival at 3 years, and secondary outcomes included overall survival and recurrence. The 10-year follow-up data of all Dutch patients were collected. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00387842).In total, 1248 patients were randomised, of which 329 were Dutch. Fifty-eight Dutch patients were excluded and 15 were lost to follow-up, leaving 256 patients for 10-year analysis. Median follow-up was 112 months. Disease-free survival rates were 45.2 % in the laparoscopic group and 43.2 % in the open group (difference 2.0 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -10.3 to 14.3; p = 0.96). Overall survival rates were 48.4 and 46.7 %, respectively (difference 1.7 %; 95 % CI -10.6 to 14.0; p = 0.83). Stage-specific analysis revealed similar survival rates for both groups. Sixty-two patients were diagnosed with recurrent disease, accounting for 29.4 % in the laparoscopic group and 28.2 % in the open group (difference 1.2 %; 95 % CI -11.1 to 13.5; p = 0.73). Seven patients had port- or wound-site recurrences (laparoscopic n = 3 vs. open n = 4).Laparoscopic surgery for non-metastatic colon cancer is associated with similar rates of disease-free survival, overall survival and recurrences as open surgery at 10-year follow-up.
| S-EPMC5443846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic renal surgery has been widely used in the treatment of renal diseases. However, there is still little research about its application in addressing renal tuberculosis. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively investigate the surgical results of laparoscopic and open surgery for nonfunctional tuberculous kidneys.MethodsBetween May 2011 and June 2016, 120 nephrectomies were performed in patients with a nonfunctional tuberculous kidney. Of these, 69 patients underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic nephrectomy, and 51 patients underwent open nephrectomy. Data about the patients' characteristics and surgical outcomes were collected from their electronic medical records. Outcomes were compared between these two groups.ResultsOur results showed that a number of renal tuberculosis patients presented no significant symptoms during their disease. Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) were the most common at a rate of 73/120, followed by flank pain or accidently discovery (66/120), urine abnormality (30/120) and fever (27/120). Patients who underwent open surgery were similar to laparoscopic patients with regard to sex, BMI, location, previous tuberculous history, grade, anemia, adhesion, hypertension, diabetes and preoperative serum creatinine level, but were generally older than laparoscopic patients. There were no significant differences between open and laparoscopic surgery in estimated blood loss, transfusion, postoperative hospital days and perioperative complication rate. However, the median operation time of laparoscopic operation was much longer than open surgery (180 [150-225] vs 135 [120-165] minutes, P < 0.01). Seven of the 69 laparoscopic operations were converted to open surgery because of severe adhesions.ConclusionLaparoscopic nephrectomy is as an effective treatment as open surgery for a nonfunctional tuberculous kidney, although it requires more time during the surgical procedure. No significant differences in other surgical outcomes were observed.
| S-EPMC5131615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Compared with open gastrectomy (OG), laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) for gastric cancer has achieved rapid development and popularities in the past decades. However, lack of comprehensive analysis in long-term oncological outcomes such as recurrence and mortality hinder its full support as a valid procedure. Therefore, there are still debates on whether one of these options is superior. AIM:To evaluate the primary and secondary outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric cancer patients METHODS: Two authors independently extracted study data. Risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for binary outcomes, mean difference (MD) or the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes, and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. Review Manager 5.3 and STATA software were used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS:Seventeen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5204 participants were included in this meta-analysis. There were no differences in the primary outcomes including the number of lymph nodes harvested during operation, severe complications, short-term and long-term recurrence, and mortality. As for secondary outcomes, compared with the OG group, longer operative time was required for patients in the LG group (MD?=?58.80?min, 95% CI?=?[45.80, 71.81], P?<?0.001), but there were less intraoperative blood loss (MD?=?-?54.93?ml, 95% CI?=?[-?81.60, -?28.26], P?<?0.001), less analgesic administration (frequency: MD?=?-?1.73, 95% CI?=?[-?2.21, -?1.24], P?<?0.001; duration: MD?=?-?1.26?days, 95% CI?=?[-?1.40, -?1.12], P?<?0.001), shorter hospital stay (MD?=?-?1.37?days, 95% CI?=?[-?2.05, -?0.70], P?<?0.001), shorter time to first flatus (MD?=?-?0.58?days, 95% CI?=?[-?0.79, -?0.37], P?<?0.001), ambulation (MD?=?-?0.50?days, 95% CI?=?[-?0.90, -?0.09], P?=?0.02) and oral intake (MD?=?-?0.64?days, 95% CI?=?[-?1.24, -?0.03], P?<?0.04), and less total complications (RR?=?0.81, 95% CI?=?[0.71, 0.93], P?=?0.003) in the OG group. There was no difference in blood transfusions (number, quantity) between these two groups. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and the adjustment of Duval's trim and fill methods for publication bias did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSION:LG was comparable to OG in the primary outcomes and had some advantages in secondary outcomes for gastric cancer patients. LG is superior to OG for gastric cancer patients.
| S-EPMC6986035 | biostudies-literature