Laparoscopic appendectomy in Switzerland:: A prospective audit of 2,179 cases

被引:16
作者
Schäfer, M [1 ]
Krähenbühl, L [1 ]
Frei, E [1 ]
Büchler, MW [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bern, Inselspital, Dept Viseral & Transplantat Surg, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland
关键词
laparoscopy; appendicitis; laparoscopic appendectomy; complications;
D O I
10.1159/000051947
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background/Aims: Since its introduction in 1983, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has not replaced the conventional open procedure. The patient benefit seems limited to a decreased wound infection rate, and the overall morbidity and mortality rates remain equal to those of open appendectomy. Methods: The data (collected by the Swiss Association of Laparoscopic and Thoracoscopic Surgery) from 2,179 patients undergoing LA at 84 surgical institutions in Switzerland between January 1995 and December 1997 were retrospectively analyzed. Results: More than 90% of all patients had no intra- or postoperative complications. However, perforated appendicitis was associated with more complications, in particular a threefold increased wound infection rate (9.2 vs 3.5%). Furthermore, the conversion and reoperation rates of perforated appendicitis were significantly increased compared to 'simple' acute appendicitis (25.5 and 10.4% vs 4.8 and 2.1%, respectively). LA performed with a stapling device is superior to LA performed with loops, although the difference is not significant. Conclusion: Therefore, LA is a safe and effective procedure. The postoperative morbidity and mortality rates are comparable to those of open appendectomy, wh ich is still the most com mon ly used procedure in Switzerland, The question of whether perforated appendicitis is better treated laparoscopically or by the open procedure cannot be answered with our data. Copyright (C) 2000 S. Karger AG. Basel.
引用
收藏
页码:497 / 502
页数:6
相关论文
共 17 条
[1]   ANALYSIS OF 8651 APPENDICECTOMIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES DURING 1992 [J].
BAIGRIE, RJ ;
DEHN, TCB ;
FOWLER, SM ;
DUNN, DC .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1995, 82 (07) :933-933
[2]   APPENDICITIS NEAR ITS CENTENARY [J].
BERRY, J ;
MALT, RA .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 1984, 200 (05) :567-575
[3]   A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy [J].
Chung, RS ;
Rowland, DY ;
Li, P ;
Diaz, J .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1999, 177 (03) :250-256
[4]   GOODBYE TO LATE BOWEL OBSTRUCTION AFTER APPENDECTOMY [J].
DEWILDE, RL .
LANCET, 1991, 338 (8773) :1012-1012
[5]   Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: Time to decide [J].
Fingerhut, A ;
Millat, B ;
Borrie, F .
WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1999, 23 (08) :835-845
[6]  
*H PLUS SPIT, 1996, MED GES SCHW SPIT 19, V26, P103
[7]   Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: Prospective randomized trial [J].
Hansen, JB ;
Smithers, BM ;
Schache, D ;
Wall, DR ;
Miller, BJ ;
Menzies, BL .
WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1996, 20 (01) :17-21
[8]   Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy - A randomized clinical trial [J].
Kazemier, G ;
DeZeeuw, GR ;
Lange, JF ;
Hop, WCJ ;
Bonjer, HJ .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY-ULTRASOUND AND INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 1997, 11 (04) :336-340
[9]   RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL COMPARING LAPAROSCOPIC AND OPEN APPENDECTOMY [J].
KUM, CK ;
NGOI, SS ;
GOH, PMY ;
TEKANT, Y ;
ISAAC, JR .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1993, 80 (12) :1599-1600
[10]   OPEN VERSUS LAPAROSCOPIC APPENDECTOMY - A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED COMPARISON [J].
MARTIN, LC ;
PUENTE, I ;
SOSA, JL ;
BASSIN, A ;
BRESLAW, R ;
MCKENNEY, MG ;
GINZBURG, E ;
SLEEMAN, D .
ANNALS OF SURGERY, 1995, 222 (03) :256-262