Caravaggio C, Hauters P, Malvaux P, Landenne J, Janssen P
Department of Surgery, Clinique Notre-Dame, Tournai, Belgique.
Acta Chir Belg. 2007 Jul-Aug;107(4):368-72. doi: 10.1080/00015458.2007.11680076.
To compare the results of open and laparoscopic appendectomy and to determine if the laparoscopic approach might be more effective for some subgroups of patients.
We retrospectively analysed the computerised data of 326 consecutive adult patients operated on for suspected appendicitis between 2001 and 2005. The series consisted of 166 men and 160 women with a mean age of 32 +/- 16 years and a mean Body Mass Index (BMI) of 24 +/- 4. There were 265 ASA I, 46 ASA II and 5 ASA III patients. According to the surgeon's preference, 176 patients had an open appendectomy (OA) and 150 a laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).
The mean operative time and hospital stay were equivalent in the two groups : respectively 49 +/- 19 min. and 4.1 +/- 2.5 days in OA and 50 +/- 16 min. and 3.5 +/- 1.8 days in LA. However, subgroup analysis revealed that overweight (BMI > 25) patients (n = 102) and patients with ectopic appendices (n = 86) had an obvious benefit from LA. In cases of OA, operative time and hospital stay were longer in overweight patients than in normal weight patients: respectively 63 +/- 20 min. and 5.3 +/- 2.9 days versus 44 +/- 16 min. (p < 0.01) and 3.7 +/- 2.2 days (p < 0.01). On the contrary, no difference was observed in the LA group. Operative time and hospital stay were also longer in patients with ectopic appendices submitted to OA than in patients with an appendix in the normal position: respectively 60 +/- 18 min. and 4.7 +/- 2.7 days versus 45 +/- 18 min. (p < 0.01) and 3.9 +/- 2.4 days (p < 0.01). Again, such a difference was not observed in cases of LA. We noted no mortality, but 24 patients (7%) developed an abdominal complication : 18 wound infections and 6 intra-abdominal abscesses. Wound infections were more common in the OA than in the LA group : 7.3% (13/176) versus 3.3% (5/150) (p = 0.1). In the LA group, 4 wound infections were observed in our early experience, at a time where no endoscopic bag was used for the removal of the appendix. The rate of intra-abdominal abscesses was similar: 1.7% (3/176) in the OA group and 2% (3/150) in the LA group.
LA is an effective procedure with a reduced risk of developing wound infection. The laparoscopic approach is particularly effective for overweight patients and/or patients with ectopic appendices as far as shortening the operative time and hospital stay is concerned.
比较开腹阑尾切除术和腹腔镜阑尾切除术的结果,并确定腹腔镜手术方法对某些亚组患者是否可能更有效。
我们回顾性分析了2001年至2005年间连续326例因疑似阑尾炎接受手术的成年患者的计算机化数据。该系列包括166名男性和160名女性,平均年龄32±16岁,平均体重指数(BMI)为24±4。有265例ASA I级、46例ASA II级和5例ASA III级患者。根据外科医生的偏好,176例患者接受了开腹阑尾切除术(OA),150例接受了腹腔镜阑尾切除术(LA)。
两组的平均手术时间和住院时间相当:OA组分别为49±19分钟和4.1±2.5天,LA组为50±16分钟和3.5±1.8天。然而,亚组分析显示,超重(BMI>25)患者(n = 102)和阑尾异位患者(n = 86)从LA中明显获益。在OA病例中,超重患者的手术时间和住院时间比正常体重患者长:分别为63±20分钟和5.3±2.9天,而正常体重患者为44±16分钟(p<0.01)和3.7±2.2天(p<0.01)。相反,LA组未观察到差异。阑尾异位接受OA的患者的手术时间和住院时间也比阑尾位置正常的患者长:分别为60±18分钟和4.7±2.7天,而阑尾位置正常的患者为45±18分钟(p<0.01)和3.9±2.4天(p<0.01)。同样,LA病例中未观察到这种差异。我们未记录到死亡病例,但24例患者(7%)发生了腹部并发症:18例伤口感染和6例腹腔内脓肿。伤口感染在OA组比LA组更常见:7.3%(13/176)对3.3%(【此处原文有误,应为5/150】5/150)(p = 0.1)。在LA组,在我们早期经验中观察到4例伤口感染,当时未使用内镜袋来切除阑尾。腹腔内脓肿的发生率相似:OA组为1.7%(3/176),LA组为2%(3/150)。
LA是一种有效的手术方法,伤口感染风险降低。就缩短手术时间和住院时间而言,腹腔镜手术方法对超重患者和/或阑尾异位患者特别有效。