Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: time to decide

Abstract

Although widely practiced, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has not met with universal approval. Several controlled trials have been conducted, some in favor, others not. The goal of this review was to ascertain (1) if laparoscopy was capable of improving the diagnostic and therapeutic difficulties encountered during open appendectomy (OA) and (2) if the introduction of laparoscopy in the overall management of acute appendicitis has changed anything in practice. Analysis and criticism of 17 controlled studies (nearly 1800 patients) on laparoscopic appendectomy and 2 randomized studies dealing with diagnostic laparoscopy are reported. Because of the questionable quality of randomized controlled trials (number of patients, exclusions, withdrawals, blinding, intention-to-treat analysis), publication biases, local practice variations (hospital stay, rate of enrollment), results regarding analgesia requirements, return to activity and work, duration of hospital stay, outcome, follow-up, and antibiotic prophylaxis the studies must be interpreted with caution. The real world of appendicitis probably differs greatly from the atmosphere under which controlled trials comparing LA and OA have been performed. Statistical significance is contrary to the clinical significance of the results. Consistently longer operating times [the difference ranging from 8 minutes (NS) to 29 minutes (p < 0.0001)], a minimal reduction in hospital stay [0. 1 day (NS) to 2.1 days (p < 0.007)], and, somewhat more controversial, an earlier return to normal activity were reported for LA. Data on analgesic requirements were confusing, but wound complications were more frequent after OA [pooled odds ratio for 10 studies: 2.6 (95% CI 1.3-5.2)]. Unsolved problems include national behavioral problems, age and experience of operating surgeons (LA or OA), and emergency conditions (availability of staff, instruments). Results of cost analysis vary according to the standpoint of disease, the patient, the surgeon, the treatment center, industry, and society. Three questions remain: Because of the competition of LA versus OA, OA has improved greatly. Can it be improved any more? Is there a place or need for further randomized controlled trials? Should we not conclude once and for all that LA is out?