Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2007 Jul-Sep;11(3):363-7.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: the risk of postoperative infectious complications

Muhammad Najm Khan  1 , Tony Fayyad, Tom D Cecil, Brendan J Moran
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: the risk of postoperative infectious complications

Muhammad Najm Khan et al. JSLS. 2007 Jul-Sep.

Abstract

Background: Despite the reported advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), ongoing debate exists about a possible increase in postoperative infectious complication rates especially intraabdominal infections and wound infection, unless wound protection is utilized.

Methods: All consecutive appendectomies (open and laparoscopic) performed over 4 months were included in this prospective study. Demographic details, operative time, time to conversion, infective postoperative complications, and delay in discharge were recorded. The patients were divided into 2 groups, laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA).

Results: A total of 134 appendectomies were performed, 80 in the LA group and 54 in the OA group. Twenty-six (19.4%) appendices were perforated at the time of operation. The median patient age was 24 years (range, 7 to 63). Patients included 71 females and 63 males. Operating time in the LA group was longer with a median duration of 51.3 minutes (range, 35 to 100) compared with 40.6 minutes (range, 30 to 95) in the OA group. An extraction bag was used in 59/71 (83%) LA patients. Wound infection was recorded in 6 patients (5/54 in OA and 1/80 in LA). The site of wound infection was the port of specimen extraction in the laparoscopic group, and an extraction bag was not used. Wound infection delayed hospital discharge by an average of 2 days. Intraabdominal abscess formation complicated the outcome in 2 patients (1 in the LA group and 1 in the OA group).

Conclusion: Wound infection is less common in LA than in OA, and an extraction bag is recommended. Intraabdominal infection rates do not appear to be increased, though the numbers in this study are relatively small. The longer operating time is minimal given the better results, and LA is the optimal approach to the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Comparison of operative time between the laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) groups.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Semm K. Endoscopic appendectomy. Endoscopy. 1983; 15: 59–64 - PubMed
    1. Golub R, Siddiqui F, Pohl D. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a meta analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 1998; 186: 545–553 - PubMed
    1. Chung RS, Rowland DY, Li P, et al. A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic versus conventional Appendectomy. Am J Surg. 1999; 177: 250–253 - PubMed
    1. Garbutt JM, Soper NJ, Shannon WD, et al. Meta analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and conventional Appendectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1999; 9: 17–26 - PubMed
    1. Frazee RC, Bohannon WT. Laparoscopic Appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Arch Surg. 1996; 131: 509–512 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources