Objective: Laparoscopy has gained clinical acceptance in many subspecialties in the last decade. The conventional open surgery for peritonitis carries significant morbidity and mortality. The present study was done to extend and evaluate benefits of minimally invasive surgery in this subset of patients. Methods: This was a prospective study spanning over a period of four years. All those patients diagnosed as having peritonitis on clinical assessment and preoperative investigations and those who were stable enough haemodynamically were included in this study. After initial resuscitation for few hours, they underwent diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy to identify the cause of peritonitis and to confirm the pathology. All cases were done under general anesthesia, using three standard ports at appropriate sites according to pathology. Patients were treated by different procedures either laparoscopically or with laparoscopic assistance after diagnosis. Operative and post operative data was collected and analyzed. Results: Ninety two cases of peritonitis underwent diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy. Mean age of patient was 46.5 years. 24 patients were diagnosed as perforated duodenal, in 14 (58.3%) patients laparoscopic suture repair was done and in 8 (33.3%) small upper midline incision was given and perforation was repaired. Out of 32 patients having perforated appendix, 25 (78.1%) patients laparoscopic appendectomy was done while in 7 (21.8%) perforation was dealt by laparoscopic assistance. Out of 14 patients of ileal perforation 6 (42.8%) with minimal contamination laparoscopic suture was applied, while in 8 (57.1%), perforated loop was brought out by making small window and perforation was closed. All 22 patients with pelvic sepsis needed only aspiration of pus and peritoneal lavage. Only one patient died post operatively and 2 (2.1%) patients developed fistula. 6 (6.5%) patients developed port site infection. Conclusion: Laparoscopic management is feasible, safe and effective surgical option for patients with peritonitis due to different abdominal emergencies in properly selected cases with higher diagnostic yield and a faster postoperative recovery.

Background:Since a long time skin incisions have routinely been made with scalpels. Now a day there is a shift in trend from this method to electrosurgical skin incisions. However, fear of bad scars and improper wound healing has prevented its wide spread use. This Study aimed to compare both methods of skin incisions for different variables.Objectives:The aim of this study was to examine incisional time, blood loss during incision and postoperative wound complications and pain with both methods of skin incision.Patients and Methods:A prospective, comparative and randomized study was conducted at different hospitals of Hyderabad and Nawabshah, Pakistan from 1st of December 2009 to 30th of November 2011. The study included patients of either sex above the age of five years with general surgical pathology who were to undergo surgery. these candidates were randomly put into two groups. In Group A patients incision was made with a scalpel and in group B with diathermy. Data was analyzed for age, sex, comorbid illness, incisional time, blood loss during incision making and postoperative pain and wound complications.Results:A total of 283 patients completed the follow-up and were included in the final analysis. Group A comprised of 143 (50.53%) patients; 83 (58%) males and 60 (42%) females with a mean age of 36.03 years. Amongst the 140 patients of group B, there were 85 (60.7%) males and 55 (39.3%) females with a mean age of 36.52 years. Twenty-five (17.48%) patients of group A and 27 (19.28%) of group B had comorbid illnesses. Mean incision time was 8.9025-sec/cm2 for group A and 7.3057 sec/cm2 for group B patients. Mean blood loss during incision making was 1.8262 mL/cm2 and 1.1346 mL/cm2 for group A and B patients, respectively. Pain was 5.2957 for group A patients on day one and 3.1181 for group B patients. Pain score was 2.1049 and 1.6206 on day two and 0.8191 and 0.7192 on day five, for group A and B patients, respectively. Postoperative wound complications were noticed in 26 (18.18%) patients of group A and 22 (15.71%) patients of group B.Conclusions:Diathermy incision is a safe and expedient technique. It takes less time than scalpel incision and loss of blood is also lower during incision. Diathermy is associated with lesser post-operative pain and complications than the scalpel incision. Diathermy should be method of choice in general elective surgery.