Comparative analysis between single incision and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis

Sateesh, Sreeram; Subraj, Harsha; Mahesh, G S; Rao, Pasupuleti Sreenivasa

doi:10.5455/2320-6012.ijrms20141171

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fischer et al 15 reported intra-abdominal collection as similar complications in both groups (1.4 vs. 1.8%). Similarly, several comparative studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have not found significant differences in the development of postoperative intra-abdominal collection, which is consistent with our study 9,10,16,17 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Evaluation of factors associated with formation of intra-abdominal collections in single-port appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis

Cabrera‐Vargas¹,

Mendoza‐Zuchini²,

Bernal³

et al. 2023

CIRUE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the decreases between the appendectomy by single port vs. multiport laparoscopy and to establish if there is a difference in the risk of postoperative intra-abdominal collection. Method: Retrospective study was carried out using 116 medical records of patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy through a single port and multiport in two medical centers. Results: 12 (10.3%) patients developed an abdominal collection. No differences were found between the two techniques in terms of intra-abdominal collection development (p = 0.242), there was no difference between the two techniques in terms of intraoperative bleeding (p = 0.012), the surgical time was greater in the single-port group (17.4 min on average). 62.5% of patients with bleeding > 50 mL developed intra-abdominal collection. Conclusions: There was no evidence of the superiority of either of the two interventions in complicated appendicitis, but it does confirm that single-port laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe, feasible, noninferior procedure and with similar complication rates compared to the conventional laparoscopic appendectomy technique.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Evaluation of factors associated with formation of intra-abdominal collections in single-port appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis

Cabrera‐Vargas¹,

Mendoza‐Zuchini²,

Bernal³

et al. 2023

CIRUE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fischer, et al 15 informaron complicaciones como colección intraabdominal similares en los dos grupos (1.4 vs. 1.8%). De igual manera, numerosos estudios comparativos, revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis no han encontrado diferencias significativas en la formación de colección intraabdominal posoperatoria, en concordancia con nuestro estudio 9,10,16,17 .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Evaluación de factores asociados a formación de colecciones intraabdominales en apendicectomía monopuerto para apendicitis aguda complicada

Cabrera¹,

Mendoza‐Zuchini²,

Bernal³

et al. 2021

CIRU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objetivo: Comparar los desenlaces entre la apendicectomía por laparoscopia por puerto único y multipuerto, y establecer si existe diferencia en el riesgo de colección intraabdominal posoperatoria. Método: Se realizó un estudio retrospectivo, observacional, mediante 116 historias clínicas de pacientes llevados a apendicectomía laparoscópica por único puerto y multipuerto en dos centros médicos. Resultados: Desarrollaron colección intraabdominal 12 (10.3%) pacientes. No se encontraron diferencias entre ambas técnicas en cuanto al desarrollo de colección intraabdominal (p = 0.242), no hubo diferencia entre ambas técnicas en cuanto a sangrado intraoperatorio (p = 0.012) y el tiempo quirúrgico fue mayor en el grupo de puerto único (17.4 minutos en promedio). El 62.5% de los pacientes con sangrado > 50 ml desarrollaron colección intraabdominal. Conclusiones: No se evidenció superioridad de ninguna de las dos intervenciones en apendicitis complicada, pero sí se confirma que la apendicectomía laparoscópica por puerto único es un procedimiento seguro, factible, no inferior y con tasas similares de complicaciones en comparación con la técnica convencional de apendicectomía laparoscópica.

show abstract

“…[2] In addition to open and laparoscopic surgical methods, single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic appendectomy (NOTES) methods were also described for surgical treatment of acute appendicitis. [1,[3][4][5] Clo-Cite this article as: Çelik Y, Erbil OA. Comparison of methods for closure of appendix stump during laparoscopic appendectomy using endoloops: Single surgeon experience.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of methods for closure of appendix stump during laparoscopic appendectomy using endoloops: Single surgeon experience

Çelik¹

2019

Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: In this study, using single or double endoloops, with reference to the literature, we aimed to retrospectively assess the results for patients in our clinic who underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy. METHODS: This study included 251 patients who were operated on by a single surgeon; 137 of the patients were male (54.6%) and 114 were female (45.4%). Patients were divided into two groups based on the type of endoloop procedure that was used. Group 1 included 107 patients for whom a single endoloop was used. Group II included 144 patients for whom double endoloop was used. Age, sex, duration of operation, length of hospital stay, pathological findings, perioperative appendix findings, perioperative abdominal findings, post-operative complications requiring hospitalization and wound infections were assessed for each patient. Patients were also assessed statistically for complications. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the demographic characteristics, perioperative surgery findings, pathological findings or duration of hospital stays between the two groups of the patients. However, the duration of operation was shorter in Group I (54.9±16.1 min) as compared to Group II (61.2±18.8 min). The incidence of complications requiring rehospitalization was statistically significantly lower in Group I (1.9%; n=2) as compared to Group II (9%; n=13) (p=0.018). There were no complications requiring reoperation for patients in Group I. In Group II, four patients (2.8%) required re-operation; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Concerning wound infection, there was also no significant difference between Group I (7.5% n=8) and Group II (4.9% n=7). CONCLUSION: Using a double endoloop does not decrease the risk of post-operative complications, but it does increase the cost and the duration of the operation. We have concluded that using a single endoloop in a laparoscopic appendectomy may be more appropriate.

show abstract

Comparative analysis between single incision and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis

Cited by 5 publications

References 29 publications

Evaluation of factors associated with formation of intra-abdominal collections in single-port appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis

Evaluation of factors associated with formation of intra-abdominal collections in single-port appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis

Evaluación de factores asociados a formación de colecciones intraabdominales en apendicectomía monopuerto para apendicitis aguda complicada

Comparison of methods for closure of appendix stump during laparoscopic appendectomy using endoloops: Single surgeon experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About