Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between the Hem-o-lok Clip and Endoloop Ligature in Securing the Base of the Appendix.
- Author:
Young Chan KIM
1
;
Tae Kyung HA
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, Hanyang University Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. missurgeon@hanyang.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Appendicitis;
Laparoscopic appendectomy;
Hem-o-lok clip;
Endoloop
- MeSH:
Appendectomy;
Appendicitis;
Appendix;
Body Mass Index;
C-Reactive Protein;
Cohort Studies;
Fever;
Humans;
Length of Stay;
Ligation;
Postoperative Complications;
Retrospective Studies
- From:Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery
2013;16(3):56-61
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: There are various techniques for securing the base of the appendix during performance of laparoscopic appendectomy. Many studies have reported that Endo-GIA is useful for securing the base of the appendix; however, it is costly. Many hospitals now use Endoloop ligature (ELL) for securing the base of the appendix. Many studies have demonstrated the many advantages of the Hem-o-lok clip (HLC) for securing the base of the appendix. The aim of this study is to compare the surgical outcomes of securing the base of the appendix between HLC and ELL during performance of laparoscopic appendectomy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted for comparison between HLC and ELL for securing the base during performance of laparoscopic appendectomy. From May 2008 to October 2011, 102 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy performed by a single surgeon. Thirty one patients were excluded for various reasons. In 38 patients, the base of the appendix was secured by HLC, and in 33 patients, ELL was applied. Data included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), cost of materials, preoperative white blood count (preoperative WBC), preoperative c-reactive protein (preoperative CRP), preoperative fever, operation time, hospital days, diameter of the appendiceal base, number of perforated appendicitis, and intraoperative or postoperative complication. RESULTS: HLC was used in 38 patients, with a meanage of 36.4 years old. ELL was applied in 33 patients, with a meanage of 19.3 years old. Significant difference in age of patients was observed between the groups (p<0.001). The groups were comparable with regard to sex, BMI, preoperative WBC, preoperative CRP, preoperative fever, operation time, hospital stay, diameter of the appendiceal base, perforated appendicitis, and intraoperative or postoperative complication. The cost of six HLCs was 32,940 won, and that for one ELL was 29,610 won, therefore, there was no significant difference in the cost of material between the tw o groups of patients. CONCLUSION: Except for age, no difference was observed between the two groups. If a single HLC set is available for securing the base of the appendix, there will be a significant difference of the material cost between the two groups. ELL is more useful for securing the appendiceal base, with a larger diameter, which is inappropriate for use of HLC.
