Laparoscopic Appendectomy vs Open Appendectomy.
- Author:
Gil Soo SON
1
;
Won Jun CHOI
;
Min Young CHO
;
Sung Ock SUH
;
Young Chul KIM
;
Sae Min KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, Eul-Ji General Hospital.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Laparoscopic appendectomy;
Open appendectomy
- MeSH:
Analgesics;
Appendectomy*;
Appendicitis;
Diagnosis;
Diagnostic Errors;
Female;
Humans;
Korea;
Length of Stay;
Male;
Operative Time;
Pain, Postoperative;
Retrospective Studies;
Wound Infection
- From:Korean Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
1998;18(4):520-526
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The rate of laparoscopic appendectomy has been gradually increasing. The following studies were conducted to compare laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) with open appendectomy (OA). METHODS: We compared retrospectively 48 patients in the LA group with 135 patients in the OA group, all of whom were operated at Anam hospital, Korea University, from January 1996 to January 1997. Documentation included information such as age, sex, diagnostic method, postoperative diagnosis, misdiagnosis rate, operative time, conversion to open appendectomy, analgesics injection, hospital stay, and complicatians. RESULTS: 1) The mean age and male to female ratio were 28.5 years and 1: 2.4 in LA group, and 34.1 years and 1: 1.1 in OA group, respectively. 2) An abdominal sonogram was perfomed in 18.8% of the LA group and 28.9% in OA group (p < 0.05). 3) The operative time was 68.4 minutes in the LA group and 53.7 minutes in the OA group (p<0.05). 4) The number of analgesic injections was 1.23 in the LA group and 2.65 in the OA group (p<0.05). 5) The postoperative hospital stay was 3.38 days in the LA group and 3.84 days in the OA group (p > 0.05). 6) The complication rate was 10.9% in the LA group and 15,5% in the OA group (p >0.05), but the wound infection rate was 2.2% in the LA group and 8.5% in the OA group (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LA is a safe and effective operation for acute appendicitis, and is particularly superior to OA in regard to diagnosis, postoperative pain, wound infection, and cosmetic benefits.
