INTRODUCTIONThe aim of this study was to analyse the feasibility, safety and benefits of laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) in comparison with open appendicectomy (OA) for perforated appendicitis (PA) in children.

MATERIALS AND METHODSA retrospective analysis of all consecutive cases of PA who underwent OA or LA between July 2001 and April 2004 was done. The patient demographics, duration of symptoms and operative findings were noted and the feasibility, safety and benefits of LA were analysed with respect to postoperative recovery and complications.

RESULTSOne hundred and thirty-seven consecutive patients with PA underwent either OA (n = 46) or LA (n = 91). Both groups were comparable with respect to patient demographics, duration of symptoms and operative findings. The mean operative time was 106.5 min (95% CI, 100.2 - 112.8) in the LA group and 92.8 min (95% CI, 82.9-102.7) in the OA group (P = 0.02). The return to afebrile status after surgery was significantly faster in the LA group [mean, 45.4 hours (95% CI, 36.8-54)] than the OA group [mean, 77 hours (95% CI 56.7-97.3)] (P = 0.007). The mean duration for postoperative opioid analgesia was 2.5 days (95% CI, 2.2-2.7) for LA and 3.2 days (95% CI, 2.9- 3.6) for OA (P = 0.001). The resumption of oral feeds after surgery was at 3.1 days (95% CI, 2.8-3.3) for LA and 3.7 days (3.4-4.1) for OA (P = 0.005). The length of the hospital stay was shorter in the LA group [mean, 6.5 days (95% CI, 6.1-6.8)] as compared to that of the OA group [mean, 8.2 days (95% CI, 7.1-9.3)] (P = 0.006). Postoperative complications included wound infection, adhesive intestinal obstruction and pelvic abscess formation. The incidence of these complications was 5.6% in the LA group and 19.6% in the OA group (P = 0.01). Nine patients (9.8%) needed conversion to open surgery in the LA group. None of the LA patients had wound infection.

CONCLUSIONLA is feasible, safe and beneficial in children with PA.

Age Factors ; Appendectomy ; methods ; Appendicitis ; surgery ; Child ; Feasibility Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; adverse effects ; methods ; Male ; Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) ; Pilot Projects ; Retrospective Studies ; Safety ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome

INTRODUCTION: Doppler scrotal ultrasonography (US) is the modality of choice in diagnosing testicular torsion. We aimed to evaluate the performance of scrotal US in diagnosing testicular torsion over the past 18 years in our institution and determine the factors contributing to the length of wait times for it. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of boys who presented with acute scrotal pain from 2014 to 2015. US reports, operative findings, final diagnosis and key time points of the patients' journey (time to emergency department consultation, time to admission, time to US and time to operating theatre [OT]) were collected. US performance results were compared with those observed in a historical cohort from 1998 to 2004. Wait times were compared between operated and non-operated patients. RESULTS: Data from 519 boys with a mean age of 9.15 years was collected. Of these, 438 (84.4%) boys had undergone initial scrotal US; of these scrotal US cases, 28 were surgically explored, with 23 confirmed to have torsion. Another five cases were explored without prior US, and all were confirmed to have torsion. Performance analysis of US showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 98.8%. There was no significant difference between wait times of operated and non-operated patients. Time to US (P < 0.0001, r = 0.96) and time to OT (P < 0.0001, r = 0.64) correlated significantly with the total time from presentation to surgery. CONCLUSION There has been an improvement in the diagnostic performance of scrotal US for testicular torsion over the past 18 years. Quality improvement programmes targeted at reducing wait times for patients presenting with acute scrotum should target time to US and time to OT.
Male ; Child ; Humans ; Female ; Scrotum/surgery* ; Spermatic Cord Torsion/surgery* ; Acute Pain/diagnostic imaging* ; Ultrasonography ; Retrospective Studies