Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis

Chang Sik Shin; Jae Il Kim; Young Nam Roh; Pyong Wha Choi; Tae Gil Heo; Je Hoon Park; Myung Soo Lee

doi:doi:10.11648/j.js.20130102.17

| Peer-Reviewed

Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis

Chang Sik Shin, Jae Il Kim, Young Nam Roh, Pyong Wha Choi, Tae Gil Heo, Je Hoon Park, Myung Soo Lee

Published in Journal of Surgery (Volume 1, Issue 2)

Received: 22 June 2013 Published: 10 July 2013

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for both uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) and complicated appendicitis (CA) and to help to choose the appropriate procedure for its management. Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent OA (OA group) or LA (LA group) for UA or CA between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011, were retrospectively reviewed. Results: For UA, time to a soft diet (1.5±0.7 in OA versus 1.4±0.7 days in LA, p=0.0010) and the length of hospital stay (3.9±1.5 in OA versus 3.3±1.4 days in LA, p<0.0001) were significantly shorter in the LA group. The length of hospital stay for CA was significantly shorter in the LA group than in the OA group (7.5±3.8 versus 4.9±2.8 days, p=0.0012). Complication rates were not significantly different between the LA and OA groups for both UA and CA. Conclusions: We conclude that for CA, clinical outcomes were better in the LA than in the OA group. For UA, there were no significant advantages of LA considering expensive hospital costs. The results of this study suggest that LA is the procedure of choice for patients with complicated appendicitis.

Published in	Journal of Surgery (Volume 1, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.js.20130102.17
Page(s)	37-42
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2013. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Appendicitis, Appendectomy, Complication, Laparoscopy

References

[1]	Hansson J, Korner U, Ludwigs K, Johnsson E, Jonsson C, Lundholm K. Antibiotics as First-line Therapy for Acute Appendicitis: Evidence for a Change in Clinical Practice. World J Surg. 2012;36:2028-2036
[2]	Semm K. Endoscopic appendectomy. Endoscopy. 1983;15:59-64
[3]	Park J, Kwak H, Kim SG, Lee S. Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy: comparison with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22:142-145
[4]	Kim HJ, Lee JI, Lee YS, Lee IK, Park JH, Lee SK, Kang WK, Cho HM, You YK, Oh ST. Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic appendectomy: 43 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2765-2769
[5]	Southgate E, Vousden N, Karthikesalingam A, Markar SR, Black S, Zaidi A. Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy in older patients. Arch Surg. 2012;147:557-562
[6]	Masoomi H, Mills S, Dolich MO, Ketana N, Carmichael JC, Nguyen NT, Stamos MJ. Does laparoscopic appendectomy impart an advantage over open appendectomy in elderly patients? World J Surg. 2012;36:1534-1539
[7]	Mason RJ, Moazzez A, Moroney JR, Katkhouda N. Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy in obese patients: outcomes using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:88-99; discussion 99-100
[8]	Lee HJ, Park YH, Kim JI, Choi PW, Park JH, Heo TG, Lee MS, Kim CN, Chang SH. Comparison of clinical outcomes and hospital cost between open appendectomy and laparoscopic appendectomy. J Korean Surg Soc. 2011;81:321-325
[9]	Suh YJ, Jeong SY, Park KJ, Park JG, Kang SB, Kim DW, Oh HK, Shin R, Kim JS. Comparison of surgical-site infection between open and laparoscopic appendectomy. J Korean Surg Soc. 2012;82:35-39
[10]	Saia M, Buja A, Baldovin T, Callegaro G, Sandona P, Mantoan D, Baldo V. Trend, variability, and outcome of open vs. laparoscopic appendectomy based on a large administrative database. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2353-2359
[11]	Masoomi H, Mills S, Dolich MO, Ketana N, Carmichael JC, Nguyen NT, Stamos MJ. Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), 2006-2008. World J Surg. 2012;36:573-578
[12]	Tiwari MM, Reynoso JF, Tsang AW, Oleynikov D. Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy in management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Ann Surg. 2011;254:927-932
[13]	McGrath B, Buckius MT, Grim R, Bell T, Ahuja V. Economics of appendicitis: cost trend analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy from 1998 to 2008. J Surg Res. 2011;171:e161-168
[14]	Markar SR, Blackburn S, Cobb R, Karthikesalingam A, Evans J, Kinross J, Faiz O. Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Complicated and Uncomplicated Appendicitis in Children. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:1993-2004
[15]	Sporn E, Petroski GF, Mancini GJ, Astudillo JA, Miedema BW, Thaler K. Laparoscopic appendectomy--is it worth the cost? Trend analysis in the US from 2000 to 2005. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;208:179-185 e172
[16]	Maa J, Kirkwood KS. The Appendix. In: Townsend CM, Sabiston DC (eds) Sabiston textbook of surgery : the biological basis of modern surgical practice, Saunders Elsevier, Philadelphia, 2008 pp 917-973
[17]	Nataraja RM, Teague WJ, Galea J, Moore L, Haddad MJ, Tsang T, Khurana S, Clarke SA. Comparison of intraabdominal abscess formation after laparoscopic and open appendicectomies in children. J Pediatr Surg. 2012;47:317-321
[18]	Wei B, Qi CL, Chen TF, Zheng ZH, Huang JL, Hu BG, Wei HB. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a metaanalysis. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:1199-1208
[19]	Li X, Zhang J, Sang L, Zhang W, Chu Z, Liu Y. Laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Gastroenterol. 2010;10:129
[20]	Sauerland S, Jaschinski T, Neugebauer EA. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010:CD001546
[21]	Liu Z, Zhang P, Ma Y, Chen H, Zhou Y, Zhang M, Chu Z, Qin H. Laparoscopy or not: a meta-analysis of the surgical effects of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2010;20:362-370

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Chang Sik Shin, Jae Il Kim, Young Nam Roh, Pyong Wha Choi, Tae Gil Heo, et al. (2013). Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis. Journal of Surgery, 1(2), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20130102.17

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Chang Sik Shin; Jae Il Kim; Young Nam Roh; Pyong Wha Choi; Tae Gil Heo, et al. Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis. J. Surg. 2013, 1(2), 37-42. doi: 10.11648/j.js.20130102.17

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Chang Sik Shin, Jae Il Kim, Young Nam Roh, Pyong Wha Choi, Tae Gil Heo, et al. Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis. J Surg. 2013;1(2):37-42. doi: 10.11648/j.js.20130102.17

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.js.20130102.17,
  author = {Chang Sik Shin and Jae Il Kim and Young Nam Roh and Pyong Wha Choi and Tae Gil Heo and Je Hoon Park and Myung Soo Lee},
  title = {Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis},
  journal = {Journal of Surgery},
  volume = {1},
  number = {2},
  pages = {37-42},
  doi = {10.11648/j.js.20130102.17},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20130102.17},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.js.20130102.17},
  abstract = {Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for both uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) and complicated appendicitis (CA) and to help to choose the appropriate procedure for its management. Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent OA (OA group) or LA (LA group) for UA or CA between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011, were retrospectively reviewed. Results: For UA, time to a soft diet (1.5±0.7 in OA versus 1.4±0.7 days in LA, p=0.0010) and the length of hospital stay (3.9±1.5 in OA versus 3.3±1.4 days in LA, p<0.0001) were significantly shorter in the LA group. The length of hospital stay for CA was significantly shorter in the LA group than in the OA group (7.5±3.8 versus 4.9±2.8 days, p=0.0012). Complication rates were not significantly different between the LA and OA groups for both UA and CA. Conclusions: We conclude that for CA, clinical outcomes were better in the LA than in the OA group. For UA, there were no significant advantages of LA considering expensive hospital costs. The results of this study suggest that LA is the procedure of choice for patients with complicated appendicitis.},
 year = {2013}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis
AU  - Chang Sik Shin
AU  - Jae Il Kim
AU  - Young Nam Roh
AU  - Pyong Wha Choi
AU  - Tae Gil Heo
AU  - Je Hoon Park
AU  - Myung Soo Lee
Y1  - 2013/07/10
PY  - 2013
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20130102.17
DO  - 10.11648/j.js.20130102.17
T2  - Journal of Surgery
JF  - Journal of Surgery
JO  - Journal of Surgery
SP  - 37
EP  - 42
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0930
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20130102.17
AB  - Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for both uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) and complicated appendicitis (CA) and to help to choose the appropriate procedure for its management. Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent OA (OA group) or LA (LA group) for UA or CA between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011, were retrospectively reviewed. Results: For UA, time to a soft diet (1.5±0.7 in OA versus 1.4±0.7 days in LA, p=0.0010) and the length of hospital stay (3.9±1.5 in OA versus 3.3±1.4 days in LA, p<0.0001) were significantly shorter in the LA group. The length of hospital stay for CA was significantly shorter in the LA group than in the OA group (7.5±3.8 versus 4.9±2.8 days, p=0.0012). Complication rates were not significantly different between the LA and OA groups for both UA and CA. Conclusions: We conclude that for CA, clinical outcomes were better in the LA than in the OA group. For UA, there were no significant advantages of LA considering expensive hospital costs. The results of this study suggest that LA is the procedure of choice for patients with complicated appendicitis.
VL  - 1
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Chang Sik Shin

Department of Surgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, 170, Juhwaro, Ilsanseogu, Goyangsi, Gyeonggido, Republic of Korea
Jae Il Kim

Department of Surgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, 170, Juhwaro, Ilsanseogu, Goyangsi, Gyeonggido, Republic of Korea
Young Nam Roh

Department of Surgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, 170, Juhwaro, Ilsanseogu, Goyangsi, Gyeonggido, Republic of Korea
Pyong Wha Choi

Department of Surgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, 170, Juhwaro, Ilsanseogu, Goyangsi, Gyeonggido, Republic of Korea
Tae Gil Heo

Department of Surgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, 170, Juhwaro, Ilsanseogu, Goyangsi, Gyeonggido, Republic of Korea
Je Hoon Park

Department of Surgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, 170, Juhwaro, Ilsanseogu, Goyangsi, Gyeonggido, Republic of Korea
Myung Soo Lee

Department of Surgery, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, 170, Juhwaro, Ilsanseogu, Goyangsi, Gyeonggido, Republic of Korea

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Chang Sik Shin, Jae Il Kim, Young Nam Roh, Pyong Wha Choi, Tae Gil Heo, et al. (2013). Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis. Journal of Surgery, 1(2), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20130102.17

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Chang Sik Shin; Jae Il Kim; Young Nam Roh; Pyong Wha Choi; Tae Gil Heo, et al. Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis. J. Surg. 2013, 1(2), 37-42. doi: 10.11648/j.js.20130102.17

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Chang Sik Shin, Jae Il Kim, Young Nam Roh, Pyong Wha Choi, Tae Gil Heo, et al. Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis. J Surg. 2013;1(2):37-42. doi: 10.11648/j.js.20130102.17

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.js.20130102.17,
  author = {Chang Sik Shin and Jae Il Kim and Young Nam Roh and Pyong Wha Choi and Tae Gil Heo and Je Hoon Park and Myung Soo Lee},
  title = {Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis},
  journal = {Journal of Surgery},
  volume = {1},
  number = {2},
  pages = {37-42},
  doi = {10.11648/j.js.20130102.17},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20130102.17},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.js.20130102.17},
  abstract = {Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for both uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) and complicated appendicitis (CA) and to help to choose the appropriate procedure for its management. Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent OA (OA group) or LA (LA group) for UA or CA between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011, were retrospectively reviewed. Results: For UA, time to a soft diet (1.5±0.7 in OA versus 1.4±0.7 days in LA, p=0.0010) and the length of hospital stay (3.9±1.5 in OA versus 3.3±1.4 days in LA, p<0.0001) were significantly shorter in the LA group. The length of hospital stay for CA was significantly shorter in the LA group than in the OA group (7.5±3.8 versus 4.9±2.8 days, p=0.0012). Complication rates were not significantly different between the LA and OA groups for both UA and CA. Conclusions: We conclude that for CA, clinical outcomes were better in the LA than in the OA group. For UA, there were no significant advantages of LA considering expensive hospital costs. The results of this study suggest that LA is the procedure of choice for patients with complicated appendicitis.},
 year = {2013}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis
AU  - Chang Sik Shin
AU  - Jae Il Kim
AU  - Young Nam Roh
AU  - Pyong Wha Choi
AU  - Tae Gil Heo
AU  - Je Hoon Park
AU  - Myung Soo Lee
Y1  - 2013/07/10
PY  - 2013
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20130102.17
DO  - 10.11648/j.js.20130102.17
T2  - Journal of Surgery
JF  - Journal of Surgery
JO  - Journal of Surgery
SP  - 37
EP  - 42
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0930
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.js.20130102.17
AB  - Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for both uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) and complicated appendicitis (CA) and to help to choose the appropriate procedure for its management. Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent OA (OA group) or LA (LA group) for UA or CA between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011, were retrospectively reviewed. Results: For UA, time to a soft diet (1.5±0.7 in OA versus 1.4±0.7 days in LA, p=0.0010) and the length of hospital stay (3.9±1.5 in OA versus 3.3±1.4 days in LA, p<0.0001) were significantly shorter in the LA group. The length of hospital stay for CA was significantly shorter in the LA group than in the OA group (7.5±3.8 versus 4.9±2.8 days, p=0.0012). Complication rates were not significantly different between the LA and OA groups for both UA and CA. Conclusions: We conclude that for CA, clinical outcomes were better in the LA than in the OA group. For UA, there were no significant advantages of LA considering expensive hospital costs. The results of this study suggest that LA is the procedure of choice for patients with complicated appendicitis.
VL  - 1
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download