Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 40, Issue 11, pp 2603–2610 | Cite as

Appendectomy Skin Closure Technique, Randomized Controlled Trial: Changing Paradigms (ASC)

  • Luis Angel Medina Andrade
  • Franz Yeudiel Pérez Muñoz
  • María Valeria Jiménez Báez
  • Stephanie Serrano Collazos
  • Maria de los Angeles Martinez Ferretiz
  • Brenda Ruiz
  • Oscar Montes
  • Stephanie Woolf
  • Jessica Gonzalez Noriega
  • Uriel Maldonado Aparicio
  • Israel Gonzalez Gonzalez
Innovative Surgical Techniques Around the World
  • 894 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Appendectomy is the most frequent and urgent gastrointestinal surgery. Overtime, the surgical techniques have been improved upon, in order to reduce complications, get better cosmetic results, and limit the discomfort associated with this procedure, by its high impact in the surgery departments. The traditional skin closure is associated with a poor cosmetic result and it requires stitches removal, alongside the pain associated with this procedure, and no benefits were demonstrated in the literature regarding separated stitches over intradermic stitch. This is a randomized controlled trial, and our objective is to compare two different skin closure techniques in open appendectomy.

Methods

A prospective randomized trial method was used, with a total number of 208 patients participating in the study, after acute appendicitis diagnosis in the emergency department. They were randomized into two groups: patients who would receive skin closure with a unique absorbable intradermic stitch (Group A) and another group that would receive the traditional closure technique, consistent in non-absorbable separated stitches (Group B). General characteristics like gender, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), comorbidities, and allergies were registered. Days of Evolution (DOE) until surgery, previous use of antibiotics, complicated or uncomplicated appendicitis, surgical time, and wound complications like skin infection, dehiscence, seroma or abscess were also registered in each case.

Results

8 patients were excluded due to negative appendicitis during surgery and lack of follow-up. Two groups, each containing 100 patients, were formed. General characteristics and parity were compared, and no statistically significant differences were observed. Difference in the surgical time (Group A: 47.35 min vs Group B: 54.13 min, p < .001) and cases with complicated appendicitis (Group A: 58 and Group B:38, p = .005) were found to be statistically significant. Four wound complications were reported, and the incidence of seroma (Group A:0 and Group B:5, p = .02) and abscess (Group A:2 and Group B:8, p = .05) were found to have some statistical significant difference. In a multivariate analysis, a relationship was observed between BMI > 25 kg/m2 and seroma (p = .006), BMI > 25 kg/m2 and abscess (p = .02), surgical time >50 min and seroma (p < .001), >2 DOE and abscess (p = .001), and complicated appendicitis with seroma development (p = .03).

Conclusion

Open appendectomy skin closure with a unique absorbable intradermic stitch is safe, with a reduced seroma and abscess incidence, compared to traditional closure, and an equivalent dehiscence and superficial infection incidence, allowing a lower hospital attention cost and length of hospital stay for treatment of complications. The relative risk of complications with traditional skin closure is 2.91 higher, compared to this new technique.

Keywords

Appendicitis Acute Appendicitis Laparoscopic Appendectomy Skin Closure Open Appendectomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

To SAM GL. for the unconditional support and help in this protocol development. Special thanks to Dr. Gerardo Perez, Dr. Roberto Lope, Dr. Reyes David Coot, Dr. Javier Gonzalez, Dr. Ariel Lozano, Dr. Victor Calao, and Dr. Gustavo Segovia for his contribution to protocol success.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest in the protocol development.

References

  1. 1.
    Markar Sheraz R, Vishal Venkat-Raman, Alison Ho, Alan Karthikesalingam et al (2011) Laparoscopic vs open appendicectomy in obese patients. Int J Surg 9:451–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    David H, William S, John S (2007) Appendicitis. Br Med J Clin Evid 7:408Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McBurney C (1894) The incision made in the abdominal wall in cases of appendicitis, with a description of a new method of operating. Ann Surg 20:38–43CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ortega Gezzer (2012) An evaluation of surgical site infections by wound classification system using the ACS-NSQIP. J Surg Res 174:33–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andersen BR et al (2001) Review: antibiotics reduce wound infections and intra-abdominal abscesses in patients having appendectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [cited 28 Sep 2014]. Disponible en: http://ebn.bmj.com/content/5/2/49.full.pdf
  6. 6.
    Ein SH, Sandler A (2006) Wound infection prophylaxis in pediatric acute appendicitis-a 26-year prospective study. J Pediatr Surg 41:538–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rucinski J, Fabian T, Panagopoulos G, Schein M, Wise L (2000) Gangrenous and perforated appendicitis: a meta-analytic study of 2532 patients indicates that the incision should be closed primarily. Surgery 127:136–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chau GY (2012) Can delayed primary wound closure decrease incidence of wound infection after appendectomy in patients with perforated appendicitis? J Chin Med Assoc 75:249–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parcells JP, Mileski JP, Gnagy FT, Haragan AF et al (2006) Using antimicrobial solution for irrigation in appendicitis to lower surgical site infection rates. Am J Surg 198(6):875–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tander B et al (2003) The utility of peritoneal drains in children with uncomplicated perforated appendicitis. Pediatr Surg Int 19(7):548–550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EA (2004) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18(4):84–91Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bennett J, Boddy A, Rhodes M (2007) Choice of approach for appendicectomy: a meta- analysis of open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:245–255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pepper VK (2012) Diagnosis and management of pediatric appendicitis, intussuception, and Meckel diverticulum. Surg Clin North Am 92(3):505–526CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Phillips S, Walton JM, Chin I et al (2005) Ten-year experience with pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy—are we getting better? J Pediatr Surg 40:842–845CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aranda P et al (2014) Infección de sitio quirúrgico tras apendicectomía urgente: tasa global y tipo según la vía de abordaje (abierta/laparoscópica). Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 32(2):76–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EA (2004) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [cited 28 Sep 2014]; Disponible en: http://cochrane.bvsalud.org/2007;17:245–55
  17. 17.
    Serour F et al (1996) Subcuticular skin closure as a standard approach to emergency appendectomy in children: prospective clinical trial. World J Surg 20:38–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pauniaho SL, Lahdes-Vasama T, Helminen MT et al (1999) Non- absorbable interrupted versus absorbable continuous skin closure in pediatric appendicectomies. Scand J Surg 3:142–146Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tanaka A et al (2014) Randomized controlled trial comparing subcuticular absorbable suture with conventional interrupted suture for wound closure at elective operation of colon cáncer. Surgery 155(3):486–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Athié GC, Guízar BC, Rivera RH (1999) Epidemiología de la patología abdominal aguda en el servicio de urgencias del Hospital General de México. Análisis de 30 años. Cir Gen 21:99–104Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chavez Ruiz R, Cano Muñoz I, Flores Gonzalez A, Rodriguez Baca A (2012) Características epidemiológicas en apendicitis aguda: Comparación entre dos poblaciones atendidas en un mismo hospital. Revista Médica MD 3(3):142–147Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cameron IC, Thomas WEG (2013) Current surgical therapy, 10th edn. Mosby Inc., USA, pp 225–229Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Samuel M (2002) Pediatric appendicitis score. J Pediatr Surg 37:877–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Drake FT, Flum DR (2013) Improvement in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Adv Surg 47:299–328CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dolgin SE, Beck AR, Tartter PI (1992) The risk of perforation when children with possible appendicitis are observed in the hospital. Surg Gynecol Obstet 175:320–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Abou-Nukta F, Bakhos C, Arroyo K et al (2005) Effects of delaying appendectomy for acute appendicitis for 12 to 24 hours. Arch Surg 141:504–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Taylor M, Emil S, Nguyen N et al (2005) Emergent vs urgent appendectomy in children: a study of outcomes. J Pediatr Surg 40:1912–1915CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yardeni D, Hirschl RB, Drongowski RA et al (2004) Delayed versus immediate surgery in acute appendicitis: do we need to operate during the night? J Pediatr Surg 39:464–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Surana R, Quinn F, Puri P (1993) Is it necessary to perform appendectomy in the middle of the night in children? Br Med J 306:1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Morrow E (2007) Current management of appendicitis. Semin Pediatr Surg 16:34–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vissers R, Lennarz W (2010) Pitfalls in Appendicitis. Emerg Med Clin N Am. 28:103–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Muehlstedt SG, Pham TQ, Schmeling DJ (2004) The management of pediatric appendicitis: a survey of North American pediatric surgeons. J Pediatr Surg 39:875–879CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Geri G (2013) Indications for medical treatment of acute appendicitis. Rev Prat 63(4):535–541PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Myers AL, Williams RF, Giles K, Waters TM et al (2012) Hospital cost analysis of a prospective, randomized trial of early vs interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children. J Am Coll Surg 214(4):427–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Canty TG Sr, Collins D, Losasso B et al (2000) Laparoscopic appendectomy for simple and perforated appendicitis in children: the procedure of choice? J Pediatr Surg 35:1582–1585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kadam S, Metha D (2013) Appendicectomy approach: do we choose base don gender and time of day? Int J Surg 11:686–745Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Liu Bing-Rong (2012) Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy: a pilot minimally invasive technique. Gastrointest Endosc 76(4):862–866CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Meier DE, Guzzetta PC, Barber RG et al (2003) Perforated appendicitis in children: is there a best treatment? J Pediatr Surg 38:1520–1524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Culver DH, Horan TC, Gaynes RP et al (1991) Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System. Am J Med 91:152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cruse PJ, Foord R (1980) The epidemiology of wound infection. A 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am 60(1):27–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Khajouei H, Afsharfard A, Zeynalzadeh M, Najafbeigi A et al (2007) Cosmetic surgical repair of contaminated wounds versus traditional loose approximation: does it increase the rate of wound infections? MJIRI 20:158–160Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Martínez Ibáñez V (2005) Protocolo de práctica clínica basada en la evidencia. Hospital Vall d’Hebron de BarcelonaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis Angel Medina Andrade
    • 1
  • Franz Yeudiel Pérez Muñoz
    • 1
  • María Valeria Jiménez Báez
    • 2
  • Stephanie Serrano Collazos
    • 1
  • Maria de los Angeles Martinez Ferretiz
    • 1
  • Brenda Ruiz
    • 1
  • Oscar Montes
    • 1
  • Stephanie Woolf
    • 1
  • Jessica Gonzalez Noriega
    • 3
  • Uriel Maldonado Aparicio
    • 3
  • Israel Gonzalez Gonzalez
    • 4
  1. 1.Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Hospital General Regional No. 17, General Surgery DepartmentQuintana Roo UniversityCancúnMexico
  2. 2.Health Research Department, Quintana RooInstituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialCancúnMexico
  3. 3.Hospital General de Zona #1. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoLa PazMexico
  4. 4.General Surgery Department, The American British Cowdray Medical Center I.A.PUniversidad Nacional Autonoma de MexicoDistrito FederalMexico

Personalised recommendations