Journal of Pediatric Endoscopic Surgery

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 127–132 | Cite as

Hem-o-lok clip versus hand-made loop in base closure during laparoscopic appendectomy in children

  • Ahmed ElgendyEmail author
  • Mohammad Gharieb Khirallah
Original Research



To evaluate the efficacy and safety of hem-o-lok clip in base closure during laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in children and compare its outcomes with hand-made loop.


A prospective study was performed that included all patients who underwent LA at our hospital from January 2017 to March 2018. The cases were randomly divided into two groups according to the method used for base closure; in the first group double hem-o-lok clips were used, while double hand-made loops were adopted in the second group. Data were collected and compared between groups by t and Chi-square tests including clinical data, operative time, complications, hospital stay and cost of supplies.


The study included 44 patients, hem-o-lok clip group and hand-made loop group consisted of 21 and 23 patients, respectively. There were no significant differences between both groups concerning patients’ demographics, complications or hospital stay. Mean operative time was 29.95 ± 8.33 min in hem-o-lok clip group (range 18–47), whereas it was 38.78 ± 4.91 min in hand-made loop group (range 31–52) reaching statistical significance (p = 0.001). In terms of costs, a cartridge of hem-o-lok clips to be used per each case costs approximately 14 USD in our country, while a single package of Vicryl ligature 2-0 for forming hand-made loops costs 4 USD.


Hem-o-lok clip is effective and safe in securing the base of appendix during LA in children. Although it is slightly more expensive than hand-made loop, it offers a significantly shorter operative time as the principal advantage when compared to hand-made loop which is superior because of its economic value.


Laparoscopic appendectomy Hem-o-lok clip Hand-made loop Children 


Acute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies in children [1]. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been progressively used as the management of choice in children since its inception in 1992 [2], and currently about 75% of the patients with appendicitis are laparoscopically managed [3].

Advantages of LA over the conventional open appendectomy have been obviously declared in the last years. These advantages include lesser postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay, faster recovery and return to normal daily activities, and moreover there is a reduced liability to the onset of surgical site infections [4].

Although the operative technique of LA is established and practiced, some variations are still present regarding the patterns of appendicular base closure [5]. There are several methods available depending on the surgeon’s experience or preference, such as endoloop, endoscopic stapler, hem-o-lok clip, titanium clip, extracorporeal and intracorporeal knot [6], and others reported good results relying on hand-made loop because of its better economic value when compared to aforementioned methods [7, 8, 9].

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of hem-o-lok clip in securing the appendicular base during LA in children to compare its results and outcomes with hand-made loop.

Materials and methods

This prospective study included all patients younger than 18 years of age presented to our hospital and affiliated centers with acute appendicitis, and underwent LA in the period from 1st of January 2017 to 30th of March 2018. The patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the method used for appendicular base closure; in the first group, hem-o-lok clip (Ankalaps polymer ligating clip) was used, while in the second, hand-made loop (prepared by operating surgeon using Vicryl suture 2-0, Ethicon) was adopted. This randomization was achieved by the closed envelope method. The study has been approved by the Internal Review Board (IRB) and all the patients enrolled in this study have been informed. A written consent was signed by the parents for the surgical technique and the method used for stump closure. Cases with perforation at the appendicular base were excluded.

Operative time was estimated as the time from introducing the laparoscopic camera till extracting the appendix, while the time of application for each method was estimated from the introduction of hem-o-lok clip or hand-made loop into the abdomen till transection of the appendix. Data were collected and grouped according to the method used for appendicular base closure including patients’ demographics, operative time, time of application, intra- and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and cost of supplies. Data statistics was done using SPSS (statistical package for social science version 19.0).The results between both groups were compared by t test and Chi-square test. The quantitative variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Statistical significance was accepted when the p values were less than 0.05.

Surgical technique

The procedure was performed using the classical three-port technique (one 10 mm port at the umbilicus for telescope and other two 5 mm working ports, first at suprapubic region and the second either at left iliac fossa or right hypochondrium). After pneumoperitoneum and standard exploration, the appendix was identified followed by sealing of the mesoappendix by electrocautery.

In the first group, the telescope was disconnected from umbilical port and another 5 mm camera was applied through the second 5 mm port, then double hem-o-lok clips (size L) were placed by its special applier for securing the appendicular stump through umbilical port (Fig. 1). In the second group, the hand-made loops were introduced via the second 5 mm port to close the base of appendix by double ligations (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1

Hem-o-lok clip before its placement on the base

Fig. 2

Hand-made loop before ligation of the base

The appendix was transected few millimeters distal to double hem-o-lok clips or double hand-made loop ligatures (Figs. 3 and 4). Eventually, the appendix was removed in both groups through umbilical port. Suction and irrigation were performed if intraperitoneal pus was present and then skin incisions were closed. Patients were followed up after 1 week postoperatively at outpatients’ clinic, and another visit was scheduled after 3 weeks for further evaluation.
Fig. 3

Hem-o-lok clips close the appendicular base

Fig. 4

Hand-made loops secure the appendicular stump


During the study period, 44 patients with acute appendicitis were laparoscopically managed and enrolled for analysis. The hem-o-lok clip group (Group I) consisted of 21 patients (13 males, 8 females: mean age was 10.12 years; range 5.5–17 years), while the hand-made loop group (Group II) consisted of 23 patients (14 males, 9 females: mean age was 8.96 years; range 5–14 years).

There were no significant differences between both groups concerning age, gender and preoperative clinical data (duration of symptoms, nausea, vomiting, temperature, Blumberg sign) or investigations (total leukocyte count, C-reactive protein).The patients’ demographics, clinical data and surgical outcomes are shown in Table 1.
Table 1

The patients’ demographics, clinical data and cost of supplies for both groups


Hem-o-lok clip group

Hand-made loop group

p value

Number of patients




 Age (years)

10.12 ± 3.43

8.96 ± 2.80


 Gender (M/F) (%)

13/8 (61.9%/38.1%)

14/9 (60.9%/39.1%)


Clinical data

 Duration of symptoms (days)

1.79 ± 0.51

1.48 ± 0.63


 Nausea, n (%)

17 (81%)

19 (82.6%)


 Vomiting, n (%)

14 (66.7%)

13 (56.5%)


 Temperature (°C)

37.36 ± 0.38

37.20 ± 0.28


 Blumberg sign, n (%)

17 (81%)

18 (78.3%)


Preoperative lab investigation

 TLC (× 109/L)

9.90 ± 2.24

9.77 ± 2.37


 CRP (mg/dL)

38.0 ± 16.60

35.39 ± 16.38


Surgical details

 Mean operative time (min)

 Median application time (min)

29.95 ± 8.33

3.1 (range 1.8–5)

38.78 ± 4.91

5.1 (range 4–11.2)



 Hospital stay (days)

1.74 ± 0.69

1.38 ± 0.57



 Intraoperative complications

Postoperative complications

 Wound infection, n (%)

1 (4.8%)

2 (8.7%)


Cost per case

14 USD



Mean operative time was 29.95 ± 8.33 min in the hem-o-lok clip group (range 18–47), whereas it was 38.78 ± 4.91 min in the hand-made loop group (range 31–52) and reached statistical significance (p = 0.001). A significant difference was also observed regarding time of application between both methods, median time in hem-o-lok clip group was 3.1 min (range 1.8–5 min), while it was 5.1 min (range 4–11.2 min) in hand-made loop group (p = 0.002). No intraoperative complications have been encountered in both groups and none of the patients needed conversion to conventional open appendectomy.

The mean postoperative hospital stay was 1.74 days in the hem-o-lok clip group (range 1–3) and it was 1.38 days in the hand-made loop group (range 1–3) not reaching statistical significance (p = 0.068). Among the 44 patients who were included in this study, 3 patients had postoperative complications. These cases had wound infection at the umbilical port site (1 in hem-o-lok clip group, 2 in the hand-made loop group) and all of them were managed successfully by daily dressings and antibiotics. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the postoperative complications [Table 1].

In terms of costs, a cartridge of hem-o-lok clips (containing 6 clips) to be used per each case costs approximately 14 USD in our country, whereas a single package of Vicryl ligature 2-0 for forming hand-made loops costs only 4 USD.


Although LA in children has been considered as an effective and feasible procedure for the treatment of acute appendicitis, there are technical aspects regarding base closure that still need further analysis [4]. The most suitable method for stump closure is still under debate, and actually there is no consensus on one method [10, 11, 12].

Currently, endoloops and endostaplers are the commonest modalities used for closure of the appendiceal stump. Both methods achieved good results in several studies [13, 14], meanwhile endoloops have been recommended for its economic value, whereas others reported that endostaplers should be adopted in cases with perforation at the base [15].

Cost of supplies is a major point for laparoscopic procedures in developing countries. During the last few years, we depended on hand-made loop for base closure during LA in children in our hospital. Hand-made loop is a modification of the Roeder knot which has been described in the literature and proved to be safe [16]. This loop is easy to be constructed using a single package of Vicryl suture. Hand-made loop costs only 4 USD in contradictory with endoloop which costs about 50USD in our locality, thus this led us to rely on hand-made loop.

Hem-o-lok clip is a non-absorbable polymer clip and the safety of its use for ureters and vessels clipping has been obviously declared in previous studies [17, 18]. The comparison between hem-o-lok clip and endoloop for appendicular base closure has been documented in several studies in adult and pediatric patients [19, 20, 21, 22], while the comparison between polymer clip and hand-made loop has still not been documented.

This prospective study has compared the application of hem-o-lok clip as a new technique for stump closure in our hospital to the hand-made loop. It is to be noticed that there were no significant differences between both groups regarding operative outcome. Postoperative complications encountered were not related to the technique used for securing the appendicular base and none of the patients required re-admission or additional procedures, so this confirmed the safety of both methods used in our study. This study also did not show a significant value regarding the length of postoperative hospital stay among the studied patients.

The current study reveals significant shorter operative time in favor of hem-o-lok clip group, and this could be due to the simplicity of its application even by a first-time user. Similar results were observed in other studies which depended on polymer clip in comparison to the use of endoloop [19, 21, 22], whereas Colak et al. has reported that mean operative time was shorter in hem-o-lok clip group than endoloop group, however, the difference was not significant [20].

As regards the costs in our country, the hand-made loop is cheaper than polymer clips, 4 and 14 USD for each procedure, respectively. In the current study, hand-made loop achieved perfect results as a safe and low-cost method and it could also dispense with the use of endoloop. Other studies found similar results that hand-made loop is a safe and cost-efficient method and they also declared that usage of other costly modalities such as endoloops or endostaplers seems unnecessary [7, 8, 9].

Hem-o-lok clip is safe, its application is very simple and does not require advanced laparoscopic skills, as the technique is similar to cystic duct clipping during laparoscopic cholecystectomy and in addition the locking mechanism provides tactile feedback and secure closure. Although it is slightly more expensive than the hand-made loop, it offers lesser operative time which is the principal advantage over hand-made loop. Polymer clips still have a limitation to be used in patients with appendix base more than 10 mm in diameter [23] and few cases of failure were reported in previous studies [19, 23, 24]. The authors of this study believe that such a problem is negligible to be encountered in children.

On the contrast of polymer clip, hand-made loop needs advanced training and more skills in minimally invasive surgery and it also takes longer time for application on the appendiceal base. Hand-made loop has several advantages as an efficient, safe and simple technique as it was constructed with only a single Vicryl suture. It also has no limitation or size cutoff regarding the appendicular base diameter. Hand-made loop offers low cost over hem-o-lok clip and it is clearly concluded that hand-made loop is the cheapest method for stump closure achieving a high level of cost effectiveness which is a fundamental concern in developing countries where equipment like endostaplers or endoloops are not always available, so this might eliminate the resistance against LA.

Eventually, the method for securing the appendicular stump is the most crucial step during LA, and still there is no uniform approach in the entire world. A review of various practices that used different methods for securing the appendicular base is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2

A review of practices that used different methods for securing the base of appendix during LA


Number of children

Mean or median age (years)

Appendicular base closure method

Mean or median operative time (min)

Cost per case for appendicular base securing

Golebiewski 2019 [25]


12 ± 4


58 ± 15

Not mentioned

Escolino 2018 [15]



Endoloop: 374

Endostapler: 334

Endoloop: 56

Endostapler: 62.3

Endoloop: 97.5 Euro

Endostapler: 378.5 Euro

Parikh 2018 [4]


12 ± 3.7

Endoloop: 110

Endostapler: 128

Endoloop: 29.6 ± 5.7

Endostapler: 27.4 ± 6.5

Endoloop: 81.54 USD

Endostapler: 216 USD

Ali 2018 [26]


9.7 ± 2.1

Hand-made loop

56 ± 24

Not mentioned

Pogorelic 2017 [21]


Endoloop: 13.5

Hem-o-lok clip: 13

Endoloop: 176

Hem-o-lok clip: 101

Endoloop: 35

Hem-o-lok clip: 25

Endoloop: 34.16 Euro

Hem-o-lok clip: 17.64 Euro

Khirallah 2017 [27]



Extracorporeal knot


Not mentioned

Ebeid 2016 [8]



Hand-made loop



Mohajerzadeh 2014 [28]



Hem-o-lok clip


Not mentioned

Naiditch 2015 [29]


Endoloop: 10 ± 3.6

Endostapler: 10.4 ± 3.7

Endoloop: 309

Endostapler: 235

Endoloop: 46.0 ± 15.3

Endostapler: 46.0 ± 17.0

Endoloop: 348 USD

Endostapler: 455 USD

Safavi 2012 [13]



Endoloop: 208

Endostapler: 34

Endoloop: 52

Endostapler: 56

Endoloop: 57.57 Canadian D

Endostapler: 251.68 Canadian D

Miyano 2011 [30]


Endoloop: 9.1

Endostapler: 9.7

Endoloop: 37

Endostapler: 31

Endoloop: 71

Endostapler: 64

Endoloop: 144 USD

Endostapler: 550 USD

Ponsky 2009 [5]




Non-perforated: 26

Perforated: 38

66 USD


During LA in children, appendicular base closure using either hem-o-lok clip or hand-made loop is effective and safe without significant differences in surgical outcomes or complications rate. Hem-o-lok clip offers lesser operative time as a main advantage when compared to hand-made loop which is superior because of its economic value. Finally, the current study clearly emphasizes that the choice between both methods should be made according to the cost and surgeon’s preference.




Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Adwan H, Weerasuriya CK, Endleman P, Barnes A, Stewart L, Justin T (2014) Laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy in children: a UK District General Hospital experience. J Pediatr Surg 49(2):277–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ure BM, Spangenberger W, Hebebrand D, Eypasch EP, Troidl H (1992) Laparoscopic surgery in children and adolescents with suspected appendicitis: results of medical technology assessment. Eur J Pediatr Surg 2(6):336–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soll C, Wyss P, Gelpke H, Raptis DA, Breitenstein S (2016) Appendiceal stump closure using polymeric clips reduces intra-abdominal abscesses. Langenbecks Arch Surg 401(5):661–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parikh PP, Tashiro J, Wagenaar AE, Curbelo M, Perez EA, Neville HL et al (2018) Looped suture versus stapler device in pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy: a comparative outcomes and intraoperative cost analysis. J Pediatr Surg 53(4):616–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ponsky TA, Rothenberg SS (2009) Division of the mesoappendix with electrocautery in children is safe, effective, and cost-efficient. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 19(Suppl 1):S11–S13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mayir B, Ensari CO, Bilecik T, Aslaner A, Oruc MT (2015) Methods for closure of appendix stump during laparoscopic appendectomy procedure. Ulus Cerrahi Derg 31(4):229–231PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mayir B, Bilecik T, Ensari CO, Oruc MT (2014) Laparoscopic appendectomy with hand-made loop. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 9(2):152–156PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ebeid AME, Hassan HS, Almetaher HA, Elhalaby EA (2016) Low-cost laparoscopic appendectomy in pediatric patients. Ann Ped Surg 12(3):100–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yildiz F, Terzi A, Coban S, Zeybek N, Uzunkoy A (2009) The handmade endoloop technique. A simple and cheap technique for laparoscopic appendectomy. Saudi Med J 30(2):224–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hanssen A, Plotnikov S, Dubois R (2007) Laparoscopic appendectomy using a polymeric clip to close the appendicular stump. JSLS 11(1):59–62PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sajid MS, Rimple J, Cheek E, Baig MK (2009) Use of endo-GIA versus endo-loop for securing the appendicular stump in laparoscopic appendicectomy: a systematic review. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 19(1):11–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rickert A, Kruger CM, Runkel N, Kuthe A, Koninger J, Jansen-Winkeln B et al (2015) The TICAP-Study (titanium clips for appendicular stump closure): a prospective multicentre observational study on appendicular stump closure with an innovative titanium clip. BMC Surg 15:85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Safavi A, Langer M, Skarsgard ED (2012) Endoloop versus endostapler closure of the appendiceal stump in pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy. Can J Surg 55(1):37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rakic M, Jukic M, Pogorelic Z, Mrklic I, Klicek R, Druzijanic N et al (2014) Analysis of endoloops and endostaples for closing the appendiceal stump during laparoscopic appendectomy. Surg Today 44(9):1716–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Escolino M, Becmeur F, Saxena A, Till H, Holcomb GW 3rd, Esposito C (2018) Endoloop versus endostapler: what is the best option for appendiceal stump closure in children with complicated appendicitis? Results of a multicentric international survey. Surg Endosc 32(8):3570–3575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hage JJ (2008) On the origin and evolution of the Roeder knot and loop–a geometrical review. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 18(1):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tobias-Machado M, Forseto P Jr, Medina JA, Watanabe M, Juliano RV, Wroclawski ER (2004) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by extraperitoneal access with duplication of the open technique. Int Braz J Urol 30(3):221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bansal P, Kumar A, Shrivastava A, Kumar D, Mandhani A, Bhandari M (2004) Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: our initial experience. Indian J Urol 20(2):154–159Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Delibegovic S, Matovic E (2009) Hem-o-lok plastic clips in securing of the base of the appendix during laparoscopic appendectomy. Surg Endosc 23(12):2851–2854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Colak E, Kement M, Ozlem N, Mutlu T, Yildirim K, Gurer A et al (2013) A comparison of nonabsorbable polymeric clips and endoloop ligatures for the closure of the appendicular stump in laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective, randomized study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23(3):255–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pogorelic Z, Kostovski B, Jeroncic A, Susnjar T, Mrklic I, Jukic M et al (2017) A comparison of endoloop ligatures and nonabsorbable polymeric clips for the closure of the appendicular stump during laparoscopic appendectomy in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 27(6):645–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lucchi A, Berti P, Grassia M, Siani LM, Gabbianelli C, Garulli G (2017) Laparoscopic appendectomy: hem-o-lok versus endoloop in stump closure. Updates Surg 69(1):61–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Partecke LI, Kessler W, von Bernstorff W, Diedrich S, Heidecke CD, Patrzyk M (2010) Laparoscopic appendectomy using a single polymeric clip to close the appendicular stump. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395(8):1077–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hue CS, Kim JS, Kim KH, Nam SH, Kim KW (2013) The usefulness and safety of Hem-o-lok clips for the closure of appendicular stump during laparoscopic appendectomy. J Korean Surg Soc 84(1):27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Golebiewski A, Anzelewicz S, Wiejek A, Lubacka D, Czauderna P (2019) A Prospective randomized controlled trial of single-port and three-port laparoscopic appendectomy in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 29(5):703–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ali R, Anwar M, Akhtar J (2018) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children: a randomized controlled trial from a developing country. J Pediatr Surg 53(2):247–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Khirallah MG, Eldesouki NI, Elzanaty AA, Ismail KA, Arafa M (2017) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children with complicated appendicitis. Ann Ped Surg 13:17–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mohajerzadeh L, Rouzrokh M, Khaleghnejad Tabari A, Mirshemirani A, Atqiaee K, Dara N (2014) Laparoscopic appendectomy in complicated appendicitis in children. Ann Colorectal Res 2(1):e16599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Naiditch J, Lautz T, Chin A, Browne M, Rowell E (2015) Endoloop as the first line tool for appendiceal stump closure in children with appendicitis. Eur J Pediatr Surg 25(2):155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miyano G, Urao M, Lane G, Kato Y, Okazaki T, Yamataka A (2011) Appendiceal stump closure in children with complicated appendicitis: a prospective analysis of endoloops versus endostaples. Asian J Endosc Surg 4(3):116–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Surgical Oncology Unit, Department of SurgeryTanta UniversityTantaEgypt
  2. 2.Pediatric Surgery Unit, Department of SurgeryTanta UniversityTantaEgypt

Personalised recommendations