Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Critical Analysis of Laparoscopic Appendectomy: How Experience with 1,400 Appendectomies Allowed Innovative Treatment to Become Standard in a University Hospital

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Although advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) have not yet been proved, there is increasing evidence that LA provides diagnostic and therapeutic advantages as compared to conventional surgery. This article reports the introduction of LA in a university hospital where LA now represents the standard operative procedure in patients with suspected appendicitis.

Methods

Consecutive patients with appendectomy were prospectively included in the surgical database from 5/1991 to 10/2005. Operating time skin-to-skin in minutes, conversion from laparoscopy to open appendectomy, and complications requiring reoperation as well as surgical expertise were recorded.

Results

After initial performance of LA by four experienced specialists in laparoscopic surgery between 1991 and 1994, LA was routinely implemented from 1995 to 2005. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 1,012 patients, and conventional appendectomy in 449 patients, with a LA rate of about 90% in recent years. Intraoperative conversion was deemed necessary in 62 patients (6.2 %) by 40 surgeons among the 103 surgeons who performed LA over 14 years with a mean operative time of 57 ± 2 min. Between 1995 and 2005 about 25%–30% of LAs were performed as the first LA for the respective surgeon. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated overall with a reduced length of stay in the hospital compared to open appendectomy (LA: 4.4 ± 0.1 days versus 6.6 ± 0.2 in open appendectomy; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This analysis provides evidence that LA can be introduced in an university hospital with acceptable results despite low operation numbers per surgeon and a liberal teaching policy. The LA procedure, which is associated with a 2%–4% rate of reoperation, may serve as laparoscopy training for young surgeons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Humes DJ, Simpson J (2006) Acute appendicitis. BMJ 333:530–534

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. McBurney C (1894) The incision made in the abdominal wall in case of appendicitis with a description of a new method of operating. Ann Surg 20:38–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Semm K (1983) Endoscopic appendectomy. Endoscopy 15:59–64

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Moberg AC, Berndsen F, Palmquist I, et al. (2005) Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for confirmed appendicitis. Br J Surg 92:298–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kapischke M, Caliebe A, Tepel J, et al. (2006) Open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy: a critical review. Surg Endosc 20:1060–1068

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hansen JB, Smithers BM, Schache D, et al. (1996) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: prospective randomized trial. World J Surg 20:17–21

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Reiertsen O, Trondsen E, Bakka A, et al. (1994) Prospective nonrandomized study of conventional versus laparoscopy appendectomy. World J Surg 18:411–416

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cueto J, D’Allemagne B, Vazquez-Frias JA, et al. (2006) Morbidity of laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis: an international study. Surg Endosc 20:717–720

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Katkhouda N, Mason RJ, Towfigh S, et al. (2005) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study. Ann Surg 242:439–48; discussion 448–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Slim K, Chipponi J (2006) Laparoscopy for every acute appendicitis? Surg Endosc 20:1785–1786

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Horstmann R, Tiwisina C, Classen C, et al. (2005) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: which factors influence the decision between the surgical techniques? Zentralbl Chir 130:48–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cothren CC, Moore EE, Johnson JL, et al. (2005) Can we afford to do laparoscopic appendectomy in an academic hospital? Am J Surg 190:950–954

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chung RS, Rowland DY, Li P, et al. (1999) A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy. Am J Surg 177:250–256

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Garbutt JM, Soper NJ, Shannon WD, et al. (1999) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 9:17–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EA (2004) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18:CD001546

    Google Scholar 

  16. Naess F (2005) Laparoscopy and suspected appendicitis. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 125:1820–1821

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kienle P, Buchler MW (2006) Laparoscopic or open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis? Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:668–669

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dotzenrath CM, Cupisti K, Raffel A, et al. (2005) Do Germans keep patients too long in hospital? A prospective randomized trial. World J Surg 29:1189–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eypasch E, Sauerland S, Lefering R, et al. (2002) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: between evidence and common sense. Dig Surg 19:518–522

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sweeney KJ, Dillon M, Johnston SM, et al. (2006) Training in laparoscopic appendectomy. World J Surg 30:358–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Towfigh S, Chen F, Mason R, et al. (2006) Laparoscopic appendectomy significantly reduces length of stay for perforated appendicitis. Surg Endosc 20:495–499

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Munich-Grosshadern, Marchioninistr. 15, D-81377, Munich, Germany

    Kerstin S. Schick, Thomas P. Hüttl, Jan M. Fertmann, Hans-Martin Hornung, Karl-Walter Jauch & Johannes N. Hoffmann

Authors
  1. Kerstin S. Schick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas P. Hüttl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jan M. Fertmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hans-Martin Hornung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karl-Walter Jauch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Johannes N. Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes N. Hoffmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schick, K.S., Hüttl, T.P., Fertmann, J.M. et al. A Critical Analysis of Laparoscopic Appendectomy: How Experience with 1,400 Appendectomies Allowed Innovative Treatment to Become Standard in a University Hospital. World J Surg 32, 1406–1413 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-007-9429-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-007-9429-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation