Advertisement

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery

, Volume 403, Issue 2, pp 265–269 | Cite as

Incidental appendectomy during robotic laparoscopic prostatectomy—safe and worth to perform?

  • C. Hüttenbrink
  • G. Hatiboglu
  • T. Simpfendörfer
  • J. P. Radtke
  • R. Becker
  • D. Teber
  • B. Hadaschik
  • S. Pahernik
  • M. Hohenfellner
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to investigate the safety and patients’ benefit of incidental appendectomy during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP).

Methods

Fifty-three patients, who had incidental appendectomy during RALRP between January 2012 and March 2014, were enrolled to this study. To evaluate the safety of the procedure, following parameters were evaluated: patient age, duration of surgery, perioperative complications (classified by Clavien-Dindo), time to bowel movement, and length of hospital stay. Furthermore, intraoperative visual appearance, location, and histopathological evaluation of the appendix were evaluated. Data was analyzed by descriptive statistics.

Results

Mean age of patients was 61 years, the average hospital stay 5 days. No perioperative complications occurred. The appendix was unsuspicious in 39 patients (73.6%); 14 patients (26.4%) had macroscopically signs of inflammation.

Of the 53 resected appendixes, the histopathological evaluation showed 33 (62.2%) inconspicuous appendices, 11 (20.8%) post-inflammatory changes, 4 (7.5%) with chronical signs of inflammation and 3 (5.7%) with signs of acute inflammation. In 2 patients (3.8%), low-grade mucinous neoplasms were found in the specimens.

Conclusions

Incidental appendectomy during RALRP is a feasible procedure. With regard to inflammation and neoplastic changes, incidental appendectomy can be considered for patients scheduled for robot-assisted prostate surgery.

Keywords

Incidental appendectomy Laparoscopy Prostatectomy Da Vinci prostatectomy robot-assisted prostatectomy 

Abbreviations

RALRP

robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

LAMN

low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm

Notes

Authors’ contributions

CH conceived of the study and planed the design and performed the statistical analysis. GH participated in its design and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript and statistical analysis. TS and RB helped with data acquisition and statistical analysis. DT, SP, and BH participated in the design of the study, helped with data acquisition and supervision. MH conceived of the study, participated in data acquisition, coordination and supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee (S-474/2014).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Bentas W, Wolfram M, Jones J, Brautigam R, Kramer W, Binder J (2003) Robotic technology and the translation of open radical prostatectomy to laparoscopy: the early Frankfurt experience with robotic radical prostatectomy and one year follow-up. Eur Urol 44(2):175–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Appledorn S, Bouchier-Hayes D, Agarwal D, Costello AJ (2006) Robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: setup and procedural techniques after 150 cases. Urology 67(2):364–367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.08.035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gesundheit F (2011) Regionale Unterschiede in der Gesundheitsversorgung. Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh, p 32Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohen-Arazi O, Dabour K, Bala M, Haran A, Almogy G (2016) Management, treatment and outcomes of acute appendicitis in an elderly population: a single-center experience. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-016-0735-9
  5. 5.
    Gupta H, Dupuy DE (1997) Advances in imaging of the acute abdomen. Surg Clin North Am 77(6):1245–1263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Storm-Dickerson TL, Horattas MC (2003) What have we learned over the past 20 years about appendicitis in the elderly? Am J Surg 185(3):198–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McGory ML, Maggard MA, Kang H, O'Connell JB, Ko CY (2005) Malignancies of the appendix: beyond case series reports. Dis Colon Rectum 48(12):2264–2271.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-005-0196-4
  8. 8.
    Exner R, Sachsenmaier M, Horvath Z, Stift A (2012) Incidental appendectomy—standard or unnecessary additional trauma in surgery for colorectal cancer? A retrospective analysis of histological findings in 380 specimens. Color Dis 14(10):1262–1266.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02933.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shapiro R, Eldar S, Sadot E, Venturero M, Papa MZ, Zippel DB (2010) The significance of occult carcinoids in the era of laparoscopic appendectomies. Surg Endosc 24(9):2197–2199.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-0926-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Hanlan KA, Fisher DT, O’Holleran MS (2007) 257 incidental appendectomies during total laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS 11(4):428–431PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Akl MN, Magrina JF, Kho RM, Magtibay PM (2008) Robotic appendectomy in gynaecological surgery: technique and pathological findings. Int J Med Robot 4(3):210–213.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.198 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brunocilla E, Pultrone C, Pernetti R, Schiavina R, Martorana G (2012) Preservation of the smooth muscular internal (vesical) sphincter and of the proximal urethra during retropubic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique. Int J Urol 19(8):783–785.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03028.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nyarangi-Dix JN, Radtke JP, Hadaschik B, Pahernik S, Hohenfellner M (2013) Impact of complete bladder neck preservation on urinary continence, quality of life and surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a randomized, controlled, single blind trial. J Urol 189(3):891–898.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.082 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, Puhan MA, Clavien PA (2013) The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 258(1):1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318296c732 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta NP, Nabi G, Hemal AK, Dogra PN, Seth A, Aron M (2002) Is incidental appendectomy necessary during radical cystectomy? Urol Int 69(3):181–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neulander EZ, Hawke CK, Soloway MS (2000) Incidental appendectomy during radical cystectomy: an interdepartmental survey and review of the literature. Urology 56(2):241–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Santoshi N, Gaitonde K, Patil N, Goyal A, Srinivas V (2002) Incidental appendectomy during radical cystectomy—is it necessary? Urology 59(5):678–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bregendahl S, Nørgaard M, Laurberg S, Jepsen P (2013) Risk of complications and 30-day mortality after laparoscopic and open appendectomy in a Danish region, 1998-2007; a population-based study of 18,426 patients. Pol J Surg 85(7):395–400.  https://doi.org/10.2478/pjs-2013-0060 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang CC, CC T, Wang PC, Lin HC, Wei PL (2013) Outcome comparison between laparoscopic and open appendectomy: evidence from a nationwide population-based study. PLoS One 8(7):e68662.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068662 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferrarese AG, Martino V, Enrico S, Falcone A, Catalano S, Pozzi G, Marola S, Solej M (2013) Laparoscopic appendectomy in the elderly: our experience. BMC Surg 13(Suppl 2):S22.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-13-S2-S22 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    ten Broek RPG, Issa Y, van Santbrink EJP, Bouvy ND, Kruitwagen RFPM, Jeekel J, Bakkum EA, Rovers MM, van Goor H (2013) Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery: systematic review and met-analysis. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 347(oct03 1):f5588-f5588.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5588 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brill AI, Nezhat F, Nezhat CH, Nezhat C (1995) The incidence of adhesions after prior laparotomy: a laparoscopic appraisal. Obstet Gynecol 85(2):269–272.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844(94)00352-E CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Albright JB, Fakhre GP, Nields WW, Metzger PP (2007) Incidental appendectomy: 18-year pathologic survey and cost effectiveness in the nonmanaged-care setting. J Am Coll Surg 205(2):298–306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.02.071 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Charfi S, Sellami A, Affes A, Yaïch K, Mzali R, Boudawara TS (2014) Histopathological findings in appendectomy specimens: a study of 24,697 cases. Int J Color Dis 29(8):1009–1012.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1934-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Misdraji J (2015) Mucinous epithelial neoplasms of the appendix and pseudomyxoma peritonei. Mod Pathol 28(Suppl 1):S67–S79.  https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2014.129 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ronnett BM, Yan H, Kurman RJ, Shmookler BM, Wu L, Sugarbaker PH (2001) Patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei associated with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis have a significantly more favorable prognosis than patients with peritoneal mucinous carcinomatosis. Cancer 92(1):85–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Limaiem F, Arfa N, Marsaoui L, Bouraoui S, Lahmar A, Mzabi S (2015) Unexpected histopathological findings in appendectomy specimens: a retrospective study of 1627 cases. Indian J Surg 77(Suppl 3):1285–1290.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-015-1278-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wagner M, Aronsky D, Tschudi J, Metzger A, Klaiber C (1996) Laparoscopic stapler appendectomy. A prospective study of 267 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 10(9):895–899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lucchi A, Berti P, Grassia M, Siani LM, Gabbianelli C, Garulli G (2017) Laparoscopic appendectomy: Hem-o-lok versus Endoloop in stump closure. Updat Surg 69(1):61–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-016-0413-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matyja M, Strzalka M, Rembiasz K (2015) Laparosocopic appendectomy, cost-effectiveness of three different techniques used to close the appendix stump. Pol Przegl Chir 87(12):634–637.  https://doi.org/10.1515/pjs-2016-0015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Hüttenbrink
    • 1
  • G. Hatiboglu
    • 1
  • T. Simpfendörfer
    • 1
  • J. P. Radtke
    • 1
  • R. Becker
    • 1
  • D. Teber
    • 1
  • B. Hadaschik
    • 1
  • S. Pahernik
    • 1
  • M. Hohenfellner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations