Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 14, Issue 10, pp 938–941 | Cite as

Selective use of diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with suspected appendicitis

  • W. T. van den Broek
  • A. B. Bijnen
  • P. V. van Eerten
  • P. de Ruiter
  • D. J. Gouma
Original Articles



Diagnostic laparoscopy has been introduced as a new diagnostic tool for patients with acute appendicitis. We performed diagnostic laparoscopy when the clinical diagnosis of appendicitis was in doubt. The aims of this study were to evaluate this strategy and to analyze the efficacy of diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with suspected appendicitis.

Patients and Methods

All patients referred to our hospital with suspected appendicitis during the period 1994–1997 were evaluated prospectively. The clinical diagnosis was determined by the surgeon or resident on call based on the patient’s history, physical examination, and leukocyte count. The patients were divided into three groups: group 1: appendicitis not likely. These patients were observed for 24 h or discharged. When they showed signs of appendicitis in 24 h, they were transferred to either group 2 or 3; group 2: doubt concerning diagnosis. These patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy, and appendectomy was performed if indicated; group 3: In these patients the diagnosis appendicitis was felt to be certain. They were treated by primary appendectomy by an open procedure. In this study, 1,050 patients, 531 women (51%), 389 men (37%), and 130 children (12%) <11 yrs, were evaluated.


Altogether, 377 diagnostic laparoscopies were performed, leaving 109 healthy-looking appendices in place. This reduced the negative appendectomy rate from 25% to 14% in all surgically managed patients. The negative appendectomy rate for the women in group 2 was reduced from 49% to 14%, and for the men from 22% to 11%, so it also seemed worthwhile to perform diagnostic laparoscopy in men. Because the appendix sana was left in place in only three children, the benefit from laparoscopy is relatively small for children. In 48% of these patients a second diagnosis was obtained, most of them gynecologic in nature. There were no false-negative laparoscopies and no complications resulting from the laparoscopic procedure.


Diagnostic laparoscopy is a safe procedure that reduced the appendix sana rate without increasing the total number of operations. It is a useful method for obtaining other, mostly gynecologic, diagnoses. To further reduce the appendix sana rate, better criteria for laparoscopic assessment of the appendix are needed.

Key words

Appendectomy Appendicitis Diagnosis Laparoscopy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Addis DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV (1990) The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 132: 910–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson RE, Hugander A, Thulin AJ (1992) Diagnostic accuracy and perforation rate in appendicitis: association with age and sex of the patient and with appendectomy rate. Eur J Surg 158: 37Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrat C, Catheline J-M, Rizk N, Champault GG (1999) Does laparoscopy reduce the incidence of unnecessary appendectomies? Surg Laparosc Endosc 9: 27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borgstein PJ, Gordijn RV, Eysbouts QAJ, Questa MA (1997) Acute appendicitis, a clear-cut case in men, a guessing game in young women. Surg Endosc 11: 923–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fenyo G, Lindberg G, Blind P, Enochsson L, Oberg A, (1997) Diagnostic in suspected acute appendicitis: validation of a simplified scoring system. Eur J Surg 163: 831–838PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galindo Gallego M, Fadrique B, Nieto MA, Calleja S, Fernández-Acenero MJ, Ais G, Gonzales J, Manzanares JJ (1998) Evaluation of ultrasonography and clinical diagnostic scoring in suspected appendicitis. Br J Surg 85: 37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garbutt JM, Soper NJ, Shannon WD, Botero A, Littenberg B (1999) Meta-Analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc 9: 17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Golub R, Siddiqui F, Pohl D (1998) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Surg 186: 545–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hellberg A, Rudberg E, Kullman E, Enochsson L, Fenyö G, Graffner H, Hallerbäck B, Johansson B, Anderberg B, Wenner J, Rinqvist I, Sörensen S (1999) Prospective randomised multicentre study of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. Br J Surg 86: 48–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kalan M, Talbot D (1994) Evaluation of the modified Alvarado score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a prospective study. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 76: 418–419PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klinger A, Henle KP, Beller S, Rechner J, Zerz A, Wetscher GJ (1998) Laparoscopic appendectomy does not change the incidence of postoperative infectious complications. Am J Surg 175: 232–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin LC, Puente I, Sosa JL, Bassin A, Breslaw R, McKenney MG, Ginzburg E, Sleeman D (1995) Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized comparison. Ann Surg 222: 256–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moberg AN, Ahlberg G, Leijonmarck CE, Montgomery A, Reiertsen O, Rosseland AR, Stoerksson R (1998) Diagnostic laparoscopy in 1,043 patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Eur J Surg 164: 833–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ohmann C, Yang Q, Franke C (1995) Diagnostic scores for acute appendicitis. Eur J Surg 161: 273–281PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pieper R, Kager L (1982) The incidence of acute appendicitis: an epidemiologic study of 971 cases. Acta Chir Scan 148: 45Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Puylaert JB, Rutgers PH, Lalisang RI, de Vries BC, van der Werf SD, Dorr JP, Blok RA (1987) A prospective study of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. N Engl J Med 317: 666–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, McCabe CJ, Lawrason JN, Berger DL, Sacknoff R (1997) Helical CT technique for the diagnosis of appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a focused appendix CT examination. Radiology 202: 139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reiertsen O, Larsen S, Trondsen E, Edwin B, Faerden AE, Rosseland AR (1997) Randomized controlled trial with sequential design of laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy. Br J Surg 84: 842–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schuler JG, Shortsleeve MJ, Goldenson RS, Perez-Rossello JM, Perlmutter RA, Thorsen A (1998) Is there a role for abdominal computed tomographic scans in appendicitis? Arch Surg 133: 373–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tytgat SH, Bakker XR, Butzelaar RM (1998) Laparoscopic evaluation of patients with suspected appendicitis. Surg Endosc 12: 918–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. T. van den Broek
    • 1
  • A. B. Bijnen
    • 1
  • P. V. van Eerten
    • 1
  • P. de Ruiter
    • 1
  • D. J. Gouma
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Medisch Centrum AlkmaarSecretariaat ChirurgieAlkmaarThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryAcademisch Medisch CentrumAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations