Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy—quality of life 7 years after surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In spite of the widespread use of laparoscopic appendectomy, there is an ongoing debate on the advantages of this method when compared to open appendectomy. In the evaluation of a postoperative procedure, long-term quality of life is essential.

Patients and methods

From 1999 to 2001, 493 patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis were operated in a German general district hospital and included in an observational study. In a median postoperative interval of 7 years, these patients were re-evaluated regarding their quality of life after surgery. A Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire was applied to evaluate the general parameters of quality of life after surgery. This questionnaire was supplemented by an additional self-developed module referring to the appendectomy. The primary outcome was the recommendation of the experienced operating procedure to relatives and friends.

Results

A total of 243 patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure: 132 patients were re-evaluated (recovery rate 54%). In the open group, 250 patients were operated: 121 patients were re-evaluated (recovery rate 48%). The median interval from operation to evaluation was 7 years in the laparoscopic group and 7.7 years in the open group. For the primary outcome, patients with laparoscopic appendectomy would significantly more often recommend the procedure than patients with the open operation method. For secondary outcomes, the cosmetic results were judged significantly more favourably in the laparoscopic group. The eight scaled scores of the SF-36 questionnaire did not differ significantly between the two groups. Four patients of the open group and nine patients of the laparoscopic group (including one converted procedure) needed a reoperation because of incisional hernia, adhesions and late infections.

Conclusion

Patients after laparoscopic appendectomy show a higher degree of satisfaction with their body and their scar than patients after open appendectomy.

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. Bittner R (2006) Laparoscopic surgery—15 years after clinical introduction. World J Surg 30:1190–1203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bouillon B, Kreder HJ, Eypasch E, Holbrook TL, Mayou R, Nast-Kolb D, Pirente N, Schelling G, Tiling T, Yates D (2002) Quality of life in patients with multiple injuries—basic issues, assessment, and recommendations. Restor Neurol Neurosci 20:125–134

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Korolija D, Sauerland S, Wood-Dauphinee S, Abbou CC, Eypasch E, Caballero MG, Lumsden MA, Millat B, Monson JR, Nilsson G, Pointner R, Schwenk W, Shamiyeh A, Szold A, Targarona E, Ure B, Neugebauer E (2004) Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 18:879–897

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EA (2005) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD001546

    Google Scholar 

  5. Neugebauer E, Troidl H, Kum CK, Eypasch E, Miserez M, Paul A (1995) The E.A.E.S. Consensus Development Conferences on laparoscopic cholecystectomy, appendectomy, and hernia repair. Consensus statements—September 1994. The Educational Committee of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. Surg Endosc 9:550–563

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Velanovich V (2004) Using quality-of-life measurements to predict patient satisfaction outcomes for antireflux surgery. Arch Surg 139:621–625, discussion 626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Matthews RD, Anthony T, Kim LT, Wang J, Fitzgibbons RJ Jr, Giobbie-Hurder A, Reda DJ, Itani KM, Neumayer LA (2007) Factors associated with postoperative complications and hernia recurrence for patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair: a report from the VA Cooperative Hernia Study Group. Am J Surg 194:611–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nguyen NT, Goldman C, Rosenquist CJ, Arango A, Cole CJ, Lee SJ, Wolfe BM (2001) Laparoscopic versus open gastric bypass: a randomized study of outcomes, quality of life, and costs. Ann Surg 234:279–289, discussion 289-291

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Perry Y, Courcoulas AP, Fernando HC, Buenaventura PO, McCaughan JS, Luketich JD (2004) Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for recalcitrant gastroesophageal reflux disease in morbidly obese patients. Jsls 8:19–23

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Katkhouda N, Mason RJ, Towfigh S, Gevorgyan A, Essani R (2005) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study. Ann Surg 242:439–448, discussion 448-450

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kaplan M, Salman B, Yilmaz TU, Oguz M (2009) A quality of life comparison of laparoscopic and open approaches in acute appendicitis: a randomised prospective study. Acta Chir Belg 109:356–363

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kapischke M, Tepel J, Bley K (2004) Laparoscopic appendicectomy is associated with a lower complication rate even during the introductory phase. Langenbecks Arch Surg 389:517–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Cox MR, McCall JL, Wilson TG, Padbury RT, Jeans PL, Toouli J (1993) Laparoscopic appendicectomy: a prospective analysis. Aust N Z J Surg 63:840–847

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ware JE Jr, Gandek B, Kosinski M, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Brazier J, Bullinger M, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Prieto L, Sullivan M, Thunedborg K (1998) The equivalence of SF-36 summary health scores estimated using standard and country-specific algorithms in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1167–1170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Gandek B, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bech P, Brazier J, Bullinger M, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Prieto L, Sullivan M (1998) The factor structure of the SF-36 Health Survey in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1159–1165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mendoza D, Newman RC, Albala D, Cohen MS, Tewari A, Lingeman J, Wong M, Kavoussi L, Adams J, Moore R, Winfield H, Glascock JM, Das S, Munch L, Grasso M, Dickinson M, Clayman R, Nakada S, McDougall EM, Wolf IS, Hulbert J, Leveillee RJ, Houshair A, Carson C (1996) Laparoscopic complications in markedly obese urologic patients (a multi-institutional review). Urology 48:562–567

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Uslu HY, Erkek AB, Cakmak A, Kepenekci I, Sozener U, Kocaay FA, Turkcapar AG, Kuterdem E (2007) Trocar site hernia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 17:600–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kapischke M, Caliebe A, Tepel J, Schulz T, Hedderich J (2006) Open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy: a critical review. Surg Endosc 20:1060–1068

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nguyen NT, Zainabadi K, Mavandadi S, Paya M, Stevens CM, Root J, Wilson SE (2004) Trends in utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. Am J Surg 188:813–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ignacio RC, Burke R, Spencer D, Bissell C, Dorsainvil C, Lucha PA (2004) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: what is the real difference? Results of a prospective randomized double-blinded trial. Surg Endosc 18:334–337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Little DC, Custer MD, May BH, Blalock SE, Cooney DR (2002) Laparoscopic appendectomy: an unnecessary and expensive procedure in children? J Pediatr Surg 37:310–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Quercioli C, Messina G, Barbini E, Carriero G, Fani M, Nante N (2008) Importance of sociodemographic and morbidity aspects in measuring health-related quality of life: performances of three tools: comparison of three questionnaire scores. Eur J Health Econ 9:9

    Google Scholar 

  24. Olivares P, Tovar JA (1998) Laparoscopic surgery in children. An Esp Pediatr 48:620–624

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bullinger M (1995) German translation and psychometric testing of the SF-36 Health Survey: preliminary results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Soc Sci Med 41:1359–1366

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bullinger M (1996) Assessment of health related quality of life with the SF-36 Health Survey. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 35:XVII–XXVII, quiz XXVII–XXIX

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ellert U, Bellach BM (1999) German National Health Survey 1998—description of an update random sampling test. Gesundheitswesen 61:184–190

    Google Scholar 

  28. Andersson REB (2001) Small bowel obstruction after appendicectomy. Br J Surg 88:1387–1391

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lachinski A, Vingerhoets A, Markuszewska-Proczko M, Stefaniak T (2004) Long-term quality-of-life assessment after laparoscopic and classic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 18:1152–1153, author reply 1154–1155

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hasse C, Sitter H, Brune M, Wollenteit I, Nies C, Rothmund M (2002) Quality of life and patient satisfaction after reoperation for primary hyperparathyroidism: analysis of long-term results. World J Surg 26:1029–1036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sokolovic E, Buchmann P, Schlomowitsch F, Szucs TD (2004) Comparison of resource utilization and long-term quality-of-life outcomes between laparoscopic and conventional colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 18:1663–1667

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nguyen N, Reavis K, Hinojosa M, Smith BR, Stamos M (2009) A single-port technique for laparoscopic extended stapled appendectomy. Surg Innov 13:13

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Ms. Alexandra Pries for her critical comments on the manuscript and the colleagues of the Friedrich Ebert Hospital, Neumuenster, for their generous support during the data evaluation.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Klinik St. Georg, Lohmuehlenstrasse 05, 20099, Hamburg, Germany

    Matthias Kapischke

  2. Department of Surgery, Krankenhaus Eckernfoerde, Schleswiger Strasse 114-116, 24340, Eckernfoerde, Germany

    Florian Friedrich

  3. Department of Surgery, Helios Klinikum Wuppertal, Heussnerstrasse 22, 42283, Wuppertal, Germany

    Tim Schulz

  4. Institute for Medical Informatics and Statistics, Bldg 31, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold Heller Strasse 03, 24105, Kiel, Germany

    Jürgen Hedderich & Amke Caliebe

Authors
  1. Matthias Kapischke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Florian Friedrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jürgen Hedderich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tim Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Amke Caliebe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthias Kapischke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kapischke, M., Friedrich, F., Hedderich, J. et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy—quality of life 7 years after surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 396, 69–75 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-010-0715-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-010-0715-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation