Single site versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: some pain for no gain?

5Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Introduction: The optimal laparoscopic appendectomy approach is not clear, comparing single site laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) to conventional 3-port appendectomy (CLA). We investigated outcomes in pediatric patients comparing SILA to CLA: length of operation, length of stay, time to resumption of regular diet, follow up, rehospitalization, and cost. Methods: Data was collected from children 1 to 18 years with appendectomy at Loma Linda University from 2018 to 2020, operated by two surgeons. Analysis utilized two-sample T, chi-squared, and Fisher's exact tests. Results: Of 173 patients, 77 underwent SILA and 96 had CLA. There was no gender, age, or race difference between groups. Mean WBC was 17.5 × 103/mL in SILA group, compared to 15.3 × 103/mL in CLA group (P = 0.004). Operative time was 47.0 SILA compared to 49.5 minutes CLA (P = 0.269). Of SILA cases, 55.8% were simple appendicitis, while 53.3% of the CLA cases were simple (P = 0.857). Regular diet was resumed after 1.7 days in the SILA group, 1.1 days in CLA (P = 0.018). Length of stay was 2.9 days for SILA, 2.4 days for CLA (P = 0.144). Seven children required hospital readmission, 5 SILA and 2 CLA (P = 0.244). Five of the children who returned had intra-abdominal abscesses, of whom 4 had SILA. There was no difference in cost. Conclusions: The operative techniques had similar outcomes and operative times. There was a trend toward more intra-abdominal abscesses in the SILA group. Further study and longer follow up is needed to determine if there is an advantage to one laparoscopic approach over another.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Goodman, L. F., Lin, A. C., Sacks, M. A., McRae, J. J. L. H., Radulescu, A., & Khan, F. A. (2021). Single site versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: some pain for no gain? Journal of Surgical Research, 264, 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2021.03.010

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free