Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: A prospective randomized double-blind study

Namir Katkhouda, Rodney J. Mason, Shirin Towfigh, Anna Gevorgyan, Rahila Essani, Adrian Barbul, Michael S. Nussbaum, Alan G. Johnson, Leigh A Neumayer, Jacques Perissat

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

237 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Summary Background Data: The value of laparoscopy in appendicitis is not established. Studies suffer from multiple limitations. Our aim is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a prospective randomized double blind study. Methods: Two hundred forty-seven patients were analyzed following either laparoscopic or open appendectomy. A standardized wound dressing was applied blinding both patients and independent data collectors. Surgical technique was standardized among 4 surgeons. The main outcome measures were postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures included evaluation of pain and activity scores at base line preoperatively and on every postoperative day, as well as resumption of diet and length of stay. Activity scores and quality of life were assessed on short-term follow-up. Results: There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (18.5% versus 17% in the laparoscopic and open groups respectively), but some early complications in the laparoscopic group required a reoperation. Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (80 minutes versus 60 minutes; P = 0.000) while there was no difference in the pain scores and medications, resumption of diet, length of stay, or activity scores. At 2 weeks, there was no difference in the activity or pain scores, but physical health and general scores on the short-form 36 (SF36) quality of life assessment forms were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Appendectomy for acute or complicated (perforated and gangrenous) appendicitis had similar complication rates, regardless of the technique (P = 0.181). Conclusions: Unlike other minimally invasive procedures, laparoscopic appendectomy did not offer a significant advantage over open appendectomy in all studied parameters except quality of life scores at 2 weeks. It also took longer to perform. The choice of the procedure should be based on surgeon or patient preference.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)439-450
Number of pages12
JournalAnnals of Surgery
Volume242
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Appendectomy
Double-Blind Method
Quality of Life
Appendicitis
Pain
Length of Stay
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Diet
Patient Preference
Bandages
Reoperation
Laparoscopy
Safety
Mortality
Health
Wounds and Injuries

Keywords

  • Appendectomy
  • Appendicitis
  • Laparoscopy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Katkhouda, N., Mason, R. J., Towfigh, S., Gevorgyan, A., Essani, R., Barbul, A., ... Perissat, J. (2005). Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: A prospective randomized double-blind study. Annals of Surgery, 242(3), 439-450. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000179648.75373.2f

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy : A prospective randomized double-blind study. / Katkhouda, Namir; Mason, Rodney J.; Towfigh, Shirin; Gevorgyan, Anna; Essani, Rahila; Barbul, Adrian; Nussbaum, Michael S.; Johnson, Alan G.; Neumayer, Leigh A; Perissat, Jacques.

In: Annals of Surgery, Vol. 242, No. 3, 09.2005, p. 439-450.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Katkhouda, N, Mason, RJ, Towfigh, S, Gevorgyan, A, Essani, R, Barbul, A, Nussbaum, MS, Johnson, AG, Neumayer, LA & Perissat, J 2005, 'Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: A prospective randomized double-blind study', Annals of Surgery, vol. 242, no. 3, pp. 439-450. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000179648.75373.2f
Katkhouda N, Mason RJ, Towfigh S, Gevorgyan A, Essani R, Barbul A et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: A prospective randomized double-blind study. Annals of Surgery. 2005 Sep;242(3):439-450. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000179648.75373.2f
Katkhouda, Namir ; Mason, Rodney J. ; Towfigh, Shirin ; Gevorgyan, Anna ; Essani, Rahila ; Barbul, Adrian ; Nussbaum, Michael S. ; Johnson, Alan G. ; Neumayer, Leigh A ; Perissat, Jacques. / Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy : A prospective randomized double-blind study. In: Annals of Surgery. 2005 ; Vol. 242, No. 3. pp. 439-450.
@article{da557a32697e41b687cd4fe77cbdad46,
title = "Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: A prospective randomized double-blind study",
abstract = "Summary Background Data: The value of laparoscopy in appendicitis is not established. Studies suffer from multiple limitations. Our aim is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a prospective randomized double blind study. Methods: Two hundred forty-seven patients were analyzed following either laparoscopic or open appendectomy. A standardized wound dressing was applied blinding both patients and independent data collectors. Surgical technique was standardized among 4 surgeons. The main outcome measures were postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures included evaluation of pain and activity scores at base line preoperatively and on every postoperative day, as well as resumption of diet and length of stay. Activity scores and quality of life were assessed on short-term follow-up. Results: There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (18.5{\%} versus 17{\%} in the laparoscopic and open groups respectively), but some early complications in the laparoscopic group required a reoperation. Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (80 minutes versus 60 minutes; P = 0.000) while there was no difference in the pain scores and medications, resumption of diet, length of stay, or activity scores. At 2 weeks, there was no difference in the activity or pain scores, but physical health and general scores on the short-form 36 (SF36) quality of life assessment forms were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Appendectomy for acute or complicated (perforated and gangrenous) appendicitis had similar complication rates, regardless of the technique (P = 0.181). Conclusions: Unlike other minimally invasive procedures, laparoscopic appendectomy did not offer a significant advantage over open appendectomy in all studied parameters except quality of life scores at 2 weeks. It also took longer to perform. The choice of the procedure should be based on surgeon or patient preference.",
keywords = "Appendectomy, Appendicitis, Laparoscopy",
author = "Namir Katkhouda and Mason, {Rodney J.} and Shirin Towfigh and Anna Gevorgyan and Rahila Essani and Adrian Barbul and Nussbaum, {Michael S.} and Johnson, {Alan G.} and Neumayer, {Leigh A} and Jacques Perissat",
year = "2005",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1097/01.sla.0000179648.75373.2f",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "242",
pages = "439--450",
journal = "Annals of Surgery",
issn = "0003-4932",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

T2 - A prospective randomized double-blind study

AU - Katkhouda, Namir

AU - Mason, Rodney J.

AU - Towfigh, Shirin

AU - Gevorgyan, Anna

AU - Essani, Rahila

AU - Barbul, Adrian

AU - Nussbaum, Michael S.

AU - Johnson, Alan G.

AU - Neumayer, Leigh A

AU - Perissat, Jacques

PY - 2005/9

Y1 - 2005/9

N2 - Summary Background Data: The value of laparoscopy in appendicitis is not established. Studies suffer from multiple limitations. Our aim is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a prospective randomized double blind study. Methods: Two hundred forty-seven patients were analyzed following either laparoscopic or open appendectomy. A standardized wound dressing was applied blinding both patients and independent data collectors. Surgical technique was standardized among 4 surgeons. The main outcome measures were postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures included evaluation of pain and activity scores at base line preoperatively and on every postoperative day, as well as resumption of diet and length of stay. Activity scores and quality of life were assessed on short-term follow-up. Results: There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (18.5% versus 17% in the laparoscopic and open groups respectively), but some early complications in the laparoscopic group required a reoperation. Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (80 minutes versus 60 minutes; P = 0.000) while there was no difference in the pain scores and medications, resumption of diet, length of stay, or activity scores. At 2 weeks, there was no difference in the activity or pain scores, but physical health and general scores on the short-form 36 (SF36) quality of life assessment forms were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Appendectomy for acute or complicated (perforated and gangrenous) appendicitis had similar complication rates, regardless of the technique (P = 0.181). Conclusions: Unlike other minimally invasive procedures, laparoscopic appendectomy did not offer a significant advantage over open appendectomy in all studied parameters except quality of life scores at 2 weeks. It also took longer to perform. The choice of the procedure should be based on surgeon or patient preference.

AB - Summary Background Data: The value of laparoscopy in appendicitis is not established. Studies suffer from multiple limitations. Our aim is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a prospective randomized double blind study. Methods: Two hundred forty-seven patients were analyzed following either laparoscopic or open appendectomy. A standardized wound dressing was applied blinding both patients and independent data collectors. Surgical technique was standardized among 4 surgeons. The main outcome measures were postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures included evaluation of pain and activity scores at base line preoperatively and on every postoperative day, as well as resumption of diet and length of stay. Activity scores and quality of life were assessed on short-term follow-up. Results: There was no mortality. The overall complication rate was similar in both groups (18.5% versus 17% in the laparoscopic and open groups respectively), but some early complications in the laparoscopic group required a reoperation. Operating time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic group (80 minutes versus 60 minutes; P = 0.000) while there was no difference in the pain scores and medications, resumption of diet, length of stay, or activity scores. At 2 weeks, there was no difference in the activity or pain scores, but physical health and general scores on the short-form 36 (SF36) quality of life assessment forms were significantly better in the laparoscopic group. Appendectomy for acute or complicated (perforated and gangrenous) appendicitis had similar complication rates, regardless of the technique (P = 0.181). Conclusions: Unlike other minimally invasive procedures, laparoscopic appendectomy did not offer a significant advantage over open appendectomy in all studied parameters except quality of life scores at 2 weeks. It also took longer to perform. The choice of the procedure should be based on surgeon or patient preference.

KW - Appendectomy

KW - Appendicitis

KW - Laparoscopy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24944457361&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=24944457361&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.sla.0000179648.75373.2f

DO - 10.1097/01.sla.0000179648.75373.2f

M3 - Article

C2 - 16135930

AN - SCOPUS:24944457361

VL - 242

SP - 439

EP - 450

JO - Annals of Surgery

JF - Annals of Surgery

SN - 0003-4932

IS - 3

ER -