A Comparative Evaluation of Two-Port, Three-Port and Open Appendicectomy at a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital

Journal Title: International Journal of Medical Research Professionals - Year 2017, Vol 3, Issue 3

Abstract

Background: Appendicectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed in emergency surgery. Because of lack of consensus about the most appropriate technique, Appendicectomy is still being performed by both open (OA) and laparoscopic (LA) methods. In this comparative analysis, we aimed to compare the efficacy of Open Appendicectomy, Two-port Appendicectomy and Three port Appendicectomy in the treatment of acute appendicitis. Materials and Methods: Of the 135 patients included in the study, 36 patients were in the open Appendicectomy (OA) group, 59 in two-port and 40 patients were included in the three-port group. The three groups were compared for operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, complication rate and return to normal activity. Obtained data were compared with cases of open, two and three-port Appendicectomy. Results: The mean operative time was 39.7, 31.94, and 68.14 min for open, two-port, and three-port Appendicectomy groups respectively. Mean length of stay was 3.14, 2.01, and 2.63 days for open, two-port, and three-port Appendicectomy groups respectively. Eleven patients develops surgical site infection, 6 in the open and 2 in the two-port and 3 in three-port Appendicectomy group and one in open group developed post-operative ileus. No mortality was recorded. Conclusion: Patients who underwent two port Appendicectomy had a cosmetically better appearing scar with rapid recovery as compared to three port Appendicectomy and open cases. For uncomplicated appendicitis, the two-port Appendicectomy technique significantly reduces operative time as well as length of hospital stay. It also reduces surgical site infection as compared to open and three- port Appendicectomy group.

Authors and Affiliations

Anmol Tayal, Rohit Sood, Vinay Sharma

Keywords

Related Articles

Prevalence of Insomnia and Its Associated Factors among Family Medicine Residents at Joint Program in Makkah Al Mukarramah and Jeddah Cities

Background: Difficulty in sleeping under stressor due to various living style needs appears to be a great risk factor for physical and mental health status. Family medicine residents are a population that appears to be a...

Conventional and Autograft Surgery for Pterygium: A Prospective Comparative Study

Background: Pterygium is a wing shaped, thick, fleshy, vascular fold of conjunctival tissue. Various techniques like irradiation, conjunctival autografting, conventional bare sclera technique, amniotic membrane transplan...

Comparative Evaluation of Modified Erich’s Arch Bar, Conventional Erich’s Arch Bar and Intermaxillary Fixation Screws in Maxillo-Mandibular Fixation: A Prospective Clinical Study

Background: Intermaxillary fixation is commonly employed in maxillofacial trauma to utilize functional occlusion as a tool to perform open reduction and internal fixation of maxillary and mandibular fractures. This new t...

Anaesthetic Efficacy of Two Local Anaesthetics Viz Lidocaine and Articaine In Third Molar Surgery

Background: Local anesthetics are efficient and safe medicaments that are used prevention and management of pain. The duration action of articaine is longer than lidocaine as it has the presence of thiopentone ring and i...

Elderly Versus Young Primi Gravida: A Clinical Analysis of Pregnancy Outcome in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Kashmir

Background: In obstetric practice, maternal age is an important determinant of outcome of pregnancy. One such risk factor is an elderly pregnancy that leads to many complications during pregnancy, labor and also for the...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP547808
  • DOI 10.21276/ijmrp.2017.3.3.024
  • Views 90
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Anmol Tayal, Rohit Sood, Vinay Sharma (2017). A Comparative Evaluation of Two-Port, Three-Port and Open Appendicectomy at a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital. International Journal of Medical Research Professionals, 3(3), 114-117. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-547808