A study of open versus laparoscopic removal of appendix at tertiary health care center

Journal Title: Medpulse International Journal of Dentistry - Year 2018, Vol 5, Issue 1

Abstract

Background: laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has struggled to prove its superiority over the open technique. This is in contrast to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which has promptly become the gold standard for gallstone disease despite little scientific challenge. Aims and Objectives: To Study Open versus Laparoscopic removal of appendix at tertiary health care Center. Methodology: This was a hospital based cross-sectional study carried out in the department surgery during the one year period i.e. January 2016 to January 2016. during one year there were 70 cases selected for study in that 35 each randomly allotted to Laparoscopy and 35 to open operation group. The statistical analyses was done by Chi – square test, unpaired t-test calculated by SPSS 19 version software. Result: In our study we have found that the majority of the patients were in the age group of 20-30 i.e. 40.00% followed by 10-20 were 24.29%, 30-40 were 18.57%, 50-60 were 12.86%, >60 were 4.29% respectively. The majority of the patients were Male i.e. 67.14% and female were 32.86%. The duration of surgery was significantly higher for Laparoscopy as compared to Open (X2=11.43, df=4, p<0.05). The post operative parameters like Post-operative pain (VAS- Score ) (mean ±SD)- 5.43 ± 5.62, 7.34 ± 3.4 (t=2.07,df=68,p<0.04 ) ; Post operative hospital stay (mean ±SD)- 2.21 ± 1.42, 5.78 ±2.41 (t=2.07,df=68,p<0.04 ) ; Postoperative duration to return work - 5.67 ± 2.12, 15.62 ± 3.4. ( t=5.12,df=68, p<0.001). The most of the complications like Vomiting i.e. 11.43% as compared to 20%, Abdominal abscess -2.86%, 14.29; Wound infection -2.86, 8.57; Ileus -0.00, 5.71 in Laparoscopy as compared to Open surgery respectively. (p<0.05). Conclusion: Except the duration of surgery in all other perspective like Post-operative pain. Post operative hospital stay, Post-operative duration to return work and less complications like Vomiting, Abdominal abscess, Wound infection, Ileus ; laparoscopy was superior to open laprotomy for the removal or appendix.

Authors and Affiliations

Bhaskar Jadhav

Keywords

Related Articles

Role of pseudomonas aeruginosa in nosocomial urinary tract infections

Introduction: Nosocomial urinary tract infections accounts for 40% of nosocomial infections. Pseudomonas aeruginosa as the causative agent of nosocomial UTIs is 10.3% in previous studies. In the present study the role of...

Prevalence and Epidemiology of Overweight and Obesity among Upper Primary School Children in Latur City

Abstract: Background: Obesity is increasing at an alarming rate throughout the world. Obesity in children is a marker of overweight in adult age, and it shows an association with the chronic non communicable disease. Hen...

A community based study to determine health care seeking behaviour in elderly population of rural India

Background: The number of elderly is increasing day by day due to demographic transition. In developing countries, elders form a weak group in availing of social benefits. This will result in emergence of new problems re...

Applications of Advanced Statistical Techniques in Health Related Data: A Review

Abstract: There are myriad search and statistical techniques for optimization problems in the world. Researchers in Medical Science need an efficient tool to tackle their problems. Statistics as science help to quantify...

Evaluation of High Risk Factors among Ante-Natal Women

Abstract: The Present cross sectional study was carried among pregnant patients in Antenatal OPD at OBGY and preanesthetic evaluation room of Department of Anesthesia, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Medical Science (RIMS), Ad...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP365612
  • DOI -
  • Views 157
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Bhaskar Jadhav (2018). A study of open versus laparoscopic removal of appendix at tertiary health care center. Medpulse International Journal of Dentistry, 5(1), 27-29. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-365612