Open Versus Laparoscopic Appendicectomy- A Comparative Study

Journal Title: Journal of Medical Science And clinical Research - Year 2017, Vol 5, Issue 1

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic appendicectomy has rapidly become established as the popular alternative to open appendicectomy, it has a safety profile better than open procedure. Objectives: Laparoscopic procedure for appendicectomy is compared with open surgical technique with respect to:  Duration of procedure.  Post operative pain.  Duration of analgesic use.  Complication encountered  Post operative length of hospital stay.  Conversion to open appendectomy Methods: Prospective study from December 2008 to May 2010, involved 50 patients with diagnosis of acute or recurrent appendicitis was entered into a study randomizing the choice of operation to either the open or the laparoscopic technique. Statistical comparisons were performed using the chi-square test and students ‘t’ test. Results: 25 patients were assigned to the laparoscopic appendicectomy group and 25 patients were assigned to the open appendicectomy group. There were statistically significant difference noted in respect to postoperative pain (LA, 1.21 ± 0.63 Vs. OA, 2.72±0.87: P<0.001) duration of analgesic used (LA,2.2 ± 1.08 Vs. OA, 6.44 ± 1.84:P<0.001) postoperative complications like vomiting [LA, 2 (8%) Vs. O.A, 7 (28%), fever [LA, 1 (4%) Vs. OA, 4 (16%), wound infection [LA, 1 (4% Vs. OA, 5 (20%), ileus (LA, 17.3 ± 7.1 Vs. OA, 30.8±8.9:P<0.001) postoperative length of hospital stay (LA,2.8±1.23 Vs. OA, 7.7±1.95:P<0.001) and return to normal work (LA,13.5±2.86 Vs.OA, 20.8 ± 3.21:P<0.01) .Although above mentioned advantage were at the cost of slightly increased duration of surgery (LA,71.2 ± 19.23 Vs.OA,53.8 ± 20.04:P<0.01). Conclusions: The patients who underwent laparoscopic appendicectomy had less postoperative pain and shorter duration of analgesic use, less postoperative complications like vomiting, fever ileus and wound infection with shorter postoperative duration of hospital stay and return to normal work when compared with patients who underwent open appendicectomy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy is better than open appendicectomy in selected patients with acute or recurrent appendicitis.

Authors and Affiliations

Dr Tanmay Mehta

Keywords

Related Articles

Media Optimization For Lovastatin Production by Statistical Approach Using Aspergillus terreus by Submerged Fermentation

Lovastatin is a secondary metabolite produced by Aspergillus terreus which is used as cholesterol-lowering drugs called HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. In the present study to increase the yield of lovastatin, production m...

Dermatophytosis in the Sub-Himalayan region – Is Epidermophyton fluccosum Re-emerging?

Dermatophytosis is a common cutaneous condition affecting humans and animals. The causative agents are keratinophilic fungi of three genera, Trichophyton, Microsporum and Epidermophyton. Epidermophyton sp. is exceptional...

Self Medication – Questionnaire Based Study for Information Gathering Amongst Community Pharmacists

Background: For a growing population, pharmacy has become the first and often the only stop in the search for medicine/medical advice. Gathering sufficient information when handling self- medication requests in community...

Hemisection – A Case Report

Advances in dentistry, as well as the increased desire of patients to maintain their dentition, have lead to treatment of teeth that once would have been removed. In order to carry out this present day mandate, periodont...

Study of Effect of Pneumoperitoneum on Liver Function Following Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

This study was undertaken in 60 patients with the aim of assessing the presence and significance of disturbances in liver enzymes following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The liver function parameters measured preoperativ...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP273198
  • DOI -
  • Views 102
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Dr Tanmay Mehta (2017). Open Versus Laparoscopic Appendicectomy- A Comparative Study. Journal of Medical Science And clinical Research, 5(1), 15795-15808. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-273198