STUDENCKIE KOŁO NAUKOWE
CHIRURGII OGÓLNEJ I NACZYNIOWEJ
Międzyleski Szpital Specjalistyczny w Warszawie
Appendectomy - laparoscopic or open?
Piotr Major1, Sławomir Poletajew2, Michał Pędziwiatr 1, Monika Lis2, Jakub Kwieciński1
1Students’ Scientific Society at the 2nd Surgery Department , Jagiellonian University, Cracow
2Students’ Scientific Society of General and Vascular Surgery, Miedzyleski Specialist Hospital in Warsaw
Acute appendicitis is one of the most common intraabdominal conditions requiring surgical intervention. Open appendectomy was first described in 1736 (Amyand). In 1983 Semm introduced laparoscopic appendectomy which became an alternative method to the open procedure. Despite the development of video surgery, all indications for, as well as benefits from laparoscopy in case of appendectomy are still very controversial and widely discussed.
The aim of our study was to compare the procedures of open and laparoscopic appendectomy.
Material and methods
The study was conducted retrospectively on 126 patients operated on in an open appendectomy procedure in the Specialist Hospital in Międzylesie in Warsaw (60 female and 66 male patients, average age of 37,4) and 132 patients operated on in a laparoscopic appendectomy procedure in the 2nd Surgery Department at the Jagiellonian University Collegium Medicum in Cracow (51 female and 81 male, average age of 36,6). The groups were compared in terms of operating time, need of analgesia use after the procedure, strict and liquid diet period, number and type of complications and hospitalization period.
Open procedures were shorter than laparoscopic ones (51 vs. 55 minutes). Patients operated on in the open appendectomy received analgetic medication more seldom than those operated on in laparoscopy (67% vs. 94%). The group after the open appendectomy started later with the liquid diet (in 1,2 day vs 1,9 day) and slightly later with thebland diet (2,8 days vs 2,4 days) than the group after the laparoscopic appendectomy. Number of local (2% vs. 2%) and general (0,8% vs 0,8%) complications as well as hospitalization periods were similar in both groups (4,8 days vs 4,6 days respectively).
The study has revealed that it is difficult to state explicitly which of the two methods is more advantageous for the patients.)Therefore, experience of the surgeon and the surgical team should be always taken into consideration while choosing the adequate method.
4th International Scientific Congress of Medical Students and Young Doctors
Warsaw, 27th -29th April 2007
Archieves of Medical Science 2007; 1(2), supl.2: S171