scholarly journals Peritoneal closure or non-closure in open appendectomy: a reality or a myth

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. 3102
Author(s):  
T. R. V. Wilkinson ◽  
Mahendra K. Chauhan ◽  
Isha Trivedi
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Daily Basis ◽  
Wound Infections ◽  
Open Appendicectomy ◽  
Duration Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Peritoneal Closure ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Group B

Background: The objective of this study is to analyze the difference of outcome and complications in peritoneal closure versus non-closure in open appendicectomy.Methods: This was the prospective comparative study. 126 patients with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis undergoing open appendicectomy divided in two groups non-randomly. Group A: Open appendicectomy with closure of peritoneum (n=59) and Group B: Open appendicectomy with non-closure of peritoneum (n=67). Intra operative time and post-operative period for pain and complications like wound infections, hernia and duration of hospital stay were analyzed. Patients were shown ‘visual analogue scale’ on a daily basis and those who reported unbearable pain given additional analgesia.Results: Operative time, number of doses of analgesic required, wound infections and duration of hospital stay in both groups were compared. Difference in operative time between both the groups was found to be statistically significant (p< 0.0001).Conclusions: Non-closure of peritoneum in open appendicectomy is associated with lesser operative time, and shorter duration of hospital stay. Hence, it can be safely recommended.

PERITONEAL CLOSURE VERSUS NON-CLOSURE IN OPEN APPENDICECTOMIES

2021 ◽  
pp. 11-12
Author(s):  
V. Manmadha Rao M.S ◽  
D. N. S. Sai Kumar ◽  
K. Neelesh
Keyword(s):  
Acute Appendicitis ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Wound Infection ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Open Appendicectomy ◽  
Duration Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Peritoneal Closure ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
King George Hospital

Acute Appendicitis is a common surgical emergency and Open Appendicectomy is widely performed. This study aims to analyze the difference of outcome in peritoneal closure versus Non closure in open appendicectomy. Adult patients (18- 65 years) admitted and operated for Acute appendicitis were studied prospectively from July 2019 to July 2020 at King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The intra operative time, post-operative pain, wound infection and duration of hospital stay were analyzed. Between July 2019 and July 2020 there were 86 patients with diagnosis of Acute appendicitis to the emergency casualty of KGH, Visakhapatnam and underwent Open appendicectomy. They were divided into two groups randomly, Group A: Open appendicectomy with peritoneal closure (39) and Group B: Open appendicectomy with non-closure of peritoneum (47). There was found to be a reduction in the duration of surgery, less post operative pain and shorter duration of hospital stay in patients who underwent non-closure of peritoneum compared to patients who underwent peritoneal closure. There was no difference in incidence of post-operative wound infection when compared to closure of peritoneum. Non closure of peritoneum is associated with shorter operative time, reduced requirement of post-operative analgesia and shorter duration of hospital stay and hence can be safely recommended.

scholarly journals Is the laparoscopic approach superior to open approach for treatment of acute appendicitis? A hospital based experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 1726
Author(s):  
Anil Reddy Pinate ◽  
Mohammad Fazelul Rahman Shoeb ◽  
Shiva Kumar C. R.
Keyword(s):  
Acute Appendicitis ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Laparoscopic Appendicectomy ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Open Appendicectomy ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Group B

Background: Laparoscopic appendicetomy remains controversial in Indian perspective. The objective was to compare the clinical outcome of open with laparoscopic appendicectomy.Methods: Prospectively collected data from 150 consecutive patients with acute appendicitis was studied. Patients undergoing surgery for acute appendicitis were alternately assigned into one of the two groups (Group-A patients underwent open appendicectomy and in Group B laparoscopic appendicectomy). The two groups were compared with respect to operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain & wound complications.Results: The mean operative time in the open group was 84.40 minutes; for laparoscopic group, 95.20 minutes (p-0.001). Duration of paralytic ileus, tolerance to oral feeds, resumption of daily routine activity and ambulation of patients were started earlier in laparoscopic group than open group. Group A (OA) patients had pain at the mean of 2.66 days as compared group B (LA), in which patients had pain at the mean of 1.66 days.  Study also showed that the hospital stay for laparoscopic group was almost half of that for open group. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was safe as compared to open surgery in context to post-operative complications.Conclusions: Provided surgical experience and equipment are available, Laparoscopic appendicectomy is as safe and efficient than open appendicectomy.

scholarly journals A comparative study of single layer extra mucosal versus conventional double layer anastomosis of intestines in elective and emergency laparotomy

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 184
Author(s):  
K. Lohit Sai ◽  
C. Sugumar
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Anastomotic Leak ◽  
Double Layer ◽  
Single Layer ◽  
Duration Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Key Skills ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Group B

Background: Gastrointestinal anastomosis has been a part of research since decades and is one of the key skills in surgeon’s armamentarium. This study compared the outcome of single layer anastomosis with double layer anastomosis.Methods: The study was designed as a prospective comparative study and 29 cases were included in the study during December 2016 to September 2017, who consented for being part of the study. Patients were alternatively allotted into the either group. Group A underwent single layer anastomosis and Group B underwent double layer anastomosis. Outcome parameters were analysed in the form of ‘duration required to perform anastomoses, ‘duration of hospital stay’ and ‘dnastomotic leak.Results: Mean duration required to perform anastomosis in Group A is 21.64±1.60 minutes and in Group B is 29.6±2.02 minutes. The difference between the mean duration required for anastomosis between the two groups were statistically significant (p<0.005). Mean duration of hospital stay in Group A was 12.35±1.72 days and Group B was 12±2.44 days (difference was statistically insignificant), 3 (10%) cases in Group A and 2 (6.8 %) cases in Group B developed anastomotic leak and the difference was statistically insignificant.Conclusions: Our study concluded that there is statistically significant difference between the single layer anastomosis and double layer anastomosis in terms of time taken to perform anastomosis, however there is no difference in postoperative anastomotic leak and duration of hospital stay.

scholarly journals Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy among Saudi patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (9) ◽  
pp. 3725
Author(s):  
Mohammed Miftah ◽  
Jumanh Attiah ◽  
Omar Alawaji ◽  
Faisal Alghamdi ◽  
Abdulaziz Alasmari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Significant Research ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Open Versus ◽  
Abdominal Infections

Appendicitis is the most common cause for abdominal surgeries among all age groups worldwide. Significant research papers were published concerning the techniques through which appendectomy is done. Open appendectomy has been the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis and has been known as a safe practice with relatively low rate of postoperative complications. However, in the last few decades, laparoscopic surgery has developed widely with the advent of minimal surgical invasion and is now more increasingly prevalent intervention. In this study, we aim to report on previous literature on laparoscopic and open appendectomies that were carried out in Saudi Arabia and compare the efficacy, safety and complications of performing laparoscopic and open appendectomies including mean operative time, mean hospital stay and prevalence of postoperative complications, mainly, wound infection and intra-abdominal infections. PubMed database and EBSCO Information Services were used for articles selection. All relevant articles to our review with the topics regarding the appendectomy procedures; both open, laparoscopic, and other articles have been used. We excluded other articles, which are not related to this field. The data will be extracted according to specific form in which it is going to be reviewed by the group members. The study found out that mean operative time was shorter in open procedures than laparoscopic one making it open appendectomy the faster intervention. Mean hospital stay was found to be significantly less in LA than OA patients. Indicated higher rate of intra-abdominal infections in the LA patients than OA ones, while wound infections are mainly present in OA cases in the reference studies.

scholarly journals Comparison of In-Hospital Outcomes Between Patients With or Without Acute Kidney Injury Developed After Hospitalization Following Acute Coronary Syndrome

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
Md Sajjad Safi ◽  
Msi Tipu Chowdhury ◽  
Tanjima Parvin ◽  
Khurshed Ahmed ◽  
Md Ashraf Uddin Sultana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Serum Creatinine ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Duration Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Group A ◽  
Hospital Stays ◽  
Group B

Background: Acute Kidney Injury (AKI), a common complication of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), is associated with higher mortality and longer hospital stays. ACS patients with renal impairment during hospitalization are associated with adverse in-hospital outcomes in the form of heart failure, cardiogenic shock, arrhythmia, dialysis requirement and mortality. Objective: To compare the in-hospital adverse outcomesof patients with ACS with or without AKI. Materials and Methods: This prospective comparative study was conducted in the Department of Cardiology, BSMMU, Dhaka, during the period of August 2017 to July 2018. A total of 70 eligible patients were included in this study of which 35 patients were included in group A (ACS with AKI) and 35 patients were included in group B (ACS without AKI). AKI was diagnosed, on the basis of increased serum creatinine level 0.3mg/dL from baseline within 48 hours after hospitalization. They were subjected to electrocardiography, blood test for serum creatinine (on admission, 12 hours, 48 hours and at the time of discharge), lipid profile, 2-D echocardiography along with serum troponin, CK MB and electrolytes. Results: It was observed that mean age was 58.0±8.5 years in group A and 55.6±12.3 years in group B. Heart failure was more common in group A than in Group B (74.3% vs 34.2% p=0.001 respectively) and arrhythmia was more common in group A than in Group B (100% vs 74.2% respectively). 7(20%) patients of group A required dialysis. The mean duration of hospital stay was significantly higher in Group A than in the Group B (9.4±2.3 vs 7.2±0.6; p=0.001) days. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that heart failure, cardiogenic shock, duration of hospital stay were found to be the independently significant predictors of outcome of the patients with AKI with odds ratio being 5.53 (p=0.001), 4.353 (p=0.001) and 6.92 (p=0.001) Conclusion: This study shows that, heart failure, cardiogenic shock, arrhythmia, dialysis requirement, were more common in the patients with AKI (group A) than in the patients without AKI (group B). The duration of hospital stays were longer in patients with AKI (group A) than in the patients without AKI (group B). Therefore, an important research target is the identification of high-risk patients with ACS experiencing AKI, thereby appropriate medication and follow-up should be implemented. University Heart Journal Vol. 16, No. 1, Jan 2020; 3-10

scholarly journals Adrenaline and Dexamethasone, vs Adrenaline and Fluticasone, vs Adrenaline alone in Bronchiolitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
pp. 20-28
Author(s):  
Jayendra R. Gohil ◽  
Atul M. Sheladiya ◽  
N. B. Adithya ◽  
Ratna D. Bhojak
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Clinical Severity ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Group B

Background and Objectives: There is no consensus over which drug best reduces symptoms in Bronchiolitis syndrome. The primary objective of our study is to establish comparative effect of adrenaline nebulisation alone and combination of adrenaline nebulisation plus injectable dexamethasone and adrenaline nebulisation plus fluticasone nebulisation in the treatment of clinical cases of bronchiolitis. Methods: 100 patients diagnosed clinically as bronchiolitis were enrolled in study from 1 month to 24 months of age. Patients were enrolled by purposive sampling. Patients with respiratory distress assessment instrument score [RDAI] of 4 to 15 were chosen, randomized into three groups and treatment given till patient fullfilled discharge criteria. Group A (n=33) were given nebulised adrenaline alone, Group B (n=34) were given nebulised adrenaline plus injectable dexamethasone and Group C (n=33) were given nebulised adrenaline plus nebulised fluticasone. Results: The mean reduction in clinical severity-RDAI score was 1.75 ±0.86 in Group A, 2.30 ± 0.68 in Group B and 1.42 ± 0.9 in Group C when measured in terms of difference in clinical scores between day 1 and 2 (p=0.0003). Mean duration of hospital stay in the group A was (4.93±1.95 days), Group C (4.78±1.83) and Group B (3.91 ±1.37 days). The difference of stay between the Groups A and B was 1.02±0.58 days vs 0.87± 0.46 days in groups B and C (p-0.0048). Reduction in the length of hospital stay in group B was 22% compared to Group A & 19% compared to Group C (p-0.0048). Side effects were tachycardia in six patients. Conclusion: Combination of adrenaline nebulization and injectable dexamethasone was found significantly better as compared to nebulised adrenaline plus nebulised fluticasone and nebulised adrenaline alone in patients of clinical bronchiolitis in reducing severity of clinical symptoms and duration of hospitalization.

scholarly journals Clinical outcome of appendectomy: laparoscopic vs open technique

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 93
Author(s):  
Jan M. Rather ◽  
Sobia Manzoor ◽  
Mubashir Shah
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Acute Appendicitis ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Open Technique ◽  
Duration Of Hospital Stay

Background: Acute appendicitis is a common abdominal surgical emergency. Appendectomy has been proven to be the standard care for the treatment of acute appendicitis. Objective of the study was to compare laparoscopic and open appendectomy in terms of clinical outcome and complication rates.Methods: This was a single centric, retrospective study conducted at SKIMS, Soura from May 2018 to April 2021. Open and laparoscopic appendectomy patients were compared in terms of operative times, conversion rate, complication rates and duration of hospital stay.Results: Total 120 patients were included in this study with 40 in laparoscopic group while 80 patients in the open group. Increased operative time in laparoscopic group (p=0.033) and longer duration of hospital stay (p=0.021) with open group while as comparable complication rate in both procedures were observed. Higher rates of intra-abdominal collection in laparoscopic group as compared to open groupConclusions: Both laparoscopic and open appendectomy procedures can be performed routinely for acute appendicitis without the additional risks of complications.

scholarly journals A retrospective study on laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 1144
Author(s):  
P. Senthil Kumar ◽  
S. Edwin Kin’s Raj ◽  
Saranya Nagalingam
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Acute Appendicitis ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Laparoscopic Appendectomy ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Laparoscopic Approach ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Daily Activities ◽  
Early Return

Background: Appendectomy is the most common surgical procedure performed in emergency surgery. Open appendectomy is the “gold standard” for the treatment of acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy though widely practiced has not gained universal approval. Our aim is to compare the safety and benefits of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a retrospective study.Methods: The study was done as a retrospective study among 387 patients diagnosed with appendicitis for a period of 18 months in the Dept of General Surgery. All patients included were 16 years and above and followed up for 3 weeks. In this study, 130 patients diagnosed as acute appendicitis - underwent open appendectomy and 257 patients diagnosed as sub-acute cases of appendicitis - underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. These two groups (open & laparoscopic) were compared for operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, complication rate, early return to normal activity.Results: Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter hospital stay (around 4.5 days), with a less need for analgesia and with an early return to daily activities (around 11.5 days). Operative time was significantly shorter in the open group (35 mins), when compared with laparoscopic group (around 59 mins). Total number of complications was less in the Laparoscopic group with a significantly lower incidence of post-op pain and complications.Conclusions: The laparoscopic approach is a safe and efficient operative procedure and it provides clinically beneficial advantages over open appendectomy (including shorter hospital stay, an early return to daily activities and less post-op complications).

scholarly journals A comparative study of two operative procedures in anterior hypospadias repair: limited urethral mobilization and tubularized incised plate urethroplasty.

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 1578-1584
Author(s):  
Shafiq ur Rehman ◽  
Fareena Ishtiaq ◽  
Zarlish Fazal ◽  
Muhammad Anwar ◽  
Saad Fazal
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Cosmetic Appearance ◽  
Tubularized Incised Plate ◽  
Group A ◽  
Tubularized Incised Plate Urethroplasty ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Group B

Objectives: This study is aimed to compare the results of limited urethral mobilization and tubularized incised plate urethroplasty in the management of anterior hypospadias, in terms of cosmetic and functional outcomes, complication rate, operative time, and hospital stay. Study Design: Prospective Randomized Controlled study. Settings: Department of Pediatric Surgery, DHQ Teaching Hospital Sahiwal. Period: January 2019 to December 2020. Material and Methods: A total of 89 patients with anterior hypospadias were included. Patients were divided randomly into two groups. In group A, limited urethral mobilization was performed and in group B, tubularized incised plate urethroplasty was carried out. A self-structured performa was used to collect the data of all patients. Both groups were compared in terms of the operation time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, cosmetic appearance, and functional outcomes. Results: Forty-five patients were included in group A, age ranged from 2.5 to 12 years (mean 4.83years). Forty-four patients were included in group B and their ages ranged from 3.5 to 11years (mean 4.76 years). The operation time was significantly less for group A than for group B. In group A, it ranged from 54 to 69 min with an average time of 60.51 min and in group B from 70 to 88 min, with an average of 79.34 min. The mean hospital stay period in group A was 7.37 days, ranged from 7 to 9 days, and in group B was 11.04 days, ranging from 10 to 13 days. The mean follow-up period in both groups was 7.45 months, ranging from 3 months to 12 months. Meatal stenosis was the most common complication in group A, which developed in 6.66% (n=3) patients. Urethrocutaneous fistula was the most common complication in group B, which developed in 6.81% (n=3) patients. Cosmetic appearance and functional outcome were good and comparable in both groups. Conclusion: Although both techniques, tubularized incised plate and limited urethral mobilization urethroplasty are acceptable modalities for the management of anterior hypospadias. But limited urethral mobilization urethroplasty seems to be a good option due to its simplicity, short hospital stay, significant shorter operative time, low fistula formation rate, and good cosmetic and functional outcomes.

scholarly journals LAPAROSCOPIC APPENDECTOMY;

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sajid Malik ◽  
Kamran Zaib Khan ◽  
Iftikhar Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Laparoscopic Appendectomy ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Minimal Invasive ◽  
Time Duration ◽  
Duration Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Scar Mark ◽  
Almost All

Background: Minimal invasive surgery (MIS) is a modern and safe improvement in field of laparoscopic surgery. Single incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) is a major breakthrough in MIS and has become standard procedure for acute appendicitis in place of conventional three port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA). Objectives: To see the potential advantages in terms of operative time, duration of hospital stay, post-operative pain and cosmetic results in SILA and CTLA groups. Study Design: Randomized control study. Setting: Department of General Surgery in Allama Iqbal Medical College/ Jinnah Hospital Lahore. Period: July 2016 to June 2017. Materials and Methods: 48 patients were divided in two groups; group SILA (cases) and CTLA (control). Each group comprised 24 patients. All cases were performed by consultant who were competent enough and trained in MIS. Results: We found that there was statistically no difference in operative time (p>0.05) and post-operative pain (p>0.05) of both procedures but statistically significant outcome was observed in duration of hospital stay (p<0.005) and cosmetic result (p< 0.005). Post-operative analgesia usage was same in both groups with similar outcome of control. Surgical wound healed in all patients of both groups without complication but noticeably had shown no scar mark on three months follow up in patients of SILA group. Almost all patients in SILA group were discharged on same day on oral diet. Conclusion: This study showed that results of SILA are better in terms of cosmoses and less duration of hospital stay in the presence of non-significant operative time of two procedures. Staying with promise of minimizing in MIS to SILA, cosmetic satisfaction and minimal hospital stay are its comprehensible advantages.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document