scholarly journals Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy retrospective study

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 620
Author(s):  
Haitham S. Rbihat ◽  
Khaled M. Mestareehy ◽  
Mohammad S. Al lababdeh ◽  
Talal M. Jalabneh ◽  
Mohammad E. Aljboor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Laparoscopic Appendectomy ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Abdominal Abscesses ◽  
Zero Rate ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Mean Time

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is taken into account as a standard method of performing cholecystectomy and has substituted the old method throughout the world, while laparoscopic appendectomy still not attaining that reputation. In this paper, a retrospective study was done to compare between both laparoscopic and open appendectomy.Methods: Two hundred eighty-five patients were analyzed after appendectomy using either open or laparoscopic procedures. The data was compared over a period of 36 months. Surgical technique was the same among 6 surgeons, standard postoperative care for all patient groups. The outcome measures included comparing of mean operative time, days of hospitalization, postoperative pain and rate of wound infection.Results: Concerning open appendectomy the mean time was 28 minutes with 2 days of hospitalization. The postoperative pain extent was for 36 hours and rate of wound infection was 8/159. While in laparoscopic appendectomy the mean time was 55 minutes with one day hospitalization. The postoperative pain was for 12 hours and zero rate of wound infection.Conclusions: In general laparoscopy has plenty of gains over open surgery as discussed before but laparoscopic appendectomy is not easier, nor does it avoid general anesthesia. The cost for laparoscopic appendectomy is higher than for open appendectomy. The operative and post-operative complications are more critical (e.g.: intra-abdominal abscesses & perforation of bowel) as compared to open appendectomy. We have to assess the advantages and disadvantages, indications and contraindications when taking a decision for laparoscopic surgery. We suppose it would be very early to say that laparoscopic appendectomy is superior or can replace open appendectomy.

scholarly journals LAPAROSCOPIC AND OPEN APPENDECTOMY

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (11) ◽  
pp. 1305-1310
Author(s):  
Nawaz Ali Dal ◽  
Qamber Ali Lighari ◽  
Zameer Hussain Laghari
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Laparoscopic Appendectomy ◽  
Iliac Fossa ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Normal Activity ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Rebound Tenderness ◽  
Co Morbidity ◽  
The Mean

Objectives: Objectives of this study are to compare the outcome of thelaparoscopic with open appendectomy in terms of postoperative pain, postoperativecomplications and hospital stay. Study Design: Randomized control trial. Place and Periodof Study: This study was held in Surgical Unit-III, Liaquat University Hospital Jamshoro, fromSeptember 2013 to March 2014. Methodology: This study comprised of sixty patients admittedvia outpatient department, and also through casualty department of LUHMS Jamshoro/Hyderabad. Cases were categorized into 2 groups. Group-A for open appendectomy andgroup-B for laparoscopic appendectomy. Comprehensive History was obtained from eachpatient. Right iliac fossa site was particularly assessed for tenderness assessment at Mc: Burney’spoint rigidity rebound tenderness and documented through proforma. A comprehensive reviewwas as well performed to observe any co-morbidity. Inclusion criteria comprised of all thosepatients of acute appendicitis who give written consent for study after counseling, irrespectiveof their age and sex. Criteria for exclusion included each patient with aspects of specifiedperitonitis, cases with obvious mass within right iliac fossa as well as cases with pre-operativehistory of lower abdomen or caesarean section. Outcomes were documented in the term ofterms of postoperative pain, postoperative complications and hospital stay and recorded onPerforma. Data analyzing was carried out with SPSS software. Results: From totally 60 casesin our study 40 patients males (66.67%) and 20 were females (33.33%); with female to maleproportion of 1:3. There was an extensive variation in age from 10 to 70 years among bothgroups. The mean age was 26.78 years. Both groups were symptomatically nearly similar withpain in RIF, pain initiating around umbilicus, nausea, vomiting, anorexia, fever, and modifiedbowel behavior, in 59 (98.33%), 45 (75%), 50 (83.33%), 35 (58.33%), 25 (41.67%), 22 (36.67%),20 (33.33%) respectively. Clinical assessment of cases exposed tenderness at Mc Burney’spoint in 59 (98.33%) cases, muscle guarding in 52 (86.67%) cases, rebound tenderness in55 (91.67%) cases and fever in 20 (33.33%) patients. Operative period in each group wasdocumented that ranged from 30 to 90 min. in each group. The mean operative period in OAgroup was 38.90+15.90 where as it was 26.30+12.96 minutes LA group. Post-operative painseverity in each group was documented. Mild pain was found in 5(16.67%) in OA group casesand 21 (70%) in LA group cases was noted, moderate pain in 22(73.33%) OA group casesand 9(30%) LA group cases was noted, severe pain was described by 3 (10%) patients in OA.The period of return to normal activity in open appendectomy ranged from 7-25 days (mean14.8 days) as contrasted to laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) group where it varied from 7-15days. Conclusion: In conclusion, we exhibited that LA has significant

A COMPARISON OF DISSECTION METHOD AND MONOPOLAR TOSILECTOMY

2016 ◽  
pp. 30-34
Author(s):  
Thanh Thai Le ◽  
Duy Nam Dang
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Average Amount ◽  
Postoperative Haemorrhage ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Time Of Operation ◽  
Mean Time ◽  
Dissection Method

Objective: To compare the dissection and monopolar method of tonsillectomy and evaluate their advantages and disadvantages during surgery and convalescence. Materials and Method: Descriptive, prospective, clinical trial on 76 patients who required tonsillectomy were randomly assigned to have one tonsil removed by dissection - method and the other by monopolar at Hue University Hospital and Hue Central Hospital. Main outcome measure: surgery duration, lost blood, postoperative pain, postoperative haemorrhage, recovering time. Result: The mean time of operation related to dissection-method tonsillectomy was 18,9± 3,7 minutes and in monopolar tonsillectomy was 10,5 ±3,4 minutes. The average amount of bleeding was 13,1 ± 3,8ml and 3,1 ± 2,6ml respectively. Postoperative pain of dissection method with 6,0± 1,3 days and monopolar with 7,8 ± 2,3 days. Postoperative haemorrhage of dissection method with 5,3% and monopolar with 13,2%. Conclusion: Although there are some advantages and disavantages in 2 methods, we should choose dissection method tonsillectomy due to its recovering time. Key words: dissection method, monopolar method

scholarly journals A cohort comparative study between laparoscopic and open appendectomy in pregnant women

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. 4086
Author(s):  
Srujan Kumar Bellapu
Keyword(s):  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Laparoscopic Appendectomy ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Oral Intake ◽  
Obstetric Outcomes ◽  
Postoperative Complication Rate ◽  
Duration Of Surgery ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Time ◽  
Delivery Type

Background: Despite the initial absolute contraindication of laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy, in the last decade, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been performed in pregnant women but to compare the outcomes of LA compared with open appendectomy (OA). The objective of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LA compared with OA in pregnant women.Methods: A cohort study was conducted among pregnant women with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis who were undergoing LA or OA between June 2013 to July 2014. Pre-operative data and post-operative complication were monitored. Epi-info 7 was used for analysis.Results: Sixty patients (20 LA and 40 OA) enrolled in our study. There were no significant differences in duration of surgery, postoperative complication rate and obstetric outcomes, including incidence of preterm labour, delivery type. The mean time to normal bowel movement in the LA group was significantly shorter than that in the OA group. Also, the mean time to adequate oral intake in the LA group was earlier than in the OA group (2.1±0.4 d v. 4.1±1.8 d, p=0.02). Duration of hospital stay in the LA group was 4.1±2.6 days, and that of the OA group was 6.6±3.2 days (p=0.04).Conclusions: Laparoscopic appendectomy is a clinically safe and current procedure in all trimesters of pregnancy and should be well-thought-out as a standard treatment alternative to OA.

scholarly journals Plasmapheresis in the treatment of myasthenia gravis: retrospective study of 26 patients

2004 ◽  
Vol 62 (2b) ◽  
pp. 391-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosana Carandina-Maffeis ◽  
Anamarli Nucci ◽  
José F.C. Marques Jr ◽  
Eduardo G. Roveri ◽  
Beatriz H.M. Pfeilsticker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Myasthenia Gravis ◽  
Plasma Exchange ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Motor Deficit ◽  
Myasthenic Crisis ◽  
Clinical Hospital ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Time

We analyzed the experience of Unicamp Clinical Hospital with plasma exchange (PE) therapy in myasthenia gravis (MG). About 17.8 % of a totality of MG patients had PE performed: 26 cases, 19 women and seven men. The mean age-onset of MG was 28 years, extremes 11 and 69. Minimum deficit observed in the group was graded IIb (O & G) or IIIa (MGFA scale). One patient had prethymectomy PE. In seven the procedures were performed due to myasthenic crisis and in 18 patients due to severe myasthenic symptoms or exacerbation of previous motor deficit. Two patients were also submitted to chronic PE considering refractoriness to other treatments. Twenty-six patients had 44 cycles of PE and 171 sessions. The mean number of sessions was 3.9 (SD ± 1.4) each cycle; median 5, extremes 2 and 6. The mean time by session was 106,5 minutes (SD ± 35.2); median 100.5 (extremes of 55 and 215). The mean volume of plasma exchanged in each session was 2396 ml (SD ± 561); median 2225 (extremes 1512 and 4500). Side effects occurred: reversible hypotension (seven cases), mild tremor or paresthesias (seven cases). Infection and mortality rates due to PE were zero. All patients had immediate benefit of each PE cycle and usually they also received prednisone or other immunosuppressors. Good acceptance of the procedure was observed in 80.7% of patients.

scholarly journals Our comprehensive experience with tracheostomy in tertiary multi-speciality hospital over four years

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 1649
Author(s):  
Parth B. Kapadia ◽  
Manit M. Mandal ◽  
Ajay J. Panchal ◽  
Rakesh Kumar ◽  
Neel Parmar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Education ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Surgical Procedure ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Final Outcome ◽  
Patient Age ◽  
Significant Case ◽  
Surgical Emphysema ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Time

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Tracheostomy is a common surgical procedure used to achieve a secure airway in patients in elective as well as emergency conditions. Our study accounts for our first-hand experience with the procedure in our tertiary multi-speciality hospital.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> It is a four year (January 2017 to February 2021) retrospective study in which all the 246 cases of tracheostomies were taken into account which were performed during this study period in the department of otorhinolaryngology (ENT), Surat Municipal Institute of Medical Education and Research (SMIMER), Surat (India). The patients were thoroughly followed up until the final outcome of the tracheostomy was established.  </p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> A total of 246 tracheostomies were performed, 63.82% of which were in men. The mean patient age was 42 years. The majority (76%) were elective, performed for various indications, while the remaining 24% were emergency tracheostomies. All tracheostomies were performed by otorhinolaryngologists. Complications relating to tracheostomy were documented in 40 patients (16%) intra-operatively and/or post-operatively which included bleeding, surgical emphysema, granulations along the stomal site and rarely shock. The mean time to decannulation was 13.48 days.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Our study takes into account and discusses the findings of all the 246 tracheostomies which were performed during the study period of 4 years. Elective cases form the majority although there is a significant case series of emergency tracheostomies performed for a range of pathologies.</p><p class="Default"> </p>

Kirschner Pin Migration Associated with the Sliding Genioplasty

1993 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-19
Author(s):  
David J. Gingrass
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Bone Plates ◽  
Surgical Indications ◽  
Common Procedure ◽  
Vertical Movements ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Fixation Techniques ◽  
The Mean

The sliding genioplasty for cosmetic augmentation of microgenia is a common procedure performed by maxillofacial and cosmetic surgeons. There are multiple designs for this osteotomy, and multiple fixation techniques proposed, among which include wires, screws, bone plates, and pins. Likewise, there are many advantages and disadvantages to each of the designs and the fixation techniques that will be utilized according to the surgical indications and the surgeon's preference. A techique used at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee involves fixation of the osteotomy segments with Kirschner pins placed at multiple divergent angles. This technique allows for placement of the free segments in virtually any location, and provides for a type of rigid stabilization, particularly in large anterior and vertical movements. One criticism that has been suggested with the use of Kirschner pins is the possibility of migration. This retrospective study evaluates 13 patients who underwent augmentation genioplasty, rigidly fixated with Kirschner pins. Twenty-eight total Kirschner pins were placed, with one being removed. The mean postoperative follow-up was 32 months, and the average number of pins placed was 2.15 per patient. It would appear then, from this study, that migration of Kirschner pins when used with the sliding genioplasty, is not a significant postoperative concern.

scholarly journals Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Jordan

2001 ◽  
Vol 7 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 838-840
Author(s):  
A. Al Raymoony
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Short Hospital Stay ◽  
Early Return ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Time

This study was conducted on 100 patients with symptomatic gallbladder stones, aged 22-81 years with a mean of 51.5 years, who underwent cholecystectomy in Zarqa city, Jordan between July 1998 and July 1999. The success rate was 87% and the procedure was completed using the conventional method in 13 patients. The mean operative time was 60 minutes, complication rate was 5% and there were no deaths. The mean hospital stay was 1 day and mean time to return to work was 10 days. This study showed that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe procedure with reasonable operative time, less postoperative pain, a short hospital stay, early return to work, and a low morbidity and mortality rate.

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 Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendicectomy: A Comparison of Primary Outcome

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-87
Author(s):  
Md Mazedur Rahman ◽  
Md Siddiqur Rahman ◽  
Guljar Ahmed ◽  
Md Mushfiqur Rahman ◽  
Md Zohirul Islam Miah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Wound Infection ◽  
Laparoscopic Appendectomy ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Early Discharge ◽  
Early Return ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Duration Of Operation ◽  
Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy

Currently, laparoscopic appendectomy is widely practiced for the management of acute appendicitis. It is not clear whether open or laparoscopic appendectomy is more appropriate. Our aim was to compare the safety and the advantages of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in a prospective study. 102 patients were participated in this study. The group 1 patients were subjected to laparoscopic appendectomy [LA], whereas the group 2 patients were subjected to open appendectomy [OA]. 46 patients included in LA group and 54 patients in OA group. The mean operative time for LA and OA was 84.4 (45-220) minutes and 59 (30-180) minutes respectively. Although LA was associated with a shorter hospital stay [LA-3.5 days versus OA-5 days] but duration of operation is prolong in LA than OA and the postoperative wound infection is significantly higher in OA than LA. LA is safe and superior to OA in respect to an early discharge, lesser postoperative pain; decreased post operative wound infection, early return to work and a better cosmetic scar.Faridpur Med. Coll. J. 2014;9(2): 84-87

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document