Top

Published in:

01-03-2018 | ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Incidental appendectomy during robotic laparoscopic prostatectomy—safe and worth to perform?

Authors: C. Hüttenbrink, G. Hatiboglu, T. Simpfendörfer, J. P. Radtke, R. Becker, D. Teber, B. Hadaschik, S. Pahernik, M. Hohenfellner

Published in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery | Issue 2/2018

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to investigate the safety and patients’ benefit of incidental appendectomy during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALRP).

Methods

Fifty-three patients, who had incidental appendectomy during RALRP between January 2012 and March 2014, were enrolled to this study. To evaluate the safety of the procedure, following parameters were evaluated: patient age, duration of surgery, perioperative complications (classified by Clavien-Dindo), time to bowel movement, and length of hospital stay. Furthermore, intraoperative visual appearance, location, and histopathological evaluation of the appendix were evaluated. Data was analyzed by descriptive statistics.

Results

Mean age of patients was 61 years, the average hospital stay 5 days. No perioperative complications occurred. The appendix was unsuspicious in 39 patients (73.6%); 14 patients (26.4%) had macroscopically signs of inflammation.

Of the 53 resected appendixes, the histopathological evaluation showed 33 (62.2%) inconspicuous appendices, 11 (20.8%) post-inflammatory changes, 4 (7.5%) with chronical signs of inflammation and 3 (5.7%) with signs of acute inflammation. In 2 patients (3.8%), low-grade mucinous neoplasms were found in the specimens.

Conclusions

Incidental appendectomy during RALRP is a feasible procedure. With regard to inflammation and neoplastic changes, incidental appendectomy can be considered for patients scheduled for robot-assisted prostate surgery.

Bentas W, Wolfram M, Jones J, Brautigam R, Kramer W, Binder J (2003) Robotic technology and the translation of open radical prostatectomy to laparoscopy: the early Frankfurt experience with robotic radical prostatectomy and one year follow-up. Eur Urol 44(2):175–181CrossRefPubMed

Van Appledorn S, Bouchier-Hayes D, Agarwal D, Costello AJ (2006) Robotic laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: setup and procedural techniques after 150 cases. Urology 67(2):364–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.08.035 CrossRefPubMed

Gesundheit F (2011) Regionale Unterschiede in der Gesundheitsversorgung. Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh, p 32

Cohen-Arazi O, Dabour K, Bala M, Haran A, Almogy G (2016) Management, treatment and outcomes of acute appendicitis in an elderly population: a single-center experience. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-016-0735-9

Gupta H, Dupuy DE (1997) Advances in imaging of the acute abdomen. Surg Clin North Am 77(6):1245–1263CrossRefPubMed

Storm-Dickerson TL, Horattas MC (2003) What have we learned over the past 20 years about appendicitis in the elderly? Am J Surg 185(3):198–201CrossRefPubMed

McGory ML, Maggard MA, Kang H, O'Connell JB, Ko CY (2005) Malignancies of the appendix: beyond case series reports. Dis Colon Rectum 48(12):2264–2271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-005-0196-4

Exner R, Sachsenmaier M, Horvath Z, Stift A (2012) Incidental appendectomy—standard or unnecessary additional trauma in surgery for colorectal cancer? A retrospective analysis of histological findings in 380 specimens. Color Dis 14(10):1262–1266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02933.x CrossRef

Shapiro R, Eldar S, Sadot E, Venturero M, Papa MZ, Zippel DB (2010) The significance of occult carcinoids in the era of laparoscopic appendectomies. Surg Endosc 24(9):2197–2199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-0926-0 CrossRefPubMed

10.

O’Hanlan KA, Fisher DT, O’Holleran MS (2007) 257 incidental appendectomies during total laparoscopic hysterectomy. JSLS 11(4):428–431PubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Akl MN, Magrina JF, Kho RM, Magtibay PM (2008) Robotic appendectomy in gynaecological surgery: technique and pathological findings. Int J Med Robot 4(3):210–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.198 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Brunocilla E, Pultrone C, Pernetti R, Schiavina R, Martorana G (2012) Preservation of the smooth muscular internal (vesical) sphincter and of the proximal urethra during retropubic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique. Int J Urol 19(8):783–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03028.x CrossRefPubMed

13.

Nyarangi-Dix JN, Radtke JP, Hadaschik B, Pahernik S, Hohenfellner M (2013) Impact of complete bladder neck preservation on urinary continence, quality of life and surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a randomized, controlled, single blind trial. J Urol 189(3):891–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.082 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, Puhan MA, Clavien PA (2013) The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 258(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318296c732 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Gupta NP, Nabi G, Hemal AK, Dogra PN, Seth A, Aron M (2002) Is incidental appendectomy necessary during radical cystectomy? Urol Int 69(3):181–183CrossRefPubMed

16.

Neulander EZ, Hawke CK, Soloway MS (2000) Incidental appendectomy during radical cystectomy: an interdepartmental survey and review of the literature. Urology 56(2):241–244CrossRefPubMed

17.

Santoshi N, Gaitonde K, Patil N, Goyal A, Srinivas V (2002) Incidental appendectomy during radical cystectomy—is it necessary? Urology 59(5):678–680CrossRefPubMed

18.

Bregendahl S, Nørgaard M, Laurberg S, Jepsen P (2013) Risk of complications and 30-day mortality after laparoscopic and open appendectomy in a Danish region, 1998-2007; a population-based study of 18,426 patients. Pol J Surg 85(7):395–400. https://doi.org/10.2478/pjs-2013-0060

19.

Wang CC, CC T, Wang PC, Lin HC, Wei PL (2013) Outcome comparison between laparoscopic and open appendectomy: evidence from a nationwide population-based study. PLoS One 8(7):e68662. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068662 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Ferrarese AG, Martino V, Enrico S, Falcone A, Catalano S, Pozzi G, Marola S, Solej M (2013) Laparoscopic appendectomy in the elderly: our experience. BMC Surg 13(Suppl 2):S22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-13-S2-S22 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

ten Broek RPG, Issa Y, van Santbrink EJP, Bouvy ND, Kruitwagen RFPM, Jeekel J, Bakkum EA, Rovers MM, van Goor H (2013) Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery: systematic review and met-analysis. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 347(oct03 1):f5588-f5588. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5588

22.

Brill AI, Nezhat F, Nezhat CH, Nezhat C (1995) The incidence of adhesions after prior laparotomy: a laparoscopic appraisal. Obstet Gynecol 85(2):269–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844(94)00352-E CrossRefPubMed

23.

Albright JB, Fakhre GP, Nields WW, Metzger PP (2007) Incidental appendectomy: 18-year pathologic survey and cost effectiveness in the nonmanaged-care setting. J Am Coll Surg 205(2):298–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.02.071 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Charfi S, Sellami A, Affes A, Yaïch K, Mzali R, Boudawara TS (2014) Histopathological findings in appendectomy specimens: a study of 24,697 cases. Int J Color Dis 29(8):1009–1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-014-1934-7 CrossRef

25.

Misdraji J (2015) Mucinous epithelial neoplasms of the appendix and pseudomyxoma peritonei. Mod Pathol 28(Suppl 1):S67–S79. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2014.129 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Ronnett BM, Yan H, Kurman RJ, Shmookler BM, Wu L, Sugarbaker PH (2001) Patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei associated with disseminated peritoneal adenomucinosis have a significantly more favorable prognosis than patients with peritoneal mucinous carcinomatosis. Cancer 92(1):85–91CrossRefPubMed

27.

Limaiem F, Arfa N, Marsaoui L, Bouraoui S, Lahmar A, Mzabi S (2015) Unexpected histopathological findings in appendectomy specimens: a retrospective study of 1627 cases. Indian J Surg 77(Suppl 3):1285–1290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-015-1278-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Wagner M, Aronsky D, Tschudi J, Metzger A, Klaiber C (1996) Laparoscopic stapler appendectomy. A prospective study of 267 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 10(9):895–899CrossRefPubMed

29.

Lucchi A, Berti P, Grassia M, Siani LM, Gabbianelli C, Garulli G (2017) Laparoscopic appendectomy: Hem-o-lok versus Endoloop in stump closure. Updat Surg 69(1):61–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-016-0413-9 CrossRef

30.

Matyja M, Strzalka M, Rembiasz K (2015) Laparosocopic appendectomy, cost-effectiveness of three different techniques used to close the appendix stump. Pol Przegl Chir 87(12):634–637. https://doi.org/10.1515/pjs-2016-0015 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Incidental appendectomy during robotic laparoscopic prostatectomy—safe and worth to perform?
Authors: C. Hüttenbrink
G. Hatiboglu
T. Simpfendörfer
J. P. Radtke
R. Becker
D. Teber
B. Hadaschik
S. Pahernik
M. Hohenfellner
Publication date: 01-03-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 1435-2443
Electronic ISSN: 1435-2451
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-017-1630-5

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Incidental appendectomy during robotic laparoscopic prostatectomy—safe and worth to perform?

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

Can we better predict the biologic behavior of incidental IPMN? A comprehensive analysis of molecular diagnostics and biomarkers in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas

Percutaneous versus surgical strategy for tracheostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative and postoperative complications

Implication of visceral obesity in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Conception of the Lübeck Toolbox curriculum for basic minimally invasive surgery skills

A modified Nissen fundoplication: subjective and objective midterm results

Extended pancreatectomy as defined by the ISGPS: useful in selected cases of pancreatic cancer but invaluable in other complex pancreatic tumors