Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 12/2010

01-12-2010 | Original Article

Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy: An Analysis of Outcomes in 17,199 Patients Using ACS/NSQIP

Authors: Andrew J. Page, Jonathan D. Pollock, Sebastian Perez, S. Scott Davis, Edward Lin, John F. Sweeney

Published in: Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery | Issue 12/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The current study was undertaken to evaluate the outcomes for open and laparoscopic appendectomy using the 2008 American College of Surgeons: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS/NSQIP) Participant Use File (PUF). We hypothesized that laparoscopic appendectomy would have fewer infectious complications, superior perioperative outcomes, and decreased morbidity and mortality when compared to open appendectomy.

Study Design

Using the Current Procedural Technology (CPT) codes for open (44950) and laparoscopic (44970) appendectomy, 17, 199 patients were identified from the ACS/NSQIP PUF file that underwent appendectomy in 2008. Univariate analysis with chi-squared tests for categorical data and t tests or ANOVA tests for continuous data was used. Binary logistic regression models were used to evaluate outcomes for independent association by multivariable analysis.

Results

Of the patients, 3,025 underwent open appendectomy and 14,174 underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. Patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy had significantly shorter operative times and hospital length of stay. They also had a significantly lower incidence of superficial and deep surgical site infections, wound disruptions, fewer complications, and lower perioperative mortality when compared to patients undergoing open appendectomy.

Conclusions

Using the ACS/NSQIP PUF file, we demonstrate that laparoscopic appendectomy has better outcomes than open appendectomy for the treatment of appendicitis. While the operative treatment of appendicitis is surgeon specific, this study lends support to the laparoscopic approach for patients requiring appendectomy.
Literature
1.
go back to reference McBurney C. IV. The incision made in the abdominal wall in cases of appendicitis, with a description of a new method of operating. Annals of Surgery 1894; 20(1):38.CrossRefPubMed McBurney C. IV. The incision made in the abdominal wall in cases of appendicitis, with a description of a new method of operating. Annals of Surgery 1894; 20(1):38.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Addiss D, Shaffer N, Fowler B, Tauxe R. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. American journal of epidemiology 1990; 132(5):910.PubMed Addiss D, Shaffer N, Fowler B, Tauxe R. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. American journal of epidemiology 1990; 132(5):910.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Reddick E, Olsen D, Daniell J, et al. Laparoscopic laser cholecystectomy. Laser Medicine and Surgery News and Advances 1989; 7(1):38–40. Reddick E, Olsen D, Daniell J, et al. Laparoscopic laser cholecystectomy. Laser Medicine and Surgery News and Advances 1989; 7(1):38–40.
4.
go back to reference Semm K. Pelviscopic appendectomy. Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) 1988; 113(1):3 Semm K. Pelviscopic appendectomy. Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) 1988; 113(1):3
5.
go back to reference Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer E. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; 4:6699–6701. Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer E. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; 4:6699–6701.
6.
go back to reference Khuri S, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Annals of Surgery 1998; 228(4):491.CrossRefPubMed Khuri S, Daley J, Henderson W, et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs’ NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Annals of Surgery 1998; 228(4):491.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Fink A, Campbell Jr D, Mentzer Jr R, et al. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in non-veterans administration hospitals: initial demonstration of feasibility. Annals of Surgery 2002; 236(3):344.CrossRefPubMed Fink A, Campbell Jr D, Mentzer Jr R, et al. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in non-veterans administration hospitals: initial demonstration of feasibility. Annals of Surgery 2002; 236(3):344.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Biondo S, Ramos E, Deiros M, et al. Prognostic factors for mortality in left colonic peritonitis: a new scoring system1. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2000; 191(6):635–642.CrossRefPubMed Biondo S, Ramos E, Deiros M, et al. Prognostic factors for mortality in left colonic peritonitis: a new scoring system1. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2000; 191(6):635–642.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Tabatabai A, Hashemi M, Mohajeri G, et al. Incidence and risk factors predisposing anastomotic leak after transhiatal esophagectomy. Annals of Thoracic Medicine 2009; 4(4):197.CrossRefPubMed Tabatabai A, Hashemi M, Mohajeri G, et al. Incidence and risk factors predisposing anastomotic leak after transhiatal esophagectomy. Annals of Thoracic Medicine 2009; 4(4):197.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Yamamoto T, Allan R, Keighley M. Risk factors for intra-abdominal sepsis after surgery in Crohn’s disease. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 2000; 43(8):1141–1145.CrossRef Yamamoto T, Allan R, Keighley M. Risk factors for intra-abdominal sepsis after surgery in Crohn’s disease. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 2000; 43(8):1141–1145.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Esteban Varela J, Wilson S, Nguyen N. Laparoscopic surgery significantly reduces surgical-site infections compared with open surgery. Surgical Endoscopy 2010: 24 (2): 270–276CrossRefPubMed Esteban Varela J, Wilson S, Nguyen N. Laparoscopic surgery significantly reduces surgical-site infections compared with open surgery. Surgical Endoscopy 2010: 24 (2): 270–276CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Culver D, Horan T, Gaynes R, et al. Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. The American Journal of Medicine 1991; 91(3):S152–S157.CrossRef Culver D, Horan T, Gaynes R, et al. Surgical wound infection rates by wound class, operative procedure, and patient risk index. The American Journal of Medicine 1991; 91(3):S152–S157.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Brill A, Ghosh K, Gunnarsson C, et al. The effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hysterectomy, and appendectomy on nosocomial infection risks. Surgical Endoscopy 2008; 22(4):1112–1118.CrossRefPubMed Brill A, Ghosh K, Gunnarsson C, et al. The effects of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, hysterectomy, and appendectomy on nosocomial infection risks. Surgical Endoscopy 2008; 22(4):1112–1118.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Olmi S, Magnone S, Bertolini A, Croce E. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in acute appendicitis: a randomized prospective study. Surgical Endoscopy 2005; 19(9):1193–1195.CrossRefPubMed Olmi S, Magnone S, Bertolini A, Croce E. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in acute appendicitis: a randomized prospective study. Surgical Endoscopy 2005; 19(9):1193–1195.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Katkhouda N, Mason RJ, Towfigh S, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study. Ann Surg 2005; 242(3):439–48; discussion 448–50.PubMed Katkhouda N, Mason RJ, Towfigh S, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized double-blind study. Ann Surg 2005; 242(3):439–48; discussion 448–50.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Minne L, Varner D, Burnell A, et al. Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy: prospective randomized study of outcomes. Archives of Surgery 1997; 132(7):708.PubMed Minne L, Varner D, Burnell A, et al. Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy: prospective randomized study of outcomes. Archives of Surgery 1997; 132(7):708.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Ignacio R, Burke R, Spencer D, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: what is the real difference? Results of a prospective randomized double-blinded trial. Surgical Endoscopy 2004; 18(2):334–337.CrossRefPubMed Ignacio R, Burke R, Spencer D, et al. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: what is the real difference? Results of a prospective randomized double-blinded trial. Surgical Endoscopy 2004; 18(2):334–337.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Moberg A, Berndsen F, Palmquist I, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for confirmed appendicitis. British Journal of Surgery 2005; 92(3):298–304.CrossRefPubMed Moberg A, Berndsen F, Palmquist I, et al. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for confirmed appendicitis. British Journal of Surgery 2005; 92(3):298–304.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Bennett J, Boddy A, Rhodes M. Choice of approach for appendicectomy: a meta-analysis of open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy. Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques 2007; 17(4):245.CrossRef Bennett J, Boddy A, Rhodes M. Choice of approach for appendicectomy: a meta-analysis of open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy. Surgical Laparoscopy Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques 2007; 17(4):245.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy: An Analysis of Outcomes in 17,199 Patients Using ACS/NSQIP
Authors
Andrew J. Page
Jonathan D. Pollock
Sebastian Perez
S. Scott Davis
Edward Lin
John F. Sweeney
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery / Issue 12/2010
Print ISSN: 1091-255X
Electronic ISSN: 1873-4626
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-010-1300-1

Other articles of this Issue 12/2010

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 12/2010 Go to the issue