Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundConventional three-access laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) is currently the gold standard treatment, however, Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate safety and efficacy of SILA compared with conventional approach.MethodsPer PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CLA vs SILA for acute appendicitis. The randomised Mantel–Haenszel method was used for the meta-analysis. Statistical data analysis was performed with the Review Manager software and the risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane \"Risk of Bias\" assessment tool.ResultsTwenty-one studies (RCTs) were selected (2646 patients). The operative time was significantly longer in the SILA group (MD = 7,32), confirmed in both paediatric (MD = 9,80), (Q = 1,47) and adult subgroups (MD = 5,92), (Q = 55,85). Overall postoperative morbidity was higher in patients who underwent SILA, but the result was not statistically significant. In SILA group were assessed shorter hospital stays, fewer wound infections and higher conversion rate, but the results were not statistically significant. Meta-analysis was not performed about cosmetics of skin scars and postoperative pain because different scales were used in each study.ConclusionsThis analysis show that SILA, although associated with fewer postoperative wound infection, has a significantly longer operative time. Furthermore, the risk of postoperative general complications is still present. Further studies will be required to analyse outcomes related to postoperative pain and the cosmetics of the surgical scar.

Background Three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TPLA) has been shown superior to open appendectomy for acute appendicitis (AA); alternatively, single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) is gaining popularity. The choice between SILA and traditional TPLA remains controversial. This meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to compare efficacy and safety of SILA with TPLA for AA. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing SILA with TPLA. Reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also searched. Primary outcomes were operative time, postoperative complications, hospital duration, and days back to normal activities. Meta-analysis was conducted where possible comparing items using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and relative risks (RRs) according to type of data. Methodological quality was evaluated to assess bias risk. Results A total of 8 distinct RCTs comparing SILA ( n  = 616) with TPLA ( n  = 618) published from 2010 to 2013 were identified in our analysis. SILA took longer to conduct than TPLA (43 vs 38, WMD: 5.96, 95 % CI 2.54–9.38, P  = 0.0006). Patients undergoing SILA needed more extra trocars addressed during operation (7 % vs 0 %, RR: 12.36, 95 % CI 3.83–39.90, P  < 0.0001), but could return to full activities earlier (6 vs 7, WMD: −0.68, 95 % CI −1.10 to −0.26, P  = 0.001). However, these differences were not clinically significant. All other parameters were comparable. Conclusions These results provide level 1a support for the clinical similarity that SILA is basically as feasible, effective and safe as TPLA when dealing with AA, although statistically, SILA takes longer to perform, requires more extra trocars, and benefits patients with faster recovery compared with TPLA. Further RCTs are needed to update our finding with advancement of surgical techniques and skills.

Postoperative pain relief after laparoscopic appendicectomy is a key determinant of early rehabilitation in children. Recent guidelines recommend performing either a transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block or local anesthesia (LA) wound infiltration as part of multimodal postoperative analgesia after appendectomy. To date, the clinical effectiveness of TAP block versus LA wound infiltration has never been compared. The hypothesis of this study is that the TAP block may provide a greater opioid-sparing effect after laparoscopic appendicectomy in children than LA wound infiltration. We designed a multicenter double-blind randomized controlled phase III trial and aim to include 110 children who undergo laparoscopic appendicectomy. Children are randomized to receive either TAP block (TAP group) or LA wound infiltration (infiltration group). Multimodal analgesia is standardized in the two groups using the same protocol, which includes the stepwise prescription of paracetamol, phloroglucinol, ketoprofene, and nalbuphine according to the hetero-evaluation of pain performed by the nurses who were blinded to the treatment allocated using the validated FLACC scale. The primary outcome is the total dose of nalbuphine administered within 24 hours after surgery. No study has specifically compared the clinical effectiveness of TAP block versus LA wound infiltration for postoperative pain relief after laparoscopic appendectomy in children. This paper describes the protocol for a randomized trial that addresses this issue. The results of this trial will be useful for editing guidelines with a higher level of evidence on this topic.

Objective: To compare the use of Titanium clips and Monopolar diathermy for laparoscopic appendectomy mesoappendix closure in terms of operative time and cost. Study Design: Quasi-experiment study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Surgery, Combined Military Hospital, Nowshera Pakistan, from Jul 2021 to Jun 2022. Methodology: A total of 70 patients who were diagnosed with acute appendicitis and were admitted for laparoscopic appendectomy were randomly divided into two groups via the lottery method. In Group-A, the closure of the mesoappendix was done using Titanium clips, and in Group-B, the ligation of the mesoappendix was done using Monopolar diathermy. Patient outcomes in terms of operative time and procedure cost were assessed. Results: Out of 70 patients, 49(70.0%) were males and 21(30.0%) were females, aged 18 to 60 years, with a mean age of 37.57±7.71 years. The overall mean weight of the patients was 65.29±12.14 kg; height was 1.71±0.12 metres; and BMI was 24.96±5.23 kg/m2, respectively. Prolonged operative time was observed in 16(45.71%) patients in Group-A, compared to 7(20.0%) in Group-B (p-value 0.022). In Group-A, the total cost of the operation was Rs. 32,000, whereas in Group-B, it was Rs. 30,000 (p-value=0.001). Conclusion: This study concluded that Monopolar diathermy for the closure of the mesoappendix is better in terms of operating time and cost as compared to the use of Titanium clips.

Background Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has gained enormous popularity worldwide. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess feasibility, safety, and benefits of SILA as compared with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). Methods A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcome measures were total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and ileus. Secondary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay, pain scores, conversion rate, reoperation rate, and time to return to normal activity. Results Eight RCTs, totaling 1,211 patients (604 for SILA and 607 for CLA), met the inclusion criteria. The incidences of total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and ileus were statistically similar between the SILA and CLA groups. Compared with CLA, SILA was associated with a significantly longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 5.28 min; 95 % confidence interval = 3.61 to 6.94). Time to return to normal activity was shorter in the SILA group (by 0.69 days). Length of hospital stay, pain scores, conversion rate, and reoperation rate were similar between groups. Conclusion SILA is feasible and safe with no obvious advantages over CLA. Therefore, it may be considered as an alternative to CLA.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has emerged as a new method of minimally invasive surgery. SILS appendectomy (SILA) is practiced worldwide, and some studies have proven its cosmetic benefit over conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) but at higher expense. We evaluate the feasibility of single-incision multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (SIMPLA) with conventional laparoscopic equipment as the perfect cost-effective replacement of both conventional laparoscopic and standard SILA. Since June 2014 to January 2016, total 57 patients underwent SIMPLA. We did a retrospective observational study of the prospectively maintained data of patients who underwent SIMPLA. We have analyzed all the demographic and clinicopathological aspects and reviewed the literature to compare with SILA. The mean operating time was 42.71 ± 5.75 min to perform SIMPLA which is equivalent to SILA with a conversion rate 12.28%. There were minimal intra-operative blood loss, post-operative pain, other peri-operative complications, and length of hospital stay. The mean cosmesis score after SIMPLA was more than eight in post-operative period till the end of 6 months. The cost to perform SIMPLA is much less than SILA in all the patients. The SIMPLA procedure, though it is taking a little higher time than usual, is giving a better cosmesis at a much lower cost which is making this procedure affordable and acceptable in developing countries.

Background and Aims: Intraperitoneal local anesthetic is an effective analgesic approach in laparoscopic appendectomy in adults. The aim of the study was to compare the postoperative pain when intraperitoneal bupivacaine is administered alone versus the addition of dexmedetomidine to it in children undergoing a laparoscopic appendectomy. Methods: In this prospective randomized trial, 52 children were randomly allocated to Group B who received intraperitoneal bupivacaine 0.25% (2 mg/kg) or Group BD who received intraperitoneal bupivacaine 0.25% (2 mg/kg) plus dexmedetomidine (1 mcg/kg) for postoperative analgesia in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Postoperative pethidine consumption at day 1 was recorded and considered the primary outcome of the study. Patients were evaluated for pain scores at 0, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h, time to first request of pethidine, sedation scores at 0, 2, 4, and 6 h, length of hospital stay, and parents' satisfaction. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Student's t-test, and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used for analysis. Results: Postoperative visual analog scale scores were lower in Group BD at 2, 4, and 6 h (mean = 3, 3, 3, respectively) compared with Group B (mean = 4, 5, 4, respectively) (P < 0.05). Patients in Group BD had more sedation scores at 0, 2, and 4 h (P < 0.05), longer time to first rescue analgesia (P = 0.03), lesser rescue analgesic consumption (P = 0.02), shorter length of hospital stay (P = 0.02), and higher parents' satisfaction (P = 0.01). Conclusion: Adding dexmedetomidine to intraperitoneal bupivacaine provides adequate postoperative analgesia in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy.

Aim Single‐site laparoscopic interval appendectomy (SLIA) for severe complicated appendicitis after conservative treatment (CT) to ameliorate inflammation and eradicate the abscess should be safer and less invasive than emergency appendectomy (EA). However, only a few reports have been published regarding SLIA. Methods We retrospectively collected data on 264 consecutive patients admitted to Kinan Hospital for treatment of appendicitis between 2012 and 2018. The safety and feasibility of SLIA and its perioperative outcomes for severe complicated appendicitis were investigated. Results A total of 61 patients were included in this study, 25 of whom underwent CT and 36 EA. Among the 25 patients who underwent CT, 23 (92.0%) succeeded; a total of 16 patients (69.5%) underwent SLIA. Compared to the EA group, the SLIA group had less bleeding (median volume 8.5 vs 50 mL, P = .005) and lower rate of expansion surgery (0% vs 27.8%, P = .022). Although the postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the SLIA group than in the EA group (9 vs 12 days, P = .008), the total hospital stay, including the CT period, was longer in the SLIA group than in the EA group (24 vs 12 days, P < .001). Conclusion SLIA is safe, feasible, and less invasive than EA and may provide the advantages of minimally invasive surgery even if appendicitis is severe. SLIA may be a promising option for complicated appendicitis in select cases despite its disadvantage of prolonging the hospital stay. Single‐site laparoscopic interval appendectomy is safe, feasible, and less invasive than emergency appendectomy and may provide the advantages of minimally invasive surgery even if appendicitis is severe. Single‐site laparoscopic interval appendectomy is a promising option for complicated appendicitis.

Objectives: In this study we evaluated 40, top recommended, laparoscopic appendectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos located on public domain websites using eight criteria created by a panel of third year medical students and general surgeons. We hypothesized that there is a lack of quality, thorough educational laparoscopic surgical videos appropriate for third year medical students to review in preparation for the Surgery rotation. Methods: Utilizing a panel, which included four third year medical students and two general surgeons, we created an 'ideal medical student educational video checklist.' This checklist included 8 vital criteria. We selected 40, top recommended, videos available on YouTube and Google Video search engines, using 'laparoscopic cholecystectomy' and 'laparoscopic appendectomy' as key terms. Each video was evaluated by four third year medical students individually, using a binary system 'meets' or 'does not meet' each criterion. Individual scores were averaged, producing a single score for each video. Results: 0/40 (0%) of the videos met all eight of the criteria. 26/40 (65%) of the videos did not meet half of the criteria. The top performing videos 7/40 (17%) only met 5/8 criteria. Conclusions: We identified a lack of quality and thorough educational surgical videos appropriate for third year medical students and a need for improved online video based instruction. Our checklist can be utilized as a guide for anyone creating surgical videos for medical student education in the future.

Background and objectives: Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SLA) in most previous studies has used intracorporeal excision of the appendix and needed a longer operative time than multi-port laparoscopic appendectomy (MLA), although SLA does have the potential benefit of an almost invisible scar within the umbilicus. Some studies have reported that extracorporeal transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) in children took a considerably reduced operative time compared to MLA. We adopted TULAA in adults, adding routine dissection of the peritoneal attachment of the appendix. The aim was to compare the operative outcomes between TULAA and MLA. Materials and Methods: Between March 2013 and January 2016, 770 patients with acute uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis from 15 to 75 years of age were enrolled retrospectively. The operation was performed as early (EA) and interval appendectomy (IA). Results: Operative time was shorter in the TULAA group than in the MLA group, except for IA. No open conversion occurred in the TULAA group, except one case of ileocecal resection for IA. No intra-abdominal fluid collection was found in the TULAA group. Extended resection (especially partial cecectomy) was performed less frequently in the TULAA group than in the MLA group for IA. Mean postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the TULAA group for uncomplicated appendicitis. When the data of the EA group and the IA group were compared, operative time was significantly shorter in the IA group for both MLA and TULAA. The open conversion rate and the complication rate tended to be lower in the IA group. Confined to IA, the TULAA group tended to have shorter mean initial, postoperative, and total hospital stays. Conclusions: TULAA can be a useful surgical alternative to MLA in adults and young adolescents, because it lacks open conversion and provides both a shorter operative time and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. TULAA is feasible for IA in that it showed a lower rate of extended resection and complications.