Diffuse peritonitis represents a life-threatening complication of acute appendicitis (AA). Whether laparoscopy is a safe procedure and presents similar results compared with laparotomy in case of complicated AA is still a matter of debate. The objective of this study is to compare laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) for the management of diffuse peritonitis caused by AA. This is a prospective multicenter cohort study, including 223 patients with diffuse peritonitis from perforated AA, enrolled in the Physiological parameters for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) study from February to May 2018. Two groups were created: LA = 78 patients, mean age 42.51 ± 22.14 years and OA = 145 patients, mean age 38.44 ± 20.95 years. LA was employed in 34.98% of cases. There was no statically significant difference between LA and OA groups in terms of intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative peritonitis, rate of reoperation, and mortality. The wound infection rate was higher in the OA group (OR 21.63; 95% CI 3.46–895.47; P = 0.00). The mean postoperative hospital stay in the LA group was shorter than in the OA group (6.40 ± 4.29 days versus 7.8 ± 5.30 days; P = 0.032). Although LA was only used in one-third of cases, it is a safe procedure and should be considered in the management of patients with diffuse peritonitis caused by AA, respecting its indications.
Laparoscopic versus open approach for diffuse peritonitis from appendicitis ethiology: a subgroup analysis from the Physiological parameters for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) study
Di Saverio S.;
2020-01-01
Abstract
Diffuse peritonitis represents a life-threatening complication of acute appendicitis (AA). Whether laparoscopy is a safe procedure and presents similar results compared with laparotomy in case of complicated AA is still a matter of debate. The objective of this study is to compare laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) for the management of diffuse peritonitis caused by AA. This is a prospective multicenter cohort study, including 223 patients with diffuse peritonitis from perforated AA, enrolled in the Physiological parameters for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) study from February to May 2018. Two groups were created: LA = 78 patients, mean age 42.51 ± 22.14 years and OA = 145 patients, mean age 38.44 ± 20.95 years. LA was employed in 34.98% of cases. There was no statically significant difference between LA and OA groups in terms of intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative peritonitis, rate of reoperation, and mortality. The wound infection rate was higher in the OA group (OR 21.63; 95% CI 3.46–895.47; P = 0.00). The mean postoperative hospital stay in the LA group was shorter than in the OA group (6.40 ± 4.29 days versus 7.8 ± 5.30 days; P = 0.032). Although LA was only used in one-third of cases, it is a safe procedure and should be considered in the management of patients with diffuse peritonitis caused by AA, respecting its indications.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
