Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Low-cost laparoscopic appendectomy in pediatric patients

Ebeid, Abdel Mottaleb E.; Hassan, Hussam S.; Almetaher, Hisham A.; Elhalaby, Essam A.

doi: 10.1097/01.XPS.0000482856.31559.a0
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Free

Background/purpose Laparoscopic appendectomy is widely practiced worldwide and has become one of the commonly performed procedures in pediatric surgery practice. However, the cost effectiveness of the procedure remains a major concern. The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the operative techniques used to reduce the cost of the procedure.

Patients and methods A prospective study was conducted on patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy over a period of 2 years. The techniques used to reduce the cost of laparoscopic appendectomy were as follows: (i) using reusable trocars instead of disposable ones; (ii) using monopolar electrogoagualtion to seal the mesoappendix instead of staplers, LigaSure, or Harmonic scalpels; and (iii) using a handmade loop to secure the base of the appendix instead of using endoloops.

Results This study included 39 boys and 21 girls. The median age was 10 years. The mean duration of the operation was 56.5 min. No intraoperative complications were encountered. Two cases developed pelvic hematoma and were managed conservatively with success. The mean hospitalization stay was 2 days.

Conclusion Division of the mesoappendix using monopolar electrocautry and closing the base of appendix using handmade endloops during laporoscopic appendectomy appears to be a simple, effective, safe, and cost-efficient technique. Therefore, the use of more costly instruments, such as the endostapler, LigaSure, or Harmonic scalpel, seems unwarranted.

General Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

Correspondence to Hussam S. Hassan, MBBCh, MSc Surg, MD, Pediatric Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta 31111, Egypt Tel: +20 112 790 9010; fax: +20 403 315 492; e-mail: hassanh_30@hotmail.com

Received March 24, 2016

Accepted April 11, 2016

Back to Top | Article Outline

Introduction

Laparoscopic appendectomy is widely practiced throughout the world, especially in the last decade 1. It has the advantages of less wound infections, improved cosmesis, decreased postoperative pain, shorter hospital stay, faster recovery, and earlier return to work in comparison with open surgery 2,3. Although the technique of laparoscopic appendectomy was first described more than 20 years ago, the technical details are still being modified 4 and improvements can be measured in terms of complications and cost 5,6. The hospital costs of laparoscopic appendectomy is more than the open approach, as shown by most prospective studies 7–11, but few studies have found it to be less costly 12,13. The increase in cost is attributed to increased operative time for laparoscopic procedures 6, as well as to the higher cost of specialized instrumentation such as endoscopic stapler, endoscopic clip, LigaSure, and Harmonic scalpel 14–16.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and outcome of using some techniques that reduce the cost of laparoscopic appendectomy in pediatric patients.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Patients and methods

The present study included 60 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy in the period from December 2013 to December 2015. The parents of the infants had been informed about the steps of our study, including the operative technique, and an informed consent was obtained. Privacy of the participants and confidentiality of the data were maintained. A database was constructed to include the following data for further analysis: patients’ demographics, operative time, method of dissection of mesoappendix, method of ligation of the base of the appendix, operative and postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and cost of equipments.

The study was approved by our institute review board.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Operative technique

Pneumoperitoneum was introduced by Veress needle and CO2 at 10 mmHg pressure was used. A 10 mm reusable camera port was placed in the umbilicus. Two 5 mm reusable working ports were placed at the left lower quadrant and suprapubic region. Exploration of the abdominal cavity and identification of the appendix was then done. The mesoappendix was sealed using monopolar cautery and the base of the appendix was ligated by a handmade Vicryl (Ethicon, USA) loop.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Techniques for cost reduction

  • Using reusable trocars instead of disposable ones (Karl Storz, Germany).
  • Instead of using staplers, LigaSure (Covidien, Minnesota, USA) or Harmonic scalpel, the appendicular mesentery dissection was performed using a Maryland forceps or a hook attached to the monopolar cautery. Small successive bites are taken for thermal coagulation very close to the appendix were the branches of the appendicular artery are smallest.
  • Instead of using endoloop, the appendiceal stump was secured by three handmade loops using 2/0 Vicryl and by, pulling one end of the loop, the knot slided down the base of the appendix. To form the loop, first we made one short limb and one long limb. The short limb is knotted three times around the long limb making a surgical knot; then it was wrapped three times above the surgical knot to make the loop. The loop was tested extracorporeally using a curved mosquito forceps to push the wrap and knot to make sure that they slide easily. The loop was then inserted into the abdominal cavity, and the loop was moved to the base of the appendix, which was ligated by the three manually made loops, placing two of them in the proximal portion of the appendicular base, and one few millimeter distally. Appendectomy performed by cutting the appendix between the two proximal knots and the distal knot using endoscopic scissors and retrieved through the umbilical trocar.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Results

During 2 years period, 60 patients with acute appendicitis were performed laparoscopically. The study included 39 (65%) males and 21 (35%) females. The patients’ demographics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Table 1

No intraoperative complications were encountered, as bleeding due to imperfect sealing of the blood vessels, or thermal injury to nearby structures as the cecum.

Two patients had postoperative hematoma relieved on conservative treatment and both were treated on outpatient basis. Four patients had infection at the umbilical trocar site, managed by antibiotics and daily dressing.

None of the patients required conversion to open operation due to a problem of dissection of mesoappendix or difficulty in appendicular stump ligation. Outcomes are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Table 2

No costly equipments were used in the operation and a single package of Vicryl ligature 2/0 was enough to form 3 handmade loops at a cost of about 6 USD (Figs 1–3).

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Back to Top | Article Outline

Discussion

Laparoscopic appendectomy has become safe and effective and now, it is one of the most common procedures performed by pediatric surgeons 17. However, cost effectiveness is still a major concern, because laparoscopic operative procedures are still more expensive than open surgery, and this is one of the main drawbacks 18,19.

The higher cost of laparoscopic appendectomy is based on the disposable equipments, such as disposable trocars, laparoscopic endostapler, endoloops or tissue-sealing devices 20,21. In this study, we proved that these devices may not be necessary in routine appendectomies.

All laparoscopic appendectomies in this study were performed by using reusable trocars, thus deducting the cost of disposable trocars. This reduces the cost by 300 USD per case.

The division of the mesoappendix was done using a Maryland forceps or a hook, connected to a monopolar diathermy.

Another method for division of the mesoappendix is the stapler. This method was reported in 1990 and became popular thereafter. The studies in the literature are mainly on titanium or absorbable polymer clips. Staplers allow simultaneous sealing and division of both the mesoappendix and the appendix base. Studies have shown that this technique is both easy to apply and safe 17,20. According to Lukish et al.22, the disposable equipment costs for appendectomies performed with one firing of an endostapler were 201 USD per case.

Electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing system is another tool for sealing the mesoappendix, however, it is expensive. In Egypt, the price of the machine (LigaSure; Covidien) costs 30 000 USD and the instrument costs 600 USD.

The use of Harmonic scalpel is another method for sealing the mesoappendix; however, it also expensive. Lukish et al.22 reported a cost of 400 USD per case when this method was used.

To ligate the appendix base, we used a handmade loop using a 2/0 Vicryl (Ethicon) package. This costs 6 USD on average. This loop is easy to construct and apply, and it secures the stump safely.

Endoloop is another method used to secure the appendix base. It can be made of silk or polyglactin, and can be of various thicknesses. The use of endoloop has been reported by several authors to be safe in closing the appendix stump and it has a lower cost as compared with staplers 23–26. Endoloop, however, are far more expensive than handmade loops. Their average price is around 100 USD in this locality.

Although suture closure of the appendix base (as in open surgery) is cheap, it has a disadvantage of prolonging the operation time 27,28. To do this, a knot can be prepared within the abdomen or prepared extracorporeally and pushed into the abdomen. Intracorporeal tie knot requires more experience than other methods. Studies have shown that suture closure of the appendix base is as safe as other methods 27,29.

Cost reduction, however, has its drawbacks. Concerns such as thermal injury risk and difficulty in hemostasis were addressed 30. In this study, we did not encounter such drawbacks. Perhaps because of the small size of the appendicular artery branches in the pediatric age group we did not encounter difficulties in controlling bleeding. This cannot be guaranteed in adults. We did have two cases developed postoperative hematoma though, which were managed successfully with conservative treatment.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conclusion

Division of the mesoappendix using monopolar electrocautery and closing the base of appendix using the handmade endoloop during laparoscopic appendectomy appears to be simple, effective, safe, and a cost-efficient technique. Therefore, the use of more costly instruments to such as the endostapler, LigaSure, or Harmonic scalpel seems unwarranted.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. International Pediatric Endosurgery Group Standards and Safety Committee. IPEG guidelines for appendectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2008; 18:vii–vi.
2. Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EA. Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004. CD001546.
3. Moberg AC, Berndsen F, Palmquist I, Petersson U, Resch T, Montgomery A. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for confirmed appendicitis. Br J Surg 2005; 92:298–304.
4. Semm K. Endoscopic appendectomy. Endoscopy 1983; 15:59–64.
5. Brazier JE, Johnson AG. Economics of surgery. Lancet 2001; 358:1077–1081.
6. Apelgren KN, Molnar RG, Kisala JM. Laparoscopic is not better than open appendectomy. Am Surg 1995; 61:240–243.
7. Hansen JB, Smithers BM, Schache D, Wall DR, Miller BJ, Menzies BL. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: prospective randomized trial. World J Surg 1996; 20:17–20.
8. Kum CK, Ngoi SS, Goh PM, Tekant Y, Isaac JR. Randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomy. Br J Surg 1993; 80:1599–1600.
9. McCahill LE, Pellegrini CA, Wiggins T, Helton WS. A clinical outcome and cost analysis of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. Am J Surg 1996; 171:533–537.
10. Schirmer BD, Schmieg RE Jr, Dix J, Edge SB, Hanks JB. Laparoscopic versus traditional appendectomy for suspected appendicitis. Am J Surg 1993; 165:670–675.
11. Zaninotto G, Rossi M, Anselmino M, Costantini M, Pianalto S, Baldan N, et al.. Laparoscopic versus conventional surgery for suspected appendicitis in women. Surg Endosc 1995; 9:337–340.
12. Martin LC, Puente I, Sosa JL, Bassin A, Breslaw R, McKenney MG, et al.. Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy. A prospective randomized comparison. Ann Surg 1995; 222:256–261. discussion 61–62.
13. Botha AJ, Elton C, Moore EE, Sauven P. Laparoscopic appendicectomy: a trainee’s perspective. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1995; 77:259–262.
14. Luks FI, Logan J, Breuer CK, Kurkchubasche AG, Wesselhoeft CW Jr, Tracy TF Jr. Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999; 153:965–968.
15. Watson DI, Coventry BJ, Chin T, Gill PG, Malycha P. Laparoscopic versus open splenectomy for immune thrombocytopenic purpura. Surgery 1997; 121:18–22.
16. Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, Jeng LB, Chen RJ. Laparoscopic appendectomy using the LigaSure Vessel Sealing System. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2005; 15:353–356.
17. Wagner M, Aronsky D, Tschudi J, Metzger A, Klaiber C. Laparoscopic stapler appendectomy. A prospective study of 267 consecutive cases. Surg Endosc 1996; 10:895–899.
18. Ortega AE, Hunter JG, Peters JH, Swanstrom LL, Schirmer B. A prospective, randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy. Laparoscopic Appendectomy Study Group. Am J Surg 1995; 169:208–212. discussion 12–13.
19. Williams MD, Miller D, Graves ED, Walsh C, Luterman A. Laparoscopic appendectomy, is it worth it? South Med J 1994; 87:592–598.
20. Kazemier G, in’t Hof KH, Saad S, Bonjer HJ, Sauerland S. Securing the appendiceal stump in laparoscopic appendectomy: evidence for routine stapling? Surg Endosc 2006; 20:1473–1476.
21. Sajid MS, Rimple J, Cheek E, Baig MK. Use of endo-GIA versus endo-loop for securing the appendicular stump in laparoscopic appendectomy: a systematic review. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2009; 19:11–15.
22. Lukish J, Powell D, Morrow S, Cruess D, Guzzetta P. Laparoscopic appendectomy in children: use of the endoloop vs the endostapler. Arch Surg 2007; 142:58–61. discussion 62.
23. Miyano G, Urao M, Lane GJ, Kato Y, Okazaki T, Yamataka A. A prospective analysis of endoloops and endostaples for closing the stump of the appendix in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2011; 21:177–179.
24. Sahm M, Kube R, Schmidt S, Ritter C, Pross M, Lippert H. Current analysis of endoloops in appendiceal stump closure. Surg Endosc 2011; 25:124–129.
25. Mayir B, Bilecik T, Ensari CO, Oruc MT. Laparoscopic appendectomy with hand-made loop. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2014; 9:152–156.
26. Yildiz F, Terzi A, Coban S, Zeybek N, Uzunkoy A. The handmade endoloop technique. A simple and cheap technique for laparoscopic appendectomy. Saudi Med J 2009; 30:224–227.
27. Arcovedo R, Barrera H, Reyes HS. Securing the appendiceal stump with the Gea extracorporeal sliding knot during laparoscopic appendectomy is safe and economical. Surg Endosc 2007; 21:1764–1767.
28. Kiudelis M, Ignatavicius P, Zviniene K, Grizas S. Analysis of intracorporeal knotting with invaginating suture versus endoloops in appendiceal stump closure. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2013; 8:69–73.
29. Ates M, Dirican A, Ince V, Ara C, Isik B, Yilmaz S. Comparison of intracorporeal knot-tying suture (polyglactin) and titanium endoclips in laparoscopic appendiceal stump closure: a prospective randomized study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2012; 22:226–231.
30. Hubner M, Demartines N, Muller S, Dindo D, Clavien PA, Hahnloser D. Prospective randomized study of monopolar scissors, bipolar vessel sealer and ultrasonic shears in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 2008; 95:1098–1104.
© 2016 Annals of Pediatric Surgery