|
The Effect of Peritoneal Repair or Non-Repair on Complications after open Appendectomy
|
R Hosseinpour1    , S Mehrabi1 , SK Nikooei2 , SH Salaminia1 , MB Jahantab1 , CH Zakaria Nezhad Kasgari 3 |
1- Department of General Surgery, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran
2- Student Research Committee, Yasuj University of Medical Science, Yasuj, Iran
3- Department of General Surgery, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran , chamranzakarianezhad@gmail.com |
|
|
Abstract: (1151 Views) |
Background & aim: Appendicitis is the most common condition of emergency surgery. Complications after appendectomy include skin complications, infection, postoperative pain, hernia and obstruction. There is a difference of opinion among surgeons on peritoneal repair after abdominal surgery. Therefore, we aimed here to evaluate the effect of peritoneal repair versus non-repair in appendectomy patients in terms of postoperative complications.
Methods: The present clinical trial study that was conducted on 126 patients who underwent open appendectomy at Shahid Beheshti Hospital of Yasuj, Iran, from 2019 to 2020 who had the inclusion criteria. In the present study, randomization was performed systematically. Clinical observations and follow-up of patients was one week, three months and six months after surgery. After collecting and forming the data file in the computer, the information was analyzed using descriptive analytical statistics (including frequency distribution table, analysis of variance, T-test, chi-square) through SPSS software.
Results: Out of 126 candidates for appendectomy, 60 were male and 66 were female. Among them, 64 (50.8%) underwent surgery with peritoneal repair and 62 (49.2%) underwent surgery without peritoneal repair. The mean age of this population was 26.88 13 13.82 years and ranged from 5 to 65 years. The results indicated that in both the peritoneal repair and non-peritoneal repair groups, 62 patients (69.9%) had no infection and 2 patients (3.1%) had purulent drainage, symptoms of infection, and SSI. Moreover, in the group with peritoneal repair, 42 patients (65.6%) had moderate pain, 16 patients (25.0%) had mild pain and 6 patients (9.4%) had moderate pain. In the non-peritoneal repair group, 50 patients (80.6%) had no pain, 11 patients (17.7%) had mild pain and 1 patient (1.6%) had moderate pain. There was no marked difference between the two groups of appendectomy with peritoneal repair and without peritoneal repair, in the presence of infection, hernia and obstruction, as well as pain intensity, but the presence of pain in patients without peritoneal repair was significantly less.
Conclusion: The results of the present study revealed that the appendectomy surgical methods, including open and closed peritoneum, did not indicate a significant difference for wound site infection. On the other hand, the amount of postoperative pain was lower in the open peritoneum group. Therefore, it is suggested to use appendectomy without peritoneal repair in patients with appendicitis.
|
|
| Keywords: Appendectomy, Peritoneal repair, Appendix, Peritoneum, Postoperative complications |
|
|
Full-Text [PDF 468 kb]
(193 Downloads)
|
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Clinical Surgery
Received: 2023/02/11 | Accepted: 2023/04/15 | Published: 2023/09/9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| References |
|
1. Di Saverio S, Podda M, De Simone B, Ceresoli M, Augustin G, Gori A, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines. World Journal of Emergency Surgery: WJES 2020; 15(1): 27.## 2. Sabiston DC Townsend CM. Sabiston Textbook of Surgery: The biological basis of modern surgical practice. 19th ed. Philadelphia PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2012; 917-28. ## 3. Ege G, Akman H, Sahin A, Bugra D, Kuzucu K. Diagnostic value of unenhanced helical CT in adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis. The British Journal of Radiology 2002; 75(897): 721-5. ## [ DOI:10.1259/bjr.75.897.750721] [ PMID] 4. Stoller AM. Introducing ACS surgery: principles and practice. Bull Am Coll Surg 2001; 86(10): 28-9. ## 5. Long KH, Bannon MP, Zietlow SP, Helgeson ER, Harmsen WS, Smith CD, et al. A prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy: clinical and economic analyses. Surgery 2001; 129(4): 390-400. ## [ DOI:10.1016/S0039-6060(01)15621-7] [ PMID] 6. Khan AW, Maqsood R, Saleem MM, Pervaiz M. Post-operative analgesic requirement in non-closure and closure of peritoneum during open appendectomy. Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal 2017; 67(2):194-98. ## 7. Warren R. Primary closure of priteneum in acute appendisitis with perforation: report of twenty cases. Annals of Surgery 1939; 110(2): 222-30. ## [ DOI:10.1097/00000658-193908000-00005] [ PMID] [ ] 8. Gurusamy KS, Cassar Delia E, Davidson BR. Peritoneal closure versus no peritoneal closure for patients undergoing non-obstetric abdominal operations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013(7): CD010424## [ DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD010424] [ PMID] [ ] 9. Williams ZF, Hope WW. Abdominal wound closure: current perspectives. Open Access Surgery 2015; 8: 89. ## [ DOI:10.2147/OAS.S60958] 10. Lyell DJ, Caughey AB, Hu E, Daniels K. Peritoneal closure at primary cesarean delivery and adhesions. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2005; 106(2): 275-80. ## [ DOI:10.1097/01.AOG.0000171120.81732.4c] [ PMID] 11. Cheong Y, Premkumar G, Metwally M, Peacock JLi T. To close or not to close? A systematic review and a meta-analysis of peritoneal non-closure and adhesion formation after caesarean section. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2009; 147(1): 3-8. ## [ DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.06.003] [ PMID] 12. Kapustian V, Anteby EY, Gdalevich M, Shenhav S, Lavie O, Gemer O. Effect of closure versus nonclosure of peritoneum at cesarean section on adhesions: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206(1): e1-4. ## [ DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.07.032] [ PMID] 13. Suresh B, Ambi U, Anilkumar G, Shaileshl E, Lamani Y. Post-operative analgesic requirement in non-closure and closure of peritoneum during open appendectomy-a randomized controlled study. J Clin Diagn Res 2012; 6(2): 264-66. ## 14. Rasmussen T, Fonnes S, Rosenberg J. Long-Term Complications of Appendectomy: A Systematic Review. Scand J Surg. 2018 Sep;107(3):189-196. ## [ DOI:10.1177/1457496918772379] [ PMID] 15. Flum DR, Koepsell T. The clinical and economic correlates of misdiagnosed appendicitis: nationwide analysis. Archives of Surgery 2002; 137(7): 799-804. ## [ DOI:10.1001/archsurg.137.7.799] [ PMID] 16. Alkaaki A, Al-Radi OO, Khoja A, Alnawawi A, Alnawawi A, Maghrabi A, Altaf A, Aljiffry M. Surgical site infection following abdominal surgery: a prospective cohort study. Can J Surg. 2019 Apr 1;62(2):111-117. ## [ DOI:10.1503/cjs.004818] [ PMID] [ ] 17. Rafique Z, Shibli KU, Russell IF, Lindow SW. A randomised controlled trial of the closure or non-closure of peritoneum at caesarean section: effect on post-operative pain. BJOG: An International Journal of O## bstetrics & Gynaecology 2002; 109(6): 694-8. ## [ DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.00153.x] [ PMID] 18. Kasatpibal N, Nørgaard M, Sørensen HT, Schønheyder HC, Jamulitrat S, Chongsuvivatwong V. Risk of surgical site infection and efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis: a cohort study of appendectomy patients in Thailand. BMC Infectious Diseases 2006; 6(1): 111. ## [ DOI:10.1186/1471-2334-6-111] [ PMID] [ ] 19. Tabasi Z, Abedzadeh M, Yousefi M. Influence of Closure & Non-Closure of the Visceral and Parietal Peritoneum on Post Cesarean Morbidity. Qom Univ Med Sci J 2009; 3 (4) :27-31. ## 20. Gupta R, Sample C, Bamehriz F, Birch DW. Infectious complications following laparoscopic appendectomy. Canadian journal of surgery Journal canadien de chirurgie. 2006;49(6):397-400. ## 21. Yan X, Su H, Zhang S, Zhou L, Lu J, Yang X, Li J, Xue P, He Z, Wang M, Lu A, Ma J, Zang L, Cai Z, Sun J, Hong H, Zheng M, Feng B. Pelvic peritoneum closure reduces postoperative complications of laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection: 6-year experience in single center. Surg Endosc. 2021 Jan;35(1):406-14. ## [ DOI:10.1007/s00464-020-07414-w] [ PMID] 22. Xiao Y, Shi G, Zhang J, Cao J-G, Liu L-J, Chen T-H, et al. Surgical site infection after laparoscopic and open appendectomy: a multicenter large consecutive cohort study. Surgical Endoscopy. 2015;29(6):1384-93. ## [ DOI:10.1007/s00464-014-3809-y] [ PMID] 23. Wilkinson T, Chauhan M, Trivedi I. Peritoneal closure or non-closure in open appendectomy: a reality or a myth. International Surgery Journal. 2018;5:3102. ## [ DOI:10.18203/2349-2902.isj20183730] 24. Kurek Eken M, Özkaya E, Tarhan T, İçöz Ş, Eroğlu Ş, Kahraman ŞT, Karateke A. Effects of closure versus non-closure of the visceral and parietal peritoneum at cesarean section: does it have any effect on postoperative vital signs? A prospective randomized study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2017 Apr;30(8):922-926. ## [ DOI:10.1080/14767058.2016.1190826] [ PMID] 25. Fink C, Baumann P, Wente MN, Knebel P, Bruckner T, Ulrich A, et al. Incisional hernia rate 3 years after midline laparotomy. The British journal of surgery. 2014;101(2):51-4. ## [ DOI:10.1002/bjs.9364] [ PMID] 26. Arnbjörnsson E. Development of right inguinal hernia after appendectomy. The American Journal of Surgery 1982; 143(1): 174-5. ## [ DOI:10.1016/0002-9610(82)90151-9] [ PMID] 27. Kadanah S, Erten O, Küçüközkan T. Pelvic and periaortic peritoneal closure or non-closure at lymphadenectomy in ovarian cancer: effects on morbidity and adhesion formation. European Journal of Surgical Oncology(EJSO) 1996; 22(3): 282-5. ## [ DOI:10.1016/S0748-7983(96)80019-9] [ PMID] 28. Grove TN, Muirhead LJ, Parker SG. Measuring quality of life in patients with abdominal wall hernias: a systematic review of available tools. Hernia 2021; 25: 491-500. ## [ DOI:10.1007/s10029-020-02210-w] [ PMID] [ ] |
|
| Send email to the article author |
|
|
|
| Add your comments about this article |
|
|
|
|
Hosseinpour R, Mehrabi S, Nikooei S, Salaminia S, Jahantab M, Zakaria Nezhad Kasgari C. The Effect of Peritoneal Repair or Non-Repair on Complications after open Appendectomy. armaghanj 2023; 28 (5) :591-604 URL: http://armaghanj.yums.ac.ir/article-1-3438-en.html
|
