| 1. |
- Bass, Gary Alan, 1979-, et al.
(författare)
-
Techniques for Mesoappendix Transection and Appendix Resection When Performing Acute Appendectomy : Insights from the SnapAppy Group Audit
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Surgeons. - : Elsevier. - 1072-7515 .- 1879-1190. ; 235:5 Suppl. 2, s. S24-S24
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Introduction: Surgically managed appendicitis exhibits great heterogeneity regarding mesoappendix transection, and appendix amputation from its base. It is unclear whether a particular surgical technique provides an outcome benefit or reduces complication.Methods: We undertook a pre-specified subgroup analysis of all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at index admission during the SnapAppy time-bound prospective multi-institutional non-randomized observational cohort study between November 1st 2020 - August 31st 2021 at 71 centers in 14 countries. Poisson regression models were employed for investigating the association between different surgical techniques for mesoappendix as well as stump management and postoperative complication while adjusting for potential confounding.Results: A total of 2,252 patients were included in the analyses of the technique used for dividing the mesoappendix, 69% by electrocautery and 31% by energy device. 3,729 patients were included for analyses of the management of the stump. The appendix was amputated using looped ligatures in 37%, staples in 38%, and clips in 25% of cases. After adjusting for confounders, the risk of postoperative complication was reduced by 42% when an energy device was used for handling the mesoappendix [adjusted incidence rate ratio (95% CI): 0.58 (0.41-0.82), p = 0.002]; however, no difference was detected between the techniques used for dividing the appendix at its base.Conclusion: Safe mesoappendix transection and appendix resection are accomplished using heterogeneous techniques. Energy devices are associated with a lower rate of overall complication while no differences were observed when comparing the techniques used for dividing the appendix base.
|
|
