ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) for the acute appendicitis patients based on our extensive experiences. MethodsThe data of all the acute appendicitis patients who underwent appendectomy from January 2013 to December 2014 in our department were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 201 patients were enrolled and divided into LA group (n=102) and OA group (n=99). The relevant clinical indexes during and after operation of two groups were compared. ResultsThere were no significant difference in age, gender, and underlying disease between LA and OA patients (P > 0.05). And the abdominal cavity infection rate, abdominal drainage rate and 30-day readmission rate were also similar (P > 0.05). But LA group had less operative time, lower infection operative wound rate, less intestinal function recovery time, shorter inhospital days and higher hospital expenses than OA group (P < 0. 05). In addition, perforated appendix and LA could increase the rate of abdominal drainage[OR=2.710, 95% CI(1.129, 6.507), P=0.026]. ConclusionsBoth LA and OA are safe and effective methods for the treatment of acute appendicitis. But LA has several advantages over OA on less operative time and postoperative complications, earlier recovery, and shorter inhospital days. While LA have higher hospital cost than OA, it still should be considered as a prefer way to cure acute appendicitis. LA is a independent risk factor of abdominal drainage.
目的比较腹腔镜阑尾切除术（LA）与传统开腹阑尾切除术（OA）在治疗老年（60岁）急性阑尾炎患者的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析2008年6月至2009年12月期间我院收治的67例老年急性阑尾炎患者的临床资料，根据接受的不同手术方式分为LA组（n=28）和OA组（n=39），对2组患者术中及术后相关指标进行比较。结果 LA组患者均顺利完成手术，无中转开腹; 术后无切口感染; 1例出现腹腔残余感染，经抗感染治疗后痊愈。OA组患者术后6例发生切口感染，经换药后痊愈; 5例发生腹腔残余感染，经抗感染治疗后痊愈。2组患者均无出血、阑尾残端漏、残株炎、粘连性肠梗阻等并发症发生。LA组患者手术时间与OA组比较差异无统计学意义（Pgt;0.05）。尽管LA组患者综合费用明显多于OA组（Plt;0.05），但术中出血量、术后下床时间、肛门排气时间、止痛剂使用率、切口感染率、腹腔残余感染率以及住院时间均小（少）于OA组（Plt;0.05）。 结论对老年急性阑尾炎患者的治疗，LA明显优于OA，且可作为老年急性阑尾炎患者治疗的首选术式。
目的 探讨急性阑尾炎手术后切口感染的相关因素。方法 观察我院2002年5月至2007年5月期间收治的665例急性阑尾炎患者采用术前预防使用抗生素、术中保护切口、术后加强切口管理等处理后切口感染情况，并分析切口感染与阑尾炎的病程、手术时间、切口选择、留置引流和病理类型之间的关系。结果 本组患者中32例发生切口感染，感染率为4.81% (32/665)，急性阑尾炎术后切口感染与性别无关（ P ＞ 0.05），与病程长短、切口选择、手术时间、腹腔留置引流与否以及病理类型均有关（ P ＜ 0.01）。结论 病程长、手术时间久、炎症较重的急性阑尾炎病例切口感染率较高； 做好围手术期的处理，术中尽量保护切口可以降低切口感染率。
Objective To investigate the variation of total hospitalization cost for single-diagnosed disease of different types of acute appendicitis in a three-A hospital, so as to provide evidence for the reimbursement amount of social medical insurance. Methods All patients with acute appendicitis who had surgery treatment during January-April 2011 (before implementing the fee system for single-diagnosed disease) and January-April 2012 (after implementing the fee system for single-diagnosed disease) were collected in this study for analysis. According to the types of acute appendicitis, the patients were stratified into the low risk group (simple, suppurative and gangrenous) and the high risk group (perforative, abscess-formed and pregnancy-combined). The correlation between total hospitalization cost and types of acute appendicitis, as well as the changes of total hospitalization cost after implementing the fee system for single-diagnosed disease were analyzed. Results A total of 90 eligible patients were included. The disease types were positively correlated with hospital stays and total hospitalization cost. All three types in the low risk group could control the average total hospitalization cost within RMB 10 000 yuan. The results of sensitivity analysis showed that, before implementing the fee system for single-diagnosed disease, the total hospitalization cost up to RMB 6 000 yuan could be positively correlated with the above risk stratification (r=0.442, P=0.003). After implementing the fee system for single-diagnosed disease from January to April 2012, the constituent ratio of hospital stays, compared with that in the same period of 2011, had no significant difference (P=0.108) between the two groups; but the ratio of hospital stays (less than 5 days) increased from 45% to 64%, and the ratio of hospital stays (greater than or equal to 10 days) decreased from 17% to 4%, indicating a tendency of shortening hospital stays. Also, the constituent ratio of total hospitalization cost had no significant difference (P=0.114) between the two groups; but the ratio of total hospitalization cost (greater than or equal to RMB 9 000 yuan) decreased from 32% to 13%, indicating a tendency of lowering total hospitalization cost. Conclusion The low risk group of acute appendicitis, RMB 6 000 yuan should be rated as the rational reimbursement amount of social medical insurance. The total hospitalization cost for the high risk group is quite various, so the further studies are needed to investigate the feasibility of the fee system for single-diagnosed disease as well as the rating amount of total hospitalization cost. The implementation of the fee system for single-diagnosed disease is helpful to shorten hospital stays and reduce total hospitalization cost.
目的 分析其他疾病误诊为急性阑尾炎的原因。方法 结合相关文献资料，对2004年2月至2008年12月期间本院21例其他疾病被误诊为急性阑尾炎的过程进行回顾性分析。结果 除了胆囊结石、胃穿孔、肠结核、异位妊娠等常见病可能被误诊为急性阑尾炎外，肝包虫、胆管癌、癔病、恶性淋巴瘤等也有可能被误诊为急性阑尾炎。误诊的主要原因是经治医生经验不足、思维局限、知识面狭窄，更重要的则是重视不足，检查不仔细、不全面。结论 系统和全面仔细地问诊、查体，努力提高辅助检查诊断水平等是减少误诊的关键。
Objective To investigate the clinical features, diagnosis, and surgical methods of left-sided appendicitis (LSA). Methods We retrieved LSA-related literatures through Pubmed, Google Scholar English databases, Wanfang, CNKI, VIP, and SinoMed databases (published from January 1981 to June 2017), as well as 2 cases of LSA who treated in Beibei Traditional Chinese Medical Hospital, to analyze the clinical characteristics of LSA and its diagnosis and treatment methods. Results There were 92 articles in a total of 212 LSA patients were retrieved, and 2 cases treated in Beibei Traditional Chinese Medical Hospital, a total of 214 LSA patients were included in the analysis. Pain fixed position of LSA: 139 cases (65.0%) located in left-lower quadrant, 30 cases (14.0%) located in right-lower quadrant, 8 cases (3.7%) located in peri-umbilical, 15 cases (7.0%) located in mid-lower abdomen, 15 cases (7.0%) located in left-upper quadrant, 3 cases (1.4%) located in right-upper abdomen, 2 cases (0.9%) located in mid-upper abdomen, 2 cases (0.9%) located in pelvic cavity, respectively. LSA had occurred in association with several types of abnormal anomalies: 131 cases (61.2%) suffered from situs inversus totalis (SIT), 53 cases (24.8%) suffered from midgut malrotation (MM), 21 cases (9.8%) suffered from cecal malrotation, 4 cases (1.9%) suffered from long appendix, 2 cases (0.9%) suffered from free ascending colon, and 3 cases (1.4%) were unclear. The diagnosis of 114 LSA cases (53.3%) before operation was correct, in which the correct diagnosis rates of SIT-LSA and MM-LSA were 74.8% (98/131) and 22.6% (12/53), respectively. Three patients (1.4%) underwent conservative treatment, and 211 patients (98.6%) underwent surgical treatment, including 25 cases (11.7%) of laparoscopic surgery, 145 cases (67.8%) of open abdominal surgery, and unknown of 41 cases (19.1%). Laparotomy incision: abdominal incision in 74 cases (51.0%), ventral midline incision in 16 cases (11.0%), the left side of the anti McBurney incision in 43 cases (29.7%), right McBurney incision in 12 cases (8.3%). Conclusions LSA mainly occurs in association with 2 types of congenital anomalies: SIT and MM. There is some difficult to make diagnosis for abnormal anatomy and inaccurate pain location of LSA, so it is easy to cause the delay in diagnosis or misdiagnosis. For LSA, the choices of laparoscopy or laparotomy operation methods are applicable.
ObjectiveTo further explore and discuss the value of laparoscopic appendectomy. MethodsThe clinical data of 200 patients underwent appendectomy in this hospital from April 2009 to December 2010 were collected. The operation time, postoperative hospital stay, cost of hospitalization, postoperative anal exhaust time, postoperative pain score, and surgical complications were compared between laparoscopic appendectomy and open appendectomy. ResultsThere were 8 cases conversion to the open approach in this series. The cost of laparoscopic appendectomy was higher than that of open appendectomy (Plt;0.05); the cases of chronic appendicitis, acute simple appendicitis, acute suppurative appendicitis within 36 h of onset treated by laparoscopic appendectomy had shorter operation time, shorter postoperative hospital stay, earlier postoperative anal exhaust time, and slighter postoperative pain than those treated by open appendectomy (Plt;0.05); the differences in postoperative hospital stay, postoperative anal exhaust time, postoperative pain of acute suppurative appendicitis more than 36 h of onset and acute gangrenous appendicitis treated by two types of surgery had no statistical significances (Pgt;0.05); the operation time of acute gangrenous appendicitis operated by laparoscopic surgery was longer than that by open appendectomy (Plt;0.05); incision infection rate of laparoscopic appendectomy was lower than that of open appendectomy (Plt;0.05). ConclusionsFor chronic appendicitis, acute simple appendicitis, and acute suppurative appendicitis within 36 h of onset, the outcome and advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy are outstanding, the value of application is clear; and for acute suppurative appendicitis more than 36 h of onset and acute gangrenous appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy is difficult and with high rate of conversion, no obvious advantages in recovery after surgery but an increase of medical costs, and the application value is not great.