Affiliation:
1. Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education; N.V. Sklifosovsky Research Institute for Emergency Medicine
2. N.V. Sklifosovsky Research Institute for Emergency Medicine
3. Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education; N.V. Sklifosovsky Research Institute for Emergency Medicine; Penza Institute for Advanced Doctors Training, the branch of the Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education
Abstract
The perforative acute appendicitis with the development of diffuse peritonitis increases the incidence of postoperative complications to 47%, and mortality to 3%. Mortality in the case of the development of diffuse purulent peritonitis makes 4.5-58%, and it can exceed 70% in severe forms of diffuse peritonitis with the development of infectious-toxic shock and multiple organ failure. National Clinical Guidelines for acute appendicitis with diffuse peritonitis allow for appendectomy from both the median and laparoscopic access in the absence of general contraindications to the creation of pneumoperitoneum. However, despite the proven advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy, there are opponents of its use in diffuse forms of appendicular peritonitis. An increased number of postoperative abscesses with a minimally invasive approach has been reported in literature; however, recent randomized studies refute this fact. There is also evidence that the laparoscopic method for appendicular peritonitis often leads to a lengthening of the operation time and higher operating costs, but at the same time there is a decrease in postoperative pain syndrome, a reduction in the length of inpatient treatment and early social and labor rehabilitation, which leads to an overall decrease in hospital costs. Thus, to date, there is no generally accepted opinion about the advisability of laparoscopic access for appendicular peritonitis. At the moment, the presence of diffuse peritonitis is the most common intraoperative reason for refusing a minimally invasive surgical treatment. However, there is a tendency to trying to standardize indications and contraindications, which was the objective of our literature review.
Publisher
The Scientific and Practical Society of Emergency Medicine Physicians
Reference106 articles.
1. Gulyaev AA, Ermolov AS, Zatevakhin II, Ivakhov GB, Kirienko AI, Lutsevich OE, et al. (comp.); Rossiyskoe obshchestvo khirurgov. Ostryy appenditsit u vzroslykh. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii. Moscow; 2015. (in Russ.) Available at: https://www.mrckb.ru/files/ostryj_appendicit_u_vzroslyx.PDF (Accessed Apr 28, 2021)
2. Ermolov AS, Yartsev PA, Lebedev AG, Gulyaev AA, Andreev VG, Blagovestnov DA, (eds.) Diagnostika i lechenie ostrykh khirurgicheskikh zabolevaniy organov bryushnoy polosti. Opyt moskovskogo zdravookhraneniya 1992–2014 gg. Moscow: Vidar-M Publ.; 2015. (in Russ.)
3. Revishvili ASh, Fedorov AV, Sazhin VP, Oloviannyī VE. Emergency surgery in Russian Federation (in Russian only). Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2019;(3):88–97. https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia201903188
4. Margenthaler JA, Longo WE, Virgo KS, Johnson FE, Oprian CA, Henderson WG, et al. Risk factors for adverse outcomes after the surgical treatment of appendicitis in adults. Ann Surg. 2003;238(1):59–66. PMID: 12832966 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.SLA.0000074961.50020.f8
5. Tannoury J, Abboud B. Treatment options of inflammatory appendiceal masses in adults. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(25):3942–3950. PMID: 23840138 https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i25.3942
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献