• Lindsey Perea, William H Peranteau, and Pablo Laje.
• Division of General, Thoracic and Fetal Surgery, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
• J. Pediatr. Surg. 2018 Feb 1; 53 (2): 256-259.

Aim Of The StudyThe perfect balance between safety, cosmesis, and cost effectiveness in a world with ever growing healthcare costs has yet to be found for nonperforated appendicitis. The aim is to present our data regarding safety and cost effectiveness of the transumbilical extracorporeal laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy technique.MethodsA retrospective review was performed for all laparoscopic appendectomies for acute appendicitis from October 2014 to October 2016. All cases of perforated appendicitis were excluded (visible hole/abscess/free pus). Included cases were divided into two groups by operative technique: transumbilical (TU) or laparoscopic 3-port (L3P). Operating room charges were billed in 30-min intervals, and hospital charges billed per night in-house. The technique was that the appendix is identified with the laparoscope, grabbed with a grasper that is inserted parallel to the laparoscope, and exteriorized through the umbilicus. The appendectomy is completed extracorporeally.ResultsA total of 494 cases of nonperforated appendicitis were included in the study. One surgeon attempted all cases with the TU technique (n=161), and all other surgeons used the L3P technique (n=333), which required an endostapler and a vascular sealing device. The TU technique was successful in 99 of the attempted cases. The mean operative time of the TU cases and the L3P cases was 21 (8-43) and 37 (12-73) min, respectively (P<0.001). The mean hospital stay for the TU and the L3P cases was 1.6 (1-5) days (one-night admission) and 2.4 (1-14) days (two-night admission), respectively (P<0.001). There were no operative complications or readmissions in either group. The overall cost of the L3P cases was 30% higher than the cost of the TU cases.ConclusionThe transumbilical extracorporeal laparoscopic-assisted technique was as safe as the laparoscopic 3-port technique. It offered all the advantages of a minimally invasive procedure, was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, and was remarkably more cost effective than the standard laparoscopic 3-port technique.Level Of EvidenceIII.Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

30 keywords...

hide…