Comparison of Transumbilical Laparoscopy-Assisted Appendectomy with Conventional Three-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy Performed by Pediatric Surgeons in Training for Appendicitis in Children.

Abstract

Background: Transumbilical laparoscopy-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) is the technique of choice for all types of appendicitis. However, the technique is challenging for trainees to learn in comparison with performing conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTPLA) in children. We aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of children with appendicitis treated by TULAA versus CTPLA performed by pediatric surgeons in training (PSITs). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study analyzed pediatric patients with acute appendicitis treated with CTPLA or TULAA between April 2016 and December 2022. Operative time (OT: minutes), pneumoperitoneum time (PT: minutes), blood loss (milliliter), length of hospital stay (days), and surgical site infection rate were compared between the two groups. Operative outcomes were also analyzed according to type of appendicitis such as uncomplicated and complicated cases. Results: Two hundred twenty-five laparoscopic appendectomies were performed by CTPLA (n = 94) or TULAA (n = 131). All cases were performed by PSITs and there was no open conversion cases. TULAA had a shorter OT (67.0 ± 28.4 versus 78.3 ± 21.7; P < .01) and PT (26.1 ± 17.4 versus 52.5 ± 22.1 min; P < .01). The surgical site infection rate was slightly higher in the TULAA group, but the difference was not statistically significant. In uncomplicated appendicitis (n = 164), significant differences between the CTPLA and TULAA groups were observed in OT (CTPLA versus TULAA: 70.7 ± 14.9 versus 59.1 ± 21.6, P < .01) and PT (CTPLA versus TULAA: 43.6 ± 13.1 versus 20.4 ± 13.6, P < .01). With regard to postoperative complications, only surgical site infection was significantly different between the CTPLA and TULAA groups (CTPLA: 0.0% versus TULAA: 8.2%, P < .05). In complicated cases (n = 61), there were significant differences between the groups in PT (CTPLA versus TULAA: 73.4 ± 24.9 versus 42.3 ± 17.2, P < .01) and length of hospital stay (CTPLA versus TULAA: 7.0 ± 1.3 versus 8.9 ± 4.7, P < .05). Conclusions: TULAA had a shorter OT and PT than CTPLA. TULAA for PSITs shows similar safety and feasibility to CTPLA for not only uncomplicated cases but also complicated cases.