Laparoscopic vs. open surgery: A comparative analysis of wound infection rates and recovery outcomes.

Abstract

As medical technology continues to evolve, it becomes crucial to distinguish the outcomes of traditional versus modern surgical techniques. This was a retrospective cohort study, conducted to compare the wound infection rates and recovery outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery (OS) in 180 patients. Participants were divided into laparoscopic (n = 105) and OS (n = 75) groups. Comprehensive data, including demographics, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes, were extracted. Wound infection rates, as measured by Wound Asepsis Score, were prioritized alongside recovery indicators such as duration of hospital stay and postoperative pain. The laparoscopic group had a mean operative time of 57.19 minutes, while the OS group required 85.10 ± 15.18 minutes (p < 0.05). Laparoscopic surgeries resulted in an average blood loss of 120.76 ± 13.3 mL compared to 170.01 ± 17.19 mL for OS (p < 0.05). The laparoscopic group had significantly reduced (p < 0.05) average hospital stays (2.1 ± 1.1 days) than the OS group (4.4 ± 2.1 days). Although the laparoscopic group had lower incidence of surgical site infection (4.76%) than the OS group (9.33%), this difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). On postoperative days 1, 3, and 7, the Visual Analog Scale assessment of pain in the laparoscopic group revealed significantly reduced pain (p < 0.05). Laparoscopic surgery appeared to offer distinct advantages over conventional open surgery, especially in terms of operative durations, recovery rates, and postoperative pain management. This study highlighted the potential of laparoscopic approaches for specific surgical interventions, as well as the importance of patient-specific surgical strategy decision-making.