To Örebro University

oru.seÖrebro University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Techniques for Mesoappendix Transection and Appendix Resection When Performing Acute Appendectomy: Insights from the SnapAppy Group Audit
Örebro University, School of Medical Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1918-9443
Örebro University, School of Medical Sciences.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3583-3443
General Surgery Department, Cattinara University Hospital, Trieste, Italy.
Show others and affiliations
2022 (English)In: Journal of the American College of Surgeons, ISSN 1072-7515, E-ISSN 1879-1190, Vol. 235, no 5 Suppl. 2, p. S24-S24Article in journal, Meeting abstract (Other academic) Published
Abstract [en]

Introduction: Surgically managed appendicitis exhibits great heterogeneity regarding mesoappendix transection, and appendix amputation from its base. It is unclear whether a particular surgical technique provides an outcome benefit or reduces complication.

Methods: We undertook a pre-specified subgroup analysis of all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at index admission during the SnapAppy time-bound prospective multi-institutional non-randomized observational cohort study between November 1st 2020 - August 31st 2021 at 71 centers in 14 countries. Poisson regression models were employed for investigating the association between different surgical techniques for mesoappendix as well as stump management and postoperative complication while adjusting for potential confounding.

Results: A total of 2,252 patients were included in the analyses of the technique used for dividing the mesoappendix, 69% by electrocautery and 31% by energy device. 3,729 patients were included for analyses of the management of the stump. The appendix was amputated using looped ligatures in 37%, staples in 38%, and clips in 25% of cases. After adjusting for confounders, the risk of postoperative complication was reduced by 42% when an energy device was used for handling the mesoappendix [adjusted incidence rate ratio (95% CI): 0.58 (0.41-0.82), p = 0.002]; however, no difference was detected between the techniques used for dividing the appendix at its base.

Conclusion: Safe mesoappendix transection and appendix resection are accomplished using heterogeneous techniques. Energy devices are associated with a lower rate of overall complication while no differences were observed when comparing the techniques used for dividing the appendix base.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2022. Vol. 235, no 5 Suppl. 2, p. S24-S24
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-102040DOI: 10.1097/01.XCS.0000895808.37279.b7ISI: 000867877000055OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-102040DiVA, id: diva2:1708095
Conference
The American College of Surgeons 2022 Annual Clinical Congress, San Diego, CA, USA, October 16-20, 2022
Available from: 2022-11-02 Created: 2022-11-02 Last updated: 2024-03-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records

Bass, Gary AlanForssten, Maximilian PeterAhl, RebeckaPourlotfi, ArvidMohseni, Shahin

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bass, Gary AlanForssten, Maximilian PeterAhl, RebeckaPourlotfi, ArvidMohseni, Shahin
By organisation
School of Medical SciencesÖrebro University Hospital
In the same journal
Journal of the American College of Surgeons
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 101 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf