title: Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare length of hospital stay, in-hospital complications, in-hospital mortality, and rate of routine discharge between laparoscopic and open appendectomy based on a representative, nationwide database.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Numerous single-institutional randomized clinical trials have assessed the efficacy of laparoscopic and open appendectomy. The results, however, are conflicting, and a consensus concerning the relative advantages of each procedure has not yet been reached.
  
  
  METHODS
  Patients with primary ICD-9 procedure codes for laparoscopic and open appendectomy were selected from the 1997 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a database that approximates 20% of all US community hospital discharges. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were used to assess the risk-adjusted endpoints.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Discharge abstracts of 43757 patients were used for our analyses. 7618 patients (17.4%) underwent laparoscopic and 36139 patients (82.6%) open appendectomy. Patients had an average age of 30.7 years and were predominantly white (58.1%) and male (58.6%). After adjusting for other covariates, laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with shorter median hospital stay (laparoscopic appendectomy: 2.06 days, open appendectomy: 2.88 days, P < 0.0001), lower rate of infections (odds ratio [OR] = 0.5 [0.38, 0.66], P < 0.0001), decreased gastrointestinal complications (OR = 0.8 [0.68, 0.96], P = 0.02), lower overall complications (OR = 0.84 [0.75, 0.94], P = 0.002), and higher rate of routine discharge (OR = 3.22 [2.47, 4.46], P < 0.0001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Laparoscopic appendectomy has significant advantages over open appendectomy with respect to length of hospital stay, rate of routine discharge, and postoperative in-hospital morbidity.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina 27710, USA.
authors.forename: Ulrich
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Guller
authors.forename: Sheleika
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Hervey
authors.forename: Harriett
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Purves
authors.forename: Lawrence H
authors.initials: LH
authors.lastname: Muhlbaier
authors.forename: Eric D
authors.initials: ED
authors.lastname: Peterson
authors.forename: Steve
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Eubanks
authors.forename: Ricardo
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Pietrobon
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001062:Appendectomy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D001064:Appendicitis / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000601:surgery*; D015897:Comorbidity; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D010535:Laparoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D007902:Length of Stay; D016014:Linear Models; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D010149:Postoperative Pain / Q000453:epidemiology; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000453:epidemiology*; D012042:Registries; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012307:Risk Factors; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014481:United States