Search

Background: This study reviews our use of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy over the last decade to track the trends in their usage in a middle-income country. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients with intraoperative confirmed acute appendicitis from January 2013 to December 2019 at Grey's Hospital, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Results: Eight hundred fifty-one cases of AA were included. 724 (85%) patients underwent open surgery; 435 (60%) via a midline incision and 194 (27%) via a local incision. 127 (15%) patients underwent laparoscopic appendicectomy. A significant rend was noted for an increasing proportion of surgery performed by laparoscopy compared to open surgery (p = 0.02). Patients who underwent open surgery compared to laparoscopy presented with greater peritonism (48.5% vs. 28%, p < 0.001), delay from symptom onset (3 vs. 2 days, p < 0.001), more frequently from rural areas (94% vs. 86%, p = 0.002) and with higher AAST scores (46.7% AAST ≥ 4, vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001). This former group had significantly greater morbidity (42% vs. 35%, p < 0.001) with higher Clavien-Dindo scores, were more likely to require ICU admission (8.3% vs. 2.3%, p < 0.001) and have longer hospital stay (4 days vs. 2 days, p < 0.001); no statistically significant difference in mortality was observed (1.1% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.75). Conclusions: There has been a steady increase in the uptake of laparoscopic appendicectomy and decrease in open approaches in our centre. There is still a high rate of patients with advanced disease, and it is unlikely that this cohort will be suitable for laparoscopic surgery. If we hope to increase the uptake of laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis even further, we must focus on identifying patients with early and low-grade disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Primary repair is increasingly being used to manage rectal injuries, however, faecal diversion remains the main stay of rectal trauma management in our environment. • Rectal injuries are associated with high levels of morbidity such as sepsis and urogenital complications. • Rectal injury must be actively excluded in patients sustaining penetrating injuries to the pelvis, buttocks, perineal, or inguinal region or those who have experienced significant blunt trauma to the pelvis and perineum. This paper provides an overview of a single centre's experience with rectal injury over a decade. It hopes to use this data to provide context to our current approach to managing these injuries in the civilian setting. All patients with rectal trauma were identified from the Hybrid Electronic Medical Registry (HEMR). During the study period, a total of 88 patients with rectal injuries were admitted to Grey's Hospital in Pietermaritzburg. There were 80 (91 %) males and 8 (9 %) females. The median age was 31 (15–63) years. There were 9 (10 %) blunt mechanisms, 76 (86 %) penetrating mechanisms and 3 (4 %) combined blunt and penetrating mechanisms. Gunshot wounds accounted for the majority of sustained rectal trauma (71 %). There were 57 (65 %) extra-peritoneal injuries, 24 (27 %) intraperitoneal injuries and 7 (8 %) combined injuries. The grade of injury, according to the AAST grading system, was as follows, AAST 1: 16 (18 %), AAST 2: 63 (72 %), AAST 3: 7 (8 %), and AAST 4: 2 (2 %). Pre-sacral drainage and distal rectal washout were not performed. Almost all (55/57) of the extra-peritoneal rectal injuries were managed with proximal diversion (PD). There were five primary repairs (PR) performed in the extra-peritoneal rectal injury cohort. In four of these cases, this was accompanied by a PD. Of the 24 intraperitoneal rectal injuries, 15 underwent PR, of which 11 were performed in conjunction with PD. In total, 20 intraperitoneal rectal injuries underwent PD. All seven combined rectal injuries underwent PD, and three of the combined rectal injuries underwent PR with PD. There was urogenital tract associated morbidity in 8 %, gastrointestinal tract related morbidity in 8 % and septic complications in 11 %. Rectal trauma is still associated with a high rate of rectal/urogenital and infection related morbidity. Although pre-sacral drainage and distal stump washout have been largely abandoned in civilian practice, faecal diversion currently remains the cornerstone of the management of rectal trauma in our environment. Although there was a low rate of intra-abdominal septic complications in patients who had undergone diversion, this needs to be balanced against the low rate of stoma reversal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]