Abstract

Various prospective randomized controlled trials were conducted to compare open and laparoscopic appendectomies. The aim of this systematic review is to compare both the surgical appendectomy interventions and to evaluate the most favored, safe, and effective choice of treatment for appendicitis. In this review, 2462 studies have been retrieved from three major databases: Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane. The inclusion criteria were clinical diagnosis of appendicitis, publication date, and patient’s age. Of these, six studies that met both inclusion and exclusion criteria were chosen. The studies selected were assessed for quality using the CONSORT PRO tool. The data extracted was later analyzed using NCCS 2007 software and Microsoft excel. The means and P values were calculated using the student t test and chi square test provided by the studies. The six studies chosen met the inclusion criteria and achieved an average quality of 15.5 over 25, which is in line with the CONSORT PRO tool. The results indicated that further elaboration on the randomization method should’ve been provided; however, the methodology was the same across the six studies showing a strong correlation and homogeneity in the outcomes. The primary outcomes were all favored in laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) except for intra-abdominal abscesses. The secondary outcomes were all favored by LA exceptfor cost and mortality, which weren’t favored by both the interventions. In conclusion, LA is a safer and more effective surgical procedure than open appendectomy.

Keywords: Appendectomy, laparoscopy, open surgery, outcomes, prospective studies, randomized controlled trials