Suprapubic single-incision versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy

Background: Suprapubic single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SSILA), a promising new approach with potential benefits such as improved cosmetic results, has been preliminarily shown to be safe and feasible in previous single-arm studies. This study used a propensity-matched analysis to compare SSILA and conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). Methods: Patients undergoing SSILA between March 2012 and November 2013 were matched with patients undergoing CLA during the same period at a single institution. These patient groups were compared using a propensity score analysis. The model covariates for the propensity scores included gender, age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, history of abdominal operation, and pathology of the resected appendix. The clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups, and the cosmetic results were evaluated via a patient scar assessment questionnaire and an objective scar evaluation scale. Results: No patient in either group required additional port placement or conversion to open surgery. One patient in the SSILA group developed a wound infection, and one patient in the CLA group developed a postoperative intra-abdominal abscess. No significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to the length of hospital stay, time to semi-liquid diet, time to first flatus or hospital cost. The operative time and the number of patients requiring postoperative analgesics were greater with SSILA. Compared with CLA, SSILA was associated with better scores in the patient scar assessment questionnaire consciousness subscale and with similar scores in the appearance, satisfaction with appearance and satisfaction with symptoms subscales. The two approaches yielded similar results for the objective scar evaluation scale. Conclusions: SSILA is a feasible and safe approach with similar outcomes as CLA. SSILA results in reduced scar consciousness at the expense of relatively longer operative times and more postoperative analgesic use. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.