\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter \IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}% {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}% {\RequirePackage{color}} \usepackage{colortbl} \usepackage{wrapfig} \usepackage{ifxetex} \ifxetex \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{xunicode} \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash} \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{} \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}} \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}} \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}} \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}} \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono} \else \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}% {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} \PrerenderUnicode{–} }% {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{float} \usepackage[]{ucs} \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash } \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{} \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}} \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}} \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,} \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ } \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>} \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}} \def\textJapanese{} \def\textChinese{} \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{} \fi \def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small} \DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25} \usepackage{relsize} \RequirePackage{array} \def\@testpach{\@chclass \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@ \else \z@ \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}% \@chnum \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else \z@ \@chclass \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else \if \@nextchar !6 \else \if \@nextchar @7 \else \if \@nextchar (8 \else \if \@nextchar )9 \else 10 \@chnum \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else \if \@nextchar p4 \else \if \@nextchar b5 \else \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi} \gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr} \def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}} \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \def\abbr{} \def\corr{} \def\expan{} \def\gap{} \def\orig{} \def\reg{} \def\ref{} \def\sic{} \def\persName{}\def\name{} \def\placeName{} \def\orgName{} \def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}} \def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}} \def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}} \def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}} \def\textquoted#1{‘#1’} \def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}} \def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}} \def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}} \def\titlem{\itshape} \newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{bibl}{}{} \newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{rubric}{}{} \newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par } \newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}} \newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}} \definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75} \def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}} \DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@} \def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}} \begingroup \catcode`\_=\active \gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}} \endgroup \mathcode`\_=\string"8000 \catcode`\_=12\relax \usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry} \usepackage{framed} \definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95} \usepackage{longtable} \usepackage[normalem]{ulem} \usepackage{fancyvrb} \usepackage{fancyhdr} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{marginnote} \renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1} \renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize} \def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif} \pagestyle{fancy} \usepackage[pdftitle={Laparoscopic Appendectomy Versus Open Appendectomy in Pediatric Patients}, pdfauthor={}]{hyperref} \hyperbaseurl{} \paperwidth210mm \paperheight297mm \def\@pnumwidth{1.55em} \def\@tocrmarg {2.55em} \def\@dotsep{4.5} \setcounter{tocdepth}{3} \clubpenalty=8000 \emergencystretch 3em \hbadness=4000 \hyphenpenalty=400 \pretolerance=750 \tolerance=2000 \vbadness=4000 \widowpenalty=10000 \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}% {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}} \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}% {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large}} \renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}% {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\large}} \renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}% {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\normalsize}} \renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}% {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}% {-1em}% {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}} \def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt} \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par \endgroup} \def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}} \def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}} \def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}} \def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}} \@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{} \@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{} \newif\if@mainmatter \@mainmattertrue \def\chaptername{Chapter} \def\frontmatter{% \pagenumbering{roman} \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section} \def\theHsection{\roman{section}} \def\@chapapp{}% } \def\mainmatter{% \cleardoublepage \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter} \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \pagenumbering{arabic} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6} \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}% \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section} \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}} } \def\backmatter{% \cleardoublepage \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2} \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}% \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}} \appendix } \newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{% \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}% {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}% \leftmargin\labelwidth \advance\leftmargin\labelsep \@openbib@code \usecounter{enumiv}% \let\p@enumiv\@empty \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}% }% \sloppy \clubpenalty4000 \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty \widowpenalty4000% \sfcode`\.\@m}% {\def\@noitemerr {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}% \endlist} \def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}} \parskip0pt \parindent1em \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \newenvironment{reflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{sansreflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{specHead}[2]% {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}% \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}% \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}% \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}% }{} \def\TheFullDate{2018 2018-01-15 (revised: 19 Year 2018 15 January 2018)} \def\TheID{\makeatother } \def\TheDate{2018 2018-01-15} \title{Laparoscopic Appendectomy Versus Open Appendectomy in Pediatric Patients} \author{}\makeatletter \makeatletter \newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{% \clearpage \if@twoside \ifodd\c@page \hbox{}\newpage \if@twocolumn \hbox{}\newpage \fi \fi \fi } \makeatother \makeatletter \thispagestyle{empty} \markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author} \renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@ \belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip \abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@ \belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@ \def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@ \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@ \itemsep 1pt} } \makeatother \fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm} \fancyhf{} \setlength{\headheight}{14pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} \fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} \fancyfoot[RO]{} \fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID} \fancyfoot[LE]{} \fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID} \hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true} \fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}} \date{} \usepackage{authblk} \providecommand{\keywords}[1] { \footnotesize \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1 } \usepackage{graphicx,xcolor} \definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81} \definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9} \definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70} \definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} \renewenvironment{abstract}{% \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space} }{% \vskip8pt \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt } \usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos} \makeatother \usepackage{lineno} \linenumbers \begin{document} \author[1]{Abdullah Khubrani} \author[2]{Abdullah Khubrani} \affil[1]{ College of medicine} \renewcommand\Authands{ and } \date{\small \em Received: 12 December 2017 Accepted: 4 January 2018 Published: 15 January 2018} \maketitle \begin{abstract} The aim of the present study was to assess the advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) compared with open appendectomy (OA) in children, regarding outcomes, operative time, length of hospital stay, antibiotic use, and available variables.Background: Appendicitis is a common cause of acute abdominal pain in children. Surgical removal of the appendix by either OA or LA is the treatment of choice. Over last two decades, LA has failed to be considered superior over OA in adults and children.Results: A total of 1883 pediatric patients underwent appendectomy (65% male, mean age ten years old). OA surgical approach was performed in 1673 (88.8%) patients with a mean age of 10 ± 2.4. LA was performed in 210 (11.2%) with a mean age of 10.28 ± 2.5. \end{abstract} \keywords{} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark} \end{textblock*} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}} \end{textblock*} \let\tabcellsep& \section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par ppendicitis is a common cause of acute abdominal pain in children. Surgical removal of the appendix by laparoscopic appendectomy {\ref (LA)} or open appendectomy (OA) approaches is the standard treatment in acute appendicitis(AA).Surgical intervention has a lower rate of post-appendectomy complications than that seen with antibiotic therapy alone \hyperref[b0]{(1)}. LA has shown advantages over OA in many aspects, such as shorter hospital stay, decreased recovery time with a faster return to normal daily activities, less postoperative pain, shorter postoperative ileus, better cosmetic results, lower time for wound healing, and less wound infection \hyperref[b1]{(2)}\hyperref[b2]{(3)}\hyperref[b3]{(4)}\hyperref[b4]{(5)}\hyperref[b5]{(6)}\hyperref[b6]{(7)}\hyperref[b7]{(8)}. However, other studies have shownthat LA is associated with longer operative time, increased incidence of an intraabdominal abscess, and higher cost \hyperref[b6]{(7)}\hyperref[b7]{(8)}\hyperref[b8]{(9)}. Also, a previous study showed that LA has a shorter operative time in complicated appendicitis \hyperref[b9]{(10)}. One trend analysis demonstrated that LA showed a higher risk for complication compared with OA in uncomplicated appendicitis \hyperref[b10]{(11)}. In contrast, other studies havereported that OA has a shorter hospital stay and lower cost \hyperref[b11]{(12,}\hyperref[b12]{13)}.LA is not the standard approach to AA management in children \hyperref[b10]{(11)}. This subject remains debatable, especially in pediatric patients in which there is a lack of published studies. The aim of the present study was to assess the advantages of LA compared withOA in children, regarding outcomes, operative time, length of hospital stay, antibiotic use, and other available variables. \section[{II.}]{II.} \section[{Methods}]{Methods} \section[{a) Study design and setting}]{a) Study design and setting}\par The present study was a retrospective chart reviewconducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. \section[{b) Identification of study participants}]{b) Identification of study participants}\par A total of 1883 pediatric patients (? 14 years old) who were diagnosed with acute appendicitis and underwent LA or OA between January \section[{d) Data Analysis}]{d) Data Analysis}\par Excel was used for data entry. SPSS version 24 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, USA)was used for data management and analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic variables. The chisquare test was used to assess the relationship between each surgical approach and categorical variables by percentages and frequencies (e.g., surgical approach and gender). T-tests were used to assess the difference between the type of surgery and quantitative values by measuring the mean and standard deviation (e.g., surgical approach and age). A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. \section[{III.}]{III.} \section[{Results}]{Results}\par A total of 1883 pediatric patients (mean age of 10 years old) that underwent appendectomy were included in the present study. Males accounted for 64.9\% of the patients (male: female ratio was 2:1). OA surgical approach was performed in 1673 (88.8\%) patients with a mean age of 10 ± 2.4. LA was performed in 210 (11.2\%) with a mean age of 10.28 ± 2.5. Conversion of LA to OA was needed for one patient and was included in OA numbers. Additional variables were compared between the two approaches, including gender, WBC count, neutrophil percentage, imagining, operative surgeons, histopathology reports, and rate of complication (Table \hyperref[tab_1]{1}). A statistically significant difference was seen between LA and OA neutrophil percentages, operative surgeons, and histopathology reports (p-value =0.003, <0.001 and <0.001, respectively) (Table \hyperref[tab_1]{1}). The rates of complication were 3.2\% for OA and 5.7\% for LA, with no statistically significant difference observed between the two surgical approaches (p-value =0.057). The length of hospital stay was significantly longerfor LA (3.81 ± 2.4 days) compared with OA(3.19 ± 2.3 days) (p-value <0.001; Table \hyperref[tab_2]{2}). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding antibiotic consumption during admission (p-value = 0.077). LA demonstrated asignificantly longer operative time (73.2 ±25.3 min)compared with OA (53.1 ± 24 min)(p-value <0.001; Table \hyperref[tab_2]{2}). A significantly higher percentage (30\%) of patients that underwent LA used antibioticsupon discharge fora longer period (2.43 ± 2.4 days)compared with OA (p-value s<0.001; Table \hyperref[tab_2]{2}). The LA approach has significantly increased over the study time from 0\% use in 1998 to 42\% use in 2014 (Figure 1). \section[{IV.}]{IV.} \section[{Discussion}]{Discussion}\par Since the first use of the laparoscopic appendectomy approach for the management of acute appendicitis by {\ref Semm in 1983(14)}, it has failed to show superiority over the OA approach in adults and children \hyperref[b10]{(11,} {\ref 15)}. In contrast, in acute cholecystitis, the laparoscopic approach has been shownto have wellestablished superiority over the open approach \hyperref[b14]{(16)}. However, the LA approach is widely preferred by most surgeons and acceptable as the standard of treatment for AA. A technique is preferred over another due to its safety and few complications. In the present study, the overall complication rate was 3.5\% and included IAA, wound infection, and bowel obstruction. The complication rate for both LA and OA approaches in children failed to show statistically significant differences, similar to the majority of recent studies \hyperref[b15]{(17)}\hyperref[b16]{(18)}\hyperref[b17]{(19)}. However, another report claimed that LA showed less complication rate in pediatric appendectomy \hyperref[b18]{(20)}. In the present study, the LA approach did not reduce the need for imagining (abdominal US and CT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis, which is similar to results from another study \hyperref[b15]{(17)}.However,a new trend is to use imagining for the diagnosis of appendicitis to reduce the incidence of a normal appendix \hyperref[b19]{(21)}. Senior surgeons (consultants and associate consultants) prefer the LA approach; instead, junior surgeons (fellows and residents) prefer the OA approach,which might be due to educational reasons. Similar to many previous studies that included meta-analysis, randomized trial, and cohort studies, the LA approach has been shown to have longer operation times \hyperref[b6]{(7)}\hyperref[b7]{(8)}\hyperref[b8]{(9)}\hyperref[b11]{12)}. However, a report byAxel Elofsson 18 and his colleagues found no difference between the two techniques (LA and OA) regarding operative time in children. In the present study, approximately half of LA surgeries were performed by junior surgeons,which may contribute to the longer operative times that we observed. The LA technique can have shorter operative times, but this might depend on the surgeon'sexperience \hyperref[b19]{(21)}.\par Interestingly, our study and others found that the histopathology reports showed that non-perforated appendix and normal appendix were statistically significant between the two methods (LA and OA), with no statistical difference observed in perforated appendix cases \hyperref[b16]{(18)}. Upon seeing more normal or healthy appendicesduring LA, raises the concern that the LA approach may participate in misdiagnosis of AA. Furthermore, in the present study, the hospital stay was longer after LA in pediatric patients; however,additional pediatric studies have shown that LA resulted in a shorter hospital stay \hyperref[b15]{(17,}\hyperref[b16]{18,}\hyperref[b18]{20)}. The overall hospital stay in our study was longer than most previous studies. One of the main goals of LA is to reduce the use of antibiotics in AA patients, however we did not find an advantage regarding this issue. The present study found a low rate of LA for the management of AA;however, this is no longer the case becausethe medical community is shifting toward minimally invasive techniques and considers the LA approach the standard treatment of AA (see Figure 1). \section[{V.}]{V.} \section[{Conclusions}]{Conclusions}\par LA and OA demonstratesimilar risk for postappendectomy complicationsin the pediatric population. LA is associated with longer operation times, which might lead to higher cost. Both LA and OAshow asimilar need for antibiotics post-surgery. LA is not superior to OA in children, although further studies, including a randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis, are required. \section[{VI.}]{VI.} \section[{Limitations}]{Limitations}\par Our single-center study was a retrospective chart review that was associated with the limited patient information. The large variation between LA and OA cases might affect the results. However most our resultswere constant with most recent studies. \section[{Conflict of interest}]{Conflict of interest} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{1} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}} None declared\\ Acknowledgements\\ None\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_1}Table 1 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{2} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.436\textwidth}P{0.15699999999999997\textwidth}P{0.158\textwidth}P{0.09899999999999999\textwidth}} \tabcellsep OA\tabcellsep LA\tabcellsep P-value\\ Age\tabcellsep 10 ± 2.4\tabcellsep 10.28 ± 2.5\tabcellsep 0.173\\ Gender (male)\tabcellsep 1095 (65.5\%)\tabcellsep 126 (60\%)\tabcellsep 0.119\\ WBC counts\tabcellsep 16 ± 4.9\tabcellsep 15 ± 5.2\tabcellsep 0.259\\ Neutrophil percentage(\%)\tabcellsep 79.73 ± 10\tabcellsep 77.25 ± 13\tabcellsep <0.01\\ Complication rate\tabcellsep 53 (3.2\%)\tabcellsep 12 (5.7\%)\tabcellsep 0.057\\ Surgeons\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep <0.01\\ Senior Surgeons (Associate Consultant and Consultant)\tabcellsep 318 (19\%)\tabcellsep 101 (48\%)\tabcellsep <0.01\\ Junior Surgeon (Fellow and Resident)\tabcellsep 1355 (81\%)\tabcellsep 109 (51.9\%)\tabcellsep <0.01\\ Histopathology reports\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep <0.01\\ Non-perforated Acute Appendix\tabcellsep 1410 (84.3\%)\tabcellsep 153 (72.9\%)\tabcellsep <0.01\\ Perforated Appendix\tabcellsep 133 (7.9\%)\tabcellsep 24 (11.4\%)\tabcellsep 0.086\\ Normal Appendix\tabcellsep 130 (7.8\%)\tabcellsep 33 (15.7\%)\tabcellsep <0.01\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{laparoscopic appendectomy}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep OA\tabcellsep LA\tabcellsep P-value\\ Operative time (min)\tabcellsep 52.1 ± 24\tabcellsep 73.2 ± 25.3\tabcellsep <0.01\\ Length of hospital stay (days)\tabcellsep 3.19 ± 2.3\tabcellsep 3.81 ±2.4\tabcellsep <0.01\\ Duration of antibiotic during admission (days)\tabcellsep 2.29 ± 2.1\tabcellsep 2.57 ± 2.1\tabcellsep 0.077\\ Antibiotic on discharge\tabcellsep 303 (16\%)\tabcellsep 63 (30\%)\tabcellsep <0.01\\ Duration of antibiotic on discharge (days)\tabcellsep 1.87 ±1.9\tabcellsep 2.43 ± 2.4\tabcellsep <0.01\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_2}Table 2 :}\end{figure} \footnote{© 2018 Global Journals} \footnote{Laparoscopic Appendectomy Versus Open Appendectomy in Pediatric Patients} \backmatter \begin{bibitemlist}{1} \bibitem[Ortega et al. ()]{b1}\label{b1} ‘A prospective, randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy. Laparoscopic Appendectomy Study Group’. A E Ortega , J G Hunter , J H Peters , L L Swanstrom , B Schirmer . \textit{Am J Surg} 1995. 169 p. . \bibitem[Milewczyk et al. ()]{b4}\label{b4} ‘A prospective, randomized, unicenter study comparing laparoscopic and open treatments of acute appendicitis’. M Milewczyk , M Michalik , M Ciesielski . \textit{Surg Endosc} 2003. 17 p. . \bibitem[Kirby et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} ‘Appendectomy for suspected uncomplicated appendicitis is associated with fewer complications than conservative antibiotic management: A metaanalysis of post-intervention complications’. A Kirby , R Hobson , D Burke . \textit{J Infect} 2015. 70 p. . \bibitem[Masoomi et al. ()]{b12}\label{b12} ‘Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS)’. H Masoomi , S Mills , M O Dolich , N Ketana , J C Carmichael , N T Nguyen . \textit{J Gastrointest Surg} 2006-2008. 2011. 2011 Jul 2. 15 (12) p. . \bibitem[Gorter et al. ()]{b19}\label{b19} ‘Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference’. R R Gorter , H H Eker , M A W Gorter-Stam . \textit{Surg Endosc} 2015. 2016. 30 p. 4668. \bibitem[Semm ()]{b13}\label{b13} ‘Endoscopic appendectomy’. K Semm . \textit{Endoscopy} 1983. 15 p. . \bibitem[Krisher et al. ()]{b8}\label{b8} ‘Intraabdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis’. S L Krisher , A Browne , A Dibbins , N Tkacz , M Curci . \textit{Arch Surg} 2001. 136 p. . \bibitem[Minutolo et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} ‘Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis’. V Minutolo , G Gagliano , O Minutolo , M Carnazza , La Terra , S Buttafuoco , A Dipietro , S Lanteri , R . \textit{Chir Ital} 2009. 61 p. . \bibitem[Sporn et al. ()]{b10}\label{b10} ‘Laparoscopic appendectomy: is it worth the cost?’. E Sporn , G F Petroski , G J Mancini , J A Astudillo , B W Miedema , K Thaler . \textit{J Am Coll Surg} 2009. 208 (2) p. e2. \bibitem[Elofsson et al. ()]{b16}\label{b16} \textit{Laparoscopic or Open Appendectomy for Pediatric Appendicitis}, Axel \& Elofsson , Eric \& Gemryd , Arnbjörnsson , Martin Salö . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.15406/mojs.2016.03.00032}{10.15406/mojs.2016.03.00032}. \url{MOJSurgery.3.10.15406/mojs.2016.03.00032} 2016. \bibitem[Fingerhut et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} ‘Laparoscopic time to decide’. A Fingerhut , B Millat , F Borrie . \textit{World J Surg} 1999. 1999 (23) p. . \bibitem[Wei et al. ()]{b7}\label{b7} ‘Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a metaanalysis’. B Wei , C L Qi , T F Chen , Z H Zheng , J L Huang , B G Hu , H B Wei . \textit{Surg Endosc} 2011. 25 p. . \bibitem[Yau et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} ‘Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis’. K K Yau , W T Siu , C N Tang , G P Yang , M K Li . \textit{J Am Coll Surg} 2007. \bibitem[Az et al. (2006)]{b18}\label{b18} \textit{Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy in Children, Meta-analysis}, Omer Az , A Thanos , P Paris , Sanjay Pu , H James , Vitali Malinovski . 2006 Jan. Ann Surg. 243 p. . \bibitem[Tzovaras et al. (2010)]{b11}\label{b11} ‘Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in men: a prospective randomized trial’. G Tzovaras , I Baloyiannis , V Kouritas , D Symeonidis , M Spyridakis , A Poultsidi . \textit{Surg Endosc} 2010. 2010 Jun 15. 24 (12) p. . \bibitem[Scirè et al. (2014)]{b17}\label{b17} ‘Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in the management of acute appendicitis in children: a multicenter retrospective study’. G Scirè , A Mariotto , M Peretti , E Buzzi , B Zani , F Camoglio , L Giacomello . \textit{Minerva Pediatrica} 2014 Aug. 66 (4) p. . \bibitem[Sauerland et al. ()]{b6}\label{b6} ‘Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis’. S Sauerland , R Lefering , E A Neugebauer . \textit{Cochrane Database Syst Rev} 2010. 10 p. D001546. \bibitem[Steven and Arezou ()]{b15}\label{b15} ‘Laparoscopic vs Open Appendectomy in Children’. L Steven , Y Arezou , AmyK . \textit{Arch Surg} 2011. 146 (10) p. . \bibitem[Coccolini et al. (2015)]{b14}\label{b14} ‘Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis’. F Coccolini , F Catena , M Pisano , F Gheza , S Fagiuoli , Di Saverio , S . \textit{Surg} 2015 Dec. 24 p. 107. (Pt A) \bibitem[Pedersen et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} ‘Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy’. A G Pedersen , O B Petersen , P Wara , H Rønning , N Qvist , S Laurberg . \textit{Br J Surg} 2001. 88 p. . \end{bibitemlist} \end{document}