Retrospective study compares short-term efficacy and safety of endoscopic direct-vision therapy in appendicitis, suggesting potential benefits over laparoscopic appendectomy.
Background Acute uncomplicated appendicitis is common. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is definitive but invasive, while endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) carries radiation risks. Endoscopic direct-vision appendicitis therapy (EDAT), an ultra-minimally invasive organ-preserving technique, lacks clarity on patient selection, long-term recurrence, and clinical applicability. Aim To explore EDAT’s short-term efficacy, safety, and applicable population via comparison with LA, and contextualize it within existing evidence. Methods A retrospective study (Dec 2023–Dec 2024, Zhejiang Hospital) included 41 EDAT and 46 LA patients. Clinical indicators, serum inflammatory factors (WBC, CRP), recurrence, and complications were compared; subgroup (gender/age) and correlation analyses were performed. Results Baseline characteristics (sex, age, follow-up time) were balanced between the two groups ( P > 0.05). Compared with LA group, EDAT group had significantly shorter operation time [(35.37 ± 10.48) min vs. (53.54 ± 7.91) min], faster abdominal pain relief [12.00 (12.00, 24.00) h vs. 60.00 (60.00, 72.00) h], earlier resumption of oral intake [6.00 (6.00, 12.00) h vs. 24.00 (12.00, 24.00) h], and better postoperative inflammatory control (postoperative WBC: 6.83 ± 1.39 vs. 7.62 ± 2.13 × 10 9 /L; postoperative CRP: 7.89 ± 2.98 vs. 19.90 ± 11.30 mg/L). The mean postoperative hospital stay in EDAT group was 3.00 (2.00, 3.50) days, and 3 patients (7.32%) developed recurrence during 1–13 months of follow-up (mean 7.88 ± 3.52 months). Subgroup analysis showed consistent efficacy of EDAT across genders and age groups. Conclusion Endoscopic direct-vision appendicitis therapy is a feasible, safe ultra-minimally invasive alternative for selected patients, outperforming LA in symptom relief and inflammation control. However, single-center, small-sample, and short follow-up limit conclusions; large-scale prospective studies with 1–3 years of follow-up are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: