European multicenter survey on approaches in pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy

Aim This survey reviewed the practice of laparoscopic appendectomy in pediatric surgical centers across Europe. Methods An online survey questionnaire was created and data obtained analyzed. Results There were 58 responders (52 Consultants and 6 trainees), of them n = 24 performed > 100 laparoscopic procedures per year. Procedures were performed by trainee with scrubbed consultant supervision n = 30, trainee with unscrubbed consultant n = 14, independent trainees n = 8 and consultants n = 6. Optic port preferences were 10 mm ( n = 29), 5 mm ( n = 24) and 12 mm ( n = 3). Working port placement preference was sectorization n = 32, triangulation n = 16 and n = 10 decided based on intraoperative findings. Mesoappendix was dissected by monopolar hook n = 26, bipolar forceps n = 20, harmonic devices n = 8, and bipolar scissors n = 4. Appendix ligation was done with 3 vicryl endoloops ( n = 36), 2 vicryl endoloops ( n = 13), 3 polydioxanone (PDS) endoloops ( n = 7) and endostaplers ( n = 2). Appendix was removed through optic 10–12 mm port ( n = 27), exchanging 5 mm for 10–12 mm port ( n = 9), endobag ( n = 8), sterile glove digit endobag ( n = 7), through 5 mm ports ( n = 5) and along 5 mm port ( n = 2). In complicated appendicitis, n = 48/58 would proceed with laparoscopy on prior confirmed perforation and n = 53/58 would continue with laparoscopy when intraoperative findings showed complicated appendicitis. In the presence of pus, n = 52/58 would perform peritoneal lavage and n = 4/58 would only suction pus. Complicated appendices were removed via endobag n = 30, through 10–12 mm port n = 10, sterile glove digit n = 10, exchange 5 mm for 10–12 mm port n = 7 and along with work port n = 1. Conclusion Opinions were divided with regards to approach in performing various steps of pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy in institutions throughout Europe.