-
JAMA Surgery Sep 2022Appendectomy remains the standard of care for uncomplicated acute appendicitis despite several randomized clinical trials pointing to the safety and efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Appendectomy remains the standard of care for uncomplicated acute appendicitis despite several randomized clinical trials pointing to the safety and efficacy of nonoperative management of this disease. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials may contribute to the body of evidence and help surgeons select which patients may benefit from surgical and nonsurgical treatment.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy and safety of nonoperative management vs appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review was conducted using indexed sources (Embase and PubMed) to search for published randomized clinical trials in English comparing nonoperative management with appendectomy in adult patients presenting with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. To increase sensitivity, no limits were set for outcomes reported, sex, or year of publication. All nonrandomized or quasi-randomized trials were excluded, and validated primers were used.
STUDY SELECTION
Among 1504 studies imported for screening, 805 were duplicates, and 595 were excluded for irrelevancy. A further 96 were excluded after full-text review, mainly owing to wrong study design or inclusion of pediatric populations. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the meta-analysis.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Meta-extraction was conducted with independent extraction by multiple reviewers using the Covidence platform for systematic reviews and in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Data were pooled by a random-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Treatment success and major adverse effects at 30 days' follow-up.
RESULTS
The main outcome (treatment success proportion at 30 days of follow-up) was not significantly different in the operative and nonoperative management cohorts (risk ratio [RR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.66-1.11). Likewise, the percentage of major adverse effects was similar in both cohorts (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.79). However, in the nonoperative management group, length of stay was significantly longer (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.26-1.70), and a median cumulative incidence of 18% of recurrent appendicitis was observed.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These results point to the general safety and efficacy of nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. However, this strategy may be associated with an increase in duration of hospital stay and a higher rate of recurrent appendicitis. This meta-analysis may help inform decision-making in nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Child; Humans; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35895073
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.2937 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Oct 2021Over the last years, laparoscopic appendectomy has progressively replaced open appendectomy and become the current gold standard treatment for suspected, uncomplicated...
BACKGROUND
Over the last years, laparoscopic appendectomy has progressively replaced open appendectomy and become the current gold standard treatment for suspected, uncomplicated appendicitis. At the same time, though, it is an ongoing discussion that antibiotic therapy can be an equivalent treatment for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety and efficacy of antibiotic therapy and compare it to the laparoscopic appendectomy for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis.
METHODS
The PubMed database, Embase database, and Cochrane library were scanned for studies comparing laparoscopic appendectomy with antibiotic treatment. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction. The primary endpoint was defined as successful treatment of appendicitis. Secondary endpoints were pain intensity, duration of hospitalization, absence from work, and incidence of complications.
RESULTS
No studies were found that exclusively compared laparoscopic appendectomy with antibiotic treatment for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis.
CONCLUSIONS
To date, there are no studies comparing antibiotic treatment to laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, thus emphasizing the lack of evidence and need for further investigation.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33852068
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-021-03927-5 -
Surgery Dec 2023Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy has been proposed as an alternative strategy for treating appendicitis, but debate exists on its role compared with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy versus appendectomy or antibiotics in the modern approach to uncomplicated acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy has been proposed as an alternative strategy for treating appendicitis, but debate exists on its role compared with conventional treatment.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. The last search was in April of 2023. The risk ratio with a 95% confidence interval was calculated for dichotomous variables, and the mean difference with a 95% confidence interval for continuous variables. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (randomized controlled trials) and the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Intervention tool (non-randomized controlled trials).
RESULTS
Six studies met the eligibility criteria. Four studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 236 patients) and appendectomy (n = 339) and found no differences in technical success during index admission (risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [0.92,1.02]). Appendectomy showed superior outcomes for recurrence at 1-year follow-up (risk ratio 11.28, 95% confidence interval [2.61,48.73]). Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy required shorter procedural time (mean difference -14.38, 95% confidence interval [-20.17, -8.59]) and length of hospital stay (mean difference -1.19, 95% confidence interval [-2.37, -0.01]), with lower post-intervention abdominal pain (risk ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval [0.14,0.32]). Two studies compared endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (n = 269) and antibiotic treatment (n = 280). Technical success during admission (risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval [0.91,1.35]) and appendicitis recurrence (risk ratio 1.07, 95% confidence interval [0.08,14.87]) did not differ, but endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy decreased the length of hospitalization (mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval [-3.18, -0.64]).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis did not identify significant differences between endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy and appendectomy or antibiotics regarding technical success during index admission and treatment efficacy at 1-year follow-up. However, a high risk of imprecision limits these results. The advantages of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy in terms of reduced procedural times and shorter lengths of stay must be balanced against the increased risk of having an appendicitis recurrence at one year.
Topics: Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Hospitalization; Length of Stay; Abdominal Pain; Acute Disease
PubMed: 37806859
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.08.029 -
Surgical Endoscopy Nov 2016Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the...
Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis.
Topics: Acute Disease; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Europe; Humans; Laparoscopy; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Societies, Medical; Time Factors; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 27660247
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5245-7 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2014Appendicitis is an inflammation of the appendix that may lead to an abscess, ileus, peritonitis, or death if untreated. Appendicitis is the most common abdominal... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Appendicitis is an inflammation of the appendix that may lead to an abscess, ileus, peritonitis, or death if untreated. Appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency. The current standard treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis is usually surgery, but there has been increasing evidence published on the use of antibiotics.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of surgery compared with antibiotics for acute appendicitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found four studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of surgery (including laparoscopic and open appendicectomy) compared with antibiotics.
Topics: Acute Disease; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Appendix; Humans; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 25486014
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2018The removal of the acute appendix is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Open surgery associated with therapeutic efficacy has been the treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The removal of the acute appendix is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Open surgery associated with therapeutic efficacy has been the treatment of choice for acute appendicitis. However, in consequence of the evolution of endoscopic surgery, the operation can also be performed with minimally invasive surgery. Due to smaller incisions, the laparoscopic approach may be associated with reduced postoperative pain, reduced wound infection rate, and shorter time until return to normal activity.This is an update of the review published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) with regard to benefits and harms.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE and Embase (9 February 2018). We identified proposed and ongoing studies from World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials Register (9 February 2018). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA versus OA in adults or children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (or standardised mean differences (SMD) if researchers used different scales such as quality of life) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 85 studies involving 9765 participants. Seventy-five trials included 8520 adults and 10 trials included 1245 children. Most studies had risk of bias issues, with attrition bias being the largest source across studies due to incomplete outcome data.In adults, pain intensity on day one was reduced by 0.75 cm on a 10 cm VAS after LA (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.45; 20 RCTs; 2421 participants; low-quality evidence). Wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.51; 63 RCTs; 7612 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses was increased following LA (Peto OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.43; 53 RCTs; 6677 participants; moderate-quality evidence).The length of hospital stay was shortened by one day after LA (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.70; 46 RCTs; 5127 participant; low-quality evidence). The time until return to normal activity occurred five days earlier after LA than after OA (MD -4.97, 95% CI -6.77 to -3.16; 17 RCTs; 1653 participants; low-quality evidence). Two studies showed better quality of life scores following LA, but used different scales, and therefore no pooled estimates were presented. One used the SF-36 questionnaire two weeks after surgery and the other used the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index six weeks and six months after surgery (both low-quality evidence).In children, we found no differences in pain intensity on day one (MD -0.80, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.05; 1 RCT; 61 participants; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal abscesses after LA (Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.22; 9 RCTs; 1185 participants; low-quality evidence) or time until return to normal activity (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.30; 1 RCT; 383 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.42; 10 RCTs; 1245 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and the length of hospital stay was shortened by 0.8 days after LA (MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.62; 6 RCTs; 316 participants; low-quality evidence). Quality of life was not reported in any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Except for a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscesses after LA in adults, LA showed advantages over OA in pain intensity on day one, wound infections, length of hospital stay and time until return to normal activity in adults. In contrast, LA showed advantages over OA in wound infections and length of hospital stay in children. Two studies reported better quality of life scores in adults. No study reported this outcome in children. However, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate and some of the clinical effects of LA were small and of limited clinical relevance. Future studies with low risk of bias should investigate, in particular, the quality of life in children.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Acute Disease; Adult; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Child; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Surgical Wound Infection; Time Factors
PubMed: 30484855
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001546.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2019Diagnosing acute appendicitis (appendicitis) based on clinical evaluation, blood testing, and urinalysis can be difficult. Therefore, in persons with suspected... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diagnosing acute appendicitis (appendicitis) based on clinical evaluation, blood testing, and urinalysis can be difficult. Therefore, in persons with suspected appendicitis, abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) is often used as an add-on test following the initial evaluation to reduce remaining diagnostic uncertainty. The aim of using CT is to assist the clinician in discriminating between persons who need surgery with appendicectomy and persons who do not.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective Our primary objective was to evaluate the accuracy of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults with suspected appendicitis. Secondary objectives Our secondary objectives were to compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced versus non-contrast-enhanced CT, to compare the accuracy of low-dose versus standard-dose CT, and to explore the influence of CT-scanner generation, radiologist experience, degree of clinical suspicion of appendicitis, and aspects of methodological quality on diagnostic accuracy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 16 June 2017. We also searched references lists. We did not exclude studies on the basis of language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective studies that compared results of CT versus outcomes of a reference standard in adults (> 14 years of age) with suspected appendicitis. We excluded studies recruiting only pregnant women; studies in persons with abdominal pain at any location and with no particular suspicion of appendicitis; studies in which all participants had undergone ultrasonography (US) before CT and the decision to perform CT depended on the US outcome; studies using a case-control design; studies with fewer than 10 participants; and studies that did not report the numbers of true-positives, false-positives, false-negatives, and true-negatives. Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently collected the data from each study and evaluated methodological quality according to the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2) tool. We used the bivariate random-effects model to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 64 studies including 71 separate study populations with a total of 10,280 participants (4583 with and 5697 without acute appendicitis). Estimates of sensitivity ranged from 0.72 to 1.0 and estimates of specificity ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 across the 71 study populations. Summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 0.96), and summary specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.95). At the median prevalence of appendicitis (0.43), the probability of having appendicitis following a positive CT result was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.94), and the probability of having appendicitis following a negative CT result was 0.04 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05). In subgroup analyses according to contrast enhancement, summary sensitivity was higher for CT with intravenous contrast (0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), CT with rectal contrast (0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99), and CT with intravenous and oral contrast enhancement (0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98) than for unenhanced CT (0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.93). Summary sensitivity of CT with oral contrast enhancement (0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94) and unenhanced CT was similar. Results show practically no differences in summary specificity, which varied from 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.95) to 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98) between subgroups. Summary sensitivity for low-dose CT (0.94, 95% 0.90 to 0.97) was similar to summary sensitivity for standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT (0.95, 95% 0.93 to 0.96); summary specificity did not differ between low-dose and standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT. No studies had high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool. Major methodological problems were poor reference standards and partial verification primarily due to inadequate and incomplete follow-up in persons who did not have surgery.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The sensitivity and specificity of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults are high. Unenhanced standard-dose CT appears to have lower sensitivity than standard-dose CT with intravenous, rectal, or oral and intravenous contrast enhancement. Use of different types of contrast enhancement or no enhancement does not appear to affect specificity. Differences in sensitivity and specificity between low-dose and standard-dose CT appear to be negligible. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution for two reasons. First, these results are based on studies of low methodological quality. Second, the comparisons between types of contrast enhancement and radiation dose may be unreliable because they are based on indirect comparisons that may be confounded by other factors.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Appendicitis; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 31743429
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009977.pub2 -
Pediatric Surgery International Apr 2023Ladd's Procedure has been the surgical intervention of choice in the management of congenital intestinal malrotation for the past century. Historically, the procedure... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ladd's Procedure has been the surgical intervention of choice in the management of congenital intestinal malrotation for the past century. Historically, the procedure included performing an appendectomy to prevent future misdiagnosis of appendicitis, since the location of the appendix will be shifted to the left side of the abdomen. This study consists of two parts. A review of the available literature on appendectomy as part of Ladd's procedure and then a survey sent to pediatric surgeons about their approach (to remove the appendix or not) while performing a Ladd's procedure and the clinical reasoning behind their approach.
METHODS
The study consists of 2 parts: (1) a systematic review was performed to extract articles that fulfill the inclusion criteria; (2) a short online survey was designed and sent by email to 168 pediatric surgeons. The questions in the survey were centered on whether a surgeon performs an appendectomy as part of the Ladd's procedure or not, as well as their reasoning behind either choice.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded five articles, the data from the available literature are inconsistent with performing appendectomy as part of Ladd's procedure. The challenge of leaving the appendix in place has been briefly described with minimal to no focus on the clinical reasoning. The survey demonstrated that 102 responses were received (60% response rate). Ninety pediatric surgeons stated performing an appendectomy as part of the procedure (88%). Only 12% of pediatric surgeons are not performing appendectomy during Ladd's procedure.
CONCLUSION
It is difficult to implement a modification in a successful procedure like Ladd's procedure. The majority of pediatric surgeons perform an appendectomy as part of its original description. This study has identified gaps in the literature pertaining to analyze the outcomes of performing Ladd's procedure without an appendectomy which should be explored in future research.
Topics: Child; Humans; Appendectomy; Laparoscopy; Intestinal Volvulus; Digestive System Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37010655
DOI: 10.1007/s00383-023-05437-7 -
Cureus Jan 2024Appendectomy remains the gold standard for treating appendicitis, but advancements in laparoscopic techniques have shifted the paradigm. Natural orifice transluminal... (Review)
Review
Appendectomy remains the gold standard for treating appendicitis, but advancements in laparoscopic techniques have shifted the paradigm. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) and transvaginal appendectomy (TVA) offer a potentially less invasive alternative to traditional laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). This article systematically reviews the procedures, perceptions, and complications of TVA to assess its viability as a surgical option. Between January 1, 2003, and November 1, 2023, 4832 case reports, case series, and experimental and observational peer-reviewed publications were examined and filtered using the keyword "Transvaginal Laparoscopic Appendectomy." The publications were screened using PRISMA guidelines, and 20 studies were included for analysis and review. Survey results showed that women's acceptance of TVA was 43%, citing reduced invasiveness as a major reason for positive reception. TVA procedures exhibited consistency, with variations in appendectomy methods, appendix removal, and posterior fornix incision closure. Positive outcomes included shorter operation times, reduced postoperative pain, and minimal scarring. Complications were uncommon but included bladder puncture, urinary tract infections, and intra-abdominal abscesses. Indications primarily focused on surgical safety, reduced scarring, and postoperative benefits. Sexual function post-TVA exhibited no significant differences in most cases, with a recovery period of two to four weeks. This systematic review suggests that TVA is a promising alternative to traditional LA, offering potential advantages in terms of postoperative complications. While the existing literature indicates positive outcomes, further research with larger sample sizes and long-term follow-ups is needed to validate the efficacy and safety of TVA and assess how the procedure impacts the reproductive function of patients.
PubMed: 38333466
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51962 -
Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal Nov 2023Acute appendicitis is one of the most common abdominal emergencies. There has been an increasing use of robotic abdominal surgery. However, it remains underutilised in... (Review)
Review
Acute appendicitis is one of the most common abdominal emergencies. There has been an increasing use of robotic abdominal surgery. However, it remains underutilised in emergency settings. This study aimed to systematically review robotic appendicectomy (RA) feasibility. A 20-year systematic review was performed, along with quality assessment. The research protocol was registered with PROSPERO. The search yielded 1,242 citations, including 9 articles. The mean quality score was 10.72 ± 2.56. The endpoints across the studies were rate of conversion to open surgery, length of hospital stay, blood loss and operative time. RA is a safe, feasible technique that can be performed in elective and emergency settings with minimal blood loss. The operative time and hospital stay were within acceptable limits. Robotic surgery's major drawback is its high cost and limited availability. Future studies evaluating RA with a focus on its application during emergencies and its cost-effectiveness are recommended.
Topics: Humans; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Emergencies; Feasibility Studies; Appendectomy; Appendicitis
PubMed: 38090254
DOI: 10.18295/squmj.7.2023.043