-
Scandinavian Journal of Surgery : SJS :... Sep 2023Non-obstetric surgery is fairly common in pregnant women. We performed a systematic review to update data on non-obstetric surgery in pregnant women. The aim of this... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Non-obstetric surgery is fairly common in pregnant women. We performed a systematic review to update data on non-obstetric surgery in pregnant women. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effects of non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy on pregnancy, fetal and maternal outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of MEDLINE and Scopus was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search span was from January 2000 to November 2022. Thirty-six studies matched the inclusion criteria, and 24 publications were identified through reference mining; 60 studies were included in this review. Outcome measures were miscarriage, stillbirth, preterm birth, low birth weight, low Apgar score, and infant and maternal morbidity and mortality rates.
RESULTS
We obtained data for 80,205 women who underwent non-obstetric surgery and data for 16,655,486 women who did not undergo surgery during pregnancy. Prevalence of non-obstetric surgery was between 0.23% and 0.74% (median 0.37%). Appendectomy was the most common procedure with median prevalence of 0.10%. Near half (43%) of the procedures were performed during the second trimester, 32% during the first trimester, and 25% during the third trimester. Half of surgeries were scheduled, and half were emergent. Laparoscopic and open techniques were used equally for abdominal cavity. Women who underwent non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy had increased rate of stillbirth (odds ratio (OR) 2.0) and preterm birth (OR 2.1) compared to women without surgery. Surgery during pregnancy did not increase rate of miscarriage (OR 1.1), low 5 min Apgar scores (OR 1.1), the fetus being small for gestational age (OR 1.1) or congenital anomalies (OR 1.0).
CONCLUSIONS
The prevalence of non-obstetric surgery has decreased during last decades, but still two out of 1000 pregnant women have scheduled surgery during pregnancy. Surgery during pregnancy increases the risk of stillbirth, and preterm birth. For abdominal cavity surgery, both laparoscopic and open approaches are feasible.
Topics: Infant; Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Stillbirth; Abortion, Spontaneous; Fetus
PubMed: 37329286
DOI: 10.1177/14574969231175569 -
BMC Surgery Jul 2023This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis.
METHODS
We searched the randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing appendectomy with antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in the electronic database including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang. The primary outcomes included complication-free treatment success at 1 year, complications, surgical complications, and the complicated appendicitis rates. Secondary outcomes included negative appendicitis, length of hospital stay, the quality of life at 1 month, and the impact of an appendicolith on antibiotic therapy.
RESULTS
Twelve randomized controlled studies were included. Compared with surgery group, the antibiotic group decreased the complication-free treatment success at 1 year (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; z = 3.65; p = 0.000). Statistically significance was existed between antibiotic group and surgical group with both surgical types(open and laparoscopic) (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.31-0.58; z = 5.36; p = 0.000), while no between the antibiotic treatment and laparoscopic surgery (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.41-1.24; z = 1.19; p = 0.236). There was no statistically significant differences between two groups of surgical complications (RR 1.38; 95% CI 0.70-2.73; z = 0.93; p = 0.353), the complicated appendicitis rate (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.36-1.42; z = 0.96; p = 0.338), negative appendectomy rate (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.69-1.79; z = 0.43; p = 0.670), duration of hospital stay (SMD 0.08; 95%CI -0.11-0.27; z = 0.80; p = 0.422), and quality of life at 1 month (SMD 0.09; 95%CI -0.03-0.20; z = 1.53; p = 0.127). However, in the antibiotic treatment group, appendicolith rates were statistically higher in those whose symptoms did not improve (RR 2.94; 95% CI 1.28-6.74; z = 2.55; p = 0.011).
CONCLUSIONS
Although the cure rate of antibiotics is lower than surgery, antibiotic treatment is still a reasonable option for patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis who do not want surgery without having to worry about complications or complicating the original illness.
Topics: Humans; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Treatment Outcome; Acute Disease; Length of Stay
PubMed: 37488583
DOI: 10.1186/s12893-023-02108-1 -
Cureus Nov 2023Opioid-related fatalities are a leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Appendicitis is a common cause of abdominal pain in children and adolescents. The... (Review)
Review
Opioid-related fatalities are a leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Appendicitis is a common cause of abdominal pain in children and adolescents. The management of pain throughout the laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in the pediatric population is a critical concern. This study aimed to evaluate trends in analgesic use and patient satisfaction following LA, with a focus on reducing the reliance on opioids for pain management. From 2003 to 2023, 18258 articles were filtered for all types of analgesic use with LA. The publications were screened using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and 19 studies were included for analysis and review. The study included peer-reviewed experimental and observational studies involving individuals under 18 years. Pain management strategies varied across studies, involving a combination of analgesics, nerve blocks, and wound infiltrations. Analgesics such as acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids were administered before and after surgery. Some studies implemented patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pumps. Other studies explored non-pharmacological interventions like magnetic acupuncture. The results showed a reduction in the need for postoperative analgesics in patients treated with LA, particularly when using non-opioid medications and novel analgesic techniques. Pediatric patients who received gabapentin reported lower opioid use, shorter hospital stays, and high satisfaction rates. However, the reliance on opioids remained significant in some cases, particularly among patients with peritonitis who required more morphine. Pain management in pediatric patients is multifaceted, involving preoperative and postoperative analgesics, nerve blocks, and PCA pumps. Efforts to improve pain management following pediatric LA while reducing opioid reliance are essential in the context of the ongoing opioid epidemic. The findings from this study highlight the potential benefits of non-opioid analgesics, nerve blocks, and alternative methods for managing postoperative pain in <18 appendectomy patients. Further research and standardization of pain management protocols are needed to ensure optimal patient outcomes and minimize the risk of opioid-related complications.
PubMed: 38156159
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49581 -
International Journal of Surgery... Apr 2017laparoscopic appendectomy(LA) has proved to be a safe alternative to open appendectomy(OA) in uncomplicated appendicitis; however, the feasibility of LA for complicated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
laparoscopic appendectomy(LA) has proved to be a safe alternative to open appendectomy(OA) in uncomplicated appendicitis; however, the feasibility of LA for complicated appendicitis(CA) has not been conclusively determined.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the feasibility and safety of LA for CA through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A literature search in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and web of Science was performed for eligible studies published from the inception of the databases to January 2016. All studies comparing LA and OA for CA were reviewed. After literature selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently, and meta-analysis was conducted using Revman software, vision 5.2.
RESULTS
Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 retrospective cohort studies(RCSs) were finally identified. Our meta-analysis showed that LA for CA could reduce the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) (OR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.25 to0.31, P < 0.00001), but LA did not increase the rate of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess(IAA) (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.34, P = 0.40). The results showed that the operating time in the LA groups was much longer than that in the OA groups (WMD = 13.78, 95% CI: 8.99 to 18.57, P < 0.00001). However, the length of hospital stays in the LA groups were significantly shorter than those in the OA groups (WMD = -2.47, 95%CI: -3.75 to -1.19, P < 0.0002), and the time until oral intake(TTOI) was much earlier in the LA groups than in the OA groups (WMD = -0.88, 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.55, P < 0.00001). No significant difference was observed in the times of postoperative analgesia between the two groups(P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
LA was feasible and safe for complicated appendicitis, and it not only could shorten the hospital stays and the time until oral intake, but it could also reduce the risk of surgical site infection.
Topics: Adult; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Databases, Factual; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28302449
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.03.022 -
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Sep 2022Blood typing, or group and save (G&S) testing, is commonly performed prior to cholecystectomy and appendectomy in many hospitals. In order to determine whether G&S...
PURPOSE
Blood typing, or group and save (G&S) testing, is commonly performed prior to cholecystectomy and appendectomy in many hospitals. In order to determine whether G&S testing is required prior to these procedures, we set out to evaluate the relevant literature and associated rates of perioperative blood transfusion.
METHODS
Studies from January 1990 to June 2021 assessing the requirement of preoperative G&S testing for elective or emergency cholecystectomy and appendectomy were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases. The search was performed on 6th July 2021 (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021267967). Number of patients, co-morbidities, operation performed, number of patients that underwent preoperative G&S testing, perioperative transfusion rates and financial costs were extracted.
RESULTS
We initially screened 194 studies of which 15 retrospective studies, a total of 477,437 patients, specifically met the inclusion criteria. Ten studies reported on cholecystectomy, two studies on appendectomy and three studies included both procedures. Where reported, a total of 177,539/469,342 (37.8%) patients underwent preoperative G&S testing with a perioperative transfusion rate of 2.1% (range 0.0 to 2.1%). The main preoperative risk factors associated with perioperative blood transfusion identified include cardiovascular co-morbidity, coagulopathy, anaemia and haematological malignancy. All 15 studies concluded that routine G&S is not warranted.
CONCLUSION
The current evidence suggests that G&S is not necessarily required for all patients undergoing cholecystectomy or appendectomy. Having a targeted G&S approach would reduce delays in elective and emergency lists, reduce the burden on the blood transfusion service and have financial implications.
Topics: Appendectomy; Blood Grouping and Crossmatching; Blood Transfusion; Cholecystectomy; Humans; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35779099
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-022-02600-x -
Clinics and Research in Hepatology and... Dec 2023To assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis treatment (ERAT) for acute appendicitis (AA) by conducting a meta-analysis of clinical randomized... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis treatment (ERAT) for acute appendicitis (AA) by conducting a meta-analysis of clinical randomized trials (RCTs).
METHODS
Eight electronic databases were searched. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RevMan5.3 and STATA14 software were used to for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
Twenty-six RCTs with 2236 subjects were analyzed. First, operative time, length of hospital stay and duration of bed rest were shorter in the ERAT groups than in the control groups, with the pooled MD and 95 % CI being -13.22(-20.09, -6.35)(p = 0.0002), -2.13 (-2.47, -1.80)(p < 0.00001) and -3.15 (-3.76, -2.53)(p < 0.00001), respectively. Second, patients in the ERAT groups had a lower incidence of complications than the control groups, with a pooled RR and 95 % CI of 0.25(0.18, 0.35)(p < 0.00001). Third, patients who received ERAT returned to normal temperature faster than the control groups, the pooled MD and 95 % CI was -3.39(-4.36, -2.42)(p<0.00001). Finally, the result showed that the recurrence rate in the ERAT groups was approximately twice that of control groups, with the pooled RR and 95 % CI being 2.10(1.02, 4.32)(p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
ERAT results in fewer complications and shorter recovery time. And compared to appendectomy, ERAT reduces operative time and intraoperative bleeding. However, the recurrence of acute appendicitis after ERAT remains a concern. And more multicenter and large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm the benefits of ERAT.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
We have registered on the PROSPERO [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/], and the registration number is CRD42023420171.
Topics: Humans; Appendicitis; Treatment Outcome; Endoscopy; Appendectomy; Acute Disease; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37925019
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinre.2023.102241 -
Cureus Oct 2021More than a century after its introduction, appendectomy has remained the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis. In adults with acute uncomplicated... (Review)
Review
More than a century after its introduction, appendectomy has remained the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis. In adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, nonoperative management (NOM) has been shown to be a viable treatment option. To date, there has been relatively limited data on the nonoperative management of acute appendicitis in the pediatric population. The primary objective of this study was to systematically review the available literature in the pediatric population and compare the efficacy and recurrence between initial nonoperative treatment strategy and appendectomy in children with uncomplicated appendicitis. In July 2021, we conducted systematic searches of the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. We only included full-text comparative original studies published within the last decade, and we excluded articles that solely examined NOM without comparing it to appendectomy. Two writers worked independently on the data collection and analysis. It was found that NOM had a high initial success rate and a low rate of recurrent appendicitis. After months of follow-up, the vast majority of patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis who received initial nonoperative treatment did not require surgical intervention. Furthermore, the rate of complication was comparable in both treatment groups, and NOM did not appear to be associated with an increased risk of complications. The most significant drawback stemmed from the fact that the included articles in this study had a wide range of study designs and inclusion criteria. According to current evidence, NOM is feasible and cost-effective. Antibiotic therapy can be given safely in a small subset of individuals with uncomplicated appendicitis. To optimize outcomes, physicians should evaluate the clinical presentation and the patient's desire when selecting those to be managed nonoperatively. Again, more research, preferably large randomized trials, is required to compare the long-term clinical efficacy of NOM with appendicectomy. Finally, additional research is required to establish the characteristics of patients who are the best candidates for nonoperative treatment.
PubMed: 34692267
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.18901 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2022Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common postoperative complications after appendectomy leading to recurrent surgery, prolonged hospital stay, and the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common postoperative complications after appendectomy leading to recurrent surgery, prolonged hospital stay, and the use of antibiotics. Numerous studies and meta-analyses have been published on the effect of open versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) reporting faster postoperative recovery and less postoperative pain for CLA. A development from CLA has been the single-port appendectomy (SPA), associated with a better cosmesis but seemingly having a higher risk of wound infections. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to investigate whether reduced port or SPA alters the ratio of SSIs.
METHODS
Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were screened for suitable articles. All articles published between January 1, 2002, and March 23, 2022, were included. Articles regarding children below the age of 18 were excluded as well as manuscripts that investigated solemnly open appendectomies. Articles were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent authors. Incidence of SSI was the primary outcome. Duration of operation and length of hospital stay were defined as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 25 studies were found through a database search describing 5484 patients. A total of 2749 patients received SPA and 2735 received CLA. There was no statistical difference in the rate of SSI ( = 0.98). A total of 22 studies including 4699 patients reported the duration of operation (2223 SPA and 2476 CLA). There was a significantly shorter operation time seen in CLA. The length of hospital stay was reported in 23 studies (4735 patients: 2235 SPA and 2500 CLA). A shorter hospital stay was seen in the SPA group ( < 0.00001). Separately performed analysis of randomized controlled trials could not confirm this effect ( = 0.29).
DISCUSSION
SPA is an equally safe procedure considering SSI compared to CLA and does not lead to an increased risk of SSI. A longer operation time for SPA and a minor difference in the length of stay does lead to the use of SPA in selected patients only.
PubMed: 35756463
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.919744 -
Acta Cirurgica Brasileira Dec 2014To determine the best treatment option for not complicated acute appendicitis (AA) in adult patients, between single incision laparoscopy (SIL) and conventional... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To determine the best treatment option for not complicated acute appendicitis (AA) in adult patients, between single incision laparoscopy (SIL) and conventional laparoscopy (CL), measured by morbidity associated with disease.
METHODS
Systematic review. Articles of adults diagnosed with AA treated by SIL or CL were analyzed. Databases included: MEDLINE, LILACS, IBECS, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane, using MeSH terms and free words. The studies were analyzed using the MINCIR methodology. Variables included: conversion rate, morbidity, hospital stay, surgery duration, and methodological quality (MQ) of primary studies. Averages, medians and weighted averages were calculated.
RESULTS
Thirteen articles were analyzed. For SIL and CL the conversion rate were 3.4% and 0.7 %, the morbidity were 8% and 6.5%, the hospital stay were 2.5 and 2.8 days, the surgery duration were 53.4 and 53.8 minutes, and the MQ were 14.3±6.6 and 16.0±6.9 points, respectively.
CONCLUSION
With the exception of the conversion rate, there are no differences between single incision laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy for the treatment of acute appendicitis in adults.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Conversion to Open Surgery; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Morbidity; Operative Time; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25517497
DOI: 10.1590/S0102-86502014001900010 -
Surgical Endoscopy Mar 2017Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency and can represent a challenging diagnosis, with a negative appendectomy rate as high as 20 %. This review aimed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency and can represent a challenging diagnosis, with a negative appendectomy rate as high as 20 %. This review aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of individual biomarkers in the diagnosis of appendicitis and appraise the quality of these studies.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature between January 2000 and September 2015 using of PubMed, OvidMedline, EMBASE and Google Scholar was conducted. Studies in which the diagnostic accuracy, statistical heterogeneity and predictive ability for severity of several biomarkers could be elicited were included. Information regarding costs and process times was retrieved from the regional laboratory. European surgeons blinded to these reviews were independently asked to rank which characteristics of biomarkers were most important in acute appendicitis to inform a cost-benefit trade-off. Sensitivity testing and the QUADAS-2 tool were used to assess the robustness of the analysis and study quality, respectively.
RESULTS
Sixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed. Traditional biomarkers (such as white cell count) were found to have a moderate diagnostic accuracy (0.75) but lower costs in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Conversely, novel markers (pro-calcitonin, IL 6 and urinary 5-HIAA) were found to have high process-related costs including analytical times, but improved diagnostic accuracy. QUADAS-2 analysis revealed significant potential biases in the literature.
CONCLUSION
When assessing biomarkers, an appreciation of the trade-offs between the costs and benefits of individual biomarkers is needed. Further studies should seek to investigate new biomarkers and address concerns over bias, in order to improve the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
Topics: Acute Disease; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Bilirubin; Biomarkers; C-Reactive Protein; Calcitonin; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Emergencies; Humans; Hydroxyindoleacetic Acid; Interleukin-6; Leukocyte Count; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 27495334
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5109-1