-
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Sep 2017The use of ultrasonography (US) to diagnose appendicitis is well established. More recently, point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) has also been studied for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of ultrasonography (US) to diagnose appendicitis is well established. More recently, point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) has also been studied for the diagnosis of appendicitis, which may also prove a valuable diagnostic tool. The purpose of this study was through systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the test characteristics of POCUS, specifically US performed by a nonradiologist physician, in accurately diagnosing acute appendicitis in patients of any age.
METHODS
We conducted a thorough and systematic literature search of English language articles published on point-of-care, physician-performed transabdominal US used for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis from 1980 to May, 2015 using OVID MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-indexed Citations and Scopus. Studies were selected and subsequently independently abstracted by two trained reviewers. A random-effects pooled analysis was used to construct a hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curve, and a meta-regression was performed. Quality of studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 5,792 unique studies and we included 21 of these in our final review. Prevalence of disease in this study was 29.8%, (range = 6.4%-75.4%). The sensitivity and specificity for POCUS in diagnosing appendicitis were 91% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 83%-96%) and 97% (95% CI = 91%-99%), respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 91 and 94%, respectively. Studies performed by emergency physicians had slightly lower test characteristics (sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 92%). There was significant heterogeneity between studies (I = 99%, 95% CI = 99%-100%) and the quality of the reported studies was moderate, mostly due to unclear reporting of blinding of physicians and timing of scanning and patient enrollment. Several of the studies were performed by a single operator, and the education and training of the operators were variably reported.
CONCLUSION
Point-of-care US has relatively high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing acute appendicitis, although the data presented are limited by the quality of the original studies and large CIs. In the hands of an experienced operator, POCUS is an appropriate initial imaging modality for diagnosing appendicitis. Based on our results, it is premature to utilize POCUS as a stand-alone test or to rule out appendicitis.
Topics: Acute Disease; Appendicitis; Humans; Point-of-Care Systems; ROC Curve; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 28464459
DOI: 10.1111/acem.13212 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Oct 2022Background and Objectives: While laparoscopic appendectomy is standardized, techniques for appendiceal stump closure and mesoappendix division remain variable. Novel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background and Objectives: While laparoscopic appendectomy is standardized, techniques for appendiceal stump closure and mesoappendix division remain variable. Novel vessel sealing techniques are increasingly utilized ubiquitously. We sought to systematically summarize all relevant data and to define the current evidence on the safety and utility of energy devices for clipless−sutureless laparoscopic appendectomy in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: This review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Inclusion criteria included studies with laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis. The intervention included patients undergoing division of mesoappendix and/or securing of the appendicular base using diathermy (Monopolar or Bipolar or LigaSure Sealing Device) or Harmonic Scalpel (Group A) compared to patients undergoing division of mesoappendix and/or securing of the appendicular base using endoclip or Hem-o-lok or ligature (Group B). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Downs and Black scale. The outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI) or intra-abdominal collection, postoperative ileus, average operative duration, and length of hospital stay (LHS) were compared. Results: Six comparative studies were included; three were retrospective, two were prospective, and one was ambispective. Meta-analysis revealed a shorter operative duration in Group A with respect to appendicular base ligation (MD −12.34, 95% CI −16.57 to −8.11, p < 0.00001) and mesoappendix division (MD −8.06, 95% CI −14.03 to −2.09, p = 0.008). The pooled risk ratios showed no difference in SSI between groups. Additionally, no difference was observed in LHS. The risk of postoperative ileus was higher in group B regarding mesoappendix division (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93, p = 0.02), but no difference was found concerning appendicular base ligation. The included studies showed a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Conclusions: Clipless−sutureless laparoscopic appendectomy is safe and fast. Postoperative ileus seems less common with energy devices for mesoappendix division. However, the studies included have a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Further studies addressing the individual devices with surgeons of similar levels are needed.
Topics: Humans; Appendectomy; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Laparoscopy; Appendicitis; Length of Stay; Ileus; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36363491
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58111535 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Jul 2023The aim of this study was to analyze the diagnostic performance of Leucine-Rich Alpha-2-Glycoprotein (LRG1) in pediatric acute appendicitis (PAA). We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this study was to analyze the diagnostic performance of Leucine-Rich Alpha-2-Glycoprotein (LRG1) in pediatric acute appendicitis (PAA). We conducted a systematic review of the literature in the main databases of medical bibliography. Two independent reviewers selected the articles and extracted relevant data. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS2 index. A synthesis of the results, standardization of the metrics and 4 random-effect meta-analyses were performed. Eight studies with data from 712 participants (305 patients with confirmed diagnosis of PAA and 407 controls) were included in this review. The random-effect meta-analysis of serum LRG1 (PAA vs control) resulted in a significant mean difference (95% CI) of 46.76 μg/mL (29.26-64.26). The random-effect meta-analysis for unadjusted urinary LRG1 (PAA vs control) resulted in a significant mean difference (95% CI) of 0.61 μg/mL (0.30-0.93). The random-effect meta-analysis (PAA vs control) for urinary LRG1 adjusted for urinary creatinine resulted in a significant mean difference (95% CI) of 0.89 g/mol (0.11-1.66). Conlusion: Urinary LRG1 emerges as a potential non-invasive biomarker for the diagnosis of PAA. On the other hand, due to the high between-study heterogeneity, the results on serum LRG1 should be interpreted with caution. The only study that analyzed salivary LRG1 showed promising results. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. What is Known: • Pediatric acute appendicitis continues to be a pathology with a high rate of diagnostic error. • Invasive tests, although useful, are a source of stress for patients and their parents. What is New: • LRG1 emerges as a promising urinary and salivary biomarker for the noninvasive diagnosis of pediatric acute appendicitis.
Topics: Child; Humans; Acute Disease; Appendicitis; Biomarkers; Glycoproteins
PubMed: 37148275
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-023-04978-2 -
Danish Medical Journal Aug 2014The treatment strategy for appendiceal mass is controversial, ranging from operation or image-guided drainage to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics. The... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The treatment strategy for appendiceal mass is controversial, ranging from operation or image-guided drainage to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics. The aim of this study was to assess the various treatment modalities with respect to complications and treatment failure.
METHODS
The analysis was based on the principles of a qualitative systematic review. The literature was searched in PubMed for the period from 1966 to March 2014. The articles were reviewed with respect to complications, treatment failure and hospital stay. Papers on post-operative intra-abdominal abscesses and abscesses of any cause other than appendicitis were excluded as were also studies only describing recurrent appendicitis and/or interval appendectomy. Sub-analyses were performed in children, adults, and in mixed populations.
RESULTS
A total of 48 studies were found eligible; they included in total 3,772 patients. Operation for appendiceal mass was beset with a moderate to high risk of complications of up to 57% and a risk of intestinal resection of up to 25%. Major complications were observed in up to 18% of cases. Conservative treatment with or without antibiotics was associated with a treatment failure rate of 8-15%. Drainage was beset with a risk of complications of 2-15% and a risk of treatment failure of 2-13%.
CONCLUSION
Operation with appendectomy for appendiceal mass carries a high risk of complications compared with conservative treatment or drainage. Drainage may lower the risk of treatment failure but entails a risk of complications. Based on the best evidence, we propose a step-down treatment strategy.
FUNDING
Not relevant.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Not relevant.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Drainage; Humans; Treatment Failure; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 25162440
DOI: No ID Found -
Cureus Sep 2022Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies worldwide. The laparoscopic approach for managing acute appendicitis is gaining... (Review)
Review
Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies worldwide. The laparoscopic approach for managing acute appendicitis is gaining popularity over open appendicectomy in the current surgical practice. The advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy are early recovery, fewer wound complications, less pain and better cosmesis. One of the most critical steps in laparoscopic appendicectomy is a secure appendicular stump closure. Life-threatening postoperative complications are often encountered following the breakdown of appendicular stump closure. There are several methods to achieve appendicular stump closure such as intra-corporeal knotting, endoloops, external corporeal knotting and pushing knot inside, endoscopic linear cutting stapler (endo GIA), and endoclips. A meta-analysis on the technique of appendicular stump closure in laparoscopic appendicectomy failed to demonstrate the superiority of one method over the other. In the last few years, many authors have evaluated the outcome of sutureless appendicectomy performed using devices like a harmonic scalpel. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed to summarise the current evidence regarding the utility and safety of harmonic scalpel in sutureless appendicectomy. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted as per the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic, detailed search was carried out by the authors in the electronic database, including Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, Google scholar and clinical trial registry. Studies were selected and compared based on outcomes such as operative time, hospital stay, postoperative paralytic ileus, wound infection, and total complications. Statistical analysis was performed using the random effect model, fixed-effect model, pooled risk ratio, pooled mean difference and I heterogeneity. Four comparative studies with a total of 642 patients (376 male and 266 females) were included in the analysis. There were 359 patients in the conventional technique of appendicular stump closure group and 283 patients in the harmonic scalpel for appendicular stump closure group. Pooled analysis of the outcome measure of total complications showed that the use of harmonic scalpel for closure of appendiceal stump does not result in an increased incidence of complications as compared to the conventional technology of appendiceal stump closure. Pooled analysis of the outcome measure of mean operative time revealed a statistically significant reduction in the operative time in the patients where harmonic scalpel has been used for the management of appendiceal stump as compared to conventional methods (pooled mean difference of -12.96 with 95% CI -15.42, -10.50). Appendiceal stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy by harmonic scalpel (HS) is comparable with the conventional techniques in terms of hospital stay, wound infection, postoperative paralytic ileus, and total complications. The use of a harmonic scalpel for closure of appendicular stump is associated with a reduction of the mean operative time of laparoscopic appendicectomy.
PubMed: 36159348
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28759 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... 2014A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare surgical site infection (SSI) between delayed primary (DPC) and primary wound closure (PC) in complicated... (Review)
Review
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare surgical site infection (SSI) between delayed primary (DPC) and primary wound closure (PC) in complicated appendicitis and other contaminated abdominal wounds. Medline and Scopus were searched from their beginning to November 2013 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SSI and length of stay between DPC and PC. Studies' selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were done by two independent authors. The risk ratio and unstandardised mean difference were pooled for SSI and length of stay, respectively. Among 8 eligible studies, 5 studies were done in complicated appendicitis, 2 with mixed complicated appendicitis and other types of abdominal operation and 1 with ileostomy closure. Most studies (75%) had high risk of bias in sequence generation and allocation concealment. Among 6 RCTs of complicated appendicitis underwent open appendectomy, the SSI between PC and DPC were not significantly different with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.46, 1.73). DPC had a significantly 1.6 days (95% CI: 1.41, 1.79) longer length of stay than PC. Our evidence suggested there might be no advantage of DPC over PC in reducing SSI in complicated appendicitis. However, this was based on a small number of studies with low quality. A large scale RCT is further required.
PubMed: 25221617
DOI: 10.1186/1749-7922-9-49 -
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 -
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 -
World Journal of Surgery Aug 2023Reports of an increased proportion of complicated appendicitis during the Covid-19 pandemic suggest a worse outcome due to delay secondary to the restrained access to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Spontaneous Resolution of Uncomplicated Appendicitis may Explain Increase in Proportion of Complicated Appendicitis During Covid-19 Pandemic: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Reports of an increased proportion of complicated appendicitis during the Covid-19 pandemic suggest a worse outcome due to delay secondary to the restrained access to health care, but may be explained by a concomitant decrease in uncomplicated appendicitis. We analyze the impact of the pandemic on the incidences of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis.
METHOD
We did a systematic literature search in the PubMed, Embase and Web Of Science databases on December 21, 2022 with the search terms (appendicitis OR appendectomy) AND ("COVID" OR SARS-Cov2 OR "coronavirus"). Studies reporting the number of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis during identical calendar periods in 2020 and the pre-pandemic year(s) were included. Reports with indications suggesting a change in how the patients were diagnosed and managed between the two periods were excluded. No protocol was prepared in advance. We did random effects meta-analysis of the change in proportion of complicated appendicitis, expressed as the risk ratio (RR), and of the change in number of patients with complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis during the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic periods, expressed as the incidence ratio (IR). We did separate analyses for studies based on single- and multi-center and regional data, age-categories and prehospital delay.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis of 100,059 patients in 63 reports from 25 countries shows an increase in the proportion of complicated appendicitis during the pandemic period (RR 1.39, 95% confidence interval (95% CI 1.25, 1.53). This was mainly explained by a decreased incidence of uncomplicated appendicitis (incidence ratio (IR) 0.66, 95% CI 0.59, 0.73). No increase in complicated appendicitis was seen in multi-center and regional reports combined (IR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90, 1.07).
CONCLUSION
The increased proportion of complicated appendicitis during Covid-19 is explained by a decrease in the incidence of uncomplicated appendicitis, whereas the incidence of complicated appendicitis remained stable. This result is more evident in the multi-center and regional based reports. This suggests an increase in spontaneously resolving appendicitis due to the restrained access to health care. This has important principal implications for the management of patients with suspected appendicitis.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Pandemics; Appendicitis; RNA, Viral; SARS-CoV-2; Appendectomy; Retrospective Studies; Acute Disease
PubMed: 37140609
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-023-07027-z -
Cureus Aug 2020Acute appendicitis is one of the most common reasons for acute abdominal pain. Fecaliths and lymphoid hyperplasia are the usual etiology of acute appendicitis, however,... (Review)
Review
Acute appendicitis is one of the most common reasons for acute abdominal pain. Fecaliths and lymphoid hyperplasia are the usual etiology of acute appendicitis, however, other unusual causes can also not be neglected which can be parasitic infections, benign or malignant lesions. Due to substantial lab costs and limited resources, the policy of routine histopathological examination (HPE) of appendectomy samples is being questioned. PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Google Scholar were used to look for relevant published studies. The following keywords were used both alone and in combination: "Acute appendicitis" and "routine histopathological examination". Fifteen articles were selected for final review that collectively had 57,524 cases. All these studies included in this systematic review are peer-reviewed. Based on the reviewed articles, it was found that though the probability of unusual findings in a patient of acute appendicitis is less but it is still significant and if found, often results in a change of management plan of the patient. Therefore, it is recommended to perform a routine histopathological examination of all appendectomy specimens to rule out unusual pathologies.
PubMed: 32953339
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.9830