-
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Nov 2023Studies evaluating the rate and histology of appendiceal neoplasms between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis include a small number of patients. Therefore, we... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Studies evaluating the rate and histology of appendiceal neoplasms between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis include a small number of patients. Therefore, we sought a meta-analysis and systematic review comparing the rates and types of appendiceal neoplasm between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis.
METHODS
We included articles published from the time of inception of the datasets to September 30, 2022. The electronic databases included English publications in Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Scopus.
RESULTS
A total of 4962 patients with appendicitis enrolled in 4 comparative studies were included. The mean age was 43.55 years (16- 94), and half were male (51%). Based on intra-operative findings, 1394 (38%) had complicated appendicitis, and 3558 (62%) had uncomplicated appendicitis. The overall incidence rate of neoplasm was 1.98%. No significant difference was found in the incidence rate of appendiceal neoplasm between complicated (3.29%) and uncomplicated (1.49%) appendicitis (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.16- 1.23; p < 0.087; I2 = 54.9%). The most common appendiceal neoplasms were Neuroendocrine Tumors (NET) (49.21%), Nonmucinous Adenocarcinoma (24.24%), Mixed Adeno-Neuroendocrine Tumor (MANEC) (11.40%), Mucinous Adenocarcinoma (4.44%). There was a significant difference between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis in rates of adenocarcinoma (50% vs. 13%), NET (31% vs. 74%), MANEC (19% vs. 13%) (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
While there was no significant difference in the overall neoplasm rate between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis, the NET rate was significantly higher in uncomplicated appendicitis. In comparison, the Adenocarcinoma rate was considerably higher in Complicated appendicitis. These findings emphasize the importance of evaluating risk factors for neoplasm when considering appendectomy in patients with appendicitis.
Topics: Humans; Male; Adult; Female; Appendiceal Neoplasms; Appendicitis; Incidence; Risk Factors; Appendectomy; Neuroendocrine Tumors; Adenocarcinoma; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37940770
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-023-03164-0 -
The Surgeon : Journal of the Royal... Oct 2023Bedside point-of-care ultrasound scans are a cheap, quick and safe diagnostic tool. There is increasing evidence for the use of point-of-care surgeon-performed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
Bedside point-of-care ultrasound scans are a cheap, quick and safe diagnostic tool. There is increasing evidence for the use of point-of-care surgeon-performed ultrasound scans in adults, however there are fewer studies of its use in children. This systematic review aims to provide an up-to-date summary of the evidence behind surgeon-performed ultrasound scans in paediatric surgery.
METHODS
The PubMed database was used to conduct this systematic review between the dates 1 Jan 1980 to 1 June 2020 (last search: 1 June 2020). Seven primary research studies were included in this review.
RESULTS
There is good evidence for the use of ultrasound scans in appendicitis and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis. Training times are easily achievable and transferable within a surgical department.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the use of surgeon-performed bedside ultrasound scans has been described in appendicitis and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis, more research is required to embed this into clinical practice, particularly in low volume centres such as district general hospitals. A robust training programme is also recommended to incorporate ultrasound scans into clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Child; Point-of-Care Systems; Pyloric Stenosis, Hypertrophic; Appendicitis; Surgeons; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 36670025
DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2023.01.001 -
Pediatric Surgery International Jun 2024The aim of this study was to analyze the role of thiol/disulfide homeostasis (TDH) parameters as an indicator of oxidative stress in acute appendicitis (AA). PubMed,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to analyze the role of thiol/disulfide homeostasis (TDH) parameters as an indicator of oxidative stress in acute appendicitis (AA). PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were systematically searched. Studies reporting on TDH in AA (both complicated and uncomplicated cases) were included. The comparator group were healthy controls. The TDH domain was compared between the groups using anti-oxidant parameters, namely native thiol and total thiol levels, and native thiol/total thiol ratio; and oxidant parameters, namely disulfide level, disulfide/native thiol ratio, and disulfide/total thiol ratio. The statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed utilizing the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Eleven studies with a total of 926 subjects, comprising 457 patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, 147 with complicated appendicitis, and 322 healthy controls were included. Our study demonstrated significantly increased oxidative stress in AA as compared to healthy controls in all TDH parameters and significantly lower total thiol levels in complicated AA as compared to uncomplicated AA. Due to a poor methodological quality in five out of eleven studies, future prospective studies with adequate power are essential to validate these observations and refine the diagnostic approaches to AA.
Topics: Appendicitis; Humans; Sulfhydryl Compounds; Homeostasis; Disulfides; Biomarkers; Oxidative Stress; Acute Disease
PubMed: 38847871
DOI: 10.1007/s00383-024-05728-7 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2024When pregnant patients present with nonobstetric pathology, the physicians caring for them may be uncertain about the optimal management strategy. The aim of this...
BACKGROUND
When pregnant patients present with nonobstetric pathology, the physicians caring for them may be uncertain about the optimal management strategy. The aim of this guideline is to develop evidence-based recommendations for pregnant patients presenting with common surgical pathologies including appendicitis, biliary disease, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
METHODS
The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Guidelines Committee convened a working group to address these issues. The group generated five key questions and completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. An expert panel then met to form evidence-based recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Expert opinion was utilized when the available evidence was deemed insufficient.
RESULTS
The expert panel agreed on ten recommendations addressing the management of appendicitis, biliary disease, and IBD during pregnancy.
CONCLUSIONS
Conditional recommendations were made in favor of appendectomy over nonoperative treatment of appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy over nonoperative treatment of biliary disease and acute cholecystitis specifically. Based on expert opinion, the panel also suggested either operative or nonoperative treatment of biliary diseases other than acute cholecystitis in the third trimester, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography rather than common bile duct exploration for symptomatic choledocholithiasis, applying the same criteria for emergent surgical intervention in pregnant and non-pregnant IBD patients, utilizing an open rather than minimally invasive approach for pregnant patients requiring emergent surgical treatment of IBD, and managing pregnant patients with active IBD flares in a multidisciplinary fashion at centers with IBD expertise.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Pregnancy Complications; Laparoscopy; Appendicitis; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Appendectomy; Biliary Tract Diseases
PubMed: 38700549
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10810-1 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Jun 2024Appendicectomy remains the standard treatment for appendicitis. There is a lack of clarity on the timeframe in which surgery should be performed to avoid unfavourable... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Appendicectomy remains the standard treatment for appendicitis. There is a lack of clarity on the timeframe in which surgery should be performed to avoid unfavourable outcomes.
AIM
To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the impact the (1)time-of-day surgery is performed (2), time elapsed from symptom onset to hospital presentation (patient time) (3), time elapsed from hospital presentation to surgery (hospital time), and (4)time elapsed from symptom onset to surgery (total time) have on appendicectomy outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed as per PRISMA-NMA guidelines. The time-of-day which surgery was done was divided into day, evening and night. The other groups were divided into < 24 h, 24-48 h and > 48 h. The rate of complicated appendicitis, operative time, perforation, post-operative complications, surgical site infection (SSI), length of stay (LOS), readmission and mortality rates were analysed.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included with a total of 232,678 patients. The time of day at which surgery was performed had no impact on outcomes. The incidence of complicated appendicitis, post-operative complications and LOS were significantly better when the hospital time and total time were < 24 h. Readmission and mortality rates were significantly better when the hospital time was < 48 h. SSI, operative time, and the rate of perforation were comparable in all groups.
CONCLUSION
Appendicectomy within 24 h of hospital admission is associated with improved outcomes compared to patients having surgery 24-48 and > 48 h after admission. The time-of-day which surgery is performed does not impact outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Length of Stay; Network Meta-Analysis; Time Factors; Postoperative Complications; Time-to-Treatment; Treatment Outcome; Operative Time
PubMed: 38877592
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-024-00549-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2024Acute appendicitis is one of the most common emergency general surgical conditions worldwide. Uncomplicated/simple appendicitis can be treated with appendectomy or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute appendicitis is one of the most common emergency general surgical conditions worldwide. Uncomplicated/simple appendicitis can be treated with appendectomy or antibiotics. Some studies have suggested possible benefits with antibiotics with reduced complications, length of hospital stay, and the number of days off work. However, surgery may improve success of treatment as antibiotic treatment is associated with recurrence and future need for surgery.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated/simple acute appendicitis compared with appendectomy for resolution of symptoms and complications.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov) on 19 July 2022. We also searched for unpublished studies in conference proceedings together with reference checking and citation search. There were no restrictions on date, publication status, or language of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included studies where most participants were adults with uncomplicated/simple appendicitis. Interventions included antibiotics (by any route) compared with appendectomy (open or laparoscopic).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Primary outcomes included mortality and success of treatment, and secondary outcomes included number of participants requiring appendectomy in the antibiotic group, complications, pain, length of hospital stay, sick leave, malignancy in the antibiotic group, negative appendectomy rate, and quality of life. Success of treatment definitions were heterogeneous although mainly based on resolution of symptoms rather than incorporation of long-term recurrence or need for surgery in the antibiotic group.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies in the review covering 1675 participants randomised to antibiotics and 1683 participants randomised to appendectomy. One study was unpublished. All were conducted in secondary care and two studies received pharmaceutical funding. All studies used broad-spectrum antibiotic regimens expected to cover gastrointestinal bacteria. Most studies used predominantly laparoscopic surgery, but some included mainly open procedures. Six studies included adults and children. Almost all studies aimed to exclude participants with complicated appendicitis prior to randomisation, although one study included 12% with perforation. The diagnostic technique was clinical assessment and imaging in most studies. Only one study limited inclusion by sex (male only). Follow-up ranged from hospital admission only to seven years. Certainty of evidence was mainly affected by risk of bias (due to lack of blinding and loss to follow-up) and imprecision. Primary outcomes It is uncertain whether there was any difference in mortality due to the very low-certainty evidence (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 4.95; 1 study, 492 participants). There may be 76 more people per 1000 having unsuccessful treatment in the antibiotic group compared with surgery, which did not reach our predefined level for clinical significance (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96; I = 69%; 7 studies, 2471 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes At one year, 30.7% (95% CI 24.0 to 37.8; I = 80%; 9 studies, 1396 participants) of participants in the antibiotic group required appendectomy or, alternatively, more than two-thirds of antibiotic-treated participants avoided surgery in the first year, but the evidence is very uncertain. Regarding complications, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in episodes of Clostridium difficile diarrhoea due to very low-certainty evidence (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.89; 1 study, 1332 participants). There may be a clinically significant reduction in wound infections with antibiotics (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.68; I = 16%; 9 studies, 2606 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether antibiotics affect the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess or collection (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.07; I = 19%; 6 studies, 1831 participants), or reoperation (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.16; 1 study, 492 participants) due to very low-certainty evidence, mainly due to rare events causing imprecision and risk of bias. It is uncertain if antibiotics prolonged length of hospital stay by half a day due to the very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.01; I = 97%; 11 studies, 3192 participants). The incidence of malignancy was 0.3% (95% CI 0 to 1.5; 5 studies, 403 participants) in the antibiotic group although follow-up was variable. Antibiotics probably increased the number of negative appendectomies at surgery (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.49; I = 17%; 5 studies, 707 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotics may be associated with higher rates of unsuccessful treatment for 76 per 1000 people, although differences may not be clinically significant. It is uncertain if antibiotics increase length of hospital stay by half a day. Antibiotics may reduce wound infections. A third of the participants initially treated with antibiotics required subsequent appendectomy or two-thirds avoided surgery within one year, but the evidence is very uncertain. There were too few data from the included studies to comment on major complications.
Topics: Appendicitis; Humans; Appendectomy; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Length of Stay; Adult; Acute Disease; Bias; Quality of Life; Recurrence; Sick Leave; Laparoscopy; Postoperative Complications; Male; Female
PubMed: 38682788
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015038.pub2 -
The Surgeon : Journal of the Royal... May 2024Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies on a global level. Due to the requirement of an immediate clinical diagnosis and the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies on a global level. Due to the requirement of an immediate clinical diagnosis and the presence of limited resources, clinicians and diagnosticians refer to scoring systems to diagnose this condition, among which Alvarado and Tzanakis scoring systems are widely used. This meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these two systems.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS databases. All studies that reported diagnostic parameters of Alvarado and Tzanakis scores in patients with suspected acute appendicitis were selected. Diagnostic values such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were extracted from the selected studies and statistical analysis was performed with Meta Disc 1.4 software. Quality assessment of the selected studies was performed using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C tools. Fourteen studies were included in our meta-analysis which enrolled 2235 patients.
RESULTS
The overall sensitivity of the Tzanakis score was calculated as 0.86 (95% CI; 0.84-00.87) while the specificity was 0.73 (95% CI; 0.69-0.78). In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.9261 (SE; 0.0169) and the diagnostic Odds Ratio (OR) was 22.52 (95% CI; 9.47-53.56). The pooled sensitivity of Alvarado score was 0.67 (95% CI; 0.65-0.69) and the specificity was 0.74 (95% CI; 0.69-0.79). Moreover, the area under the curve (AUC) of the Alvarado score was 0.7389 (SE; 0.0489) and the diagnostic Odds Ratio was 4.92 (95% CI; 2.48-9.75).
INTERPRETATION AND CONCLUSION
The Tzanakis scoring system has a higher sensitivity, area under the curve, and diagnostic odds ratio when compared to the Alvarado score. However, the Alvarado score has a marginally better specificity making it more reliable in excluding acute appendicitis.
PubMed: 38789384
DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2024.04.013 -
Pediatric Surgery International Nov 2023The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way to manage the emergencies, as people faced fear of the hospitals, with possible delay in the diagnosis. Moreover, clinicians... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way to manage the emergencies, as people faced fear of the hospitals, with possible delay in the diagnosis. Moreover, clinicians had to rearrange protocols for diagnosis and treatment. We aimed to assess whether COVID-19 pandemic influenced severity of inflammation, management, and outcomes of acute appendicitis (AA), when compared to the pre-COVID era. Using defined search strategy, two independent investigators identified those studies comparing pediatric AA during COVID-19 pandemic versus the pre-COVID-19 period. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3. Data are mean ± SD. Of 528 abstracts, 36 comparative studies were included (32,704pts). Time from symptoms onset to surgery was longer during the pandemics compared to the pre-COVID-19 (1.6 ± 0.9 versus 1.4 ± 0.9 days; p < 0.00001). Minimally Invasive Surgery was similar during COVID-19 (70.4 ± 30.2%) versus control period (69.6 ± 25.3%; p = ns). Complicated appendicitis was increased during the pandemics (35.9 ± 14.8%) compared to control period (33.4 ± 17.2%; p < 0.0001). Post-operative complications were comparable between these two groups (7.7 ± 6.5% versus 9.1 ± 5.3%; p = ns). It seems that the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the time of diagnosis, severity of inflammation, and type of surgery. However, the number of post-operative complications was not different between the two groups, leading to the conclusion that the patients were correctly managed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3 Meta-analysis on Level 3 studies.
Topics: Humans; Child; Appendicitis; Pandemics; COVID-19; Inflammation; Acute Disease; Postoperative Complications; Appendectomy; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 38017246
DOI: 10.1007/s00383-023-05594-9 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Jan 2024The aim of this study is to provide a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing conservative and surgical treatment in a population of adults with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study is to provide a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing conservative and surgical treatment in a population of adults with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. We have exclusively incorporated randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies involving participants with complicated appendicitis or children were excluded. The variables considered are as follows: treatment complications, complication-free treatment success at index admission and at 1 year follow-up, length of hospital stay (LOS), quality of life (QoL) and costs.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs involving 3213 participants (1615 antibiotics/1598 appendectomy) were included. There was no significant difference between the two treatments in terms of complication rates (RR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.61-1.04, P = 0.07, I = 69%). Antibiotics had a reduced treatment efficacy compared with appendectomy (RR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90, p < 0.00001, I = 87%) and at 1 year was successful in 540 out of 837 (64.6%, RR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.77, p < 0.00001, I = 81%) participants. There was no difference in LOS (mean difference - 0.58 days 95% confidence interval - 1.59 to 0.43, p = 0.26, I = 99%). The trial sequential analysis has revealed that, concerning the three primary outcomes, it is improbable that forthcoming RCTs will significantly alter the existing body of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
As further large-scale trials have been conducted, antibiotic therapy proved to be safe, less expensive, but also less effective than surgical treatment. In order to ensure well-informed decisions, further research is needed to explore patient preferences and quality of life outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38218862
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00531-6 -
World Journal of Surgery Dec 2023Appendicitis is one of the most common emergency surgical conditions worldwide. Delays in accessing appendectomy can lead to complications. Evidence on these delays in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Appendicitis is one of the most common emergency surgical conditions worldwide. Delays in accessing appendectomy can lead to complications. Evidence on these delays in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is lacking. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesise the available evidence on delays to accessing appendectomy in LMICs.
METHODS
This scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews framework. The delays and their interconnectivity in LMICs were synthesised and interpreted using the Three Delays framework. We reviewed Africa Wide EBSCOhost, PubMed-Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, African Journals Online (AJOL), and Bioline databases.
RESULTS
Our search identified 21 893 studies, of which 78 were included in the final analysis. All of the studies were quantitative. Fifty per cent of the studies included all three types of delays. Delays in seeking care were influenced by a lack of awareness of appendicitis symptoms, and the use of self and alternative medication, which could be linked to delays in receiving care, and the barrier refusal of medical treatment due to fear. Financial concerns were a barrier observed throughout the care pathway.
CONCLUSION
This review highlighted the need for additional studies on delays to accessing appendectomy in additional LMICs. Our review demonstrates that in LMICs, persons seeking appendectomy present late to health-care facilities due to several patient-related factors. After reaching a health-care facility, accessing appendectomy can further be delayed owing to a lack of adequate hospital resources.
Topics: Humans; Developing Countries; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Health Facilities; Hospitals
PubMed: 37747549
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-023-07183-2