-
Surgery Open Science Oct 2021Appendectomy is a common emergency surgery performed globally. Despite the frequency of laparoscopic appendectomy, consensus does not exist on the best way to perform... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Appendectomy is a common emergency surgery performed globally. Despite the frequency of laparoscopic appendectomy, consensus does not exist on the best way to perform each procedural step. We identified literature on key intraoperative steps to inform best technical practice during laparoscopic appendectomy.
METHODS
Research questions were framed using the population, indication, comparison, outcome (PICO) format for 6 key operative steps of laparoscopic appendectomy: abdominal entry, placement of laparoscopic ports, division of mesoappendix, division of appendix, removal of appendix, and fascial closure. These questions were used to build literature queries in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. Evidence quality and certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) definitions.
RESULTS
Recommendations were rendered for 6 PICO questions based on 28 full length articles. Low quality evidence favors direct trocar insertion for abdominal entry and establishment of pneumoperitoneum. Single port appendectomy results in improved cosmesis with unclear clinical implications. There was insufficient data to determine the optimal method of appendiceal stump closure, but use of a specimen extraction bag reduces rates of superficial surgical site infection and intra-abdominal abscess. Port sites made with radially dilating trocars are less likely to necessitate closure and are less likely to result in port site hernia. When port sites are closed, a closure device should be used.
CONCLUSION
Key operative steps of laparoscopic appendectomy have sufficient data to encourage standardized practice.
PubMed: 34604728
DOI: 10.1016/j.sopen.2021.08.001 -
International Journal of Surgery... Oct 2021To systematically review comparative studies on the acute surgical unit (ASU) model. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review comparative studies on the acute surgical unit (ASU) model.
METHODS
Searches were performed of Cochrane, Embase, Medline and grey literature. Eligible articles were comparative studies of the Acute Surgical Unit (ASU) model published 01/01/2000-12/03/2020. Amongst patients with any diagnosis, primary outcomes were length of stay, after-hours operating, complications and cost. Secondary outcomes were time to surgical review, time to theatre, mortality and re-admission for patients with any diagnosis, and cholecystectomy during index admission for patients with biliary disease. Additional analyses were planned for specific cohorts, such as patients with appendicitis or cholecystitis.
RESULTS
Searches returned 9,677 results from which 77 eligible publications were identified, representing 150,981 unique patients. Cohorts were adequately homogenous for meta-analysis of all outcomes except cost. For patients with any diagnosis, compared with the Traditional model, the introduction of an ASU model was associated with reduced length of stay (mean difference [MD] 0.68 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.98), after-hours operating rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.46-0.69) and complications (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.70). Regarding cost, two studies reported savings following ASU introduction, while one found no difference. Amongst secondary outcomes, for patients with any diagnosis, ASU commencement was associated with reduced time to surgical review, time to theatre and mortality. Re-admissions were unchanged. For patients with biliary disease, ASU establishment was associated with superior rates of index cholecystectomy.
CONCLUSION
Compared to the Traditional structure, the ASU model is superior for most metrics. ASU introduction should be promoted in policy for widespread benefit.
Topics: Appendicitis; Cholecystectomy; Humans; Odds Ratio; Retrospective Studies; Surgery Department, Hospital
PubMed: 34536599
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106109 -
Health Sciences Review (Oxford, England) Jun 2022Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common emergencies in general surgery worldwide. During the pandemic, a significant decrease in the number of accesses to the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common emergencies in general surgery worldwide. During the pandemic, a significant decrease in the number of accesses to the emergency department for AA has been recorded in different countries. A systematic review of the current literature sought to determine the impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on hospital admissions and complications of AA.
METHOD
A systematic search was undertaken to identify repeated cross-sectional studies reporting the management of AA during the COVID-19 pandemic (index period) as compared to the previous year, or at the turn of lockdown (reference period). Data were abstracted on article (country of origin) and patients characteristics (adults, children [i.e. non adults, <18-year-old]), or mixed population) within the two given timeframes, including demographics, number of admissions for AA, number of appendectomies, and complicated appendectomies
RESULTS
Of 201 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, 54 studies from 22 world countries were included. In total, 27 (50%) were conducted on adults, 12 (22%) on children, and 15 (28%) on a mixed patients population. The overall rate ratio of admissions for AA between the two periods was 0.94 (95%CI, 0.75-1.17), with significant differences between studies on adults (0.90 [0.74-1.09]), mixed population (0.50 [0.27-0.90]), and children (1.50 [1.01-2.22]). The overall risk ratio of complicated AA was 1.65 (1.32-2.07), ranging from 1.32 in studies on children, to 2.45 in mixed population.
CONCLUSION
The pandemic has altered the rate of admissions for AA and appendectomy, with parallel increased incidence of complicated cases in all age groups.
PubMed: 35287332
DOI: 10.1016/j.hsr.2022.100021 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Sep 2020Closure of the appendiceal stump is a key step performed during laparoscopic appendicectomy. Inadequate management of the appendiceal stump has the potential to cause... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Closure of the appendiceal stump is a key step performed during laparoscopic appendicectomy. Inadequate management of the appendiceal stump has the potential to cause significant morbidity. Several methods of stump closure have been described, however high-level evidence is limited. We performed a systematic review evaluating clinical outcomes and quality of the evidence for the methods of appendiceal stump closure.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database and Google Scholar to identify studies comparing appendiceal stump closure methods in laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis from inception to October 2019. Data regarding operative duration, peri-operative complications, length of stay and costs were collated from all included studies.
RESULTS
From 160 identified studies, 19 met the inclusion criteria. Endoloops and endoclips provide equivalent clinical outcomes at lower cost, while operative duration was shortest with endoclip closure. Endostapler devices have the lowest rate of peri-operative complications (3.56%), however their cost limits their regular use in many healthcare environments. Post-operative complication rate and length of stay were similar for all stump closure methods. Conclusion: Although there are no significant differences in method of stump closure in laparoscopic appendectomy, closure with endoclips provides the shortest operative duration. There is a need for robust and standardized reporting of cost data when comparing stump closure methods, together with higher level evidence in the form of multi-centre randomized controlled trials before firm conclusions can be drawn regarding the optimal method of stump closure.
PubMed: 32802324
DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.07.058 -
Cureus Sep 2023Spontaneous rupture of the urinary bladder (SRUB) during pregnancy is a potentially fatal event that necessitates immediate surgery. The aim of this systematic review is... (Review)
Review
Spontaneous rupture of the urinary bladder (SRUB) during pregnancy is a potentially fatal event that necessitates immediate surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the symptoms, causes, associated factors, and prognosis of SRUB in pregnancy. We searched the literature from inception until December 2022 using the Cochrane Central Register, PubMed, EMBASE, ProQuest, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Articles not in English and those unrelated to the topic were excluded. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for case reports was employed for the risk of bias assessment. The search strategy yielded 312 citations; 29 full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility after screening. Five case reports were included in this review. The age range of the cases was 27-39 years. Four cases were in their second trimester of pregnancy, and one was in her third. Two cases had undergone previous cesarean sections, and one had an appendectomy and salpingectomy due to an ectopic pregnancy. One case reported a history of alcohol and drug abuse. The most common symptoms were abdominal pain, abdominal distension, oliguria, voiding difficulty, hematuria, fever, and vomiting. The diagnosis of SRUB was primarily made via emergency laparotomy due to the patients' critical conditions. Beyond its diagnostic role, laparotomy was also the treatment method in all cases. Tear repair, antibiotic therapy, and urinary catheterization were all integral parts of the treatment. Four cases resulted in an uneventful pregnancy and a healthy, full-term baby. In one case, a hysterectomy was performed due to a combined uterus and bladder rupture. SRUB often presents with non-specific symptoms, leading to a delayed diagnosis. A high index of suspicion is essential when a pregnant woman exhibits urinary symptoms and severe abdominal pain, especially in those with a history of previous surgery. Early detection and treatment of SRUB are critical for an uneventful recovery.
PubMed: 37799223
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44643 -
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 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Jul 2021Non-operative management (NOM) of acute appendicitis has been assessed in several studies before COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review aimed to assess the extent of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Non-operative management (NOM) of acute appendicitis has been assessed in several studies before COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review aimed to assess the extent of adoption, efficacy, and safety of NOM of acute appendicitis in the setting of COVID-19.
METHODS
This was a PRISMA-compliant systematic review of the literature. Electronic databases and Google Scholar were queried for studies that applied NOM of acute appendicitis during COVID-19. The main outcome measures were the rates of NOM application during the pandemic as compared to the pre-pandemic period, failure and complication rates of NOM. Failure was defined as the need for appendectomy during NOM and complications included development of appendicular mass or abscess.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies (2140 patients) were included. The male to female ratio was 1.44:1 and median age was 34. Nine hundred fifty-nine (44.8%) patients had a trial of NOM. The weighted mean rate of NOM application was 50.1% (95%CI: 29.8-70.5%). The application of NOM during the pandemic was significantly more likely than its application before COVID-19 (OR = 6.7, p < 0.001). The weight mean failure rate of NOM was 16.4% (95%CI: 9.4-23.4). NOM failure was more likely in children and patients with complicated appendicitis. The weighted mean complication rate after NOM was 4.5% (95%CI: 1.4-7.7). NOM had significantly lower odds for complications than appendectomy (OR = 0.36, p = 0.03). There was no mortality after application of NOM.
CONCLUSION
NOM of acute appendicitis in the setting of COVID-19 may be a safe, short-term alternative to surgery with acceptably low failure and complication rates.
Topics: Adult; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; COVID-19; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Pandemics; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 33772399
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-021-04988-1 -
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine 2022COVID-19 has affected the pattern of referral to medical centers and quarantine against COVID-19 might delay referral and management of surgical emergencies. This study... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
COVID-19 has affected the pattern of referral to medical centers and quarantine against COVID-19 might delay referral and management of surgical emergencies. This study aimed to compare the pooled event rate of pediatric perforated appendicitis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis study based on the PRISMA guidelines. Scopus, Web of Sciences, and PubMed databases were searched for studies reporting the rate of perforated appendicitis based on the post-appendectomy observations or imaging methods. The Egger bias test and funnel plot were used to detect and depict publication bias. Statistical analysis was performed in Comprehensive Meta-analysis package version 3.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were eligible for inclusion in our study. The pooled prevalence of pediatric perforated appendicitis in the pre-COVID era was 28.5% (CI95%: 28.3 to 28.7%) with a heterogeneity of 99%. In the COVID era, the event rate proportion was 39.4% (CI95%: 36.6 to 42.3%) with a heterogeneity of 99%. There was a significant difference in the subgroup analysis within the pre-COVID and COVID era (P<0.001), showing a higher perforation rate in the COVID era.
CONCLUSION
Our study showed that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of perforated appendicitis has significantly increased in comparison to before the COVID-19 pandemic.
PubMed: 35072092
DOI: 10.22037/aaem.v10i1.1421 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... Feb 2023This study systematically reviewed the literature to investigate the value of secondary surgery for children with a high-risk neuroendocrine tumor (NET) of appendix. A... (Review)
Review
This study systematically reviewed the literature to investigate the value of secondary surgery for children with a high-risk neuroendocrine tumor (NET) of appendix. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. All randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series reporting on the management and outcomes of patients (<20 years) with a histopathologically proven NET of the appendix were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently selected eligible articles, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. The outcomes of patients with a high-risk NET treated with secondary surgery were compared to those treated without secondary surgery. Primary outcomes were recurrence rate and disease-free survival. The literature search yielded 667 articles, of which 29 were included. These studies reported on 1112 patients, of whom 145 (13%) had high-risk NET. Heterogeneity between studies was large and risk of bias was serious in 26 and moderate in three studies. Secondary surgery after primary appendectomy was performed in 64 of 145 patients (44%). Length of follow-up ranged between 0 and 612 months. In both treatment groups no recurrences were reported, and thus disease-free survival was 100%. Based on current literature, the value of secondary surgery for pediatric high-risk NET of the appendix may be questioned. However, evidence is scarce, of low-quality, and heterogeneity between studies is large. Large international studies with adequate follow-up are needed to generate high-quality evidence on this topic.
Topics: Humans; Child; Appendix; Appendiceal Neoplasms; Neuroendocrine Tumors
PubMed: 36372617
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.10.021 -
Cureus May 2024Appendicitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal conditions a person can develop. Throughout the years of assessing the different focuses of appendicitis, such as... (Review)
Review
Appendicitis is one of the most common gastrointestinal conditions a person can develop. Throughout the years of assessing the different focuses of appendicitis, such as origin, symptoms, labs, diagnosis, treatment, and complications, there have been mere mentions of sex differences. One of the most known sex differences in appendicitis is the fact that males are significantly more likely to develop appendicitis compared to females. Another postulated difference is that males may be more likely to develop a perforated appendix. These differences significantly affect the various aspects of diagnosing and treating appendicitis and may even influence the outcome of appendicitis. Sex difference analysis of conditions has been widely researched over the last two decades, and sex can influence and impact conditions from initial presentation to the outcome of treatment. This paper evaluates the sex differences in appendicitis concerning incidence, risk factors, symptoms, diagnosis technique, treatment, and outcomes across ages. Following PRISMA guidelines, this systematic review reviewed PubMed, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest databases for articles pertaining to sex differences in appendicitis. The original article count was 21,121, which was narrowed down to 28 publications. It was found that, as previously described, males had a significantly higher rate of appendicitis, as well as were at significant risk of perforated appendicitis. No official risk factors were found to differ between the sexes, but males were more likely to complain of symptoms like right lower quadrant cramps/tenderness/pain and loss of appetite. Scores such as the pediatric appendicitis score (PAS) and Ohmann have been used to diagnose appendicitis, but the PAS was significantly more accurate for females, and the Ohmann resulted in significantly fewer negative appendectomies in females as well. Ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) are still the gold standards for diagnosis; however, while time to CT was significantly delayed in females, they were more likely to undergo extensive imaging, possibly to rule out other conditions. Males were more likely to undergo open appendectomies compared to females, who more frequently underwent laparoscopic appendectomy, yet females were more likely to experience complications. Further research should evaluate the influences that can predict postoperative outcomes following appendectomies between sexes and how to prevent/reduce their occurrence.
PubMed: 38854248
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.60055