-
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery 2022Ultrasound (US)- or computed tomography-guided drainage for abdominal abscess is currently the first-line options for drainage, but both options have disadvantages.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ultrasound (US)- or computed tomography-guided drainage for abdominal abscess is currently the first-line options for drainage, but both options have disadvantages. Patients without adequate windows for drainage mostly undergo surgical drainage. However, surgical drainage is invasive and expensive. Endoscopic US (EUS)-guided drainage is a minimally invasive alternative for abdominal abscess, but there is less consensus on its efficacy, safety and complications. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate EUS-guided drainage for abdominal abscess.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We retrieved relevant papers on EUS-guided drainage for abdominal abscess from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and EMBASE databases. Each paper was reviewed, and data were extracted. We used R software version 3.6.3 to perform the meta-analysis. Fixed effects models were used for merging data.
RESULTS
A total of 11 papers met the inclusion criteria, with a total sample population of 264 patients. The meta-analysis showed that the pooled clinical success rate was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.95), the technical success rate was 99% (95% CI, 0.97-1.00) and the recurrence rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.03). Three studies reported the complications, including perforation, bleeding and stent migration; none of the other eight studies reported complications. There were no significant differences between subgroups. There was no publication bias in either the clinical or the technical success rates.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis showed that EUS-guided drainage for abdominal abscess was effective and safe, with an excellent technical success rate. In addition, EUS-guided drainage could be used for abscesses with complex anatomy. Nevertheless, complications and stent type should be considered.
PubMed: 35915535
DOI: 10.4103/jmas.jmas_349_21 -
Annals of Internal Medicine Mar 2022The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the diagnosis and management of acute left-sided colonic...
DESCRIPTION
The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations on the diagnosis and management of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis in adults. This guideline is based on current best available evidence about benefits and harms, taken in the context of costs and patient values and preferences.
METHODS
The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee (CGC) developed this guideline based on a systematic review on the use of computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis and on management via hospitalization, antibiotic use, and interventional percutaneous abscess drainage. The systematic review evaluated outcomes that the CGC rated as critical or important. This guideline was developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology.
TARGET AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION
The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is adults with suspected or known acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis.
RECOMMENDATION 1
RECOMMENDATION 2
RECOMMENDATION 3
Topics: Adult; Diverticulitis, Colonic; Hospitalization; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Physicians; United States
PubMed: 35038273
DOI: 10.7326/M21-2710 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Dec 2014Appendicitis is an inflammation of the appendix that may lead to an abscess, ileus, peritonitis, or death if untreated. Appendicitis is the most common abdominal... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Appendicitis is an inflammation of the appendix that may lead to an abscess, ileus, peritonitis, or death if untreated. Appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency. The current standard treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis is usually surgery, but there has been increasing evidence published on the use of antibiotics.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of surgery compared with antibiotics for acute appendicitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found four studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of surgery (including laparoscopic and open appendicectomy) compared with antibiotics.
Topics: Acute Disease; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Appendix; Humans; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 25486014
DOI: No ID Found -
World Journal of Gastroenterology May 2015To investigate whether prophylactic abdominal drainage is necessary after pancreatic resection. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To investigate whether prophylactic abdominal drainage is necessary after pancreatic resection.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to obtain relevant articles published before January 2014. Publications were retrieved if they met the selection criteria. The outcomes of interest included: mortality, morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (CR-PF), abdominal abscess, reoperation rate, the rate of interventional radiology drainage, and the length of hospital stay. Subgroup analyses were also performed for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and for distal pancreatectomy. Begg's funnel plot and the Egger regression test were employed to assess potential publication bias.
RESULTS
Nine eligible studies involving a total of 2794 patients were identified and included in this meta-analysis. Of the included patients, 1373 received prophylactic abdominal drainage. A fixed-effects model meta-analysis showed that placement of prophylactic drainage did not have beneficial effects on clinical outcomes, including morbidity, POPF, CR-PF, reoperation, interventional radiology drainage, and length of hospital stay (Ps > 0.05). In addition, prophylactic drainage did not significantly increase the risk of abdominal abscess. Overall analysis showed that omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage resulted in higher mortality after pancreatectomy (OR = 1.56; 95%CI: 0.93-2.92). Subgroup analysis of PD showed similar results to those in the overall analysis. Elimination of prophylactic abdominal drainage after PD led to a significant increase in mortality (OR = 2.39; 95%CI: 1.22-4.69; P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic abdominal drainage after pancreatic resection is still necessary, though more evidence from randomized controlled trials assessing prophylactic drainage after PD and distal pancreatectomy are needed.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Chi-Square Distribution; Drainage; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Pancreatectomy; Pancreatic Fistula; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Reoperation; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 25987799
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i18.5719 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... Mar 2023Intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) with saline has been widely used in surgical practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL with saline in patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intraoperative peritoneal lavage (IOPL) with saline has been widely used in surgical practice. However, the effectiveness of IOPL with saline in patients with intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) remains controversial. This study aims to systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of IOPL in patients with IAIs.
METHODS
The databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, CNKI, WanFang, and CBM databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2022. Random-effects models were used to calculate the risk ratio (RR), mean difference, and standardized mean difference. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the quality of the evidence.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs with 1318 participants were included, of which eight studies on appendicitis and two studies on peritonitis. Moderate-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (0% vs. 1.1%; RR, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.02-6.39]), intra-abdominal abscess (12.3% vs. 11.8%; RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.70-1.48]; I = 24%), incisional surgical site infections (3.3% vs. 3.8%; RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.18-2.86]; I = 50%), postoperative complication (11.0% vs. 13.2%; RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.39-1.41]; I = 64%), reoperation (2.9% vs. 1.7%; RR,1.71 [95% CI, 0.74-3.93]; I = 0%) and readmission (5.2% vs. 6.6%; RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.48-1.87]; I = 7%) in patients with appendicitis when compared to non-IOPL. Low-quality evidence showed that the use of IOPL with saline was not associated with a reduced risk of mortality (22.7% vs. 23.3%; RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.45-2.09], I = 0%) and intra-abdominal abscess (5.1% vs. 5.0%; RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.16-6.98], I = 0%) in patients with peritonitis when compared to non-IOPL.
CONCLUSION
IOPL with saline use in patients with appendicitis was not associated with significantly decreased risk of mortality, intra-abdominal abscess, incisional surgical site infection, postoperative complication, reoperation, and readmission compared with non-IOPL. These findings do not support the routine use of IOPL with saline in patients with appendicitis. The benefits of IOPL for IAI caused by other types of abdominal infections need to be investigated.
Topics: Humans; Peritoneal Lavage; Abdominal Abscess; Peritonitis; Surgical Wound Infection; Appendicitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36991507
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-023-00496-6 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2011Appendicitis is an acute inflammation of the appendix that can lead to an abscess, ileus, peritonitis, or death. Appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Appendicitis is an acute inflammation of the appendix that can lead to an abscess, ileus, peritonitis, or death. Appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency, with a lifetime risk of approximately 7% to 9% in the USA. Mortality from acute appendicitis is less than 0.3%, but rises to 1.7% after perforation.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for acute appendicitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to February 2010 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 16 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: antibiotics, laparoscopic surgery, ligation, open surgery, stump inversion, and surgery.
Topics: Acute Disease; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Appendix; Humans; Incidence; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 21477397
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2018The removal of the acute appendix is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Open surgery associated with therapeutic efficacy has been the treatment... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The removal of the acute appendix is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Open surgery associated with therapeutic efficacy has been the treatment of choice for acute appendicitis. However, in consequence of the evolution of endoscopic surgery, the operation can also be performed with minimally invasive surgery. Due to smaller incisions, the laparoscopic approach may be associated with reduced postoperative pain, reduced wound infection rate, and shorter time until return to normal activity.This is an update of the review published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) with regard to benefits and harms.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE and Embase (9 February 2018). We identified proposed and ongoing studies from World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials Register (9 February 2018). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA versus OA in adults or children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (or standardised mean differences (SMD) if researchers used different scales such as quality of life) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 85 studies involving 9765 participants. Seventy-five trials included 8520 adults and 10 trials included 1245 children. Most studies had risk of bias issues, with attrition bias being the largest source across studies due to incomplete outcome data.In adults, pain intensity on day one was reduced by 0.75 cm on a 10 cm VAS after LA (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.45; 20 RCTs; 2421 participants; low-quality evidence). Wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.51; 63 RCTs; 7612 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses was increased following LA (Peto OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.43; 53 RCTs; 6677 participants; moderate-quality evidence).The length of hospital stay was shortened by one day after LA (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.70; 46 RCTs; 5127 participant; low-quality evidence). The time until return to normal activity occurred five days earlier after LA than after OA (MD -4.97, 95% CI -6.77 to -3.16; 17 RCTs; 1653 participants; low-quality evidence). Two studies showed better quality of life scores following LA, but used different scales, and therefore no pooled estimates were presented. One used the SF-36 questionnaire two weeks after surgery and the other used the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index six weeks and six months after surgery (both low-quality evidence).In children, we found no differences in pain intensity on day one (MD -0.80, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.05; 1 RCT; 61 participants; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal abscesses after LA (Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.22; 9 RCTs; 1185 participants; low-quality evidence) or time until return to normal activity (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.30; 1 RCT; 383 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.42; 10 RCTs; 1245 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and the length of hospital stay was shortened by 0.8 days after LA (MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.62; 6 RCTs; 316 participants; low-quality evidence). Quality of life was not reported in any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Except for a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscesses after LA in adults, LA showed advantages over OA in pain intensity on day one, wound infections, length of hospital stay and time until return to normal activity in adults. In contrast, LA showed advantages over OA in wound infections and length of hospital stay in children. Two studies reported better quality of life scores in adults. No study reported this outcome in children. However, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate and some of the clinical effects of LA were small and of limited clinical relevance. Future studies with low risk of bias should investigate, in particular, the quality of life in children.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Acute Disease; Adult; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Child; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recovery of Function; Surgical Wound Infection; Time Factors
PubMed: 30484855
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001546.pub4 -
Obesity Surgery Jun 2021Splenic abscess is a rare complication following sleeve gastrectomy. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Splenic abscess is a rare complication following sleeve gastrectomy.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review to clarify its clinical significance, presentation, and management. PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to the 19th of July 2020. A total of 18 patients were included, of which 11 were female and 7 were male. The mean age was 34.1 ± 12.3 years, and the mean body mass index was 45.8 ± 7.6 kg/m. Type 2 diabetes mellitus was reported in 11.1% of patients and hypertension in 22.2%. Fever was the most common presenting symptom seen in 17 (94.4%) patients, followed by abdominal pain in 10 (55.6%). The mean duration from surgery to presentation was 98.6 ± 132.7 days (range 10-547 days). Computed tomography was used for investigations in 17/18 (94.4%) patients. Seven patients had reported leak, three reported bleeding, and 2 reported pleural effusion. Thirteen patients had unilocular abscess. All patients were treated with antibiotics. Four patients needed total parenteral nutrition, and three were given proton pump inhibitor. In total, 11 patients needed percutaneous drainage as a part of treatment and 11 patients needed total splenectomy and 1 needed partial splenectomy.
CONCLUSION
Splenic abscess following sleeve gastrectomy is a rare identity. The etiology of formation of splenic abscess needs further studies. A computed tomography of the abdomen with contrast is the preferred diagnostic tool. There is no gold standard treatment for splenic abscess.
Topics: Abscess; Adult; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Female; Gastrectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Obesity, Morbid; Splenic Diseases; Young Adult
PubMed: 33791929
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-021-05396-9 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Mar 2022Liver abscess is a common cause of intra-abdominal infection and its treatment depends on the presentation. Laparoscopy, in addition to its classic benefits, has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Liver abscess is a common cause of intra-abdominal infection and its treatment depends on the presentation. Laparoscopy, in addition to its classic benefits, has particular advantages in the management of liver abscess but its role is not well defined and studies done in that field are heterogenous. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in the management of liver abscess.
METHODS
We realized a systematic review and meta-analysis including studies published in the 20 last years. The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of recurrent or residual liver abscess after laparoscopic treatment.
RESULTS
We retrieved 190 studies regarding laparoscopic surgery in liver abscess and 17 studies were included in the quantitative and qualitative synthesis. A total of 608 patients was included and 299 of them (49.1%) were treated by laparoscopic surgery. The indications were mainly failure of first line treatment (antibiotic treatment and/or percutaneous drainage and/or needle aspiration) and ruptured multiloculated, or caudate lobe liver abscess. The surgical gesture performed was laparoscopic drainage in all studies. The post-operative rate of recurrent or residual liver abscess after treatment by laparoscopy was 4.22% (95% CI: 2.29-7.07).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review showed that laparoscopic drainage had a considerable place in the management. The post-operative rate of recurrence was low with no mortality suggesting that laparoscopy is safe and feasible for liver abscess management.
PubMed: 35198179
DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103308 -
Expert Review of Gastroenterology &... Oct 2022As an emerging minimally invasive technology, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been reported to treat pelvic abscess instead of surgical or image-guided percutaneous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
As an emerging minimally invasive technology, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been reported to treat pelvic abscess instead of surgical or image-guided percutaneous drainage (PCD) under certain conditions. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided drainage for patients with pelvic abscesses.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases (inception-March 2022). The main outcomes were technical success, clinical success, and complications. Comprehensive meta-analysis software was used to calculate the pooled event rate.
RESULTS
Twelve studies containing 272 patients were included. These pelvic abscesses most frequently developed after abdominal and pelvic surgery (n = 180, 66.2%), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 32, 11.8%), and other inflammatory conditions. Respectively, the pooled technical and clinical success rate was 100% and 88.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 83.8-92.2%, I = 1.0%, p < 0.001]. After excluding an individual study, the pooled rate of complications changed from 11.5% (95% CI: 7.4-17.4%, I = 38.8%, p < 0.001) to 8.2% (95% CI: 5.0-13.3%, I = 0, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
EUS-guided drainage of the pelvic abscess was feasible, effective, and safe. Further randomized-controlled studies with large-sample sizes were required in the future.
Topics: Humans; Abscess; Treatment Outcome; Endosonography; Drainage; Abdominal Abscess; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 36170047
DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2022.2130247