-
F1000Research 2023Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in pregnant women. There has been a wide variance in clinical practice worldwide, with some favoring an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in pregnant women. There has been a wide variance in clinical practice worldwide, with some favoring an antibiotic-only approach while others prefer surgery as the first-line management. Therefore, we designed the current analysis to synthesize the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of antibiotics versus surgery management. We searched PubMed, Scopus, EuropePMC, and Cochrane Central from March 4, 1904 until November 25, 2022, to look for studies comparing antibiotics and surgery in pregnant patients with acute appendicitis. We only included studies that provided a comparison between the two treatments. We included preterm delivery, fetal loss, maternal death, and complications as outcomes. The results were compared using an odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. We also performed a sensitivity analysis by excluding studies with a serious risk of bias. We included five non-randomized studies for the analysis. We found that patients in the antibiotic group had a lower risk of preterm labor (OR 0.63 [95% CI 0.43-0.92]; p 0.02) but a higher risk of complications (OR 1.79 [95% CI 1.19-2.69]; p 0.005). We did not find any difference in the other outcomes. The increased risk of complications should caution clinicians about using antibiotics as the first-line management. More studies are required to identify patients who would benefit the most before antibiotics could be adopted as a treatment for acute appendicitis in pregnant patients.
Topics: Humans; Appendicitis; Pregnancy; Female; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Pregnancy Complications; Appendectomy; Acute Disease
PubMed: 38919838
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.129906.2 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Cirugia Y Cirujanos 2024Acute appendicitis remains as a differential diagnosis in older patients with abdominal pain. The Alvarado scale may assist to guide the diagnosis and treatment of this...
BACKGROUND
Acute appendicitis remains as a differential diagnosis in older patients with abdominal pain. The Alvarado scale may assist to guide the diagnosis and treatment of this entity. The operative characteristics of the scale are little known in this population.
METHOD
We conducted a systematic review of original studies published between 1986 and 2022 evaluating the diagnostic performance of the Alvarado scale in older adults with suspected acute appendicitis. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. The evaluation of the methodological quality of the studies was performed according to the ROBINS-I criteria.
RESULTS
Four original studies of retrospective design including 480 patients were identified. The heterogeneity and poor methodological quality limited an aggregate statistical analysis (meta-analysis). The value of the ROC curve of the scale varies between 0.799 and 0.969. From the available studies, the value of the ROC curve is lower in comparison to the RIPASA scale and comparable to the Lintula scale.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence on the diagnostic performance of the Alvarado scale in older adults is limited. The poor methodological quality of the available studies calls for a prudent use of this tool in this population. Our findings offer opportunities for future research.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Humans; Abdominal Pain; Acute Disease; Appendicitis; Diagnosis, Differential; Retrospective Studies; ROC Curve
PubMed: 38782393
DOI: 10.24875/CIRU.23000155 -
The American Surgeon May 2024Epiploic appendagitis (EA) is an essential cause of abdominal pain that can be confused with more typical causes such as acute diverticulitis and appendicitis. Epiploic... (Review)
Review
Epiploic appendagitis (EA) is an essential cause of abdominal pain that can be confused with more typical causes such as acute diverticulitis and appendicitis. Epiploic appendagitis accounts for 1% of all cases of abdominal pain in adults. The scarcity of information has limited its recognition as an essential nonsurgical cause of acute abdominal pain. We performed a systematic review of all EA cases published. We searched Scopus, Medline, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to retrieve all available studies from January 2000 to November 2023. 196 case reports and case series were analyzed, with 371 patients with EA included. The mean age at the time of diagnosis was 39 years. Most patients were male (59%). The primary presenting symptoms were pain (100%), tenderness (59.5%), and rebound tenderness (27.4%). The left abdomen was the most common localization of pain (53%). The most frequently identified differential diagnoses were acute appendicitis (26.4%) and acute diverticulitis (16.1%). Most patients (53%) were treated conservatively, and 98 (26.4%) underwent surgical treatment. A significant difference in the choice of treatment was found for signs and symptoms such as rebound tenderness, nausea, anorexia, and diarrhea. Acute EA is an essential clinical condition of rare occurrence that might present a diagnostic challenge, as it can masquerade as another acute abdominal pain etiology. The optimal management of EA is conservative, so a higher recognition by surgeons and emergency physicians is essential to avoid unnecessary surgical interventions and their associated consequences.
PubMed: 38756087
DOI: 10.1177/00031348241256062 -
Surgical Endoscopy Jun 2024Appendicitis is an extremely common disease with a variety of medical and surgical treatment approaches. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop...
BACKGROUND
Appendicitis is an extremely common disease with a variety of medical and surgical treatment approaches. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians and patients in decisions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted from 2010 to 2022 to answer 8 key questions relating to the diagnosis of appendicitis, operative or nonoperative management, and specific technical and post-operative issues for appendectomy. The results of this systematic review were then presented to a panel of adult and pediatric surgeons. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts.
RESULTS
Conditional recommendations were made in favor of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis being managed operatively, either delayed (>12h) or immediate operation (<12h), either suction and lavage or suction alone, no routine drain placement, treatment with short-term antibiotics postoperatively for complicated appendicitis, and complicated appendicitis previously treated nonoperatively undergoing interval appendectomy. A conditional recommendation signals that the benefits of adhering to a recommendation probably outweigh the harms although it does also indicate uncertainty.
CONCLUSIONS
These recommendations should provide guidance with regard to current controversies in appendicitis. The panel also highlighted future research opportunities where the evidence base can be strengthened.
Topics: Appendicitis; Humans; Appendectomy; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Evidence-Based Medicine
PubMed: 38740595
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10813-y -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2017. Acute appendicitis (inflammation of the appendix) can be simple or complicated. Appendiceal phlegmon and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2017. Acute appendicitis (inflammation of the appendix) can be simple or complicated. Appendiceal phlegmon and appendiceal abscess are examples of complicated appendicitis. Appendiceal phlegmon is a diffuse inflammation in the bottom right of the appendix, while appendiceal abscess is a discrete inflamed mass in the abdomen that contains pus. Appendiceal phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms (e.g. abdominal pain, loss of appetite, nausea, and vomiting) and avoid complications (e.g. peritonitis (infection of abdominal lining)). Surgery for people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess may be early (immediately after hospital admission or within a few days of admission), or delayed (several weeks later in a subsequent hospital admission). The optimal timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess is debated.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of early appendicectomy compared to delayed appendicectomy on overall morbidity and mortality in people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and five trials registers on 11 June 2023, together with reference checking to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs that randomised 828 participants to early or delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon (7 trials) or appendiceal abscess (1 trial). The studies were conducted in the USA, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. All RCTs were at high risk of bias because of lack of blinding and lack of published protocols. They were also unclear about methods of randomisation and length of follow-up. 1. Early versus delayed open or laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon We included seven trials involving 788 paediatric and adult participants with appendiceal phlegmon: 394 of the participants were randomised to the early appendicectomy group (open or laparoscopic appendicectomy as soon as the appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission), and 394 were randomised to the delayed appendicectomy group (initial conservative treatment followed by delayed open or laparoscopic appendicectomy several weeks later). There was no mortality in either group. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of early appendicectomy on overall morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 2.86; 3 trials, 146 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infections (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.02; 7 trials, 788 participants), and the proportion of participants who developed faecal fistulas (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 8.49; 5 trials, 388 participants). Early appendicectomy may reduce the abdominal abscess rate (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.80; 4 trials, 626 participants; very low-certainty evidence), reduce the total length of hospital stay by about two days (mean difference (MD) -2.02 days, 95% CI -3.13 to -0.91; 5 trials, 680 participants), and increase the time away from normal activities by about five days (MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48; 1 trial, 40 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscess We included one trial involving 40 paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess: 20 were randomised to the early appendicectomy group (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy), and 20 were randomised to the delayed appendicectomy group (initial conservative treatment followed by delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later). There was no mortality in either group. The trial did not report on overall morbidity, various complications, or time away from normal activities. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of early appendicectomy on the total length of hospital stay (MD -0.20 days, 95% CI -3.54 to 3.14; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For the comparison of early versus delayed open or laparoscopic appendicectomy for paediatric and adult participants with appendiceal phlegmon, very low-certainty evidence suggests that early appendicectomy may reduce the abdominal abscess rate. The evidence is very uncertain whether early appendicectomy prevents overall morbidity or other complications. Early appendicectomy may reduce the total length of hospital stay and increase the time away from normal activities, but the evidence is very uncertain. For the comparison of early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy. Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery, and resolution of the appendiceal phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities and length of hospital stay.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Abscess; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Bias; Cellulitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Time-to-Treatment
PubMed: 38695830
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011670.pub3