-
Cureus Jan 2024Recent studies have discussed the role of antibiotic treatment in the conservative management of acute appendicitis and whether antibiotics are a safe option to replace... (Review)
Review
Recent studies have discussed the role of antibiotic treatment in the conservative management of acute appendicitis and whether antibiotics are a safe option to replace appendicectomy, which has been the gold standard treatment of acute appendicitis for many years. The bibliographic databases Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and PubMed comparing conservative versus surgical treatment of acute appendicitis were systematically searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Twenty-one studies consisting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses involving 44,699 participants were identified. At least 17,865 participants were treated with antibiotics. Our studies compare antibiotic versus appendicectomy among acute appendicitis patients ranging from 7 to 94 years of age. In most studies, patients received parenteral antibiotics for a total of one to three days, and oral antibiotics such as oral cephalosporin plus metronidazole, oral amoxicillin/clavulanate, oral fluoroquinolones plus Tinidazole upon hospital discharge for a total of 7 to 10 days. The total course of antibiotics for both parenteral and oral regimes ranged from 2 to 16 days, with 10 days being the commonest duration. The recurrence rate following initial antibiotic treatment at one-year follow-up ranged from 13% to 38%, while the mean duration of recurrence ranged from three to eight months. The majority of the patients with recurrence underwent appendicectomy, while some patients were either given a repeat or different course of antibiotics due to the possible presence of antibiotic resistance; however, only 2.4% of the patients were successfully treated upon completion of the second course of antibiotics. Most of the studies concluded that appendicectomy remains the gold standard treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis, given its higher efficacy and lower complication rates. Although antibiotic treatment cannot be routinely recommended, it can be considered an appropriate alternative in selected patients with uncomplicated appendicitis who wish to avoid surgery and also acknowledge the risk of recurrence and the potential need for subsequent surgery at the same time.
PubMed: 38384640
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.52697 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Oct 2022
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Child; Humans; Hyponatremia
PubMed: 35490069
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2022.04.058 -
World Journal of Clinical Cases Nov 2021Previous studies had shown endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) is an effective treatment for acute appendicitis. However, different studies reported...
BACKGROUND
Previous studies had shown endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) is an effective treatment for acute appendicitis. However, different studies reported conflicting outcomes regarding the effectiveness of ERAT in comparison with laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).
AIM
To compare the effectiveness of ERAT with LA.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies of ERAT for acute uncomplicated appendicitis were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the WanFang Database, and Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP) from the establishment date to March 1 2021. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared statistic. Pooled odds ratios (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and standard mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated through either fixed-effects or random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis was also performed. Publication bias was tested by Egger's test, and Begg's test. The quality of included RCT were evaluated by the Jadad scale, while Newcastle-Ottawa scale is adopted for assessing the methodological quality of case-control studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Stata 15.1 statistical software. All statistical analysis was performed using Stata 15.1 statistical software. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021243955.
RESULTS
After screening, 10 RCTs and 2 case-control studies were included in the current systematic review. Firstly, the length of hospitalizations [WMD = -1.15, 95%CI: -1.99, -0.31; = 0.007] was shorter than LA group. Secondly, the level of post-operative CRP [WMD = -10.06, 95%CI: (-17.39, -2.73); = 0.007], TNF-α [WMD = -7.70, 95%CI: (-8.47, -6.93); 0.001], and IL-6 Levels [WMD = -9.78, 95%CI: (-10.69, -8.88); 0.001; 0.001] in ERAT group was significantly lower than LA group. Thirdly, ERAT group had a lower incidence of intestinal obstruction than LA group. [OR = 0.19, 95%CI: (0.05, 0.79); = 0.020]. Moreover, the quality of 10 RCTs were low with 0-3 Jadad scores, while the methodological quality of two case-control studies were fair with a score of 2 (each).
CONCLUSION
Compared with LA, ERAT reduces operation time, the level of postoperative inflammation, and results in fewer complications and shorter recovery time, with preserving the appendix and its immune and biological functions.
PubMed: 34904091
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i33.10208 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Oct 2022Background and Objectives: While laparoscopic appendectomy is standardized, techniques for appendiceal stump closure and mesoappendix division remain variable. Novel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background and Objectives: While laparoscopic appendectomy is standardized, techniques for appendiceal stump closure and mesoappendix division remain variable. Novel vessel sealing techniques are increasingly utilized ubiquitously. We sought to systematically summarize all relevant data and to define the current evidence on the safety and utility of energy devices for clipless−sutureless laparoscopic appendectomy in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: This review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Inclusion criteria included studies with laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis. The intervention included patients undergoing division of mesoappendix and/or securing of the appendicular base using diathermy (Monopolar or Bipolar or LigaSure Sealing Device) or Harmonic Scalpel (Group A) compared to patients undergoing division of mesoappendix and/or securing of the appendicular base using endoclip or Hem-o-lok or ligature (Group B). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Downs and Black scale. The outcomes of surgical site infection (SSI) or intra-abdominal collection, postoperative ileus, average operative duration, and length of hospital stay (LHS) were compared. Results: Six comparative studies were included; three were retrospective, two were prospective, and one was ambispective. Meta-analysis revealed a shorter operative duration in Group A with respect to appendicular base ligation (MD −12.34, 95% CI −16.57 to −8.11, p < 0.00001) and mesoappendix division (MD −8.06, 95% CI −14.03 to −2.09, p = 0.008). The pooled risk ratios showed no difference in SSI between groups. Additionally, no difference was observed in LHS. The risk of postoperative ileus was higher in group B regarding mesoappendix division (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93, p = 0.02), but no difference was found concerning appendicular base ligation. The included studies showed a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Conclusions: Clipless−sutureless laparoscopic appendectomy is safe and fast. Postoperative ileus seems less common with energy devices for mesoappendix division. However, the studies included have a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Further studies addressing the individual devices with surgeons of similar levels are needed.
Topics: Humans; Appendectomy; Retrospective Studies; Prospective Studies; Laparoscopy; Appendicitis; Length of Stay; Ileus; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36363491
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58111535 -
Danish Medical Journal Aug 2014The treatment strategy for appendiceal mass is controversial, ranging from operation or image-guided drainage to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics. The... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The treatment strategy for appendiceal mass is controversial, ranging from operation or image-guided drainage to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics. The aim of this study was to assess the various treatment modalities with respect to complications and treatment failure.
METHODS
The analysis was based on the principles of a qualitative systematic review. The literature was searched in PubMed for the period from 1966 to March 2014. The articles were reviewed with respect to complications, treatment failure and hospital stay. Papers on post-operative intra-abdominal abscesses and abscesses of any cause other than appendicitis were excluded as were also studies only describing recurrent appendicitis and/or interval appendectomy. Sub-analyses were performed in children, adults, and in mixed populations.
RESULTS
A total of 48 studies were found eligible; they included in total 3,772 patients. Operation for appendiceal mass was beset with a moderate to high risk of complications of up to 57% and a risk of intestinal resection of up to 25%. Major complications were observed in up to 18% of cases. Conservative treatment with or without antibiotics was associated with a treatment failure rate of 8-15%. Drainage was beset with a risk of complications of 2-15% and a risk of treatment failure of 2-13%.
CONCLUSION
Operation with appendectomy for appendiceal mass carries a high risk of complications compared with conservative treatment or drainage. Drainage may lower the risk of treatment failure but entails a risk of complications. Based on the best evidence, we propose a step-down treatment strategy.
FUNDING
Not relevant.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Not relevant.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Drainage; Humans; Treatment Failure; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 25162440
DOI: No ID Found -
Cureus Sep 2022Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies worldwide. The laparoscopic approach for managing acute appendicitis is gaining... (Review)
Review
Acute appendicitis is one of the most commonly encountered surgical emergencies worldwide. The laparoscopic approach for managing acute appendicitis is gaining popularity over open appendicectomy in the current surgical practice. The advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy are early recovery, fewer wound complications, less pain and better cosmesis. One of the most critical steps in laparoscopic appendicectomy is a secure appendicular stump closure. Life-threatening postoperative complications are often encountered following the breakdown of appendicular stump closure. There are several methods to achieve appendicular stump closure such as intra-corporeal knotting, endoloops, external corporeal knotting and pushing knot inside, endoscopic linear cutting stapler (endo GIA), and endoclips. A meta-analysis on the technique of appendicular stump closure in laparoscopic appendicectomy failed to demonstrate the superiority of one method over the other. In the last few years, many authors have evaluated the outcome of sutureless appendicectomy performed using devices like a harmonic scalpel. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aimed to summarise the current evidence regarding the utility and safety of harmonic scalpel in sutureless appendicectomy. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted as per the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic, detailed search was carried out by the authors in the electronic database, including Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, Google scholar and clinical trial registry. Studies were selected and compared based on outcomes such as operative time, hospital stay, postoperative paralytic ileus, wound infection, and total complications. Statistical analysis was performed using the random effect model, fixed-effect model, pooled risk ratio, pooled mean difference and I heterogeneity. Four comparative studies with a total of 642 patients (376 male and 266 females) were included in the analysis. There were 359 patients in the conventional technique of appendicular stump closure group and 283 patients in the harmonic scalpel for appendicular stump closure group. Pooled analysis of the outcome measure of total complications showed that the use of harmonic scalpel for closure of appendiceal stump does not result in an increased incidence of complications as compared to the conventional technology of appendiceal stump closure. Pooled analysis of the outcome measure of mean operative time revealed a statistically significant reduction in the operative time in the patients where harmonic scalpel has been used for the management of appendiceal stump as compared to conventional methods (pooled mean difference of -12.96 with 95% CI -15.42, -10.50). Appendiceal stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy by harmonic scalpel (HS) is comparable with the conventional techniques in terms of hospital stay, wound infection, postoperative paralytic ileus, and total complications. The use of a harmonic scalpel for closure of appendicular stump is associated with a reduction of the mean operative time of laparoscopic appendicectomy.
PubMed: 36159348
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.28759 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Mar 2021Appendicitis is a common surgical problem among the young adult population, who are likely to use the internet to obtain medical information. This information may...
BACKGROUND
Appendicitis is a common surgical problem among the young adult population, who are likely to use the internet to obtain medical information. This information may determine the health-seeking behavior of an individual and may delay medical attention. Little is known regarding the quality of patient information on appendicitis on the internet, as this has not been previously studied.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of our study was to identify the quality of information regarding appendicitis on websites intended for the public.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review of information on appendicitis available online using the following 4 search terms in google: "appendicitis," "appendix," "appendectomy," and "appendicectomy". The top 100 websites of each search term were assessed using the validated Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool (score 0-36).
RESULTS
A total of 119 websites met the eligibility criteria for evaluation. The overall median EQIP score for all websites was 20 (IQR 18-22). More than half the websites originated from the USA (65/119, 54.6%), and 45.4% (54/119) of all websites originated from hospitals, although 43% (23/54) of these did not mention qualitative risks from surgery. Incidence rates were only provided for complications and mortality in 12.6% (15/119) and 3.3% (4/119) of all websites, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The assessment of the quality and readability of websites concerning appendicitis by the EQIP tool indicates that most sites online were of poor credibility, with minimal information regarding complication rates and mortality. To improve education and awareness of appendicitis, there is an immediate need for more informative and patient-centered websites that are more compatible with international quality standards.
Topics: Appendicitis; Comprehension; Consumer Health Information; Humans; Internet; Young Adult
PubMed: 33729160
DOI: 10.2196/22618 -
Pediatric Surgery International Aug 2022To systematically summarize all relevant data and to define the current evidence on the utility of Pentraxin-3 (PTX3) as a biomarker for acute appendicitis (AA) in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To systematically summarize all relevant data and to define the current evidence on the utility of Pentraxin-3 (PTX3) as a biomarker for acute appendicitis (AA) in children.
METHODS
This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for studies comparing the levels of PTX3 in patients with AA vs healthy controls or non-specific abdominal pain (NSAP). Mean differences were calculated for all outcomes and the inverse variance method was used for weighted mean difference. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Downs and Black scale.
RESULTS
Five comparative studies were included. Significantly elevated levels of PTX3 in cases with AA vs healthy controls (WMD: 9.56, 95% CI 7.24-11.88, p < 0.00001), and patients with AA vs NSAP (WMD: 8.05, 95% CI 6.81-9.29, p < 0.00001) were demonstrated. Similarly, in separate meta-analyses, the levels of PTX3 were significantly elevated in children with AA vs healthy controls (WMD: 11.18, 95% CI 10.03-12.34, p < 0.00001), and children with AA vs NSAP (WMD: 8.35, 95% CI 6.88-9.82, p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
PTX3-levels are elevated in AA, but differentiation between perforated and non-perforated appendicitis demands other methods.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Acute Disease; Appendicitis; Biomarkers; Child; Humans
PubMed: 35704081
DOI: 10.1007/s00383-022-05149-4 -
BMC Medicine Dec 2011The Alvarado score can be used to stratify patients with symptoms of suspected appendicitis; the validity of the score in certain patient groups and at different cut... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The Alvarado score can be used to stratify patients with symptoms of suspected appendicitis; the validity of the score in certain patient groups and at different cut points is still unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the discrimination (diagnostic accuracy) and calibration performance of the Alvarado score.
METHODS
A systematic search of validation studies in Medline, Embase, DARE and The Cochrane library was performed up to April 2011. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the score at the two cut-off points: score of 5 (1 to 4 vs. 5 to 10) and score of 7 (1 to 6 vs. 7 to 10). Calibration was analysed across low (1 to 4), intermediate (5 to 6) and high (7 to 10) risk strata. The analysis focused on three sub-groups: men, women and children.
RESULTS
Forty-two studies were included in the review. In terms of diagnostic accuracy, the cut-point of 5 was good at 'ruling out' admission for appendicitis (sensitivity 99% overall, 96% men, 99% woman, 99% children). At the cut-point of 7, recommended for 'ruling in' appendicitis and progression to surgery, the score performed poorly in each subgroup (specificity overall 81%, men 57%, woman 73%, children 76%). The Alvarado score is well calibrated in men across all risk strata (low RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.28; intermediate 1.09, 0.86 to 1.37 and high 1.02, 0.97 to 1.08). The score over-predicts the probability of appendicitis in children in the intermediate and high risk groups and in women across all risk strata.
CONCLUSIONS
The Alvarado score is a useful diagnostic 'rule out' score at a cut point of 5 for all patient groups. The score is well calibrated in men, inconsistent in children and over-predicts the probability of appendicitis in women across all strata of risk.
Topics: Appendicitis; Humans; Predictive Value of Tests; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 22204638
DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-139 -
Annals of Surgery Dec 2022To develop an international core outcome set (COS), a minimal collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future clinical trials evaluating...
OBJECTIVE
To develop an international core outcome set (COS), a minimal collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all future clinical trials evaluating treatments of acute simple appendicitis in children.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
A previous systematic review identified 115 outcomes in 60 trials and systematic reviews evaluating treatments for children with appendicitis, suggesting the need for a COS.
METHODS
The development process consisted of 4 phases: (1) an updated systematic review identifying all previously reported outcomes, (2) a 2-stage international Delphi study in which parents with their children and surgeons rated these outcomes for inclusion in the COS, (3) focus groups with young people to identify missing outcomes, and (4) international expert meetings to ratify the final COS.
RESULTS
The systematic review identified 129 outcomes which were mapped to 43 unique outcome terms for the Delphi survey. The first-round included 137 parents (8 countries) and 245 surgeons (10 countries), the second-round response rates were 61% and 85% respectively, with 10 outcomes emerging with consensus. After 2 young peoples' focus groups, 2 additional outcomes were added to the final COS (12): mortality, bowel obstruction, intraabdominal abscess, recurrent appendicitis, complicated appendicitis, return to baseline health, readmission, reoperation, unplanned appendectomy, adverse events related to treatment, major and minor complications.
CONCLUSION
An evidence-informed COS based on international consensus, including patients and parents has been developed. This COS is recommended for all future studies evaluating treatment ofsimple appendicitis in children, to reduce heterogeneity between studies and facilitate data synthesis and evidence-based decision-making.
Topics: Child; Humans; Adolescent; Delphi Technique; Appendicitis; Research Design; Consensus; Acute Disease; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33630468
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004707