-
European Journal of Pediatrics Jul 2023The aim of this study was to analyze the diagnostic performance of Leucine-Rich Alpha-2-Glycoprotein (LRG1) in pediatric acute appendicitis (PAA). We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this study was to analyze the diagnostic performance of Leucine-Rich Alpha-2-Glycoprotein (LRG1) in pediatric acute appendicitis (PAA). We conducted a systematic review of the literature in the main databases of medical bibliography. Two independent reviewers selected the articles and extracted relevant data. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS2 index. A synthesis of the results, standardization of the metrics and 4 random-effect meta-analyses were performed. Eight studies with data from 712 participants (305 patients with confirmed diagnosis of PAA and 407 controls) were included in this review. The random-effect meta-analysis of serum LRG1 (PAA vs control) resulted in a significant mean difference (95% CI) of 46.76 μg/mL (29.26-64.26). The random-effect meta-analysis for unadjusted urinary LRG1 (PAA vs control) resulted in a significant mean difference (95% CI) of 0.61 μg/mL (0.30-0.93). The random-effect meta-analysis (PAA vs control) for urinary LRG1 adjusted for urinary creatinine resulted in a significant mean difference (95% CI) of 0.89 g/mol (0.11-1.66). Conlusion: Urinary LRG1 emerges as a potential non-invasive biomarker for the diagnosis of PAA. On the other hand, due to the high between-study heterogeneity, the results on serum LRG1 should be interpreted with caution. The only study that analyzed salivary LRG1 showed promising results. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. What is Known: • Pediatric acute appendicitis continues to be a pathology with a high rate of diagnostic error. • Invasive tests, although useful, are a source of stress for patients and their parents. What is New: • LRG1 emerges as a promising urinary and salivary biomarker for the noninvasive diagnosis of pediatric acute appendicitis.
Topics: Child; Humans; Acute Disease; Appendicitis; Biomarkers; Glycoproteins
PubMed: 37148275
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-023-04978-2 -
Journal of Pediatric Surgery Jun 2024Non-operative management (NOM) of simple appendicitis is becoming an increasingly researched treatment option. This systematic review aims to describe the short and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Compare the Short- and Long-term Outcomes of Non-operative Management With Early Operative Management of Simple Appendicitis in Children After the COVID-19 Pandemic.
BACKGROUND
Non-operative management (NOM) of simple appendicitis is becoming an increasingly researched treatment option. This systematic review aims to describe the short and long-term failure rates of NOM and the complication rate of appendicectomy in children with simple appendicitis.
METHODS
The systematic review was registered a priori (CRD42022322149). Study inclusion criteria are: participants aged ≤ 18 years of age; groups undergoing both NOM and appendicectomy for simple appendicitis; outcomes including one or more of: NOM failure rate at 30 days or 1 year and beyond; study design: RCT or case control study. Four databases were searched and 3 reviewers determined study eligibility and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed and meta-analysis was performed using Stata.
RESULTS
The database search identified 2731 articles, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria; 4 RCTs and 10 case controlled studies. All studies had moderate-serious risk of bias. There were no deaths in either group in any study. Meta-analysis demonstrated a 30 day failure rate of 20 % (95 % CI 11-29 %) and 11 studies reported failure rate at 1 year or beyond at 32 % (95 % CI 25-38 %). Rates of significant complications of appendicectomy was 1 % (95 % CI 0-1 %).
CONCLUSIONS
Non-operative management of simple appendicitis in children is safe, with moderate early success. The failure rate increases over time, resulting in eventual appendicectomy in a third of the children diagnosed with appendicitis. These data will enable clinicians to have an informed discussion with children and their parents about their treatment options for simple appendicitis.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
II.
Topics: Humans; Appendicitis; Appendectomy; COVID-19; Child; Conservative Treatment; Postoperative Complications; Treatment Outcome; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 38158255
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2023.12.021 -
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 -
Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons... Jul 2016Introduction Prophylactic appendicectomy is performed prior to military, polar and space expeditions to prevent acute appendicitis in the field. However, the... (Review)
Review
Introduction Prophylactic appendicectomy is performed prior to military, polar and space expeditions to prevent acute appendicitis in the field. However, the risk-benefit ratio of prophylactic surgery is controversial. This study aimed to systematically review the evidence for prophylactic appendicectomy. It is supplemented by a clinical example of prophylactic surgery resulting in life-threatening complications. Methods A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE(®) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Keyword variants of 'prophylaxis' and 'appendicectomy' were combined to identify potential papers for inclusion. Papers related to prophylactic appendicectomy risks and benefits were reviewed. Results Overall, 511 papers were identified, with 37 papers satisfying the inclusion criteria. Nine reported outcomes after incidental appendicectomy during concurrent surgical procedures. No papers focused explicitly on prophylactic appendicectomy in asymptomatic patients. The clinical example outlined acute obstruction secondary to adhesions from a prophylactic appendicectomy. Complications after elective appendicectomy versus the natural history of acute appendicitis in scenarios such as polar expeditions or covert operations suggest prophylactic appendicectomy may be appropriate prior to extreme situations. Nevertheless, the long-term risk of adhesion related complications render prophylactic appendicectomy feasible only when the short-term risk of acute appendicitis outweighs the long-term risks of surgery. Conclusions Prophylactic appendicectomy is rarely performed and not without risk. This is the first documented evidence of long-term complications following prophylactic appendicectomy. Surgery should be considered on an individual basis by balancing the risks of acute appendicitis in the field with the potential consequences of an otherwise unnecessary surgical procedure in a healthy patient.
Topics: Aerospace Medicine; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Expeditions; Humans; Military Medicine; Prophylactic Surgical Procedures; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 27023639
DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2016.0089 -
Acta Cirurgica Brasileira Dec 2014To determine the best treatment option for not complicated acute appendicitis (AA) in adult patients, between single incision laparoscopy (SIL) and conventional... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To determine the best treatment option for not complicated acute appendicitis (AA) in adult patients, between single incision laparoscopy (SIL) and conventional laparoscopy (CL), measured by morbidity associated with disease.
METHODS
Systematic review. Articles of adults diagnosed with AA treated by SIL or CL were analyzed. Databases included: MEDLINE, LILACS, IBECS, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane, using MeSH terms and free words. The studies were analyzed using the MINCIR methodology. Variables included: conversion rate, morbidity, hospital stay, surgery duration, and methodological quality (MQ) of primary studies. Averages, medians and weighted averages were calculated.
RESULTS
Thirteen articles were analyzed. For SIL and CL the conversion rate were 3.4% and 0.7 %, the morbidity were 8% and 6.5%, the hospital stay were 2.5 and 2.8 days, the surgery duration were 53.4 and 53.8 minutes, and the MQ were 14.3±6.6 and 16.0±6.9 points, respectively.
CONCLUSION
With the exception of the conversion rate, there are no differences between single incision laparoscopy and conventional laparoscopy for the treatment of acute appendicitis in adults.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Conversion to Open Surgery; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Morbidity; Operative Time; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25517497
DOI: 10.1590/S0102-86502014001900010 -
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine 2022The diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) in pregnant women is commonly challenging owing to the normal results of laboratory tests, organ displacement, and normal... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) in pregnant women is commonly challenging owing to the normal results of laboratory tests, organ displacement, and normal physiological inflammatory alterations. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosis of AA in pregnant women.
METHODS
Two investigators independently performed a comprehensive systematic literature search of electronic databases including MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify studies that reported accuracy of MRI for diagnosis of AA in pregnant women from inception to April 1, 2022.
RESULTS
Our systematic search identified a total of 525 published papers. Finally, a total of 26 papers were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of MRI in diagnosis of AA in pregnant women were 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88-0.95) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.98), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were 29.52 (95% CI: 21.90-39.81) and 0.10 (95% CI: 0.04-0.25), respectively. The area under hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curve indicated that the accuracy of MRI for diagnosis of AA in pregnant women is 99%.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis showed that MRI has high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for diagnosis of AA in pregnant women and can be used as a first-line imaging modality for suspected cases of AA during pregnancy. Furthermore, it should be noted that when the result of ultrasonography is inconclusive, the use of MRI can reduce unnecessary appendectomy in pregnant patients.
PubMed: 36426165
DOI: 10.22037/aaem.v10i1.1727 -
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology Apr 2021Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a field of increasing interest that offers a minimally invasive resection modality for lesions that are not amenable for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a field of increasing interest that offers a minimally invasive resection modality for lesions that are not amenable for resection by conventional methods. Full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is a new device that was developed for a single-step eFTR using an over-the scope-clip. In this meta-analysis, we aim to assess the efficacy and safety of FTRD for eFTR of colorectal lesions.
METHODS
A Comprehensive literature review of different databases to identify studies reporting FTRD with outcomes of interest was performed. Studies with <10 cases were excluded. Rates of histologic complete resection (R0), technical success, and complications were extracted. Efficacy was assessed by using the technical and the R0 rates whereas safety was assessed by using the complications rates. Weighted pooled rates (WPRs) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated depending on the heterogeneity (I2 statistics).
RESULTS
Nine studies including 551 patients with 555 lesions were included in this study. The WPR for overall R0 was 82.4% (95% CI: 79.0%-85.5%),with moderate heterogeneity (I2=34.8%). The WPR rate for technical success was 89.25% (95% CI: 86.4%-91.7%), with low heterogeneity (I2=23.7%). The WPR for total complications rate was 10.2% (7.8, 12.8%) with no heterogeneity. The pooled rate for minor bleeding, major bleeding, postpolypectomy syndrome, and perforation were 3.2%, 0.97%, 2.2%, and 1.2%, respectively. Of 44 periappendicular lesions, the pooled rate for acute appendicitis was 19.7%.
CONCLUSIONS
FTRD seems to be effective and safe for eFTR of difficult colorectal lesions. Large prospective studies comparing FTRD with conventional resection techniques are warranted.
Topics: Adenoma; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33471494
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001410 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2005Appendicitis is the most common cause of acute abdominal pain requiring surgical intervention. The cause of appendicitis is unclear and the mechanism of pathogenesis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Appendicitis is the most common cause of acute abdominal pain requiring surgical intervention. The cause of appendicitis is unclear and the mechanism of pathogenesis continues to be debated. Despite improved asepsis and surgical techniques, postoperative complications, such as wound infection and intraabdominal abscess, still account for a significant morbidity. Several studies implicate that postoperative infections are reduced by administration of antimicrobial regimes.
OBJECTIVES
This review evaluated the use of antibiotics compared to placebo or no treatment in patients undergoing appendectomy. Will these patients benefit from antimicrobial prophylaxis? The outcomes were described according to the nature of the appendix, as either simple appendicitis (including the non-infectious stage) and complicated appendicitis. The efficacy of different antibiotic regimens were not evaluated.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2005 issue 1); Pubmed ; EMBASE; and the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialised Register (April 2005). In addition, we manually searched the reference lists of the primary identified trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We evaluated Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Controlled Clinical Trials (CCTs) in which any antibiotic regime were compared to placebo in patients suspected of having appendicitis, and undergoing appendectomy. Both studies on children and adults were reviewed. The outcome measures of the studies were: Wound infection, intra abdominal abscess, length of stay in hospital, and mortality.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Eligibility and trial quality were assessed, recorded and cross-checked by two reviewers.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-five studies including 9576 patients were included in this review. The overall result is that the use of antibiotics is superior to placebo for preventing wound infection and intraabdominal abscess, with no apparent difference in the nature of the removed appendix. Studies exclusively on children and studies examining topical application reported results in favour to the above, although the results were not significant.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic prophylaxis is effective in the prevention of postoperative complications in appendectomised patients, whether the administration is given pre-, peri- or post-operatively, and could be considered for routine in emergency appendectomies.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Adult; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Child; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Length of Stay; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 16034862
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001439.pub2 -
World Journal of Emergency Surgery :... 2016Due to the increasing number of solid organs transplantations, emergency abdominal surgery in transplanted patients is becoming a relevant challenge for the general... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Due to the increasing number of solid organs transplantations, emergency abdominal surgery in transplanted patients is becoming a relevant challenge for the general surgeon. The aim of this systematic review of the literature is to analyze morbidity and mortality of emergency abdominal surgery performed in transplanted patients for graft-unrelated surgical problems.
METHODS
The literature search was performed on online databases with the time limit 1990-2015. Studies describing all types of emergency abdominal surgery in solid organ transplanted patients were retrieved for evaluation.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine case series published between 1996 and 2015 met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the systematic review. Overall, they included 71671 transplanted patients, of which 1761 (2.5 %) underwent emergency abdominal surgery. The transplanted organs were the heart in 65.8 % of patients, the lung in 22.1 %, the kidney in 9.5 %, and the liver in 2.6 %. The mean patients' age at the time of the emergency abdominal surgery was 49.4 ± 7.4 years, and the median time from transplantation to emergency surgery was 2.4 years (range 0.1-20). Indications for emergency abdominal surgery were: gallbladder diseases (80.3 %), gastrointestinal perforations (9.2 %), complicated diverticulitis (6.2 %), small bowel obstructions (2 %), and appendicitis (2 %). The overall mortality was 5.5 % (range 0-17.5 %). The morbidity rate varied from 13.6 % for gallbladder diseases to 32.7 % for complicated diverticulitis. Most of the time, the immunosuppressive therapy was maintained unmodified postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS
Emergency abdominal surgery in transplanted patients is not a rare event. Although associated with relevant mortality and morbidity, a prompt and appropriate surgery can lead to satisfactory results if performed taking into account the patient's immunosuppression therapy and hemodynamic stability.
PubMed: 27582783
DOI: 10.1186/s13017-016-0101-6 -
Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Research Sep 2021Our prior work and the work of others have demonstrated that asthma increases the risk of a broad range of both respiratory (, pneumonia and pertussis) and... (Review)
Review
Risk, Mechanisms and Implications of Asthma-Associated Infectious and Inflammatory Multimorbidities (AIMs) among Individuals With Asthma: a Systematic Review and a Case Study.
Our prior work and the work of others have demonstrated that asthma increases the risk of a broad range of both respiratory (, pneumonia and pertussis) and non-respiratory (, zoster and appendicitis) infectious diseases as well as inflammatory diseases (, celiac disease and myocardial infarction [MI]), suggesting the systemic disease nature of asthma and its impact beyond the airways. We call these conditions asthma-associated infectious and inflammatory multimorbidities (AIMs). At present, little is known about why some people with asthma are at high-risk of AIMs, and others are not, to the extent to which controlling asthma reduces the risk of AIMs and which specific therapies mitigate the risk of AIMs. These questions represent a significant knowledge gap in asthma research and unmet needs in asthma care, because there are no guidelines addressing the identification and management of AIMs. This is a systematic review on the association of asthma with the risk of AIMs and a case study to highlight that 1) AIMs are relatively under-recognized conditions, but pose major health threats to people with asthma; 2) AIMs provide insights into immunological and clinical features of asthma as a systemic inflammatory disease beyond a solely chronic airway disease; and 3) it is time to recognize AIMs as a distinctive asthma phenotype in order to advance asthma research and improve asthma care. An improved understanding of AIMs and their underlying mechanisms will bring valuable and new perspectives improving the practice, research, and public health related to asthma.
PubMed: 34486256
DOI: 10.4168/aair.2021.13.5.697