Meta-analysis of peritoneal lavage in appendicectomy

The contemporary management of perforated appendicitis in adults: To operate or wait?

Objectives

The optimal management of perforated appendicitis remains controversial. Many studies advocate for antibiotics and an interval appendectomy whereas others suggest that performing an appendectomy at the time of presentation decreases post-operative morbidity. Confounding this argument further are the patients who fail non-operative management and end up requiring surgery during their initial hospitalization. This study aims to determine if early operative intervention should be considered for perforated appendicitis.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of all patients who underwent an appendectomy (both laparoscopic or open) for perforated appendicitis between 2015 and 2020 at our institution.

Results

A total of 271 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Of this group, 250 patients underwent an immediate appendectomy whereas the remaining 21 patients underwent a trial of non-operative management and eventually required an appendectomy during their initial admission. When comparing the immediate versus delayed operative groups, there were no differences in demographic data including age and gender, and no differences in various imaging findings including AAST Grade IV or V appendicitis. Operatively, patients in the delayed group had a longer operative time (83.1 ± 32.9 vs. 64.1 ± 26.2, p = 0.01), were more likely to require an open operation (23.8 % vs. 2.8 %, p < 0.0001), and were more likely to have a drain placed intra-operatively (42.9 % vs 14.4 %, p = 0.004). While there were no differences in 30-day readmission rates, patients in the delayed group had a significantly longer hospital length of stay than patients in the immediate group (9.4 ± 7.4 vs. 3.1 ± 3.3, p = 0.008).

Conclusions

Patients undergoing an immediate appendectomy for perforated appendicitis can discharge from the hospital sooner and demonstrate no increase in post-operative morbidity suggesting that surgeons can initially manage this disease process in an operative fashion.

Early surgery for perforated appendicitis: Are we moving the needle on postoperative abscess?

BACKGROUND

Perforated appendicitis is often managed nonoperatively though upfront surgery is becoming more common. We describe postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing surgery at their index hospitalization for perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

We used the 2016-2020 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify patients with appendicitis who underwent appendectomy or partial colectomy. The primary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI).

RESULTS

132,443 patients with appendicitis underwent immediate surgery. Of 14.1% patients with perforated appendicitis, 84.3% underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. Intra-abdominal abscess rates were lowest after laparoscopic appendectomy (9.4%). Open appendectomy (OR 5.14, 95% CI 4.06-6.51) and laparoscopic partial colectomy (OR 4.60, 95% CI 2.38-8.89) were associated with higher likelihoods of SSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Upfront surgical management of perforated appendicitis is now predominantly approached by laparoscopy, often without bowel resection. Postoperative complications occurred less frequently with laparoscopic appendectomy compared to other approaches. Laparoscopic appendectomy during the index hospitalization is an effective approach to perforated appendicitis.

Effectiveness of intraoperative peritoneal lavage with saline in patient with intra-abdominal infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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]; I2 = 24%), incisional surgical site infections (3.3% vs. 3.8%; RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.18–2.86]; I2 = 50%), postoperative complication (11.0% vs. 13.2%; RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.39–1.41]; I2 = 64%), reoperation (2.9% vs. 1.7%; RR,1.71 [95% CI, 0.74–3.93]; I2 = 0%) and readmission (5.2% vs. 6.6%; RR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.48–1.87]; I2 = 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], I2 = 0%) and intra-abdominal abscess (5.1% vs. 5.0%; RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.16–6.98], I2 = 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.

Saline irrigation versus gauze wiping and suction only for peritoneal decontamination during laparoscopic repair for perforated peptic ulcer disease

The aim of current single-center study was to compare the short-term outcome of suction and gauze wiping alone versus the irrigation and suction technique for peritoneal decontamination among patients who underwent laparoscopic repair of PPU. Using data from our institution's prospectively maintained database, 105 patients who underwent laparoscopic repair were enrolled in this study. The participants were further divided into the group who received peritoneal irrigation (irrigation group, n = 67) and group who received gauze wiping and suction only (suction only group, n = 38). The irrigation group had a longer operative time (140 vs. 113 min, p = 0.0001), higher number of drainage tubes (38.8% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001) and a higher incidence of intra-abdominal abscess (10.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.0469) than the suction only group. Peritoneal irrigation may be associated with a prolonged operative time and a higher number of abdominal drains. Meanwhile, gauze wiping and suction may be sufficient for peritoneal decontamination during the laparoscopic repair of PPU as further infectious complications are not observed.

Peritoneal antiseptic irrigation to prevent surgical site infection after laparotomy for hepatobiliary or gastrointestinal surgery (PAISI)-protocol for a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs) remain common after laparotomy for resections of the gastrointestinal or hepatobiliary tract. Especially organ/space infections (CDC class III SSI) can be life-threatening, require relaparotomy, intensive care or interventional drainage of intraabdominal abscesses. The PAISI study aims to investigate whether the use of prophylactic peritoneal irrigation with NaOCl/HOCl solution can reduce the SSI rates following laparotomy for resections of the gastrointestinal or hepatobiliary tract, compared to standard irrigation with physiological electrolyte solution (Ringer's solution). Secondarily, to evaluate whether the use of prophylactic peritoneal irrigation with NaOCl/HOCl solution can reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality as well as the rate of re-operations and length of hospital stay.

METHODS

PAISI is a prospective, randomized, observer- and patient-blinded, monocentric, two-arm surgical study in an adaptive parallel groups design, comparing peritoneal and wound irrigation with NaOCl/HOCl (50/50ppm) solution to irrigation with Ringer's solution. The primary endpoint of the study is the SSI rate within 30 days postoperatively. Since there is no data on incidence rates from randomized clinical trials, the rates for sample size calculation were estimated according to the clinical experience at our institution. Therefore, the study design includes one unblinded look at the data by a second statistician, which will be performed after half of the patients reached the primary endpoint. This interim information will be used to check the assumptions and if needed, the sample size will be adjusted. The O'Brien-Fleming spending function is used to determine the efficacy test boundary and the non-binding futility boundary. The one-sided z-test (Group sequential test of two proportions) at the 2.5% significance level with a total of two looks at the data will have overall 80% power.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will provide high-level evidence for future research and clinical recommendations regarding the use of NaOCl/HOCl solution in abdominal surgery and provide the participating patients the opportunity of a potentially improved treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) DRKS00028037. Registered on 27 May 2022.

Aspiration versus peritoneal lavage in appendicitis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is one of the most frequent abdominal surgical emergencies. Intra-abdominal abscess is a frequent post-operative complication. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare peritoneal irrigation and suction versus suction only when performing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

According to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted and registered into the Prospero register (CRD42020186848). The risk of bias was defined to be from low to moderate.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (9 RCTs and 8 CCTs) were selected, including 5315 patients. There was no statistical significance in post-operative intra-abdominal abscess in open (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.75-2.15; I2 = 74%) and laparoscopic group (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.73-3.13; I2 = 83%). No statistical significance in reoperation rate in open (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.04-2.49; I2 = 18%) and laparoscopic group (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.64-2.49; I2 = 18%). In both open and laparoscopic groups, operative time was lower in the suction group (RR 7.13, 95% CI 3.14-11.12); no statistical significance was found for hospital stay (MD - 0.39, 95% CI - 1.07 to 0.30; I2 = 91%) and the rate of wound infection (MD 1.16, 95% CI 0.56-2.38; I2 = 71%).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review has failed to demonstrate the statistical superiority of employing intra-operative peritoneal irrigation and suction over suction-only to reduce the rate of post-operative complications after appendectomy, but all the articles report clinical superiority in terms of post-operative abscess, wound infection and operative times in suction-only group.

Johan Forceps As a Knot Pusher for Extracorporeal Roeder Knot: An Inexpensive Alternative to an Endoloop Ligature in Laparoscopic Appendicectomy

Background: Securing of the appendix stump is one of the key steps in performing laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA). This can be achieved by a variety of methods including endoloops, stapler, and clips. An alternative technique, previously described by authors, is the use of Johan forceps as a knot pusher, to deploy an extracorporeal Roeder knot at the base of appendix. We aimed to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of our technique. Patients and Methods: A single surgeon's, prospective cohort, and multicenter study was undertaken at three different hospitals in the United Kingdom. We collected data of all patients, who underwent LA by this technique between 2014 and 2019. Demographics, operative findings, postoperative complications and readmissions were recorded and analyzed. Results: In total, 227 appendicectomies were performed. Median age was 24 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 16-58) with 58% male preponderance. Operative findings were 57% (n = 130) acutely inflammatory appendicitis, 16.74% (n = 38) were complicated appendicitis (perforated, gangrenous). Rest of the operative findings were macroscopically normal appendix (with no other pathology in 18.06% (n = 41), and macroscopically normal appendix but with gynecological pathologies in 7.9% (n = 18). Postoperatively, there were no cases to report complication of blow out stumps neither clinically nor radiologically. Surgical site infections rate has been 3.5% (n = 8). One patient had small intra-abdominal abscess (0.4%), treated by IV antibiotics. Mean hospital stay was 1.89 days (standard deviation [SD] 1-5 days). Thirty days readmissions rate was 4.8%. None of the complications or readmissions was related to the surgical technique. There were no deaths recorded in this series. Cost of handmade endoloop was $0.69. Conclusion: Use of Johan forceps as knot pusher for extracorporeal Roeder knot is a safe, feasible, cost-effective, and easily reproducible technique for carrying out LA.

Laparoscopic versus open approach for diffuse peritonitis from appendicitis ethiology: a subgroup analysis from the Physiological parameters for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) study

Diffuse peritonitis represents a life-threatening complication of acute appendicitis (AA). Whether laparoscopy is a safe procedure and presents similar results compared with laparotomy in case of complicated AA is still a matter of debate. The objective of this study is to compare laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) for the management of diffuse peritonitis caused by AA. This is a prospective multicenter cohort study, including 223 patients with diffuse peritonitis from perforated AA, enrolled in the Physiological parameters for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) study from February to May 2018. Two groups were created: LA = 78 patients, mean age 42.51 ± 22.14 years and OA = 145 patients, mean age 38.44 ± 20.95 years. LA was employed in 34.98% of cases. There was no statically significant difference between LA and OA groups in terms of intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative peritonitis, rate of reoperation, and mortality. The wound infection rate was higher in the OA group (OR 21.63; 95% CI 3.46-895.47; P = 0.00). The mean postoperative hospital stay in the LA group was shorter than in the OA group (6.40 ± 4.29 days versus 7.8 ± 5.30 days; P = 0.032). Although LA was only used in one-third of cases, it is a safe procedure and should be considered in the management of patients with diffuse peritonitis caused by AA, respecting its indications.

Peritoneal irrigation vs suction alone during pediatric appendectomy for perforated appendicitis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There currently exists no substantial evidence reporting the efficacy of peritoneal irrigation in reducing the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess in pediatric patients. The purpose of our study was to perform a meta-analysis to compare rates of intra-abdominal abscess after appendectomy between irrigation and suction alone groups.

METHODS

We identified studies by a systematic search in EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to recognize randomized controlled trials and case control studies from the 1950 to May 2019. We limited the English language studies. We checked the reference list of studies to recognize other potentially qualified trials. We analyzed the merged data with use of the Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

We identified 6 eligible papers enrolling a total of 1633 participants. We found no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative intraabdominal abscess, wound infection, and the length of hospitalization between 2 group, but duration of surgery is longer in irrigation group (MD = 6.76, 95% CI = 4.64 to 8.87, P < .001; heterogeneity, I = 25%, P = .26).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis did not provide strong evidence allowing definite conclusions to be drawn, but suggested that peritoneal irrigation during appendectomy did not decrease the incidence of postoperative IAA. This meta-analysis also indicated the need for more high-quality trials to identify methods to decrease the incidence of postoperative IAA in pediatric perforated appendicitis patients.Trial registration number Standardization of endoscopic treatment of acute abdomen in children: 14RCGFSY00150.

Laparoscopic Lavage Versus Suction Only in Complicated Acute Appendicitis: A Prospective Randomized Control Trial

Background:

Laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis presents a challenge with concerns about pelvic collections. It is unclear whether lavage or if simple suctioning of pus influences complications.

Methods:

A prospective, single,-blinded, randomized control trial was conducted. Patients with suspected acute appendicitis were consented. Those found to have complicated appendicitis (perforation, localized pus, or four-quadrant pus) at laparoscopy were randomized to suction or lavage. Exclusions included conversions and drainage of abscess only. Lavage consisted of 3 liters of lavage. Intra-abdominal abscess that required reintervention (i.e., relook, percutaneous drainage) was the primary outcome. Hospital stay and return of bowel function were also recorded.

Results:

A total of 213 patients were assessed for eligibility. We excluded 157 patients, as they had simple appendicitis; 7 patients were converted to laparotomies; 5 had abscesses but the appendix was not removed. We analyzed 86 patients. The mean age was 26.6 years (14–74). We lavaged 42 (48.8%) patients and 44 (51.2%) were suctioned. Four-quadrant pus was present in 26 (30.2%) of the patients overall. Complications developed in 20 (47.5%) of the patients that were lavaged versus 12 patients (27.1%) with suction only. The difference did not reach significance due to sample size (P = 0.0739). Operative time was longer in the lavage group by 30 minutes (P = 0.086). If a complication developed, then the hospital stay was significantly prolonged 13.5 days versus 5 days (P &lt; 0.001). The study was stopped by the internal review board due to the excess risk with lavage.

Conclusions:

This exploratory study into lavage versus suction only in complicated appendicitis revealed potential harm with lavage. The study was stopped prematurely by the internal review due to the excess risk experienced by the lavage group, thus the study did not reach statistical power. If a patient with complicated appendicitis developed any complication, hospital stay was longer.