Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in adults: randomized clinical trial

Early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess

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.

Perioperative pain management for appendicectomy: A systematic review and Procedure-specific Postoperative Pain Management recommendations

BACKGROUND

Despite being a commonly performed surgical procedure, pain management for appendicectomy is often neglected because of insufficient evidence on the most effective treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations by assessing the available literature for optimal pain management after appendicectomy.

DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES

This systematic review-based guideline was conducted according to the PROSPECT methodology. Relevant randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the English language from January 1999 to October 2022 were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases using PRISMA search protocols.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies on adults and children. If articles reported combined data from different surgeries, they had to include specific information about appendicectomies. Studies needed to measure pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS) or a numerical rating scale (NRS). Studies that did not report the precise appendicectomy technique were excluded.

RESULTS

Out of 1388 studies, 94 met the inclusion criteria. Based on evidence and consensus, the PROSPECT members agreed that basic analgesics [paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)] should be administered perioperatively for open and laparoscopic appendicectomies. A laparoscopic approach is preferred because of lower pain scores. Additional recommendations for laparoscopic appendicectomies include a three-port laparoscopic approach and the instillation of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic. For open appendicectomy, a preoperative unilateral transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block is recommended. If not possible, preincisional infiltration with local anaesthetics is an alternative. Opioids should only be used as rescue analgesia. Limited evidence exists for TAP block in laparoscopic appendicectomy, analgesic adjuvants for TAP block, continuous wound infiltration after open appendicectomy and preoperative ketamine and dexamethasone. Recommendations apply to children and adults.

CONCLUSION

This review identified an optimal analgesic regimen for open and laparoscopic appendicectomy. Further randomised controlled trials should evaluate the use of regional analgesia and wound infiltrations with adequate baseline analgesia, especially during the recommended conventional three-port approach.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration No. CRD42023387994).

Risk Factors for Postoperative Infections Following Appendectomy of Complicated Appendicitis: A Meta-analysis and Retrospective Single-institutional Study

Patients with complicated appendicitis have an increased risk for postoperative infections. Potential risk factors for postoperative infections through a meta-analysis and retrospective chart review are discussed. A meta-analysis consisting of 35 studies analyzing complicated appendicitis treated with an appendectomy noting at least 1 postoperative infection was performed. A retrospective review was then conducted in patients diagnosed with complicated appendicitis after appendectomy. Of 5326 patients in total, 15.4% developed postoperative infections. Laparoscopic surgery and perioperative hyperoxygenation were found to be protective factors for the development of infection. Retrospectively, 53.2% of patients presented with complicated appendicitis. Patients with complicated appendicitis were more likely to be older in age and have an increased length of stay. Patient demographics, operative time, and comorbid status had no effect on postoperative infection or readmission rate. Physicians should strongly consider minimally invasive techniques to treat all cases of complicated appendicitis irrespective of comorbidities, age, sex, or body mass index.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Post Hoc Analysis of the EAST Appendicitis MUSTANG Study

Background: We sought to understand which factors are associated with open appendectomy as final operative approach. We hypothesize that higher American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Emergency General Surgery (EGS) grade is associated with open appendectomy. Patients and Methods: Post hoc analysis of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Multicenter Study of the Treatment of Appendicitis in America: Acute, Perforated and Gangrenous (MUSTANG) prospective appendicitis database was performed. All adults (age >18) undergoing appendectomy were stratified by final operative approach: laparoscopic or open appendectomy (including conversion from laparoscopic). Univariable analysis was performed to compare group characteristics and outcomes, and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify demographic, clinical, or radiologic factors associated with open appendectomy. Results: A total of 3,019 cases were analyzed. One hundred seventy-five (5.8%) patients underwent open appendectomy, including 127 converted from laparoscopic to open. The median age was 37 (25) years and 53% were male. Compared with the laparoscopic group, open appendectomy patients had more comorbidities, higher proportion of symptoms greater than 96 hours, and higher AAST EGS grade. Moreover, on intraoperative findings, the open appendectomy group had a higher incidence of perforated and gangrenous appendicitis with purulent contamination, abscess/phlegmon, and purulent abdominal/pelvic fluid. On multivariable analysis controlling for comorbidities, clinical and imaging AAST grade, duration of symptoms, and intra-operative findings, only AAST Clinical Grade 5 appendicitis was independently associated with open appendectomy (odds ratio [OR], 5.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-25.55; p = 0.025). Conclusions: In the setting of appendicitis, generalized peritonitis (AAST Clinical Grade 5) is independently associated with greater odds of open appendectomy.

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.

Perforated appendicitis treated with laparoscopic appendicectomy or open appendicectomy: A meta-analysis

Aim

This analysis compared the impact of laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) and open appendicectomy (OA) on treating adult perforated appendicitis (PA).

Methods

Articles relating to LA and OA in treating PA were retrieved from databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase since their founding to January 2022. These articles were independently filtered based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two investigators. The quality of these articles was assessed and article data were extracted. Dichotomous data were presented in the form of odd's ratio (OR), whereas continuous data were in the form of weighted mean difference (WMD). The included articles reported at least one of the following outcomes: intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), wound infection, operative time, hospital stay and complications.

Results

Three randomised control trials (198 LA cases vs. 205 OA cases) and 12 case - control trials (914 LA cases vs. 2192 OA cases) were included. This analysis revealed that although the IAA formation rate was similar in the LA and OA groups (OR: 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-1.88), the wound infection rate was lower in the LA group (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.28-0.51). Furthermore, LA was associated with shorter hospital stay (WMD: -1.43 days, 95% CI: -2.33--0.52) and fewer complications than OA (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.57).

Conclusion

LA has significant benefits in treating PA and is associated with better post-operative outcomes such as shorter hospital stay, lower incidence of wound infection and other complications. However, more studies with randomised and large-sample populations are still required to determine the clinical benefit of LA in treating PA.

Evaluation of the Appropriate LigaSure™ Device to Transect the Appendix-A Comparison between 5 mm and 10 mm Laparoscopic Devices in an Ex Vivo Trial

Background and Objectives: A topic of greatinterest in the surgical field comprises cost and time reduction operative techniques with high efficiency rates. Thus, the aim of this paper is to evaluate whether a transection of the appendix using only a laparoscopic LigaSure™ device is feasible and, if so, which size of the laparoscopic device is optimal. Materials and Methods: Appendectomy specimens were sealed and cut using LigaSure^TM V (5 mm) and LigaSure Atlas^TM (10 mm) devices ex vivo. Analysis criteria included handling, resistance to bursting pressure of the appendicular stump (adequacy), eligibility, durability and airtightness. Results: Twenty sealed areas were measured. While the 5 mm instrument was not able to transect the appendix in one attempt in any of the cases, the 10 mm device could be applied successfully without any handling difficulties. The adequacy of the sealed area was rated as complete and dry in all 10 cases using the 10 mm device and as oozing in 8 of the cases using the 5 mm device. There was no leakage in terms of air and liquid tightness using the 10 mm device, in contrast to six sealed segments with air and liquid leakage when using the 5 mm device. The resistance to bursting pressure was on average 285 mmHg and 60.5 mmHg with the 10 mm and 5 mm devices, respectively. The durability and eligibility of the 10 mm device were rated as very sufficient in 9 of 10 cases (1 perforation) in contrast to the 5 mm device, where the sealing in 9 of 10 cases was not sufficient (9 perforations). Conclusions: Using the 10 mm laparoscopic LigaSure™ device for the transection of the appendix seems to be feasible, safe and resistant to 300 mmHg bursting pressure. The 5 mm LigaSure™ instrument is inadequate to seal the appendix in humans.

Validation of appendiceal stump invagination in laparoscopic appendectomy

INTRODUCTION

There are various methods for appendiceal stump dissection, but the necessity for stump invagination remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of appendiceal stump invagination in patients with acute appendicitis after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).

METHODS

We enrolled 327 patients with acute appendicitis who underwent LA between 2012 and 2020. Perioperative variables and surgical outcomes were analyzed between the invagination of the appendiceal stump and noninvagination groups. Propensity score-matched analysis (PSM) was performed.

RESULTS

More patients experienced severe inflammation and severe intra-abdominal contamination in the noninvagination group than in the invagination group. Patients in the noninvagination group had an older age, higher body mass index, and poorer American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status than the invagination group. Severe inflammation in the noninvagination group was associated with longer hospital stays and poorer postoperative complications than in the invagination group. PSM analysis was performed to minimize bias in the two groups. After PSM analysis, there were no significant differences in surgical site infection, postoperative intra-abdominal abscess, Clavien-Dindo class ≥IIIa, or postoperative stay between the two groups. During the follow-up period, the postoperative adhesive ileus was not significantly different between the invagination and noninvagination groups.

CONCLUSION

Invagination of the appendiceal stump during LA is not necessary to prevent short- and long-term complications. Even in cases dissected using a laparoscopic endostapler, the appendiceal stump per se is not related to postoperative adhesive ileus.

Relationship Between Appendectomy Incidence and Computed Tomography Scans Based on Korean Nationwide Data, 2003-2017

BACKGROUND

Advances in medicine and changes in the medical environment can affect the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. The main purpose of the present study was to investigate whether the difference in accessibility to diagnosis and treatment facilities influenced the occurrence of appendectomy in Korea.

METHODS

We collected data on 183,531 appendectomy patients between 2003 and 2017 using the National Health Insurance Services claims. Retrospective analysis of relationship between the age-standardized rate (ASR) of appendectomy and clinical variables affecting medical accessibility was performed. Pearson's correlation analyses were used.

RESULTS

The incidence of appendectomy decreased from 30,164 cases in 2003 to 7,355 cases in 2017. The rate of computerized tomography (CT) scans for diagnosis of appendicitis increased from 4.73% in 2003 to 86.96% in 2017. The ASR of appendectomy in uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis decreased from 48.71 in 2005 to 13.40 in 2010 and 8.37 in 2005 to 2.96 in 2009, respectively. The ASR of appendectomy was higher in the high-income group. The proportion and ASR of appendectomy in older age group increased steadily with years. The total admission days continued to decrease from 6.02 days in 2003 to 4.96 days in 2017.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of appendectomy was seemingly associated with the rate of CT scan. In particular, the incidence of appendectomy in uncomplicated appendicitis was markedly reduced. Through enhanced accessibility to CT scans, accurate diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis can be facilitated.

Clinical outcomes of locking polymeric clip for laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with appendicitis: a retrospective comparison with loop ligature

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) according to the method of appendiceal stump closure.

Methods

Patients who underwent LA for appendicitis between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified into locking polymeric clip (LPC) and loop ligature (LL) groups. Clinical outcomes were compared between the groups.

Results

LPC and LL were used in 188 (56.6%) and 144 patients (43.4%), respectively for appendiceal stump closure. No significant differences were observed in sex, age, comorbidities, and the severity of appendicitis between the groups. The median operative time was shorter in the LPC group than in the LL group (64.5 minutes vs. 71.5 minutes, P=0.027). The median hospital stay was longer in the LL group than in the LPC group (4 days vs. 3 days, P=0.020). Postoperative incidences of intraabdominal abscess and ileus were higher in the LL group than in the LPC group (4.2% vs. 1.1%, P=0.082 and 2.8% vs. 0%, P=0.035; respectively). The readmission rate was higher in the LL group than that in the LPC group (6.3% vs. 1.1%, P=0.012).

Conclusion

Using LPC for appendiceal stump closure during LA for appendicitis was associated with lower postoperative complication rate, shorter operative time, and shorter hospital stay compared to the use of LL. Operative time above 60 minutes and the use of LL were identified as independent risk factors for postoperative complications in LA. Therefore, LPC could be considered a more favorable closure method than LL during LA for appendicitis.

Laparoscopic appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis-a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Over the last years, laparoscopic appendectomy has progressively replaced open appendectomy and become the current gold standard treatment for suspected, uncomplicated appendicitis. At the same time, though, it is an ongoing discussion that antibiotic therapy can be an equivalent treatment for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety and efficacy of antibiotic therapy and compare it to the laparoscopic appendectomy for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHODS

The PubMed database, Embase database, and Cochrane library were scanned for studies comparing laparoscopic appendectomy with antibiotic treatment. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction. The primary endpoint was defined as successful treatment of appendicitis. Secondary endpoints were pain intensity, duration of hospitalization, absence from work, and incidence of complications.

RESULTS

No studies were found that exclusively compared laparoscopic appendectomy with antibiotic treatment for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, there are no studies comparing antibiotic treatment to laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, thus emphasizing the lack of evidence and need for further investigation.

Laparoscopic Ovariectomy in a Domestic Yak

Owners of a juvenile domestic yak elected bilateral ovariectomy to prevent future reproduction. The yak was noted to be healthy at presentation. Both ovaries were removed using a laparoscopic approach as follows: after induction and maintenance of general inhalant anesthesia, 15 degrees Trendelenburg positioning was required to view the ovaries. Ovariectomy was conducted within a surgical time of 50 minutes. Due to the small ovarian size, portal enlargement was not necessary for removal. Mild hemorrhage from the left ovarian pedicle was controlled with application of a vessel-sealing device. Postoperative complications were not encountered during hospitalization. At 12 months following surgery, the yak was healthy, and the owner was highly satisfied with the procedure. The described approach was successful for performing laparoscopic ovariectomy in a juvenile yak. Positioning for surgery was similar to other small ruminant species. Further case enrollment is needed to optimize the surgical approach and better describe clinical outcomes.

Effects of Sequence of Irrigation, Suction, and Extraction in Cases of Acute Purulent Appendicitis or Gangrenous Perforated Appendicitis After Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Objective: To evaluate rates of postoperative infection in patients with acute purulent appendicitis or gangrenous perforated appendicitis after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Methods: In this retrospective cohort study the medical records of patients who had undergone LA for acute appendicitis at Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College between January 2015 and December 2019 were reviewed. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on the sequential order in which peritoneal irrigation, suction, and extraction of appendix had been performed. In Group 1 peritoneal irrigation and suction had been performed before extraction of the appendix, and in Group 2 they had been performed after extraction of the appendix. Demographic details, surgery duration, time to first flatus, length of hospital stay, total hospitalization expenses, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Results: The final study sample included 571 patients, 116 (20.3%) in Group 1 and 455 (79.7%) in Group 2. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics, preoperative white blood cell counts, surgery durations, lengths of hospital stay, or total hospitalization expenses between the 2 groups (P > .05). Time to first flatus was significantly shorter in Group 1 (2.1 ± 0.5 days) than in Group 2 (2.3 ± 0.6) (P = .016), and the incidence of surgical wound infection was lower in Group 1 (6.9%) than in Group 2 (14.1%) (P = .038). There were no significant differences in the rates of intra-abdominal abscess, small bowel obstruction, or readmission within 30 days between the 2 groups (P > .05). Conclusion: Patients with acute purulent appendicitis or gangrenous perforated appendicitis are at high risk of surgical wound infection. Peritoneal irrigation and suction before appendix extraction may reduce the incidence of postoperative wound infection.