Irrigation versus suction alone during laparoscopic appendectomy; A randomized controlled equivalence trial

Effect of intraoperative abdominal lavage versus suction alone on postoperative wound infection in patients with appendicitis: A meta-analysis

There is much controversy about the application of abdominal irrigation in the prevention of wound infection (WI) and intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) in the postoperative period. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of the effect of suctioning and lavage on appendectomy to assess the efficacy of either suctioning or lavage. Data were collected and estimated with RevMan 5.3 software. Based on our research, we found 563 publications in our database, and we eventually chose seven of them to analyse. The main results were IAA after the operation and WI. Inclusion criteria were clinical trials of an appendectomy with suctioning or lavage. In the end, seven trials were chosen to meet the eligibility criteria, and the majority were retrospective. The results of seven studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference between abdominal lavage and suctioning treatment for post-operative WI (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.40, 2.61; p = 0.96); There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the risk of postoperative abdominal abscess after operation (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.71, 1.89; p = 0.56). No evidence has been found that the use of abdominal lavage in the treatment of postoperative infectious complications after appendectomy is superior to aspiration.

Diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains controversial. This systematic review details the evidence and current best practices for the evaluation and management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in adults and children.

METHODS

Eight questions regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis were formulated. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov/NLM were queried for articles published from 2010 to 2022 with key words related to at least one question. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Two reviewers screened each publication for eligibility and then extracted data from eligible studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on all quantitative data. The quality of randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 or Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively.

RESULTS

2792 studies were screened and 261 were included. Most had a high risk of bias. Computerized tomography scan yielded the highest sensitivity (> 80%) and specificity (> 93%) in the adult population, although high variability existed. In adults with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management resulted in higher odds of readmission (OR 6.10) and need for operation (OR 20.09), but less time to return to work/school (SMD - 1.78). In pediatric patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management also resulted in higher odds of need for operation (OR 38.31). In adult patients with complicated appendicitis, there were higher odds of need for operation following antibiotic treatment only (OR 29.00), while pediatric patients had higher odds of abscess formation (OR 2.23). In pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, higher risk of reoperation at any time point was observed in patients who had drains placed at the time of operation (RR 2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains nuanced. A personalized approach and appropriate patient selection remain key to treatment success. Further research on controversies in treatment would be useful for optimal management.

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.

Inappropriate manipulation and drainage exacerbate post-operative pain and prolong the hospital stay after laparoscopic appendectomy for pediatric complicated appendicitis

Background

This study examined whether drain placement or not is associated with the postoperative outcomes of pediatric patients following trans-umbilical single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (TUSPLA) for complicated appendicitis.

Methods

The medical records of pediatric patients undergoing TUSPLA for acute complicated appendicitis from January 2012 to September 2018 in Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital were reviewed retrospectively. They were classified according to whether they received passive drainage with a Penrose drain (Penrose group) (19), active drainage with a Jackson-Pratt drain with a vacuum bulb (JP group) (16), or no drain (non-drain group) (86). The postoperative outcomes of the three groups were compared.

Results

Postoperative visual analog scale pain score was significantly higher in the non-drain group than in either the JP group or Penrose group. Patients in the Penrose group had a significantly longer postoperative hospital stay than those in the non-drain group and a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess, while patients in the JP group had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay; moreover, no patient in JP group developed a postoperative intra-abdominal abscess.

Conclusions

Compared to passive drainage with a Penrose drain or no drain, active drainage with a JP drain shorter the postoperative hospital stay and decreased the risk of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess.

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.

Irrigation during laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis increases the operative time and reoperation rate: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

This meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCT) aimed to compare peritoneal irrigation followed by suction with aspiration only during laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis (LA). PRISMA guidelines with the random-effects model were adopted using Review Manager Version 5.3 for pooled estimates. We retained six eligible RCT published between 2012 and 2019. They involved a total of 1019 patients (541 patients in the aspiration group and 478 patients in the irrigation group). Aspiration only during LA is associated with shorter operative time (MD = 8.50 min, 95% CI [- 12.97 to - 4.02], p = 0.0002) and lower reoperation rate (OR = 0.37 95% CI [0.14-0.96], p = 0.04). There was no difference between aspiration group and irrigation group in terms of Intraperitoneal abscess (IPA) (OR = 0.99 95% CI [0.54-1.81], p = 0.95), morbidity rate (OR = 1.14 95% CI [0.44-2.98], p = 0.79), wound infection (OR = 0.94 95% CI [0.20-4.40], p = 0.94), and hospital stay (MD = 0.65 day, 95% CI [- 0.52 to 1.82], p = 0.27). Irrigation during LA prevents post-appendectomy IPA in neither adults nor pediatric patients. However, it lengthens the operative time and involves a higher reoperation rate.

Effect and safety of peritoneal lavage for appendectomy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether peritoneal lavage is beneficial for the postoperative outcomes of appendectomy is debatable. This study is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that aimed to determine whether peritoneal lavage leads to improved appendectomy outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published before September 2020. The meta-analysis calculated the pooled effect size by using a random effects model. The primary outcome was the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of surgical-site infection, hospital stay duration, operation time, and readmission incidence.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 1487 patients were reviewed. The lavage group had a nonsignificantly lower incidence of intra-abdominal abscess (risk ratio [RR]: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-1.18) and surgical-site infection (RR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.31-1.72) than did the nonirrigation group. Furthermore, the lavage group showed a nonsignificantly shorter hospital stay duration and lower readmission incidence than did the nonirrigation group. However, the lavage group required significantly more operation time than did the nonirrigation group (mean difference: 7.59 min; 95% CI: 4.67-10.50).

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that performing peritoneal lavage has no advantage over suction or drainage only in appendectomy. Moreover, peritoneal lavage significantly increased operation time. Consequently, for improving efficiency and reducing operation time, we suggest skipping peritoneal irrigation during appendectomy. However, the available evidence is of variable quality; therefore, high-quality prospective RCTs are required in the future.

The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018

Background

The guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infections (SSIs) were published in Japanese by the Japan Society for Surgical Infection in 2018. This is a summary of these guidelines for medical professionals worldwide.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenterological SSIs, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Modifications were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the general public and relevant medical societies.

Results

There were 44 questions prepared in seven subject areas, for which 51 recommendations were made. The seven subject areas were: definition and etiology, diagnosis, preoperative management, prophylactic antibiotics, intraoperative management, perioperative management, and wound management. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information. The final version of the recommendations was published in 2018, in Japanese.

Conclusions

The Japanese Guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological SSI were published in 2018 to provide useful information for clinicians and improve the clinical outcome of patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00595-020-02181-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Outcomes in the giant omphalocele population: A single center comprehensive experience

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Morbidity and mortality in the giant omphalocele population is complicated by large abdominal wall defects, physiologic aberrancies, and congenital anomalies. We hypothesized different anomalies and treatment types would affect outcomes.

METHODS

A 2009-2018 retrospective chart review of giant omphaloceles was performed. Exclusions included cloacal exstrophy, transfer after 3 weeks, surgery prior to transfer, conjoined twins, or not yet achieving fascial closure. Thirty-five patients met criteria and mortality and operative morbidity categorized them into favorable (n = 20) or unfavorable (n = 15) outcomes. Odds ratios analyzed potential predictors. Survivors were stratified into staged (n = 11), delayed (n = 8), and primary closure (n = 6) for subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

Unfavorable outcomes were associated with other major congenital anomalies, sac rupture, and major cardiac anomalies, but had significantly lower odds with increasing gestational age (p = 0.03) and birth weight (p < 0.001). In survivors, the primary group was younger at repair (p < 0.001) and had shorter length of stay (hospital p = 0.02, neonatal intensive care unit p = 0.005). There was no significant difference for sepsis, ventilator days, return to the operating room, or ventral hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictions of overall outcomes in the giant omphalocele population require analysis of multiple variables. Our findings demonstrated increased odds of unfavorable outcomes in major cardiac anomalies, pulmonary hypertension, genetic diagnosis, other major anomalies, polyhydramnios, postnatal sac rupture, increasing omphalocele sac diameter, lower O/E TLV, lower gestational age at birth, lower birth weight, and repair other than primary. In those surviving to repair, surgical outcomes analyses demonstrated an earlier age of repair and a shorter length of stay for those patients able to be closed primarily; however further research is necessary to determine overall superiority between operative treatment types.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Intra-Cavity Lavage and Wound Irrigation for Prevention of Surgical Site Infection: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are costly and associated with poorer patient outcomes. Intra-operative surgical site irrigation and intra-cavity lavage may reduce the risk of SSIs through removal of dead or damaged tissue, metabolic waste, and site exudate. Irrigation with antibiotic or antiseptic solutions may further reduce the risk of SSI because of bacteriocidal properties. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted comparing irrigation solutions, but important comparisons (e.g., antibiotic vs. antiseptic irrigation) are absent. We use systematic review-based network meta-analysis (NMA) of RCTs to compare irrigation solutions for prevention of SSI. Methods: We used Cochrane methodology and included all RCTs of participants undergoing a surgical procedure with primary site closure, in which method of irrigation was the only systematic difference between groups. We used a random effects Bayesian NMA to create a connected network of comparisons. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) of SSI, where OR <1 indicates a beneficial effect. Results: We identified 42 eligible RCTs with 11,726 participants. Most were at unclear or high risk of bias. The RCTs included groups given no irrigation or non-antibacterial, antiseptic, or antibiotic irrigation. There was substantial heterogeneity, and a random effects model was selected. Relative to non-antibacterial irrigation, mean OR of SSI was 0.439 (95% credible interval: 0.282, 0.667) for antibiotic irrigation and 0.573 (0.321, 0.953) for antiseptic agents. No irrigation was similar to non-antibacterial irrigation (OR 0.959 [0.555, 1.660]). Antibiotic and antiseptic irrigation were ranked as most effective for preventing SSIs; this conclusion was robust to potential bias. Conclusions: Our NMA found that antibiotic and antiseptic irrigation had the lowest odds of SSI. There was high heterogeneity, however, and studies were at high risk of bias. A large RCT directly comparing antibiotic irrigation with both antiseptic and non-antibacterial irrigation is needed to define the standard of care for SSI prevention by site irrigation.

Irrigation Versus Suction Alone During Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis

Purpose

To compare the surgical outcomes of peritoneal irrigation versus suction alone during laparoscopic appendectomy and to identify the risk factors of surgical site infection in patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Methods

Data from patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis between January 2014 and March 2016 were reviewed. We compared the irrigation and suction alone groups with regard to the following parameters: postoperative complication incidence rate, length of hospital stay, operation time, time to flatus, time to diet commencement, and duration of postoperative antibiotic.

Results

A total of 578 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Twenty-five patients were excluded from the analysis because of need for drain insertion, loss to follow-up, simultaneous surgery for another indication, presence of an appendix tumor, or pregnancy. A total of 207 patients (37.4%) had undergone irrigation, and 346 patients (62.6%) received suction alone during laparoscopic appendectomy. The preoperative fever rate was significantly higher in the irrigation group than in the suction alone group. Operative time was also significantly longer in the irrigation group than in the suction alone group (53.8 ± 18.5 minutes vs. 57.8 ± 21.4 minutes, P = 0.027). The postoperative complication rate was higher in the irrigation group than in the suction alone group (4.5% vs. 12.6%, P = 0.001). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that irrigation and preoperative fever were risk factors for surgical site infection after laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Conclusion

There is no advantage to irrigating the peritoneal cavity over suction alone during laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Irrigation may actually prolong the operative time and therefore be detrimental.

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.

REsiDENT 1 (Re-assessment of Appendicitis Evaluation during laparoscopic appendectomy: Do we End a Non-standardized Treatment approach and habit?): peritoneal irrigation during laparoscopic appendectomy-does the grade of contamination matter? A prospective multicenter resident-based evaluation of a new classification system

Background

Laparoscopic appendectomy has progressively gained acceptance as the standard of care for acute appendicitis. Focusing on the incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess after a laparoscopic appendectomy, discordant data have been reported ranging from 1.5 to 20%. Besides, evidence advocating advantages from peritoneal irrigation over suction only are lacking. Most studies are burdened by a high level of heterogeneity regarding the severity of the appendicitis and modalities of peritoneal irrigation. One of the main drawbacks is the lack of an accepted classification for different degrees of appendicitis and peritoneal contamination. The aim of the study is to introduce a classification to clarify the relationship between grade of appendicitis, contamination, and postoperative incidence of IAA considering the surgeon’s attitude toward irrigation or suction alone. Preoperative, intra-operative, and postoperative predictive factors for infectious complication will also be assessed. This study is meant to be the first Italian multicenter resident-based observational study.

Methods

Patients suffering from acute appendicitis will be enrolled during a 1-year period, according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Participants will fill an online form reporting all clinical and intra-operative data of each patient undergoing a laparoscopic appendectomy. General surgery residents will be responsible for data collection. Our proposal of classification is based on the histological grade of appendicitis and intra-operative degree of peritoneal contamination. For each grade, a progressively increasing score is assigned.

Discussion

The observational nature of this study is mandatory to examine surgeons’ attitude toward peritoneal contamination during laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicitis. Identification of different severity grades of acute appendicitis and their relationship with the development of postoperative abscesses is necessary. The resulting classification and score, even considering peritoneal lavage or suction alone, will define risk classes of peri-appendiceal contamination each one related to a specific incidence rate of postoperative IAA. Nowadays, maximum effort should be made to reach the best procedural standardization and surgical decision-making should be supported by solid evidence, especially in an emergency surgery setting.

Appendectomy in Switzerland: how is it done?

More than 10,000 appendectomies are performed every year in Switzerland. The aim of this study was to investigate the treatment strategy for appendicitis among Swiss surgeons with particular interest in laparoscopic technique, method of appendiceal stump closure, and abdominal lavage. We performed an anonymous survey among 540 members of the Swiss Surgical Society. Technical details and differences between the surgical procedures in adults and children as well as in complicated and non-complicated appendicitis were investigated. The overall response rate was 45% (n = 243). 78% of the surgeons perform laparoscopic appendectomies in children and 95% in adult patients. Only 3% use a single incision site technique. Surgeons consider pus or stool in the abdomen (94%), an abscess (86%) or perforation of the appendix (82%), but not an inflamed appendiceal base (16%) as complicated appendicitis. 41% of surgeons use endoloops, 36% a stapling device, and 20% polymeric clips in non-complicated appendicitis for appendiceal stump closure. However, 82% of the surgeons use a stapler in complicated appendicitis. Most (76%) of surgeons do not plunge the appendiceal stump. 24% of surgeons lavage the abdomen with > 1 L of fluid independent of the intraabdominal finding. Most Swiss surgeons perform multiport laparoscopic appendectomies. Endoloops and staplers are mostly used for appendiceal stump closures in uncomplicated appendicitis, and staplers in complicated appendicitis. Only a minor part of surgeons plunge the appendiceal stump or perform routine abdominal lavage.

Standardized irrigation technique reduces intraabdominal abscess after appendectomy

PURPOSE

The utility of irrigation at the time of appendectomy for acute appendicitis has been debated, with recent studies showing no benefit to irrigation. In our practice, two techniques have been used; one in which irrigation was at the discretion of the surgeon, and one in which irrigation was standardized. The standardized irrigation technique involved large volume (3-12 l) irrigation in small, focused, directed aliquots to achieve optimal dilution. We sought to retrospectively assess whether the standardized large volume irrigation technique was associated with measurably reduced intraabdominal infection. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in intraabdominal infection rate.

METHODS

Medical records for cases of appendectomies performed for acute appendicitis, years 2007 through 2017, were reviewed (n = 432). Rate of subsequent abdominal infection was compared between patients who underwent the standardized large volume irrigation technique compared to those who did not using Fisher's exact test; p < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

For patients that underwent the standardized large volume irrigation technique there were no (0/140) subsequent abdominal infections within the study period, compared with a rate of 6.2% (18/292) for all other patients (p value 0.001). Among cases that had a perforated appendix (n = 105), the rates were 0% (0/31) compared to 18.9% (14/74; p value 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of a standardized large volume irrigation technique with the objective of serial dilution is associated with a significantly lower rate of subsequent abdominal infection, even among cases with a perforated appendix. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate this technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

TYPE OF STUDY

Treatment study.

Association of postoperative organ space infection after intraoperative irrigation in appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The benefit of intraoperative irrigation on postoperative abscess rates compared to suction alone is unclear. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grading system provides distinct disease severity stratification to determine if prior analyses were biased by anatomic severity. We hypothesized that for increasing appendicitis severity, patients receiving (high, ≥2 L) intraoperative irrigation would have increased postoperative organ space infection (OSI) rate compared to (low, <2 L) irrigation.

METHODS

Single-institution review of adults (>18 years) undergoing appendectomy for appendicitis during 2010-2016. Demographics, operative details, irrigation volumes, duration of stay, and complications (Clavien-Dindo classification) were collected. American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades were assigned by two independent reviewers based on operative findings. Summary, univariate, and area under the receiver operating curve analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 1187) were identified with a mean (SD) age of 41.6 (18.4) years (45% female). Operative approach included laparoscopy (n = 1122 [94.5%]), McBurney incision (n = 10 [0.8%]), midline laparotomy (n = 16 [1.3 %]), and laparoscopy converted to laparotomy (n = 39 [3.4%)]. The mean (SD) volume of intraoperative irrigation was 410 (1200) mL. Complication rate was 26.1%. Median volume of intraoperative irrigation in patients who developed postoperative OSI was 3 [0-4] compared to 0 [0-0] in those without infection (p < 0.0001). Area under the receiver operating curve analysis determined that 2 or more liters of irrigation was associated with postoperative OSI (c statistic: 0.83, 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.89; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Irrigation is used for increasingly severe appendicitis with wide variation. Irrigation volumes of 2 L or greater are associated with postoperative OSI. Improving standardization of irrigation volume (<2 L) may prevent morbidity associated with this high-volume disease.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, level IV.

Meta-analysis of peritoneal lavage in appendicectomy

Background

The use of peritoneal lavage to prevent postoperative intra‐abdominal abscess (IAA) after appendicectomy has been debated widely.

Methods

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of suction alone versus lavage for appendicitis was performed to determine the relative benefit of lavage. Primary outcomes were postoperative IAA and wound infection (WI). Inclusion criteria were human studies reporting a comparison of appendicectomy with or without peritoneal lavage.

Results

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were retrospective. Only three were RCTs. Four studies included analysis only of the paediatric population. The rate of IAA was 1·0–19·5 per cent in patients receiving suction alone and 1·5–18·6 per cent in those having lavage. WI rates were 1·0–29·2 per cent for suction alone and 0·8–20·5 per cent for lavage. The pooled risk difference for IAA was 0·01 (95 per cent c.i. −0·03 to 0·06; P = 0·50) and that for WI was 0·00 (−0·05 to 0·05; P = 0·98). Analyses of both outcomes indicated a medium degree of heterogeneity between effect estimates with I² values of 71 per cent (P = 0·001) and 70 per cent (P = 0·010) for IAA and WI respectively.

Conclusion

There is no evidence of benefit of lavage over suction for postoperative infective complications, and no individual study demonstrated a significant benefit in patients receiving lavage.

Irrigation Versus Suction in Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is currently one of the most common surgical emergencies. Intra-abdominal abscesses (IAA) are a fearsome complication, which may occur. Irrigation during the appendectomy is one of the factors suggested to affect the rates of IAA. We sought to investigate the evidence regarding the use of irrigation versus suction alone and the development of IAA after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, and the Web of Science through November 10, 2017, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We extracted information of interest, including rates of postoperative (IAA), and performed meta-analysis using random-effects model using the RevMan software.

RESULTS

We identified five eligible studies with 2511 patients in total. Use of irrigation overall did not demonstrate significant increase in IAA (odds ratio [OR] = 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.49, 11.74], P = 0.28). For the adult subpopulation, the use of irrigation was associated with nonsignificant lower odds of IAAs (OR = 0.42, 95% CI [0.15, 1.16]), whereas in pediatric with nonsignificant higher risk (OR = 2.98, 95% CI [0.25, 35.34]). Performance of irrigation led to the addition of, on average, 7 min to the duration of the operation (mean difference = 7.16, 95% CI [3.23, 11.09], P < 0.001). Irrigation did not affect postoperative length of stay (mean difference = -0.80, 95% CI [-2.30, 0.69], P = 0.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Performance of irrigation during laparoscopic appendectomy does not seem to prevent the development of IAA in neither adults nor pediatric patients.

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.

Intracavity lavage and wound irrigation for prevention of surgical site infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are wound infections that occur after an operative procedure. A preventable complication, they are costly and associated with poorer patient outcomes, increased mortality, morbidity and reoperation rates. Surgical wound irrigation is an intraoperative technique, which may reduce the rate of SSIs through removal of dead or damaged tissue, metabolic waste, and wound exudate. Irrigation can be undertaken prior to wound closure or postoperatively. Intracavity lavage is a similar technique used in operations that expose a bodily cavity; such as procedures on the abdominal cavity and during joint replacement surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of wound irrigation and intracavity lavage on the prevention of surgical site infection (SSI).

SEARCH METHODS

In February 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched three clinical trials registries and references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions on language, date of publication or study setting.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of participants undergoing surgical procedures in which the use of a particular type of intraoperative washout (irrigation or lavage) was the only systematic difference between groups, and in which wounds underwent primary closure. The primary outcomes were SSI and wound dehiscence. Secondary outcomes were mortality, use of systemic antibiotics, antibiotic resistance, adverse events, re-intervention, length of hospital stay, and readmissions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion at each stage. Two review authors also undertook data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and GRADE assessment. We calculated risk ratios or differences in means with 95% confidence intervals where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 RCTs with 14,738 participants. Studies assessed comparisons between irrigation and no irrigation, between antibacterial and non-antibacterial irrigation, between different antibiotics, different antiseptics or different non-antibacterial agents, or between different methods of irrigation delivery. No studies compared antiseptic with antibiotic irrigation. Surgical site infectionIrrigation compared with no irrigation (20 studies; 7192 participants): there is no clear difference in risk of SSI between irrigation and no irrigation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.11; I² = 28%; 14 studies, 6106 participants). This would represent an absolute difference of 13 fewer SSIs per 1000 people treated with irrigation compared with no irrigation; the 95% CI spanned from 31 fewer to 10 more SSIs. This was low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision.Antibacterial irrigation compared with non-antibacterial irrigation (36 studies, 6163 participants): there may be a lower incidence of SSI in participants treated with antibacterial irrigation compared with non-antibacterial irrigation (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.75; I² = 53%; 30 studies, 5141 participants). This would represent an absolute difference of 60 fewer SSIs per 1000 people treated with antibacterial irrigation than with non-antibacterial (95% CI 35 fewer to 78 fewer). This was low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and suspected publication bias.Comparison of irrigation of two agents of the same class (10 studies; 2118 participants): there may be a higher incidence of SSI in participants treated with povidone iodine compared with superoxidised water (Dermacyn) (RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.47; low-certainty evidence from one study, 190 participants). This would represent an absolute difference of 95 more SSIs per 1000 people treated with povidone iodine than with superoxidised water (95% CI 3 more to 341 more). All other comparisons found low- or very low-certainty evidence of no clear difference between groups.Comparison of two irrigation techniques: two studies compared standard (non-pulsed) methods with pulsatile methods. There may, on average, be fewer SSIs in participants treated with pulsatile methods compared with standard methods (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.62; I² = 0%; two studies, 484 participants). This would represent an absolute difference of 109 fewer SSIs occurring per 1000 with pulsatile irrigation compared with standard (95% CI 62 fewer to 134 fewer). This was low-certainty evidence downgraded twice for risks of bias across multiple domains. Wound dehiscenceFew studies reported wound dehiscence. No comparison had evidence for a difference between intervention groups. This included comparisons between irrigation and no irrigation (one study, low-certainty evidence); antibacterial and non-antibacterial irrigation (three studies, very low-certainty evidence) and pulsatile and standard irrigation (one study, low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomesFew studies reported outcomes such as use of systemic antibiotics and antibiotic resistance and they were poorly and incompletely reported. There was limited reporting of mortality; this may have been partially due to failure to specify zero events in participants at low risk of death. Adverse event reporting was variable and often limited to individual event types. The evidence for the impact of interventions on length of hospital stay was low or moderate certainty; where differences were seen they were too small to be clinically important.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for intracavity lavage and wound irrigation is generally of low certainty. Therefore where we identified a possible difference in the incidence of SSI (in comparisons of antibacterial and non-antibacterial interventions, and pulsatile versus standard methods) these should be considered in the context of uncertainty, particularly given the possibility of publication bias for the comparison of antibacterial and non-antibacterial interventions. Clinicians should also consider whether the evidence is relevant to the surgical populations under consideration, the varying reporting of other prophylactic antibiotics, and concerns about antibiotic resistance.We did not identify any trials that compared an antibiotic with an antiseptic. This gap in the direct evidence base may merit further investigation, potentially using network meta-analysis; to inform the direction of new primary research. Any new trial should be adequately powered to detect a difference in SSIs in eligible participants, should use robust research methodology to reduce the risks of bias and internationally recognised criteria for diagnosis of SSI, and should have adequate duration and follow-up.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Risk Factors for Postoperative Intraabdominal Abscess

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has obtained wide acceptance over the last two decades. However, some studies suggest that there is an increased rate of intraabdominal abscess (IAA) when is compared with open appendectomy. Since postoperative IAA is associated with high morbidity, identifying predictive factors of this complication may help to prevent it. The aim of this study was to identify preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for IAA after LA.

METHODS

From January 2005 to June 2015, all charts of consecutive patients underwent to LA were revised. Demographics, clinical and intraoperative variables were analyzed. Independent risk factors for postoperative IAA were determined by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1300 LA were performed. The mean age was 34.7 (14-94) years. Two hundred and twenty-five patients (17.3%) had complicated appendicitis with perforation and peritonitis. The conversion rate was 2.3% (30 cases). The average hospital stay was 1.6 (0-27) days. There were 30 (2.3%) postoperative IAA. In the multivariate analysis, body mass index (BMI) >30 (p 0.01), leukocytosis >20,000/mm³ (p 0.02), perforated appendicitis (p < 0.001) and operative time >90 min (p 0.04) were associated with the development of postoperative IAA. There was no mortality in the series.

CONCLUSION

Patients with obesity, leukocytosis >20,000/mm³, perforated appendicitis and surgical time longer than 90 min have a higher chance of having a postoperative IAA. A close postoperative follow-up would be necessary in these situations in order to prevent and identify IAA after LA.