Is laparoscopic appendectomy feasible for complicated appendicitis ?A systematic review and meta-analysis

A case of death after the severing three appendiceal arteries during appendectomy

INTRODUCTION

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common acute abdominal issues requiring surgery and is usually treated by appendectomy. During the process of removing the appendix, the appendiceal artery is severed. In most individuals, the appendix is supplied by only one appendiceal artery.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 50-year-old man underwent appendectomy. During the surgical procedure, the appendix artery and two accessory arteries of the appendix were severed, leading to massive hemorrhaging in the abdominal cavity, which ultimately resulted in the patient's unfortunate demise.

CONCLUSION

Through this case, we hope that surgeons can learn more about the anatomy of the appendiceal artery and understand the possibility of accessory arteries to the appendix. During surgery, the blood vessels supplying the appendix should be carefully explored, and the "one-size-fits-all approach" should be avoided. Moreover, attention should be given to complications after appendectomy, and timely symptomatic treatment should be provided. Key points 1. Rare typing: The case of death due to improper handling of the accessory appendicular artery during appendectomy in patients with three appendiceal arteries is currently unreported. 2. Detailed anatomical knowledge: Surgeons performing an appendectomy need to make a detailed exploration of the blood vessel supply of the appendix to avoid ignoring anatomically different blood vessels. 3. Avoid a one-size-fits-all approach: In the surgical process, a "one-size-fits-all" approach should be avoided, that is, the same surgical approach should not be used in all cases, but should be adjusted according to the anatomical characteristics of the individual. 4. Observation of postoperative bleeding: In the perioperative period, peritoneal drainage should be closely observed. If a large amount of bloody fluid is found, timely surgical treatment should be carried out. 5. Attention to complications: Surgeons should pay.

Impact of COVID-19 on acute appendicitis presentation, management and pathology findings in adult and paediatric populations

BACKGROUND

We investigated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trends of presentation, management and pathology findings in patients who underwent an appendicectomy for suspected acute appendicitis.

METHOD

The retrospective study reviewed patients (n = 939 adults and n = 329 children) who had an appendicectomy performed for suspected acute appendicitis and histopathology assessment in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Northern Ireland. Pre-COVID-19 (March 2019 to February 2020) and COVID-19 Year 1 (March 2020 to February 2021) data were compared. Chi-squared tests were applied to compare timeframes.

RESULTS

513 adult appendicectomies were performed in the immediate year pre-COVID-19, compared to 426 in COVID-19 Year 1, representing a 17% reduction. No such reduction was seen within the paediatric population, likely related to a change in regional paediatric referral criteria during the pandemic. When comparing COVID-19 Year 1 with pre-pandemic, fewer patients presented with <24 hours of symptoms (45% v 53%, p = 0.005), and there was greater use of pre-operative computed tomography imaging in adults (63.2% v 48.7%, p<0.001). Fewer adult and paediatric cases of simple acute appendicitis and non-diagnostic specimens, with relative increased proportions of perforated acute appendicitis, were observed in COVID-19 Year 1 compared with pre-pandemic. No absolute increase in perforated acute appendicitis cases was observed in adults.

CONCLUSION

Year 1 of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with delayed presentation of acute appendicitis in adults and children. In adults, an overall reduction in appendicectomy operations, increased use of pre-operative diagnostic imaging, and fewer specimens showing simple acute appendicitis or non-diagnostic features, collectively support appropriate restriction of surgery for those patients with a more certain acute appendicitis diagnosis.

Comparison between liquid skin adhesive and wound closure strip for skin closure after subcuticular suturing in single-port laparoscopic appendectomy: a single-center retrospective study in Korea

Purpose

This study was performed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of skin adhesives and to compare postoperative and cosmetic outcomes after wound closure in single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA) between skin adhesives and steri-strips.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective study. We included 22 and 47 patients in whom skin adhesive and steri-strips were used respectively, for skin closure after subcuticular suturing in SPLA between August 2014 and 2020. The patient scar assessment questionnaire (PSAQ) was completed postoperatively to assess postoperative cosmetic outcomes.

Results

On the postoperative day, patients in whom skin adhesive was used had significantly lower numeric rating scores than in whom steri-strips were used (2.8 ± 0.8 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8, p < 0.001). The frequency of analgesic administration within 24 hours and between 24 and 48 hours after surgery was significantly lower in the skin adhesive group compared to the wound closure strip group (1.4 ± 0.8 vs. 2.7 ± 1.2, p = 0.013 and 0.2 ± 0.4 vs. 0.7 ± 0.9, p = 0.002, respectively). In the PSAQ, "satisfaction with appearance" and "satisfaction with symptoms" subitem scores were significantly lower in patients in whom skin adhesive was used (11.3 ± 3.0 vs. 15.1 ± 4.5, p = 0.006 and 6.5 ± 1.8 vs. 9.5 ± 3.3, p = 0.003), whereas, "appearance" and "consciousness" subitems revealed no statistically significant differences between the groups.

Conclusion

Liquid skin adhesive closures seem to be safe and feasible and cause less postoperative pain, resulting in greater patient satisfaction with postoperative scars than wound closure strip closure after subcuticular suturing in SPLA.

Hospitalization Costs for Patients with Acute Appendicitis: An Update Using Real-World Data from a Large Province in China

Purpose

The aim of this study is to investigate the factors influencing hospitalization costs for patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis in China.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study using data from Provincial Health Statistics Support System Database from S Province in China. This dataset contained all hospital's electronic medical records from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018 including both public and private hospitals. The target population was identified based on the principal diagnosis of appendicitis (ICD-10: K35). To examine the impact of various factors on hospitalization costs, we conducted a multivariate linear regression analysis. Furthermore, we employed the Shapley value decomposition method to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that influenced hospitalization costs and their respective levels of importance.

Results

Our study comprised 317,200 cases. During the period from 2015 to 2018, the average hospitalization expenses for patients with acute appendicitis were estimated at approximately 7014 RMB (1061 USD), which accounts for a considerable 12% of China's per capita GDP. The results of this study demonstrate a significant correlation between various factors, such as the patient's age, gender, marital status, occupation, payment method, number of complications, treatment method, hospital tier, and ownership, and the total hospitalization costs and subcomponents of hospitalization costs. Notably, the treatment method employed had the most substantial impact on hospitalization costs.

Conclusion

To the best of knowledge, this is one of the first studies to investigate the hospitalization costs of acute appendicitis incorporating both patient-level and hospital-level covariates, using a large sample size. To reduce the costs associated with acute appendicitis in China, it is recommended to consider suitable treatment options and explore the option of receiving medical care at lower-tier and privately-owned healthcare facilities.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement.

RESULTS

A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma.

CONCLUSIONS

The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

A Case Report of Perforated Appendix Vermiform Attached to the Left Ovary

Acute appendicitis, a typical abdominal emergency, presents in nonperforated and perforated forms. While nonperforated cases often respond well to antibiotics or appendectomy, perforated cases pose more significant challenges. We report a unique case of appendicitis in a 34-year-old female with an unusual anatomical adherence to the left ovary. The patient successfully underwent laparoscopic surgery, during which precise incisions were made to accommodate the unique location of the appendix. This tailored approach contributed to a positive surgical outcome. This case underscores the importance of tailored surgical approaches in managing complex appendiceal variations.

Awareness of Appendectomy and Its Complications Among Saudis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical causes of acute abdominal pain in adults and children in the emergency department. It is treated by appendectomy by either an open or laparoscopic approach. Although laparoscopic appendectomy has been used for the last 35 years, there are still indications for an open approach in some cases.

OBJECTIVES

 The aim of this study was to explore the awareness of the general population in Saudi Arabia of appendectomy according to the surgical approach.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey using a questionnaire constructed by an expert based on Google Forms (Google, Mountain View, CA) was used from February to March 2022. Variables were demographical data, general knowledge, history of appendectomy, its surgical approach, and postoperative complications, if any.

RESULTS

The study included 162 participants. The awareness level of acute appendicitis was high (72.2%). History of appendectomy was almost 30% and was significantly more common in males than females (p = 0.045). The rate of postoperative complications showed a significant difference between open (4.3%) vs. laparoscopic approaches (8%) (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

 Young, educated Saudis are aware of the importance of surgical intervention for acute appendicitis. However, further hospital-based studies are recommended concerning the role of the surgical approach and its various impacts on postoperative complications.

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.

Therapeutic strategy for acute appendicitis based on laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE

The treatment strategies for acute appendicitis differ depending on the facility, and various studies have investigated the usefulness of conservative treatment with antibiotics, laparoscopic surgery, and interval appendectomy (IA). However, although laparoscopic surgery is widely used, the clinical strategy for acute appendicitis, especially complicated cases, remains controversial. We assessed a laparoscopic surgery-based treatment strategy for all patients diagnosed with appendicitis, including those with complicated appendicitis (CA).

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed patients with acute appendicitis treated in our institution between January 2013 and December 2021. Patients were classified into uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) and CA groups based on computed tomography (CT) findings on the first visit, and the treatment course was subsequently compared.

RESULTS

Of 305 participants, 218 were diagnosed with UA and 87 with CA, with surgery performed in 159 cases. Laparoscopic surgery was attempted in 153 cases and had a completion rate of 94.8% (145/153). All open laparotomy transition cases (n = 8) were emergency CA surgery cases. No significant differences were found in the incidence of postoperative complications in successful emergency laparoscopic surgeries. In univariate and multivariate analyses for the conversion to open laparotomy in CA, only the number of days from onset to surgery ≥ 6 days was an independent risk factor (odds ratio: 11.80; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is preferred in all appendicitis cases, including CA. Since laparoscopic surgery is difficult for CA when several days from the onset have passed, it is necessary that surgeons make an early decision on whether to operate.

LAPAROSCOPIC APPENDICECTOMY: RISK FACTORS FOR CONVERSION TO LAPAROTOMY

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy is the gold standard surgical procedure currently performed for acute appendicitis. The conversion rate is one of the main factors used to measure laparoscopic competence, being important to avoid wasting time in a laparoscopic procedure and proceed directly to open surgery.

AIMS

To identify the main preoperative parameters associated with a higher risk of conversion in order to determine the surgical method indicated for each patient.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients admitted with acute appendicitis who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. A total of 725 patients were included, of which 121 (16.7%) were converted to laparotomy.

RESULTS

The significant factors that predicted conversion, identified by univariate and multivariate analysis, were: the presence of comorbidities (OR 3.1; 95%CI; p<0.029), appendicular perforation (OR 5.1; 95%CI; p<0.003), retrocecal appendix (OR 5.0; 95%CI; p<0.004), gangrenous appendix, presence of appendicular abscess (OR 3.6; 95%CI; p<0.023) and the presence of difficult dissection (OR 9.2; 95%CI; p<0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe procedure to treat acute appendicitis. It is a minimally invasive surgery and has many advantages. Preoperatively, it is possible to identify predictive factors for conversion to laparotomy, and the ability to identify these reasons can aid surgeons in selecting patients who would benefit from a primary open appendectomy.

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.

Factores asociados a la duración de la estancia hospitalaria posterior a la apendicectomía laparoscópica

Introducción. El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar los factores asociados a la duración de la estancia hospitalaria posterior a una apendicectomía laparoscópica. Métodos. Se realizó un estudio observacional, analítico, retrospectivo, en el Hospital de Alta Complejidad “Virgen de la Puerta” en Trujillo, Perú, entre 2017 y 2019. La muestra de 78 pacientes se distribuyó en hospitalización prolongada (mayor de 3 días) y hospitalización corta (igual o menor a 3 días). Para el análisis bivariado se emplearon las pruebas t de Student y chi cuadrado y para el análisis multivariado se utilizó regresión logística múltiple. Resultados. No existe asociación entre el recuento de leucocitos y la duración de la hospitalización. El análisis multivariado determinó asociación significativa entre la estancia hospitalaria y las siguientes variables: edad (OR 1,051; p=0,027), tiempo quirúrgico (OR 1,028; p=0,013), diagnóstico quirúrgico de apendicitis complicada (OR 15,008; p=0,018), y sexo femenino (OR 6,079; p=0,010). Conclusión. Los factores asociados a la duración de la hospitalización posterior a apendicectomía laparoscópica en este grupo de pacientes fueron la edad, el tiempo quirúrgico, el diagnóstico quirúrgico de apendicitis complicada y el sexo femenino.

Ambulatory Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Does the Conventional Approach Need a Reappraisal?

A Deucalione, acute abdomen remains significant in abdominal pain. The entity of acute abdomen accounts for up to 10% of all emergency admissions. The differences between countries' income and level of prosperity are pertinent, particularly in terms of severity, radiological modalities, and surgical management of the condition. Of note, surgical modalities have been the most widely used treatment modality, and current evidence indicates that the laparoscopic approach, per se, is the most effective surgical therapy with a lower incidence of wound infection, post-intervention morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and better quality of life scores compared to the conventional method. In light of this, the present study aimed to evaluate ambulatory appendectomy in a series of sequential laparoscopic appendectomies (LApp), which included both complicated and uncomplicated cases.

Intra and Postoperative Advantages of Laparoscopy in the Treatment of Complicated Appendicitis

Aim: To determine and define the advantages of the laparoscopic appendectomy in the treatment of complicated appendicitis by comparing it with the open appendectomy. Material and Methods: In this prospective interventional clinical study we compared the intraoperative data and the postoperative outcome of 77 patients presented with complicated appendicitis, operated with open and laparoscopic appendectomy within a period of 20 months. One surgeon performed all of the laparoscopic procedures and two other senior surgeons performed the open procedures. Results: Operative time was shorter in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.033). Conversion rate was 2.3%. Overall postoperative morbidity was 25.97%. There was one operative revision due to postoperative small bowel obstruction in the laparoscopic group. Appendicular stump leakage occurred in one patient in the open group. One intra-abdominal abscess occurred in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.38). Wound infection occurred only in the open group (p = 0.018). Length of stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.0052). One patient from the laparoscopic group was readmitted. Conclusions: Laparoscopy is a reliable method in the treatment of complicated appendicitis. It offers a shorter operative time, low conversion rate, an acceptable rate of major postoperative complications and a shorter length of stay.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy for Patients With Perforated Appendicitis

Introduction

Acute appendicitis can lead to perforation which can be lethal. The present study assessed the outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy in patients with perforated appendicitis.

Methodology

A comparative study was conducted at the Department of Surgery, Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences (LUMHS), between March 2, 2019 and July 7, 2020. The inclusion criteria consisted of a diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. Exclusion criteria consisted of intellectual disability hindering the procurement of informed consent, pediatric patients < 15 years of age, patients with an appendicular mass or abscess unsuited for laparoscopic appendectomy, severe sepsis or septic shock on presentation, and pregnant women. Patients were allocated to either open appendectomy (Group A) or laparoscopic appendectomy (Group B). The data gathering proforma recorded demographics, surgical findings, operating room (OR) time, length of inpatient care, requirement of analgesic, and any adverse events following surgery. All of the surgeries were conducted by an experienced surgical consultant with an experience of at least five years.

Results

A total of 85 patients were included in the laparoscopic appendectomy group, while 101 cases were included in the open appendectomy group. The use of analgesics thrice a day to manage the postoperative pain was significantly associated with the open appendectomy (p < 0.0001). Moreover, the postoperative length of hospitalization was substantially greater in patients who underwent open appendectomy than those who underwent laparoscopic procedure (p < 0.0001). Wound-related complications were considerably lower in patients who had laparoscopic appendectomy as compared to those who had open appendectomy (23.53% versus 40.5%; p = 0.013). 

Conclusion

The length of stay was significantly lower in patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. Moreover, laparoscopic appendectomy was also associated with a lower rate of wound infection postoperatively, thus giving the former an edge over the latter. Despite the finding that the postoperative pain was not considerably different between the two groups, patients who underwent open appendectomy group required significantly more painkillers to manage the postoperative pain. 

Intra-/Extracorporeal Single-Incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: There are two approaches to single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA): intracorporeal (Intra) and extracorporeal (Extra). However, the differences in the efficacy between these procedures remain unclear. Thus, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and usefulness of these techniques with those of conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) in children. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed, CENTRAL, and Scopus databases. Studies comparing outcomes of "Intra-SILA and CLA" or "Extra-SILA and CLA" in children aged <18 years were included. Operative time, hospitalization duration, wound infection, intra-abdominal infection, conversion to open, additional ports, and narcotic doses were evaluated. Results: Overall, 20 studies (six randomized controlled trials [RCTs], one prospective non-RCT, and 13 retrospective cohort studies) (Intra-SILA: 322, CLA: 791 cases; Extra-SILA: 1318, CLA: 1313 cases) were included. Compared with CLA, Extra-SILA was associated with a shorter operative time (mean difference, -9.79 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], -18.34 to -1.24) and lower incidence of intra-abdominal infection (3.3% versus 4.6%, odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82) and a higher rate of additional port (13.6% versus 0%, OR, 43.93; 95% CI, 14.79 to 130.50). Meanwhile, the outcomes of Intra-SILA were comparable with those of CLA. However, the participants in the Intra-SILA group received significantly lower doses of narcotics than those in the CLA group. Conclusion: Although the evidence was insufficient, both Intra- and Extra-SILA were comparable to CLA with respect to safety. Extra-SILA seems to have an advantage of a shorter operative time, but additional ports may be required.

Periappendiceal fluid collection on preoperative computed tomography can be an indication for interval appendectomy: a retrospective study

Background

The treatment strategies for acute appendicitis, such as emergency appendectomy (EA), interval appendectomy (IA), and repeating nonoperative management (NOM), are controversial. In this study, we examined the preoperative factors that can be used to distinguish which patients should undergo IA.

Methods

We retrospectively identified 902 patients who underwent surgery for appendicitis in our hospital from January 2010 to December 2021. Of these patients, 776 were included in this study. The patients were divided into two groups: those with a periappendiceal fluid collection (PAFC) on preoperative computed tomography (PAFC-positive group, n = 170) and those without a PAFC (PAFC-negative group, n = 606). In each group, we compared patients who underwent EA and IA.

Results

In the PAFC-positive group, patients who underwent EA had a significantly higher postoperative complication rate than those who underwent IA (40.5% vs. 24.0%, p = 0.037). In the multivariate analysis, only the presence of PAFC was significantly associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications (odds ratio, 7.11; 95% confidence interval, 2.73–18.60; p < 0.001). The presence of PAFC alone was not significantly associated with an increased risk of IA or NOM failure (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.19–11.7; p = 0.71). The rate of neoplasia on pathologic examination was significantly higher in the PAFC-positive than PAFC-negative group (7.6% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001); the rate of carcinoma was also higher in the PAFC-positive group (2.4% vs. 0.17%, p = 0.02).

Conclusions

The presence of PAFC on preoperative computed tomography was found to be a risk factor for postoperative complications but not IA or NOM failure. It was also correlated with neoplasia as the etiology of appendicitis. Therefore, PAFC positivity is useful as an indication for IA.

Liver Trauma: Until When We Have to Delay Surgery? A Review

Liver involvement after abdominal blunt trauma must be expected, and in up to 30% of cases, spleen, kidney, and pancreas injuries may coexist. Whenever hemodynamics conditions do not contraindicate the overcoming of the ancient dogma according to which exploratory laparotomy should be performed after every major abdominal trauma, a CT scan has to clarify the liver lesions so as to determine the optimal management strategy. Except for complete vascular avulsion, no liver trauma grade precludes nonoperative management. Every attempt to treat the injured liver by avoiding a strong surgical approach may be considered. Each time, a nonoperative management (NOM) consisting of a basic “wait and see” attitude combined with systemic support and blood replacement are inadequate. Embolization should be considered to stop the bleeding. Percutaneous drainage of collections, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with papilla sphincterotomy or stent placement and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) may avoid, or at least delay, surgical reconstruction or resection until systemic and hepatic inflammatory remodeling are resolved. The pathophysiological principle sustaining these leanings is based on the opportunity to limit the further release of cell debris fragments acting as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) and the following stress response associated with the consequent immune suppression after trauma. The main goal will be a faster recovery combined with limited cell death of the liver through the ischemic events that may directly follow the trauma, exacerbated by hemostatic procedures and surgery, in order to reduce the gross distortion of a regenerated liver.

Preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio may contribute to the prediction of postoperative infectious complications in patients with acute appendicitis: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have assessed various clinical variables to identify risk factors for postoperative complications in patients with acute appendicitis. However, few studies have focused on the relationships between systemic inflammatory variables and postoperative complications in patients with acute appendicitis. We investigated the relationships between postoperative complications and systemic inflammatory variables, and assessed the clinical utility of these variables as predictors of postoperative complications in patients with acute appendicitis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 181 patients who underwent immediate appendectomy for acute appendicitis. All postoperative complications were classified as infectious or noninfectious, and we evaluated the relationships between postoperative complications and clinical factors including the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio.

RESULTS

In total, 28 patients (15.5%) had postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II-IV complications; 17 patients (9.4%) and 11 patients (6.1%) were categorized as the infectious and noninfectious complication groups, respectively. The cutoff value of the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for all complications was 11.3, and multivariate analysis revealed that the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was an independent predictor of any postoperative complication (odds ratio: 4.223, 95% confidence interval: 1.335-13.352; P = 0.014). The cutoff value of the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for infectious complications was 11.4, and multivariate analysis revealed that the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was an independent predictor of infectious complications (odds ratio: 4.235, 95% confidence interval: 1.137-15.776; P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute appendicitis, the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio may be a useful predictor of all postoperative complications, especially infectious complications.

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.

Postoperative recovery assessment after appendectomy in children - laparoscopic versus open technique

Introduction/Objective. Surgery is a ?gold standard? in treating the acute appendicitis in pediatric patients. The aim of the study was to determine the effect of open and laparoscopic appendectomy on postoperative recovery, return to everyday activities and quality of life in patients operated for the acute appendicitis. Methods. This prospective study was performed at the Institute for Children and Youth Healthcare of Vojvodina, during a period of ten months. This study was approved by Ethic committee of the Institute. All patients treated for the acute appendicitis by surgery were divided into two basic groups: open or laparoscopic appendectomy and into three subgroups, depending on the degree of appendicitis. We analyzed length of surgery, oral intake, establishing peristalsis, hospital stay, return to everyday activities and quality of life after surgery. Results. Laparoscopic technique was performed in 60 patients (48%), and the open method in 65 (52%). In laparoscopically treated patients (66.7%), peristalsis occurred earlier (p < 0.001), length of hospital stay was shorter (5.95 ? 1.21 days) (Z = -3.054; p = 0.002), the total score of daily activities showed a statistically significantly better score (Z = -7.667; p = 0.000), and they achieved a high level of quality of life significantly earlier (t = 2.773; p = 0.007). Conclusion. The advantage of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of acute appendicitis in children is reflected in the faster re-establishment of every day functioning, faster recovery, and a good quality of life.

Mastering the learning curve significantly reduces operative time for laparoscopic treatment of complicated appendicitis

Laparoscopic appendectomy is the preferred operative method for acute appendicitistreatment. In terms of complicated appendicitis it can be effective in hands of an experiencedlaparoscopist that overwhelmed the learning curve for the method. Aim: Тhis retrospectivestudy examines whether the operative time for laparoscopic appendectomy for complicatedappendicitis is shortened after mastering the learning curve. Material and methods: A totalnumber of 196 patients were operated for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, of whom 77were diagnosed with complicated appendicitis. They were subsequently divided in two groups(laparoscopic and open). Operative time in both groups was measured and the conversionand postoperative complications were noted. Results: Conversion rate was 2.3%. Operativetime was shorter in the laparoscopic group (67.4 ± 22.9 vs. 77.9 ± 17.9 minutes; p = 0.033).Overall postoperative morbidity was 25.97% with wound infection present only in the opengroup (p = 0.018). Intraabdominal abscess occurred in one patient from the laparoscopicgroup (0.38%). Length of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (4.3 ± 2.2 vs. 5.7 ± 2.1, p = 0.0052).  

Economic Trends of Racial Disparities in Pediatric Postappendectomy Complications

BACKGROUND

Despite unparalleled advances in perioperative medicine, surgical outcomes remain poor for racial minority patients relative to their white counterparts. Little is known about the excess costs to the health care system related to these disparities.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between 2001 and 2018. We included children younger than 18 years admitted with appendicitis who underwent an appendectomy during their hospital stay. We examined the inflation-adjusted hospital costs attributable to the racial disparities in surgical complications and perforation status, focusing on differences between non-Hispanic white patients and non-Hispanic Black patients.

RESULTS

We included 100 639 children who underwent appendectomy, of whom 89.9% were non-Hispanic white and 10.1% were non-Hispanic Black. Irrespective of perforation status at presentation, surgical complications were consistently higher for Black compared with white children, with no evidence of narrowing of the racial disparity gap over time. Black children consistently incurred higher hospital costs (median difference: $629 [95% confidence interval: $500-$758; P < .01). The total inflation-adjusted hospital costs for Black children were $518 658 984, and $59 372 044 (11.41%) represented the excess because of the racial disparities in perforation rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all patients had a progressive decline in post appendectomy complications, Black children consistently had higher rates of complications and perforation, imposing a significant economic burden. We provide an empirical economic argument for sustained efforts to reduce racial disparities in pediatric surgical outcomes, notwithstanding that eliminating these disparities is simply the right thing to do.

Laparoscopy in Emergency: Why Not? Advantages of Laparoscopy in Major Emergency: A Review

A laparoscopic approach is suggested with the highest grade of recommendation for acute cholecystitis, perforated gastroduodenal ulcers, acute appendicitis, gynaecological disorders, and non-specific abdominal pain (NSAP). To date, the main qualities of laparoscopy for these acute surgical scenarios are clearly stated: quicker surgery, faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. For the remaining surgical emergencies, as well as for abdominal trauma, the role of laparoscopy is still a matter of debate. Patients might benefit from a laparoscopic approach only if performed by experienced teams and surgeons which guarantee a high standard of care. More precisely, laparoscopy can limit damage to the tissue and could be effective for the reduction of the overall amount of cell debris, which is a result of the intensity with which the immune system reacts to the injury and the following symptomatology. In fact, these fragments act as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). DAMPs, as well as pathogen associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), are recognised by both surface and intracellular receptors of the immune cells and activate the cascade which, in critically ill surgical patients, is responsible for a deranged response. This may result in the development of progressive and multiple organ dysfunctions, manifesting with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), coagulopathy, liver dysfunction and renal failure. In conclusion, none of the emergency surgical scenarios preclude laparoscopy, provided that the surgical tactic could ensure sufficient cleaning of the abdomen in addition to resolving the initial tissue damage caused by the “trauma”.

Revisiting delayed appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis

Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most common acute abdomen, and appendectomy is the most common nonelective surgery performed worldwide. Despite the long history of understanding this disease and enhancements to medical care, many challenges remain in the diagnosis and treatment of AA. One of these challenges is the timing of appendectomy. In recent decades, extensive studies focused on this topic have been conducted, but there have been no conclusive answers. From the onset of symptoms to appendectomy, many factors can cause delay in the surgical intervention. Some are inevitable, and some can be modified and improved. The favorable and unfavorable results of these factors vary according to different situations. The purpose of this review is to discuss the causes of appendectomy delay and its risk-related costs. This review also explores strategies to balance the positive and negative effects of delayed appendectomy.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Laparoscopic and Open Extensive Resection for Complicated Appendicitis: Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The feasibility and safety of laparoscopic extensive resection (ER) for complicated appendicitis (CA) has not been clarified. We assessed the feasibility of laparoscopic ER versus open ER for CA.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled consecutive 983 patients who underwent emergency surgery for appendicitis, including 91 patients who underwent ER for CA, between April 2007 and October 2019.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients underwent laparoscopic ER, and 58 patients underwent open ER. There were no significant differences in the reasons for performing ER between laparoscopic ER and open ER. The rates of suspicious for malignant tumor did not differ between laparoscopic and open ER [15.2% (5/33) vs. 17.2% (10/58)]. Blood loss was less in laparoscopic ER than in open ER (P=0.028). Superficial surgical site infection was less frequent in laparoscopic ER than in open ER (P=0.047). In addition, laparoscopic ER tended to be associated with a shorter hospital stay, lower rate of postoperative ileus, and higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic ER is feasible, and it is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and a lower frequency of postoperative superficial surgical site infection than open ER.

Is laparoscopic approach still a risk factor for postappendectomy intra-abdominal abscess?

BACKGROUND

The impact of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) on the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) remains controversial. We aimed to identify risk factors for postappendectomy IAA and assess the impact of appendectomy approach in postoperative morbidity.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study including consecutive patients who underwent appendectomy for acute appendicitis between 2015 and 2018 was performed. Demographic, clinical, intraoperative, and perioperative variables were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses was performed to detect independent risk factors for IAA. Comparison of LA and open appendectomy was conducted, and propensity score model (PSM) was used to overcome differences between groups. Independent risk factors for IAA were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses in the PSM cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 532 appendectomies were included. The median age was 35 years. Three hundred two patients (56.7%) underwent LA. The most frequent operative finding was American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade 1 appendicitis in 303 patients (57%). Peritonitis was found in 109 patients (20.5%). Postoperative morbidity and mortality were 14.4% and 0%, respectively. Intra-abdominal abscess rate was 6.2%. An AAST grade of ≥2, a preoperative C-reactive protein level of >100 mg/dL, and diabetes mellitus were identified as independent risk factors for IAA in the multivariate analysis. Comparing LA and open appendectomy, there were no differences in IAA rates. After PSM, LA showed lower morbidity and shorter hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic appendectomy is a safe approach and not related to a higher risk of IAA. Patients with an AAST grade of ≥2, a preoperative C-reactive protein level of >100, and diabetes mellitus have higher risk for postappendectomy IAA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Comparison of postoperative complications between open and laparoscopic appendectomy: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been popular for decades because of shorter hospitalization and return to routine activity. However, complications (e.g., surgical site infection [SSI] and intra-abdominal abscess [IAA]) relative to open appendectomy (OA) are still debated. We therefore conducted an umbrella review to systematically appraise meta-analyses (MAs) comparing SSI and IAA between LA and OA.

METHODS

Meta-analyses that included only randomized controlled trials were identified from MEDLINE and Scopus databases from inception until July 2018. Their findings were described, the number of overlapping studies was assessed using corrected covered area, and excess significant tests were also assessed. Finally, effect sizes of SSI and IAA were repooled.

RESULTS

Ten MAs were eligible; SSI was reported in all MAs and IAA in 8 MAs. Surgical site infection rate was 48% to 70% lower in LA than OA, but conversely, IAA rate was 1.34 to 2.20 higher in LA than OA. Overlapping included studies for SSI and IAA were 61% and 54%, respectively, indicating that less information was added across MAs. However, there was no evidence of bias from excess significant tests when pooling SSI or IAA estimates. The risk ratios (95% confidence interval) comparing LA versus OA were repooled in adults and children yielding risk ratios of 0.56 (0.47-0.67) and 0.40 (0.25-0.65) for SSI, and 1.20 (0.88-1.63) and 1.05 (0.61-1.80) for IAA.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from this umbrella review indicates that LA carries a significantly lower risk of SSI but likely a higher risk of IAA than OA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review/meta-analysis, level I.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of initial nonoperative management versus emergency laparoscopic appendectomy for acute complicated appendicitis

Background

The evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of nonoperative management is growing. However, the best treatment strategy for acute complicated appendicitis remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for complicated appendicitis patients. This study sought to determine the most cost-effective strategy from the health care-payer’s perspective.

Methods

The primary outcome was an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) using nonoperative management with or without interval laparoscopic appendectomy (ILA) as the intervention compared with operative management with emergency laparoscopic appendectomy (ELA) alone as the control. Model variables were abstracted from a literature review, and from data obtained from the hospital records of Tochigi Medical Center. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using an ICER. We constructed a Markov model to compare treatment strategies for complicated appendicitis in otherwise-healthy adults, over a time horizon of a single year. Uncertainty surrounding model parameters was assessed via one-way- and probabilistic-sensitivity analyses. Threshold analysis was performed using the willingness-to-pay threshold set at the World Health Organization’s criterion of $107,690.

Results

Three meta-analysis were included in our analysis. Operative management cost $6075 per patient. Nonoperative management with interval laparoscopic appendectomy (ILA) cost $984 more than operative management and produced only 0.005 more QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $182,587. Nonoperative management without ILA cost $235 more than operative management, and also yielded only 0.005 additional QALYs resulting in an ICER of $45,123 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 1000 draws resulted in average ICER of $172,992 in nonoperative management with ILA and $462,843 in Nonoperative management without ILA. The threshold analysis demonstrated that regardless of willingness-to-pay, nonoperative management without ILA would not be most cost-effective strategy.

Conclusions

Nonoperative management with ILA and Nonoperative management without ILA were not cost-effective strategies compared with operative management to treat complicated appendicitis. Based on our findings, operative management remains the standard of care and nonoperative management would be reconsidered as a treatment option in complicated appendicitis from economic perspective.

Predictors for prolonged length of stay after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis-related hospitalizations linked with peritonitis or postoperative complications result in longer lengths of stay and higher costs. The aim of the present study was to assess the independent association between potential predictors and prolonged hospitalization after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for complicated acute appendicitis (CAA).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on adult patients diagnosed with CAA in which LA was attempted. The primary outcome was a prolonged length of stay (LOS) after surgery, defined as hospitalizations longer than or equal to the 75th percentile for LOS, including the day of discharge. Hierarchical regression models were run to elucidate the independent predictors for the variable of interest.

RESULTS

The present study involved 160 patients with a mean age of 50.71 years. The conversion rate was 1.9%, and the overall postoperative morbidity rate was 23.8%. The median length of stay (LOS) was 5 days (75th percentile: 7 days). Multivariate analyses included nine variables that are statistically and/or clinically relevant to assess its relationship with a prolonged LOS: three preoperative (age, sex, and comorbidity), four intraoperative (appendix gangrene, perforation, degree of peritonitis, and drain placement), and two postoperative (immediate ICU admission and complications). The development of postoperative complications (OR 6.162, 95% CI 2.451-15.493; p = 0.000) and the placement of an abdominal drain (OR 3.438, 95% CI 1.107-10.683; p = 0.033) were found to be independent predictors for prolonged LOS. For patients not presenting postoperative complications, drain placement was the only independent predictor for the outcome (OR 7.853, 95% CI 1.520-40.558; p = 0.014). Sensitivity analyses showed confirmatory results.

CONCLUSION

The intraoperative process of care has a clear impact on LOS after LA for CAA in adults; therefore, the decision of whether to drain in these situations should be made more restrictively yet with judicious caution.

Current Evidence for Minimally Invasive Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Risk Mitigation Strategies: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to review the literature surrounding the risks of viral transmission during laparoscopic surgery and propose mitigation measures to address these risks.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused surgeons the world over to re-evaluate their approach to surgical procedures given concerns over the risk of aerosolization of viral particles and exposure of operating room staff to infection. International society guidelines advise against the use of laparoscopy; however, the evidence on this topic is scant and recommendations are based on the perceived most cautious course of action.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of the existing literature surrounding the risks of viral transmission during laparoscopic surgery and balance these risks against the benefits of minimally invasive approaches. We also propose mitigation measures to address these risks that we have adopted in our institution.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

While it is currently assumed that open surgery minimizes operating room staff exposure to the virus, our findings reveal that this may not be the case. A well-informed, evidence-based opinion is critical when making decisions regarding which operative approach to pursue, for the safety and well-being of the patient, the operating room staff, and the healthcare system at large. Minimally invasive surgical approaches offer significant advantages with respect to both patient care, and the mitigation of the risk of viral transmission during surgery, provided the appropriate equipment and expertise are present.

Current technical surgical practice of emergency appendicectomy: a cross-sectional survey of surgical registrars in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Appendicectomy remains one of the most commonly performed procedures in general surgery. The aim of this study was to explore variation in operative techniques of an appendicectomy among surgical registrars in England.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anonymised survey was sent out to surgical registrars in the UK via email and social media. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing respondents based on their level of seniority and subspecialty background.

RESULTS

A total of 168 respondents completed the survey, of whom 77.4% (130/168) were specialty trainees years 3-8 and 44.6% (75/168) were colorectal trainees. The majority (98.8%) preferred a laparoscopic approach to appendicectomy. Overall, 73.2% opted to use diathermy to divide an uninflamed mesoappendix. Half of the respondents (50%) preferentially used diathermy to control the appendicular artery, followed by 44% preferring use of metal or polymeric clips. The appendicular stump was most often secured with Endoloops (85.7%) when removing a macroscopically uninflamed appendix but less readily used in the visibly inflamed appendix (75.6%, p = 0.01). Colorectal and upper gastrointestinal registrars were more likely to use diathermy on the mucosa of the appendix stump compared with other subspecialties (p = 0.03). The majority (82.1%) of respondents extracted the appendix via a retrieval bag. Regarding skin closure, most respondents (69%) adopted absorbable subcuticular sutures. Preferential duration of postoperative antibiotic use following appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis varied among the respondents.

CONCLUSION

There are similarities and differences across surgical registrars in terms of technical practice in appendicectomy, partially attributed to prior experience and training.

Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is still challenging and some controversies on its management are still present among different settings and practice patterns worldwide. In July 2015, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) organized in Jerusalem the first consensus conference on the diagnosis and treatment of AA in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines. An updated consensus conference took place in Nijemegen in June 2019 and the guidelines have now been updated in order to provide evidence-based statements and recommendations in keeping with varying clinical practice: use of clinical scores and imaging in diagnosing AA, indications and timing for surgery, use of non-operative management and antibiotics, laparoscopy and surgical techniques, intra-operative scoring, and peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

METHODS

This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of AA. Literature search has been updated up to 2019 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. The statements were voted, eventually modified, and finally approved by the participants to the consensus conference and by the board of co-authors, using a Delphi methodology for voting whenever there was controversy on a statement or a recommendation. Several tables highlighting the research topics and questions, search syntaxes, and the statements and the WSES evidence-based recommendations are provided. Finally, two different practical clinical algorithms are provided in the form of a flow chart for both adults and pediatric (< 16 years old) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2020 WSES guidelines on AA aim to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) non-operative management for uncomplicated AA, (3) timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, (4) surgical treatment, (5) intra-operative grading of AA, (6) ,management of perforated AA with phlegmon or abscess, and (7) peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

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.

Is postponed laparoscopic appendectomy justified for patients with acute appendicitis?

INTRODUCTION

Recent meta-analyses revealed that laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is a feasible procedure even for patients with complicated appendicitis. More than a few patients with acute appendicitis arrive at the hospital during night shifts and have their operation postponed for various reasons. However, the feasibility and disadvantages of this so-called "postponed laparoscopic appendectomy" (PLA) remain controversial.

METHODS

We included 149 patients who underwent LA for acute appendicitis within 48 h of diagnosis between January 2013 and May 2018. Patients were divided into an immediate LA group (patients who underwent LA within 4 h of diagnosis, n = 84) and a PLA group (patients who underwent LA 4-48 h after diagnosis, n = 65). Comparisons were made between these groups.

RESULTS

The preoperative characteristics of the patients in the immediate LA and PLA groups were not significantly different. Operative time was significantly longer in the PLA group than in the LA group (92.5 ± 40.8 vs 78.1 ± 29.7 min, P = 0.012). The incidence of postoperative complications (grade II or higher) was significantly greater in the PLA group than in the LA group (32.3% vs 17.8%, P = 0.041). Multivariate analysis revealed that a preoperative CT finding of periappendiceal fluid (P = 0.005, odds ratio = 4.71) and surgery 4-48 h after diagnosis (P = 0.005, odds ratio = 4.425) were independent risk factors of postoperative complications (grade II or higher).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with acute appendicitis, surgeons should perform immediate LA, if that is the patient's preferred surgical treatment, as long as there is no special reason to postpone surgery.

Clinical outcomes of single-site laparoscopic interval appendectomy for severe complicated appendicitis: Comparison to conventional emergency appendectomy

AIM

Single-site laparoscopic interval appendectomy (SLIA) for severe complicated appendicitis after conservative treatment (CT) to ameliorate inflammation and eradicate the abscess should be safer and less invasive than emergency appendectomy (EA). However, only a few reports have been published regarding SLIA.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on 264 consecutive patients admitted to Kinan Hospital for treatment of appendicitis between 2012 and 2018. The safety and feasibility of SLIA and its perioperative outcomes for severe complicated appendicitis were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients were included in this study, 25 of whom underwent CT and 36 EA. Among the 25 patients who underwent CT, 23 (92.0%) succeeded; a total of 16 patients (69.5%) underwent SLIA. Compared to the EA group, the SLIA group had less bleeding (median volume 8.5 vs 50 mL, P = .005) and lower rate of expansion surgery (0% vs 27.8%, P = .022). Although the postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the SLIA group than in the EA group (9 vs 12 days, P = .008), the total hospital stay, including the CT period, was longer in the SLIA group than in the EA group (24 vs 12 days, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

SLIA is safe, feasible, and less invasive than EA and may provide the advantages of minimally invasive surgery even if appendicitis is severe. SLIA may be a promising option for complicated appendicitis in select cases despite its disadvantage of prolonging the hospital stay.

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

BACKGROUND

The advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy did not meet the same acceptance in the setting of perforated appendicitis as in uncomplicated appendicitis in the general surgical community. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of laparoscopic and open appendectomy in perforating appendicitis.

METHODS

A randomized controlled study was conducted on 126 patients presenting with perforated appendicitis. Sixty patients were subjected to laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and 66 patients underwent traditional open appendectomy (OA).

RESULTS

65 (51.6%) patients were female, and 61 (48.4%) patients were male in whom the mean age was 37.6 + 8.5 years. A significant difference was calculated in the domains of postoperative pain, less need for analgesics, hospital stay, and return to daily activities. The mean operative time was shorter in OA 94 ± 10.4 min than LA 120.6 ± 17.7 min. No statistically significant difference between both groups was detected as regard occurrence of intra-abdominal collection.

CONCLUSION

In view of its clinical outcomes, laparoscopy should be considered in the context of perforated appendicitis. The possibility of intra-abdominal collection should not be a barrier against the widespread practice of this surgical procedure amidst laparoscopic surgeons if adequate precautions are employed.

Educational value of surgical videos on YouTube: quality assessment of laparoscopic appendectomy videos by senior surgeons vs. novice trainees

Background

To prepare for surgery, surgeons often recur to surgical videos, with YouTube being reported as the preferred source. This study aimed to compare the evaluation of three surgical trainees and three senior surgeons of the 25 most viewed laparoscopic appendectomy videos listed on YouTube. Additionally, we assessed the video conformity to the published guidelines on how to report laparoscopic surgery videos (LAP-VEGaS).

Methods

Based on the number of visualization, the 25 most viewed videos on laparoscopic appendectomy uploaded on YouTube between 2010 and 2018 were selected. Videos were evaluated on the surgical technical performance (GOALS score), critical view of safety (CVS), and overall video quality and utility.

Results

Video image quality was poor for nine (36%) videos, good for nine (36%), and in high definition for seven (28%). Educational content (e.g., audio or written commentary) was rarely present. With the exception of the overall level of difficulty, poor consistency was observed for the GOALS domains between senior surgeons and trainees. Fifteen videos (60%) demonstrated a satisfactory CVS score (≥ 5). Concerning the overall video quality, agreement among senior surgeons was higher (Cronbach’s alpha 0.897) than among trainees (Cronbach’s alpha 0.731). The mean overall videos utility (Likert scale, 1 to 5) was 1.92 (SD 0.88) for senior examiners, and 3.24 (SD 1.02) for trainee examiners. The conformity to the LAP-VEGaS guidelines was weak, with a median value of 8.1% (range 5.4–18.9%).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic videos represent a useful and appropriate educational tool but they are not sufficiently reviewed to obtained standard quality. A global effort should be made to improve the educational value of the uploaded surgical videos, starting from the application of the nowadays-available LAP-VEGaS guidelines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13017-019-0241-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of Superficial Surgical Site Infection Between Delayed Primary Versus Primary Wound Closure in Complicated Appendicitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective:

To compare superficial surgical site infection (SSI) rates between delayed primary wound closure (DPC) and primary wound closure (PC) for complicated appendicitis.

Background:

SSI is common in appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. DPC is preferentially used over PC, but its efficacy is still controversial.

Methods:

A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted in 6 hospitals in Thailand, enrolling patients with gangrenous and ruptured appendicitis. Patients were randomized to PC (ie, immediately wound closure) or DPC (ie, wound closure at postoperative days 3–5). Superficial SSI was defined by the Center for Disease Control criteria. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain, length of stay, recovery time, quality of life, and cost of treatment.

Results:

In all, 303 and 304 patients were randomized to PC and DPC groups, and 5 and 4 patients were lost to follow-up, respectively, leaving 300 and 298 patients in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The superficial SSI rate was lower in the PC than DPC groups [ie, 7.3% (95% confidence interval 4.4, 10.3) vs 10% (95% CI 6.6, 13.3)] with a risk difference (RD) of −2.7% (−7.1%, 1.9%), but this RD was not significant. Postoperative pain, length of stay, recovery times, and quality of life were nonsignificantly different with corresponding RDs of 0.3 (−2.5, 3.0), −0.1 (−0.5, 0.3), −0.2 (−0.8, 0.4), and 0.02 (−0.01, 0.04), respectively. However, costs for PC were 2083 (1410, 2756) Baht cheaper than DPC (∼$60 USD).

Conclusions:

Superficial SSI rates for the PC group were slightly lower than DPC group, but this did not reach statistical significance. Costs were significantly lower for the PC group.

Laparoscopic appendicectomy is superior to open surgery for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Over the last three decades, laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) has become the routine treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The role of laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis (gangrenous and/or perforated) remains controversial due to concerns of an increased incidence of post-operative intra-abdominal abscesses (IAA) in LA compared to open appendicectomy (OA). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of LA versus OA for complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Database for randomised controlled trials (RCT) and case-control studies (CCS) that compared LA with OA for complicated appendicitis.

RESULTS

Data from three RCT and 30 CCS on 6428 patients (OA 3,254, LA 3,174) were analysed. There was no significant difference in the rate of IAA (LA = 6.1% vs. OA = 4.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.71-1.47, p = 0.91). LA for complicated appendicitis has decreased overall post-operative morbidity (LA = 15.5% vs. OA = 22.7%; OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.31-0.59, p < 0.0001), wound infection, (LA = 4.7% vs. OA = 12.8%; OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.19-0.36, p < 0.001), respiratory complications (LA = 1.8% vs. OA = 6.4%; OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.13-0.49, p < 0.001), post-operative ileus/small bowel obstruction (LA = 3.1% vs. OA = 3.6%; OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42-1.0, p = 0.048) and mortality rate (LA = 0% vs. OA = 0.4%; OR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04-0.61, p = 0.008). LA has a significantly shorter hospital stay (6.4 days vs. 8.9 days, p = 0.02) and earlier resumption of solid food (2.7 days vs. 3.7 days, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

These results clearly demonstrate that LA for complicated appendicitis has the same incidence of IAA but a significantly reduced morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay compared with OA. The finding of complicated appendicitis at laparoscopy is not an indication for conversion to open surgery. LA should be the preferred treatment for patients with complicated appendicitis.

Clinical Outcomes and Healthcare Costs Associated with Laparoscopic Appendectomy in a Middle-Income Country with Universal Health Coverage

BACKGROUND

Although many studies have compared outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA), some clinical and economic outcomes continue to be controversial, particularly in low-medium-income countries. We aimed at determining clinical and economic outcomes associated with LA versus OA in adult patients in Colombia.

METHODS

Retrospective, cohort study based on administrative healthcare records included all patients who underwent LA or OA in Colombia's contributory regime between July 1, 2013, and September 30, 2015. Outcomes were 30-day mortality rates, ICU admissions rates, length of stay (LOS), and hospital costs provided until discharge. Propensity score matching techniques were used to balance the baseline characteristics of patients (age, sex, comorbidities based on the Charlson index, insurer, and geographic location) and to estimate the average treatment effect (ATE) of LA as compared to OA over outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 65,625 subjects were included, 92.9% underwent OA and 7.1% LA. For the entire population, 30-day mortality was 0.74 per 100 appendectomies (95% CI 0.67-0.81), the mean and median LOS were 3.83 days and 1 day, respectively, and the ICU admissions rate during the first 30 days was 7.92% (95% CI 7.71-8.12). The ATE shows an absolute difference in the mortality rate after 30 days of -0.35 per 100 appendectomies (p = 0.023), in favor of LA. No effects on ICU admissions or LOS were identified. LA was found to increase costs by 514.13 USD on average, with total costs of 772.78 USD for OA and 1286.91 USD for LA (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In Colombia's contributory regime, LA is associated with lower 30-day mortality rate and higher hospital costs as compared to OA. No differences are found in ICU admissions or LOS.

Are Preoperative CT Findings Useful for Predicting Postoperative Intraabdominal Abscess in the Patients with Acute Appendicitis?

Background and objective: In patients with acute appendicitis (AA), preoperative computed tomography (CT) findings suggesting development of intraabdominal abscess (IAA) had not been widely used. The aim of this study was to investigate the preoperative clinical and radiological factors that predict the development of a postoperative IAA in patients with AA who were treated by laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). Methods: Two hundred and sixteen patients with pathologically proven AA underwent LA between January 2013 and March 2018 in our department. Medical records and preoperative CT images of these 216 patients were retrospectively reviewed and the predictive factors of postoperative IAA were investigated. In addition, patients were divided into complicated appendicitis (CA) and simple appendicitis (SA) and perioperative factors of two groups were compared. Results: One hundred and forty-seven patients were diagnosed with CA, while the other 69 patients were diagnosed with SA. Sixteen patients developed postoperative IAA in the CA group, while no patients in the SA group did. The univariate analysis revealed that time from onset to surgery more than 3 days (p = 0.011), the preoperative CT finding of periappendiceal fluid (p = 0.003), abscess (p < 0.001), and free air (p < 0.001), operation time more than 120 min (p = 0.023) and placement of a drainage tube (p < 0.001) were significantly associated with the development of IAA. Multivariate analysis revealed that the preoperative CT finding of free air was independently associated with the development of IAA (p = 0.007, odds ratio = 5.427, 95% CI: 1.586⁻18.57). Conclusions: IAA developed predominantly in patients with CA. Preoperative CT findings of free air was found to be an independent predictor for the development of IAA. Surgeons should be meticulous in managing the postoperative course of patients with this finding.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of acute appendicitis using laparoscopy reduces the risk of wound infection, hospitalization time and return to normal activity. However, it increases the risk of intra-abdominal abscess, which is one the main complications of complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We identified six systematic reviews including 55 studies overall, of which four were randomized trials. We concluded that the used of laparoscopy, compared to open appendectomy, probably reduces the time of hospital stay, and may reduce the risk of wound infection, but there's no clarity regarding the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess due to the very low certainty of the evidence available.