Should peritoneal lavage be used with suction during laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis?

SAGES guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is an extremely common disease with a variety of medical and surgical treatment approaches. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians and patients in decisions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted from 2010 to 2022 to answer 8 key questions relating to the diagnosis of appendicitis, operative or nonoperative management, and specific technical and post-operative issues for appendectomy. The results of this systematic review were then presented to a panel of adult and pediatric surgeons. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts.

RESULTS

Conditional recommendations were made in favor of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis being managed operatively, either delayed (>12h) or immediate operation (<12h), either suction and lavage or suction alone, no routine drain placement, treatment with short-term antibiotics postoperatively for complicated appendicitis, and complicated appendicitis previously treated nonoperatively undergoing interval appendectomy. A conditional recommendation signals that the benefits of adhering to a recommendation probably outweigh the harms although it does also indicate uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations should provide guidance with regard to current controversies in appendicitis. The panel also highlighted future research opportunities where the evidence base can be strengthened.

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.

Benefits and Reduced Hospital Costs of Direct Surgery in Perforated Appendicitis With Abscess Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Treatment Complicated Appendicitis

PURPOSE

Elective interval appendectomy (IA) after percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) is traditionally advocated for perforated appendicitis with an abscess. However, this is not the only way to manage these patients when we consider the cost-effectiveness of treatment. This study compared the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of patients who underwent IA and those who underwent direct surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 79 patients who were diagnosed with perforated appendicitis with abscess was conducted. We compared the hospital course, outcomes, and total medical costs between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients underwent PCD insertion for the management of appendiceal abscess (IA group), and 36 underwent appendectomy (DS group). There was no significant difference in abscess size (5.67 vs. 5.35 cm, P=0.15), appendectomy method (laparoscopic/open 39/4 vs. 37/5, P=0.523), or complications (7 vs. 6 cases, P=0.963) between the 2 groups. The operation time was longer in the DS group (83.8 vs. 112.7 min, P<0.001). However, length of hospitalization (15.4 vs. 7.7 d, P<0.001) and total hospital cost (US$2090.47 vs. US$3402.22, P<0.001) was greater in the IA group.

CONCLUSION

Direct surgery without PCD insertion in perforated appendicitis accompanied by abscess is more cost-effective and reduces the total length of hospitalization compared with the traditional IA.

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.

Consensus Statement of the Italian Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons (SPIGC): Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Appendicitis

Background: Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common causes of abdominal pain requiring surgical intervention. Approximately 20% of AA cases are characterized by complications such as gangrene, abscesses, perforation, or diffuse peritonitis, which increase patients' morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis of AA can be difficult, and evaluation of clinical signs, laboratory index and imaging should be part of the management of patients with suspicion of AA.Methods: This consensus statement was written in relation to the most recent evidence for diagnosis and treatment of AA, performing a literature review on the most largely adopted scientific sources. The members of the SPIGC (Italian Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons) worked jointly to draft it. The recommendations were defined and graded based on the current levels of evidence and in accordance with the criteria adopted by the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) for the strength of the recommendations.Results: Fever and migratory pain tend to be present in patients with suspicion of AA. Laboratory and radiological examinations are commonly employed in the clinical practice, but today also scoring systems based on clinical signs and laboratory data have slowly been adopted for diagnostic purpose. The clinical presentation of AA in children, pregnant and elderly patients can be unusual, leading to more difficult and delayed diagnosis. Surgery is the best option in case of complicated AA, whereas it is not mandatory in case of uncomplicated AA. Laparoscopic surgical treatment is feasible and recommended. Postoperative antibiotic treatment is recommended only in patients with complicated AA.

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.

Volume of Irrigation Does Not Affect Rate of Abscess in Perforated Appendicitis

Background: Although previous studies have evaluated whether use of irrigation decreases postoperative intraabdominal abscess (PO-IAA) formation, these studies treated irrigation as a dichotomous variable and concluded that no irrigation resulted in a decreased incidence of PO-IAA formation. However, a recent study found decreased incidence with small aliquots to a total volume of 6 L. We hypothesized that higher volumes of irrigation would result in a lower incidence of PO-IAA. Materials and Methods: A postoperative template was developed as a quality improvement initiative and included descriptors for complex appendicitis and volume of irrigation. Data were prospectively collected from February 2016 to December 2018. Patients with complex appendicitis (fibropurulent exudate, extraluminal fecalith, well-formed abscess, visible hole in the appendix) were identified and analyzed by using standard statistical analysis. Volume of irrigation was categorized for analysis. Results: Two thousand three hundred six appendicitis patients were identified; 408 had complex appendicitis (17.7%). Three hundred eighty-four patients with complex appendicitis had documented irrigation volumes. The overall incidence of PO-IAA was 13.8%. Irrigation was commonly used (92.7%). The median amount of irrigation was 1000 mL (500 mL, 2500 mL), but it ranged from none to 9000 mL. There was no overall difference in the volume of irrigation used between those who developed a PO-IAA and those who did not (P = .34). No specific intraoperative finding was associated with the development of PO-IAA. Increasing volume of irrigation did not lower PO-IAA incidence (P = .24). Conclusions: The volume of irrigation did not appear to affect the rate of PO-IAA formation. The use of irrigation should be left to the discretion of the operating surgeon.

Analysis of the Educational Value of YouTube Laparoscopic Appendectomy Videos

Purpose

To evaluate the educational value of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) videos on YouTube for surgical trainees.

Methods

The search term “Laparoscopic appendectomy” was used on YouTube. The top 100 videos sorted by the number of views were evaluated. Each YouTube account was analyzed, and only videos uploaded by medical physicians were included in this study. Video quality was evaluated using an arbitrary appendectomy scoring system. Video characteristics and Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) scores were analyzed regarding video quality and upload source.

Results

The video quality of 14 (25.0%) videos was graded as good, 36 (64.3%) moderate, and 6 (10.7%) of poor quality. Video characteristic analysis showed no differences in video quality according to the upload source (p=0.573). Video quality and upload source were not related to video length, total views, days online, number of likes, number of dislikes, number of comments, or GOALS score. Among the factors analyzed, only appendicitis severity was found to be associated with video grade (p=0.049).

Conclusion

The quality of LA YouTube videos varied. Categories considered as viewer feedback were not associated with video grade or upload source. Responsible video uploading by academic institutions, and appropriate censorship by YouTube seems necessary. Further research with objective data on actual application to surgical trainees is necessary.

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.

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.

Operative management of appendicitis

Appendectomy has been the standard of care for appendicitis since the late 1800s, and remains one of the most common operations performed in children. The advent of data-driven medicine has led to questions about every aspect of the operation-whether appendectomy is even necessary, when it should be performed (timing), how the procedure is done (laparoscopic variants versus open and irrigation versus no irrigation), length of hospital stay, and antibiotic duration. The goal of this analysis is to review the current status of, and available data regarding, the surgical management of appendicitis in children.

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

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to compare operative peritoneal irrigation versus suction alone during laparoscopic appendectomy in adult patients; our hypothesis was that the two methods are equivalent in terms of rate of post-operative intra-abdominal abscess. There has been only one prospective, randomized, superiority trial in children, that showed non-significant difference in the rate of intra-abdominal abscess comparing irrigation to suction alone during laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis. Non-significant difference in a superiority trial does not imply equivalence.

METHODS

This was a single-institution, prospective, randomized controlled equivalence study based on a null-hypothesis of non-equivalence between irrigation and suction alone. Adult patients with intra-operative findings of an acutely inflamed appendix, with suppuration or perforation localized to the right iliac fossa, paracolic gutter or pelvis were randomized to irrigation or suction alone. The primary endpoint was the rate of intra-abdominal abscess. An unconditional exact test of equivalence was used to test the null-hypothesis.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were included for analysis. Two (5%) of 40 patients in the irrigation group and two (4.9%) of 41 in the suction-only group developed postoperative intra-abdominal abscess. The 95% confidence interval for the difference between the two groups was -0.1200 to 0.1244, captured within the pre-defined δ limits (-0.15, 0.15). With reference to the rate of intra-abdominal abscess, equivalence was demonstrated between irrigation and suction-only techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with suppurative or perforated appendicitis, the rate of intra-abdominal abscess is equivalent between groups treated with peritoneal irrigation and suction alone.