IPEG Guidelines for Appendectomy

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

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

[Appendectomy technique: paradigm shift or a well-forgotten old one? The role of mesoappendectomy in prevention of infectious intra-abdominal complications (announcement of RCT)]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the role of mesoappendixectomy in the development of intra-abdominal surgical site infection (IAB SSI) after LAE.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective randomized non-blind multiple-center registered (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03754777) study has been performed for the period from 2016 to 2018. The study was devoted to effectiveness and safety of the modified enhanced recovery protocol in LAE. In the main group, this protocol (n=56) included routine mesoappendixectomy, restrictive strategy for abdominal drainage and postoperative antibiotic prevention. In the control group (n=71), mesoappendixectomy was performed only in case of necrotic changes. Both groups were comparable by demographic parameters and severity of comorbidities.

RESULTS

In the main group, significant decrease in the incidence of IAB SSI was found (0% versus 9.8%). Moreover, the main group was characterized by reduced length of hospital-stay (1.43±1.34 d versus 2.94±2, 43 days).

CONCLUSION

Mesoappendixectomy should be evaluated in further research as a potential factor in prevention of IAB SSI.

[Diagnostic and treatment approaches for acute appendicitis in the Russian Federation. Results of the all-Russian survey]

OBJECTIVE

To improve treatment outcomes in patients with acute appendicitis (AA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An internet survey was performed. Questionnaire consisted of 15 questions concerning diagnosis and treatment of AA: application of prognostic scales, incidence and technical aspects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), antibiotic prophylaxis, postoperative management, compliance with international and national clinical guidelines. A total of 690 questionnaires were received and analyzed (3.67% of all surgeons in the Russian Federation).

RESULTS

Eighteen percent of respondents use at least one prognostic scale. The vast majority of surgeons (92%) use antibiotic prophylaxis. Almost half of respondents place trocars in the triangulation position (44%), one third of surgeons ligate the mesentery of the appendix (35%), most respondents perform mesoappendectomy (60%) with monopolar and bipolar cautery. Forty-five percent of all respondents do not invert the appendix stump. Significant number of respondents use abdominal drainage routinely. Only 3.5% of surgeons use multimodal postoperative analgesia. Less than 22% of patients are operated under low-pressure pneumoperitoneum. Standardization of surgical technique and perioperative approaches including those specified in the guidelines is absent. We also found insufficient awareness of surgeons about international and national clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSION

This study may be useful for standardizing treatment approaches, choosing the best practice, popularizing and improving of current clinical guidelines.

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma emergency general surgery guideline summaries 2018: acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis, acute diverticulitis, acute pancreatitis, and small bowel obstruction

In April 2017, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) asked the AAST Patient Assessment Committee to undertake a gap analysis for published clinical practice guidelines in emergency general surgery (EGS). Committee members performed literature searches to catalogue published guidelines for common EGS diseases and also to identify gaps in the literature where guidelines could be created. For five of the most common EGS conditions, acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis, acute diverticulitis, acute pancreatitis, and small bowel obstruction, we found multiple well-referenced guidelines published by leading professional organizations. We have summarized guideline recommendations for each of these disease states stratified by the AAST EGS anatomic severity score based on these published consensus guidelines. These summaries could be used to help inform evidence-based clinical decision-making, but are intended to be flexible and updatable in real time as further research emerges. Comprehensive guidelines were available for all of the diseases queried and identified gaps most commonly represented areas lacking a solid evidence base. These are therefore areas where further research is needed.

Appendix extraction after laparoscopic appendectomy in children: An easy, safe, and inexpensive technique

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy is becoming an increasingly common operation among children. It is well known that the abdominal wall should not be exposed to the appendix's inflamed tissue during its removal. Several ways to protect the retrieval site have been described, with controversial results. Elevated costs, large surgical wounds and high contamination risks are typical reported issues.

OBJECTIVE

We describe a safe, cheap and easy technique to remove the appendix after a laparoscopic appendectomy in pediatric patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected and analyzed the files of all children operated on at our institution for laparoscopic appendectomy between September 2004 and April 2015. To remove the appendix, we used the cut end of a glove's finger.

RESULTS

We performed 291 laparoscopic appendectomies using this technique during an 11-year period. Patients' ages ranged from 2 to 16years old. The appendix could be extracted using this technique in all the cases. No intraoperative complications related to the technique were observed. Overall, only one patient (0.34%) presented wound complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Avoiding wide surgical incisions and abdominal wall contaminations is essential during laparoscopic appendectomies in children. Our easy, safe and cheap technique allows these important goals to be achieved.