Meta-analysis of the therapeutic effects of antibiotic versus appendicectomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis

Conservative Versus Surgical Management of Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review

Recent studies have discussed the role of antibiotic treatment in the conservative management of acute appendicitis and whether antibiotics are a safe option to replace appendicectomy, which has been the gold standard treatment of acute appendicitis for many years. The bibliographic databases Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane, Embase, Medline, and PubMed comparing conservative versus surgical treatment of acute appendicitis were systematically searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Twenty-one studies consisting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses involving 44,699 participants were identified. At least 17,865 participants were treated with antibiotics. Our studies compare antibiotic versus appendicectomy among acute appendicitis patients ranging from 7 to 94 years of age. In most studies, patients received parenteral antibiotics for a total of one to three days, and oral antibiotics such as oral cephalosporin plus metronidazole, oral amoxicillin/clavulanate, oral fluoroquinolones plus Tinidazole upon hospital discharge for a total of 7 to 10 days. The total course of antibiotics for both parenteral and oral regimes ranged from 2 to 16 days, with 10 days being the commonest duration. The recurrence rate following initial antibiotic treatment at one-year follow-up ranged from 13% to 38%, while the mean duration of recurrence ranged from three to eight months. The majority of the patients with recurrence underwent appendicectomy, while some patients were either given a repeat or different course of antibiotics due to the possible presence of antibiotic resistance; however, only 2.4% of the patients were successfully treated upon completion of the second course of antibiotics. Most of the studies concluded that appendicectomy remains the gold standard treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis, given its higher efficacy and lower complication rates. Although antibiotic treatment cannot be routinely recommended, it can be considered an appropriate alternative in selected patients with uncomplicated appendicitis who wish to avoid surgery and also acknowledge the risk of recurrence and the potential need for subsequent surgery at the same time.

Composite Criteria for Non-Operative Management of Acute Non-Complicated Appendicitis Result in Low Failure Rates

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to investigate the outcomes of conservative management of non-complicated acute appendicitis (AA) using our unique institutional protocol, and to compare between these and the outcomes of operative management.

METHODS

Patients admitted to our institution between March 2016 and October 2019 with non-complicated AA were grouped according to their initial management: non-operative versus surgical. Our unique protocol for non-operative management includes: pain < 3 days; afebrile upon admission; non-gravid; WBC <15,000 (× 10⁹/L); CRP < 5 mg/dl; appendix diameter < 1 cm; no appendicolith on imaging; no prior episode of AA; no history of Inflammatory Bowel Disease; no evidence of peritonitis on physical examination. The primary outcome measured was failure of non-surgical management during the index admission. Secondary outcomes included recurrence rate, readmissions, complications, length of antibiotic treatment and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

A total of 695 patients were included, 436 in the operative group and 259 in the non-surgical treatment group. The mean follow-up time was 1004.9 ± 205.7 days. Patients initially treated conservatively rarely required surgery during their index admission (6.9%). Recurrence rate was 19.1% after a mean follow up of 33.4 months. The overall failure rate of conservative management was documented in 20.8% of the patients. The complication rate was higher in those treated with upfront surgery (1.6% vs. 0.4%, p < 0.001). The overall LOS was not statistically different between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our composite protocol for non-surgical management of non-complicated AA results in a low failure rate. A well calculated patient treatment allocation in non-complicated AA can advocate for wide-spread use of the conservative approach.

Accuracy of Nonenhanced CT vs Contrast-Enhanced CT for Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis in Adults

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common causes of acute abdominal pain requiring emergency intervention. It is often difficult for the clinician to make an accurate diagnosis due to nonspecific and overlapping clinical symptoms. Computed tomography (CT) has become the imaging modality of choice for the evaluation of suspected acute appendicitis. The main purpose of our study was to compare nonenhanced CT (NECT) with contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 140 patients were enrolled in the study. Two abdominal radiologists-masked to both the clinical information and the final diagnosis-retrospectively reviewed the computed tomographic findings and made an imaging diagnosis based on (1) NECT only, (2) CECT only, and (3) both NECT and CECT. With the final diagnosis as the reference standard, the accuracy of each CT technique was estimated.

RESULTS

The respective sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for NECT, CECT, and NECT + CECT for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis were 80.7%, 86.7%, and 84.3%; 86.0%, 81.9%, and 83.6%; and, 87.7%, 80.7%, and 83.6%. There was no significant difference in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis among the 3 techniques. In order to make a correct diagnosis, the presence of at least 3 imaging findings for NECT or at least 4 for CECT had the best diagnostic accuracy. We also found that 9.25 mm was the optimal cut-off threshold for the detection of patients with acute appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

Our study allowed direct comparison between NECT, CECT, and NECT + CECT combined. There was no difference in the ability of each CT technique for diagnosing patients with acute appendicitis. For a patient whom iodinated contrast media is contraindicated or a patient who has an increased risk of severe adverse reaction, we would encourage the use of NECT because it provides comparable diagnostic accuracy without further exposing such patient to the contrast media.

[Parental representations of children's acute appendicitis and impact on its surgical management in three departments]

INTRODUCTION

Appendicitis is well known by the general and medical population. Yet, the number of appendectomies varies by a factor of one to four depending on French departments.Purpose of research: This study aimed to compare, according to French schooling departments, the representations and attitudes of parents facing abdominal pain of their children, and their use of health care system. We selected three departments which have different proportions of use of appendectomy according to the DRESS's rapport of 2014. Meurthe-et-Moselle's rank is between 15.65 and 23.48/10 000 people, Seine-et-Marne's rank is between 23.48 and 31.30/10 000, and Jura's rank is superior to 31/10 000.

RESULTS

797 questionnaires were analyzed (45.2%). Significant differences exist in the answers of the three departments. Residents of the Jura region and, in a lesser measure, Seine-et-Marnaises answered differently than Meurthe-et-Mosellanses. The first two were the populations who experienced the most appendectomies and the Meurthe-et-Mosellanses the least. Parents who lived in departments of high rank of appendectomy thought more of acute appendicitis when confronted with their children's abdominal pain, and feared less of appendectomy. They were also more in favor of surgical treatment than parents from Meurthe-et-Moselle.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge, attitude and use of health care system seem to influence management of acute appendicitis in children's population and can explain, at least partially, the variations of the appendectomy rate in France. Targeted information for physicians may improve the understanding of patients and reassure them if needed in the purpose of reducing this factor of influence of practices.

Are antibiotics a safe and effective treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis?- First update

UPDATE

This Living FRISBEE (Living FRIendly Summary of the Body of Evidence using Epistemonikos) is an update of the summary published in January 2016.

INTRODUCTION

Appendicitis is a typical cause of acute abdominal pain and the most frequent cause of emergency abdominal surgery. In the last two decades, increasing evidence has been published about the use of antibiotics as an exclusive treatment for acute appendicitis.

METHODS

To answer this question, we used Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained through searches from multiple sources of information, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted the data from the identified reviews, reanalyzed the data from the primary studies, performed a meta-analysis and prepared a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We identified 23 systematic reviews including 28 primary studies, of which eight were randomized trials. We concluded the exclusive use of antibiotics for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis could be less effective than appendectomy, but it might be associated with a lower rate of complications.

Antibiotics vs. Appendectomy for Acute Uncomplicated Appendicitis in Adults: Review of the Evidence and Future Directions

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency in the United States, with a lifetime risk of 7%-8%. The treatment paradigm for complicated appendicitis has evolved over the past decade, and many cases now are managed by broad-spectrum antibiotics. We determined the role of non-operative and operative management in adult patients with uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHODS

Several meta-analyses have attempted to clarify the debate. Arguably the most influential is the Appendicitis Acuta (APPAC) Trial.

RESULTS

According to the non-inferiority analysis and a pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -24%, the APPAC did not demonstrate non-inferiority of antibiotics vs. appendectomy. Significantly, however, the operations were nearly always open, whereas the majority of appendectomies in the United States are done laparoscopically; and laparoscopic and open appendectomies are not equivalent operations. Treatment with antibiotics is efficacious more than 70% of the time. However, a switch to an antimicrobial-only approach may result in a greater probability of antimicrobial-associated collateral damage, both to the host patient and to antibiotic susceptibility patterns. A surgery-only approach would result in a reduction in antibiotic exposure, a consideration in these days of focus on antimicrobial stewardship.

CONCLUSION

Future studies should focus on isolating the characteristics of appendicitis most susceptible to antibiotics, using laparoscopic operations as controls and identifying long-term side effects such as antibiotic resistance or Clostridium difficile colitis.

Profile of the appendectomies performed in the Brazilian Public Health System

Objective

to analyze the profile of appendectomies performed in the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) and to compare the laparoscopic and laparotomic techniques of appendectomy.

Methods

This work used information from DataSus from 2008 to 2014 (http://datasus.saude.gov.br). We compared the data of patients submitted to laparotomic appendectomy with those submitted to laparoscopic one.

Results

when comparing the total growth of appendectomies, the laparoscopic route increased 279.7%, while the increase in laparotomic surgery was 25% (p <0.001) in the study period. With regard to medical and hospital costs, laparoscopic appendectomy accounted for only 2.6% of the total expenditure on appendectomies performed by the Unified Health System (SUS) hospitals, with an average cost 7.6% lower than that of laparotomy procedures, but without statistical significance. The mortality rate was 57.1% lower in the laparoscopic approach when compared with laparotomy.

Conclusion

there has been a significant increase in the laparoscopic route in the treatment of appendicitis, but the method is still rarely used in SUS patients. The costs of laparoscopic appendectomy were similar to those observed in laparotomic access.

The immune impact of mimic endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy and appendectomy on rabbits of acute appendicitis

This study was conducted to evaluate the immune impact of mimic endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy and appendectomy on rabbits of acute suppurative appendicitis and to determine whether TLR4/MYD88/NF-κB signaling pathway was activated in this process. 48 rabbits were assigned into 4 groups: group I, the mimic endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy group; group II, the appendectomy group; group III, the model group; and group IV, the blank group. White blood cells decreased, while levels of C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-6, interleukin-4, and interleukin-10 increased on the 2^nd day in group I and II. IgA in feces decreased at 2 weeks, while fecal microbiota changed at 2 and 4 weeks after appendectomy. CD8⁺ cells in appendix of group I increased within 8 weeks. Upregulated expression of TLR4, MYD88, and nuclear NF-κB were detected on the 2^nd day in group I and II. Mimic endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy and appendectomy are effective ways for acute suppurative appendicitis. Mimic endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy was more preferable due to its advantage in maintaining intestinal immune function. TLR4/MYD88/NF-κB signaling pathway was activated in acute phase of appendicitis.

Meta-analysis of antibiotics versus appendicectomy for non-perforated acute appendicitis

Background

For more than a century, appendicectomy has been the treatment of choice for appendicitis. Recent trials have challenged this view. This study assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotic therapy compared with appendicectomy in patients with non‐perforated appendicitis.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted for randomized trials comparing antibiotic therapy with appendicectomy in patients with non‐perforated appendicitis. Key outcomes were analysed using random‐effects meta‐analysis, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results

Five studies including 1116 patients reported major complications in 25 (4·9 per cent) of 510 patients in the antibiotic and 41 (8·4 per cent) of 489 in the appendicectomy group: risk difference −2·6 (95 per cent c.i. –6·3 to 1·1) per cent (low‐quality evidence). Minor complications occurred in 11 (2·2 per cent) of 510 and 61 (12·5 per cent) of 489 patients respectively: risk difference −7·2 (−18·1 to 3·8) per cent (very low‐quality evidence). Of 550 patients in the antibiotic group, 47 underwent appendicectomy within 1 month: pooled estimate 8·2 (95 per cent c.i. 5·2 to 11·8) per cent (high‐quality evidence). Within 1 year, appendicitis recurred in 114 of 510 patients in the antibiotic group: pooled estimate 22·6 (15·6 to 30·4) per cent (high‐quality evidence). For every 100 patients with non‐perforated appendicitis, initial antibiotic therapy compared with prompt appendicectomy may result in 92 fewer patients receiving surgery within the first month, and 23 more experiencing recurrent appendicitis within the first year.

Conclusion

The choice of medical versus surgical management in patients with clearly uncomplicated appendicitis is value‐ and preference‐dependent, suggesting a change in practice towards shared decision‐making is necessary.

Limitations of each evolving

Antibiotics alone versus appendectomy to treat uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults: what do meta-analyses say?

Background

Primary appendectomy is the current standard of care for treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis, but interest in conservative treatment with antibiotics alone has been increasing in recent years. Clinical trials so far have shown controversial results.

Methods

A series of meta-analyses were reviewed. Studies comparing surgery versus antibiotics alone for treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults were included. Descriptive statistics and data on treatment effects were retrieved and summarized.

Results

The conservative approach has a success rate of around 60 % and is associated with shorter pain duration, reduced analgesic medication, faster resolution of the inflammation process, lower expenses and quicker return to work. On the other hand, medical treatment leads to high (up to 20 %) readmission rates and more often requires surgery. An operative approach is associated with higher treatment success rates (>90 %) and very a low mortality rate.

Conclusion

Based on the current body of evidence, the use of antibiotics for primary treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis cannot be routinely recommended. Appendectomy remains the gold-standard treatment.

High serum cancer antigen 125 level indicates perforation in acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of acute appendicitis is sometimes challenging, and prompt evaluation is required because of the risk of complications if not treated appropriately.

AIM

We aimed to evaluate whether cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) has diagnositic accuracy and predictor of the severity in acute appendicitis.

RESULTS

Sixty patients with acute appendicitis were recruited prospectively in this study between May 2014 and March 2015. Blood samples were obtained to measure CA-125 levels before appendectomy. Of the 57 patients, 10 had perforated or gangrenous appendicitis intraoperatively. The CA-125 levels were significantly higher in patients with perforated or gangrenous appendicitis than patients with uncomplicated appendicitis (49.9 vs 10.5 U/mL, P=.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer antigen 125 levels in patients with highly suspected or confirmed appendicitis could help clinicians determine the severity of the disease.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in patients with suspected appendicitis: a systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Several systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic versus open appendectomy have been published, but there has been no overview of SRs of these two interventions. This overview (review of review) aims to summarise the results of such SRs in order to provide the most up to date evidence, and to highlight discordant results.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cinahl, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for SRs published up to August 2014. Study selection and quality assessment using the AMSTAR tool were carried out independently by two reviewers. We used standardised forms to extract data that were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

Nine SRs met the inclusion criteria. All were of moderate to high quality. The number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) they included ranged from eight to 67. The duration of surgery pooled by eight reviews was 7.6 to 18.3 minutes shorter using the open approach. Pain scores on the first postoperative day were lower after laparoscopic appendectomy in two out of three reviews. The risk of abdominal abscesses was higher for laparoscopic surgery in half of six meta-analyses. The occurrence of wound infections pooled by all reviews was lower after laparoscopic appendectomy. One review showed no difference in mortality. The laparoscopic approach shortened hospital stay from 0.16 to 1.13 days in seven out of eight meta-analyses, though the strength of the evidence was affected by strong heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic and open appendectomy are both safe and effective procedures for the treatment of acute appendicitis. This overview shows discordant results with respect to the magnitude of the effect but not to the direction of the effect. The evidence from this overview may prove useful for the development of clinical guidelines and protocols.

Are paediatric operations evidence based? A prospective analysis of general surgery practice in a teaching paediatric hospital

BACKGROUND/AIM

Paediatric surgical practice should be based upon solid scientific evidence. A study in 1998 (Baraldini et al., Pediatr Surg Int) indicated that only a quarter of paediatric operations were supported by the then gold standard of evidence based medicine (EBM) which was defined by randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of the current study was to re-evaluate paediatric surgical practice 16 years after the previous study in a larger cohort of patients.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary level teaching hospital for children. The study was approved by the local research ethics board. All diagnostic and therapeutic procedures requiring a general anaesthetic carried out over a 4-week period (24 Feb 2014-22 Mar 2014) under the general surgery service or involving a general paediatric surgeon were included in the study. Pubmed and EMBASE were used to search in the literature for the highest level of evidence supporting the recorded procedures. Evidence was classified according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2009 system as well as according to the classification used by Baraldini et al. Results was compared using Χ (2) test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

During the study period, 126 operations (36 different types) were performed on 118 patients. According to the OCEBM classification, 62 procedures (49 %) were supported by systematic reviews of multiple homogeneous RCTs (level 1a), 13 (10 %) by individual RCTs (level 1b), 5 (4 %) by systematic reviews of cohort studies (level 2a), 11 (9 %) by individual cohort studies, 1 (1 %) by systematic review of case-control studies (level 3a), 14 (11 %) by case-control studies (level 3b), 9 (7 %) by case series (type 4) and 11 procedures (9 %) were based on expert opinion or deemed self-evident interventions (type 5). High level of evidence (OCEBM level 1a or 1b or level I according to Baraldini et al. PSI 1998) supported 75 (60 %) operations in the current study compared to 18 (26 %) in the study of 1998 (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that nowadays a remarkable number of paediatric surgical procedures are supported by high level of evidence. Despite this improvement in evidence-based paediatric surgical practice, more than a third of the procedures still lack sufficient evidence-based literature support. More RCTs are warranted to support and direct paediatric surgery practice according to the principals of EBM.

Appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

Appendicitis is an inflammation of the appendix that may lead to an abscess, ileus, peritonitis, or death if untreated. Appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency. The current standard treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis is usually surgery, but there has been increasing evidence published on the use of antibiotics.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES

We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of surgery compared with antibiotics for acute appendicitis? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

RESULTS

We found four studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of surgery (including laparoscopic and open appendicectomy) compared with antibiotics.