Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a comparison of primary outcome measures

Perioperative pain management for appendicectomy: A systematic review and Procedure-specific Postoperative Pain Management recommendations

BACKGROUND

Despite being a commonly performed surgical procedure, pain management for appendicectomy is often neglected because of insufficient evidence on the most effective treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

To provide evidence-based recommendations by assessing the available literature for optimal pain management after appendicectomy.

DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES

This systematic review-based guideline was conducted according to the PROSPECT methodology. Relevant randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the English language from January 1999 to October 2022 were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases using PRISMA search protocols.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies on adults and children. If articles reported combined data from different surgeries, they had to include specific information about appendicectomies. Studies needed to measure pain intensity using a visual analogue scale (VAS) or a numerical rating scale (NRS). Studies that did not report the precise appendicectomy technique were excluded.

RESULTS

Out of 1388 studies, 94 met the inclusion criteria. Based on evidence and consensus, the PROSPECT members agreed that basic analgesics [paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)] should be administered perioperatively for open and laparoscopic appendicectomies. A laparoscopic approach is preferred because of lower pain scores. Additional recommendations for laparoscopic appendicectomies include a three-port laparoscopic approach and the instillation of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic. For open appendicectomy, a preoperative unilateral transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block is recommended. If not possible, preincisional infiltration with local anaesthetics is an alternative. Opioids should only be used as rescue analgesia. Limited evidence exists for TAP block in laparoscopic appendicectomy, analgesic adjuvants for TAP block, continuous wound infiltration after open appendicectomy and preoperative ketamine and dexamethasone. Recommendations apply to children and adults.

CONCLUSION

This review identified an optimal analgesic regimen for open and laparoscopic appendicectomy. Further randomised controlled trials should evaluate the use of regional analgesia and wound infiltrations with adequate baseline analgesia, especially during the recommended conventional three-port approach.

REGISTRATION

The protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO database (Registration No. CRD42023387994).

Laparoscopic versus Open Appendectomy: A Prospective Comparative Study and 4-Year Experience in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background The aim of this study was to validate the pros of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) over open appendectomy (OA) and to compare various primary outcome measures in the management of acute and recurrent appendicitis.

Study Design Prospective comparative study.

Place and Duration Between June 2015 and October 2019 in JJ Hospital, Mumbai.

Materials and Methods Total of 60 patients with acute and recurrent appendicitis were included in the study. Thirty patients underwent OA and 30 underwent LA. Both groups were comparable clinicopathologically and demographically. Various intraoperative and postoperative parameters were compared. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and categorical variables were expressed as percentages. Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables and chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables. p-Value≤0.001 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results The median age of patients undergoing OA and LA was 24.9 and 25.2 years (p = 0.221), respectively. Female: male ratio in OA and LA was 1.30 and 1.14, respectively (p = 0.795). Mean operative duration in LA and OA group was 47.17 ± 14.39 minutes and 36.9 ± 12.33 minutes (p = 0.001), respectively. Mean length of postoperative stay in LA and OA group was 3.69 ± 0.71 days and 5.28 ± 0.63 days (p = 0.000), respectively. Median visual analogue scale score in LA and OA group was 3.5 and 5 (p = 0.001), respectively. Mean time to return to normal activity in LA and OA group was 8.13 ± 1.33 days and 10.10 ± 2.20 days (p = 0.000), respectively. About 6.66% patients in LA group and 13.33% in OA group had postoperative wound infection (p = 0.652). Mean scar scale scoring done on 30th postoperative day was 4.23 in LA and 8.23 in OA (p = 0.000).

Discussion and Conclusion LA is more promising than OA in the management of acute and recurrent appendicitis. LA offers lesser operative site pain in the postoperative period, shorter postoperative hospital stays, earlier recovery, and return to normal activities and cosmetically better scars on 30th day follow-up. No conversions or significant difference in wound related complications were seen in both groups. Prolonged intraoperative duration was the only drawback of LA.

Feasibility, acceptance, safety, and effectiveness of antibiotic therapy as alternative treatment approach to appendectomy in uncomplicated acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

Based on results from randomized controlled trials, there is an increasing discussion if antibiotic treatment is an equivalent therapeutic approach to appendectomy in uncomplicated acute appendicitis. This observational prospective study evaluates its feasibility, safety, and effectiveness in clinical practice.

METHODS

The study included all consecutive adults treated for acute appendicitis over an 18-month period in one hospital. Patients receiving antibiotics were compared to those treated surgically. Follow-up comprised 1 year. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as no secondary appendectomy during follow-up (antibiotic group) or successful appendectomy (primary surgical group). Secondary endpoints were complications, duration of hospital stay, pain intensity, and length of absence from work.

RESULTS

54/124 (43.6%) patients were primarily treated with antibiotics and 70/124 (56.4%) surgically. Treatment success at 1 year was 77.1% (95%-CI 62.8-88%) for antibiotic and 100% for surgical treatment. Complications were non-significantly less frequent both among all patients treated with antibiotics and among patients undergoing secondary appendectomy compared to patients undergoing primary appendectomy (20.8% vs. 27.1% and 9.1% vs. 27.1%). The initial hospital stay was significantly shorter in the antibiotic group (mean 3.6 vs. 4.8 days, median 3 days, p = 0.03). After 1 year, the cumulative hospital stay was not different between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Appendectomy remains the most effective treatment for the definitive cure of acute appendicitis. However, antibiotic therapy can be a safe alternative approach for selected patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00010401.

Mini-Incision Open Appendectomy with Incision Skin Tissue Retractor vs. Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Retrospective Study of the Management of Child Acute Appendicitis

Introduction

This study aims to compare the clinical effects of an incision skin tissue retractor for mini-incision open appendectomy and laparoscopic surgery for pediatric appendicitis.

Methods

From January 2014 to July 2017, a total of 248 patients were included in the present study. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed for 108 cases (LA group), and mini-incision open appendectomy with an incision skin tissue retractor was performed for 140 cases (MOA-ISTR group). Then, medical history, age, gender, operative duration, amount of bleeding during the operation, the determination of whether or not the appendix was perforated during the operation, hospitalization days, total cost of hospitalization, and complications after the operation (incision infection or intestinal obstruction) were compared. The SPSS 20.0 software package was used for the statistical analysis.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in history, age, gender, perioperative perforation of the appendix, postoperative hospital stay and postoperative complications (incisional infection or intestinal obstruction, P  > 0.05). However, the values for duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss and total hospitalization expense were smaller, when compared with the LA group (P  < 0.05).

Conclusion

Mini-incision open appendectomy with an incision skin tissue retractor has similar efficacy and incision appearance when compared with laparoscopic appendectomy. Furthermore, this approach leads to shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss and less hospitalization time, and is more convenient, especially for perforated appendicitis. Moreover, it can be widely used for pediatric appendicitis, and is more suitable for doctors who are not skilled in basic hospitals and laparoscopy.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The removal of the acute appendix is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Open surgery associated with therapeutic efficacy has been the treatment of choice for acute appendicitis. However, in consequence of the evolution of endoscopic surgery, the operation can also be performed with minimally invasive surgery. Due to smaller incisions, the laparoscopic approach may be associated with reduced postoperative pain, reduced wound infection rate, and shorter time until return to normal activity.This is an update of the review published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) with regard to benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE and Embase (9 February 2018). We identified proposed and ongoing studies from World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials Register (9 February 2018). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA versus OA in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (or standardised mean differences (SMD) if researchers used different scales such as quality of life) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 85 studies involving 9765 participants. Seventy-five trials included 8520 adults and 10 trials included 1245 children. Most studies had risk of bias issues, with attrition bias being the largest source across studies due to incomplete outcome data.In adults, pain intensity on day one was reduced by 0.75 cm on a 10 cm VAS after LA (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.45; 20 RCTs; 2421 participants; low-quality evidence). Wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.51; 63 RCTs; 7612 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses was increased following LA (Peto OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.43; 53 RCTs; 6677 participants; moderate-quality evidence).The length of hospital stay was shortened by one day after LA (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.70; 46 RCTs; 5127 participant; low-quality evidence). The time until return to normal activity occurred five days earlier after LA than after OA (MD -4.97, 95% CI -6.77 to -3.16; 17 RCTs; 1653 participants; low-quality evidence). Two studies showed better quality of life scores following LA, but used different scales, and therefore no pooled estimates were presented. One used the SF-36 questionnaire two weeks after surgery and the other used the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index six weeks and six months after surgery (both low-quality evidence).In children, we found no differences in pain intensity on day one (MD -0.80, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.05; 1 RCT; 61 participants; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal abscesses after LA (Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.22; 9 RCTs; 1185 participants; low-quality evidence) or time until return to normal activity (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.30; 1 RCT; 383 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.42; 10 RCTs; 1245 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and the length of hospital stay was shortened by 0.8 days after LA (MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.62; 6 RCTs; 316 participants; low-quality evidence). Quality of life was not reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Except for a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscesses after LA in adults, LA showed advantages over OA in pain intensity on day one, wound infections, length of hospital stay and time until return to normal activity in adults. In contrast, LA showed advantages over OA in wound infections and length of hospital stay in children. Two studies reported better quality of life scores in adults. No study reported this outcome in children. However, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate and some of the clinical effects of LA were small and of limited clinical relevance. Future studies with low risk of bias should investigate, in particular, the quality of life in children.

Foley catheters are not routinely necessary in children treated with patient-controlled analgesia following perforated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is often used in children with perforated appendicitis. To prevent urinary retention, some providers also routinely place Foley catheters. This study examines the necessity of this practice.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all children (≤18 years old) with perforated appendicitis and postoperative PCA from 7/2015 to 6/2016 at two academic children's hospitals. Urinary retention was defined as the inability to spontaneously void requiring straight catheterization or placement of a Foley catheter.

RESULTS

Of 313 patients who underwent appendectomy for perforated appendicitis (Hospital 1: 175, Hospital 2: 138), 129 patients received an intraoperative Foley (Hospital 1: 22 [13%], Hospital 2: 107 [78%], p < 0.001). Age, gender, and BMI were similar between those with an intraoperative Foley and those without. There were no urinary tract infections in either group. Urinary retention rate in patients with an intraoperative Foley following removal on the inpatient unit (n = 3, 2%) and patients without an intraoperative Foley (n = 10, 5%) did not reach significance (p = 0.25). On univariate analysis, demographics, intraoperative findings, PCA specifics, postoperative abscess formation, and postoperative length of stay, were not significant risk factors for urinary retention.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of urinary retention in this population is low despite the use of PCA. Children with perforated appendicitis do not require routine Foley catheter placement to prevent urinary retention.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Optimal stump management in laparoscopic appendectomy: A network meta-analysis by the Minimally Invasive Surgery Synthesis of Interventions and Outcomes Network

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy is the predominant method of treatment of acute appendicitis. There is insufficient evidence on the most effective management of the appendix stump. The aim of this study was to investigate the relative effectiveness and provide a treatment ranking of different options for securing the appendix stump.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing ligation methods of the appendix. The primary outcomes were organ/space infection and superficial operative site infection. We performed a network meta-analysis and estimated the pairwise relative treatment effects of the competing interventions using the odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval. We obtained a hierarchy of the competing interventions using rankograms and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve.

RESULTS

Forty-three randomized controlled trials were eligible and provided data for >5,000 patients. Suture ligation seemed to be the most effective treatment strategy, in terms of both organ/space infection and superficial operative site infection. Statistical significance was reached for the comparisons of clip versus endoloop (odds ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.96) for organ/space infection; and suture versus clip (odds ratio 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.08-0.55) and clip versus endoloop (odds ratio 2.22, 95% confidence interval 1.56-3.13) for superficial operative site infection. The network was informed primarily by indirect treatment comparisons.

CONCLUSION

The use of suture ligation of the appendix in laparoscopic appendectomy seems to be superior to other methods for the composite parameters of organ/space and superficial operative site infection.

Variability in mortality following caesarean delivery, appendectomy, and groin hernia repair in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and analysis of published data

BACKGROUND

Surgical interventions occur at lower rates in resource-poor settings, and complication and death rates following surgery are probably substantial but have not been well quantified. A deeper understanding of outcomes is a crucial step to ensure that high quality accompanies increased global access to surgical care. We aimed to assess surgical mortality following three common surgical procedures--caesarean delivery, appendectomy, and groin (inguinal and femoral) hernia repair--to quantify the potential risks of expanding access without simultaneously addressing issues of quality and safety.

METHODS

We collected demographic, health, and economic data for 113 countries classified as low income or lower-middle income by the World Bank in 2005. We did a systematic review of Ovid, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Scopus from Jan 1, 2000, to Jan 15, 2015, to identify studies in these countries reporting all-cause mortality following the three commonly undertaken operations. Reports from governmental and other agencies were also identified and included. We modelled surgical mortality rates for countries without reported data using a two-step multiple imputation method. We first used a fully conditional specification (FCS) multiple imputation method to establish complete datasets for all missing variables that we considered potentially predictive of surgical mortality. We then used regression-based predictive mean matching imputation methods, specified within the multiple imputation FCS method, for selected predictors for each operation using the completed dataset to predict mortality rates along with confidence intervals for countries without reported mortality data. To account for variability in data availability, we aggregated results by subregion and estimated surgical mortality rates.

FINDINGS

From an initial 1302 articles and reports identified, 247 full-text articles met our inclusion criteria, and 124 provided data for surgical mortality for at least one of the three selected operations. We identified 42 countries with mortality data for at least one of the three procedures. Median reported mortality was 7·9 per 1000 operations for caesarean delivery (IQR 2·8-19·9), 2·2 per 1000 operations for appendectomy (0·0-17·2), and 4·9 per 1000 operations for groin hernia (0·0-11·7). Perioperative mortality estimates by subregion ranged from 2·8 (South Asia) to 50·2 (East Asia) per 1000 caesarean deliveries, 2·4 (South Asia) to 54·0 (Central sub-Saharan Africa) per 1000 appendectomies, and 0·3 (Andean Latin America) to 25·5 (Southern sub-Saharan Africa) per 1000 hernia repairs.

INTERPRETATION

All-cause postoperative mortality rates are exceedingly variable within resource-constrained environments. Efforts to expand surgical access and provision of services must include a strong commitment to improve the safety and quality of care.

FUNDING

None.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults and children: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults and children.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA and OA in adults and children between January 1992-March 2016 were included in this study. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative complications, reoperation rate, operation time, postoperative stay, and return to normal activity.

RESULT

Thirty-three studies including 3642 patients (1810 LA, 1832 OA) were included. Compared with OA, LA in adults was associated with lower incidence of wound infection, fewer postoperative complications, shorter postoperative stay, and earlier return to normal activity, but a longer operation time. There was no difference in levels of intra-abdominal abscess and reoperation between the groups. Subgroup analysis in children did not reveal significant differences between the two techniques in wound infection, postoperative complications, postoperative stay, and return to normal activity.

CONCLUSION

LA in adults is worth recommending as an effective and safe procedure for acute appendicitis, and further high-quality randomized trials comparing the two techniques in children are needed.

Laparoscopic vs mini-incision open appendectomy

AIM: To compare laparoscopic vs mini-incision open appendectomy in light of recent data at our centre.

METHODS: The data of patients who underwent appendectomy between January 2011 and June 2013 were collected. The data included patients’ demographic data, procedure time, length of hospital stay, the need for pain medicine, postoperative visual analog scale of pain, and morbidities. Pregnant women and patients with previous lower abdominal surgery were excluded. Patients with surgery converted from laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) to mini-incision open appendectomy (MOA) were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups: LA and MOA done by the same surgeon. The patients were randomized into MOA and LA groups a computer-generated number. The diagnosis of acute appendicitis was made by the surgeon with physical examination, laboratory values, and radiological tests (abdominal ultrasound or computed tomography). All operations were performed with general anaesthesia. The postoperative vision analog scale score was recorded at postoperative hours 1, 6, 12, and 24. Patients were discharged when they tolerated normal food and passed gas and were followed up every week for three weeks as outpatients.

RESULTS: Of the 243 patients, 121 (49.9%) underwent MOA, while 122 (50.1%) had laparoscopic appendectomy. There were no significant differences in operation time between the two groups (P = 0.844), whereas the visual analog scale of pain was significantly higher in the open appendectomy group at the 1^st hour (P = 0.001), 6^th hour (P = 0.001), and 12^th hour (P = 0.027). The need for analgesic medication was significantly higher in the MOA group (P = 0.001). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of morbidity rate (P = 0.599). The rate of total complications was similar between the two groups (6.5% in LA vs 7.4% in OA, P = 0.599). All wound infections were treated non-surgically. Six out of seven patients with pelvic abscess were successfully treated with percutaneous drainage; one patient required surgical drainage after a failed percutaneous drainage. There were no differences in the period of hospital stay, operation time, and postoperative complication rate between the two groups. Laparoscopic appendectomy decreases the need for analgesic medications and the visual analog scale of pain.

CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic appendectomy should be considered as a standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Mini-incision appendectomy is an alternative for a select group of patients.

Hyperbilirubinaemia in appendicitis: the diagnostic value for prediction of appendicitis and appendiceal perforation

AIM

The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic value of pre-operative bilirubin levels in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and appendiceal perforation.

METHOD

A retrospective analysis of 557 patients undergoing emergency appendicectomy over a 24-month period at a large teaching hospital. Hyperbilirubinaemia was defined as >25 µmol/L. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

484 of the 557 (86.9 %) operated cases were found histologically to be appendicitis. 116 cases of the 484 were perforated (24 %). Bilirubin levels were significantly higher in the group with appendicitis versus the group found to have a normal appendix at histology, [median (IQR) 12.0 µmol/L (9.00) vs. 8.0 µmol/L (7.00) respectively, p < 0.001], despite being within normal serum bilirubin range. Sensitivity of hyperbilirubinaemia for acute appendicitis was only 8 %, however specificity was 94 %. PPV was 85 % and NPV was 26 %. Whilst bilirubin was higher in patients with a perforated appendix versus acute appendicitis [median (IQR) 13.0 µmol/L (9.00) vs. 11.0 µmol/L (9.00), respectively], statistically, there was no significant difference in pre-operative bilirubin levels between the perforated appendicitis cases and the non-perforated appendicitis cases (p = 0.326). However, the specificity of hyperbilirubinaemia for perforated appendicitis was 93 %, sensitivity 9.4 %, PPV 24 % and NPV 82 %.

CONCLUSION

Bilirubin levels may be high, but remain within normal range, in cases of appendicitis. Therefore, bilirubin levels may be a useful measurement when investigating a patient with suspected appendicitis. Hyperbilirubinaemia is highly specific with regards to perforation, a finding supported by other studies. However, possibly because of the few perforated cases in this study, we cannot recommend that hyperbilirubinaemia be used to predict perforation.

Gasless transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy as a safe and cost-effective alternative surgical procedure for mild acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

Several reports have demonstrated the effectiveness and feasibility of single incisional transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA). We developed a modified TULAA technique, gasless-TULAA, which involves lifting the abdominal wall with a retractor, without pneumoperitoneum or another incision.

METHODS

We assessed the surgical outcomes of 257 patients treated for appendicitis in our hospital between 2005 and 2013. In a preoperative comprehensive evaluation, appendicitis without abscess was defined as mild appendicitis (mild appendicitis group: MAG), and appendicitis with abscess was defined as severe appendicitis (severe appendicitis group: SAG). The clinical outcomes were compared with those in other published reports. The cost-effectiveness of gasless-TULAA was compared with that of conventional multiport laparoscopic appendectomy (CMLA) in our hospital.

RESULTS

In MAG (n = 228), the operation time and postoperative hospital stay were 46.9 ± 22.7 min and 2.6 ± 1.2 days, respectively. The gasless-TULAA was completed without trocars in 91.2 % of patients. The surgical outcomes of SAG were significantly worse than those of MAG (p < 0.001). The surgical cost of gasless-TULAA was significantly lower than that of CMLA (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Gasless-TULAA is a cost-effective, safe, and readily available surgical technique for mild appendicitis, which can obviate the need for specialized equipment.

Laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review, published in Issue 1, 2011, of The Cochrane Library. Acute lower abdominal pain is common, and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal women, as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with symptoms of appendicitis, early pregnancy complications and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age.

SEARCH METHODS

The Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINAHL were searched (October 2013). The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched. No new studies were included in this updated version.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included. Trials were included if they evaluated laparoscopy with open appendicectomy, or laparoscopy with a wait and see strategy. Study selection was carried out by two review authors independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two review authors and the risk of bias assessed. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. A summary of findings table was prepared using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 12 studies including 1020 participants were incorporated into the review. These studies had low to moderate risk of bias, mainly because allocation concealment or methods of sequence generation were not adequately reported. In addition, it was not clear whether follow-up was similar for the treatment groups. The index test was incorporated as a reference standard in the laparoscopy group, and differential verification or partial verification bias may have occurred in most RCTs. Overall the quality of the evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach.Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (seven RCTs, 561 participants; odds ratio (OR) 4.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.50 to 6.71; I(2) = 18%), but no evidence was found of reduced rates for any adverse events (eight RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I(2) = 0%). A meta-analysis of seven studies found a significant difference favouring the laparoscopic procedure in the rate of removal of normal appendix (seven RCTs, 475 participants; OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.24; I(2) = 0%).Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. A significant difference favoured laparoscopy in terms of rate of specific diagnoses (four RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I(2) = 79%), but no evidence suggested a difference in rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I(2) = 0%).  

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that laparoscopy in women with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis led to a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared with open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. No evidence showed an increase in adverse events when any of these strategies were used.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: State of the art. Tailored approach to the application of laparoscopic appendectomy?

Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in developed countries. The treatment of acute appendicitis is either open or laparoscopic appendectomy. The latter has gained wide acceptance in the past years, although the debate on the true merits of laparoscopic appendectomy is still on going. Some authors prefer this approach as the gold standard for all patients, but in our opinion a tailored approach is warranted for specific patient groups. In addition, a standardised guideline on the technical aspects is still lacking. In the current article, open versus laparoscopic appendectomy and several technical aspects, such as stump closure, appendix extraction and single incision are discussed laparoscopic appendectomy are being addressed. In the future perspectives we will briefly discuss the third 'newly' introduced antibiotic treatment.

Tailoring the operative approach for appendicitis to the patient: a prediction model from national surgical quality improvement program data

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is increasingly being performed in the United States, despite controversy about differences in infectious complication rates compared with open appendectomy (OA). Subpopulations exist in which infectious complication rates, both surgical site and organ space, differ with respect to LA compared with OA.

STUDY DESIGN

All appendectomies in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were analyzed with respect to surgical site infection (SSI) and organ space infection (OSI). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified independent predictors of SSI or OSI. Probabilities of SSI or OSI were determined for subpopulations to identify when LA was superior to OA.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2009, there were 61,830 appendectomies performed (77.5% LA), of which 9,998 (16.2%) were complicated (58.7% LA). The risk of SSI was considerably lower for LA in both noncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Across all ages, body mass index, renal function, and WBCs, LA was associated with a lower probability of SSI. The risk of OSI was considerably greater for LA in both noncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. In complicated appendicitis, OA was associated with a lower probability of OSI in patients with WBC >12 cells × 10(3)/μL. In noncomplicated appendicitis, OA was associated with a lower probability of OSI in patients with a body mass index <37.5 when compared with LA.

CONCLUSIONS

Subpopulations exist in which OA is superior to LA in terms of OSI, however, SSI is consistently lower in LA patients.

Meta-analysis of the results of randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic and open surgery for acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for the treatment of patients with acute appendicitis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register for relevant papers published between January 1990 and February 2012. We analyzed 22 outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for acute appendicitis.

RESULTS

We identified 39 papers reporting results from randomized controlled trials that compared laparoscopic surgery with open surgery for acute appendicitis. Our meta-analysis included 5,896 patients with acute appendicitis; 2,847 had undergone laparoscopic surgery, and 3,049 had undergone open surgery. Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery was associated with longer operative time (by 13.12 min). However, compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis was associated with earlier resumption of liquid and solid intake; shorter duration of postoperative hospital stay; a reduction in dose numbers of parenteral and oral analgesics; earlier return to normal activity, work, and normal life; decreased occurrence of wound infection; a better cosmesis; and similar hospital charges.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery may now be the standard treatment for acute appendicitis.