Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults with complicated appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Advantages comparison of peritoneal drainage versus no drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal drainage (PD) following laparoscopic appendectomy(LA) has long been considered beneficial for appendicitis patients, especially those with complicated appendicitis. However, recent research has raised doubts about the advantages of PD, as it not only fails to reduce postoperative complications but also prolongs the operative duration and hospital stay and incurs higher medical expenses. Given this controversy, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine whether drainage is necessary after LA for complicated appendicitis. This meta-analysis had registered in PROSPERO(ID: CRD42023472382).

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed current evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and potential benefits of drainage versus no drainage following LA for complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Springer, and the Cochrane Library using the search terms "appendicitis", "laparoscopic appendectomy", and "drain" or "drainage" for studies published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2022. We employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) criteria for study inclusion and exclusion. Primary outcomes included postoperative intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative intestinal obstruction, postoperative stump leakage, wound infection and postoperative visual analog scale(VAS) score, while secondary outcomes consisted of operative time, postoperative recovery time and total hospitalization duration. Studies with at least two outcomes were considered for meta-synthesis. Depending on I2 values, fixed- or random effects models were used for data synthesis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for outcome comparisons between PD and no peritoneal drainage (NPD). Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were performed to assess and investigate inter-study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

After conducting our literature search and screening, twelve studies were analyzed, comprising 3374 cases. During the comparison of primary outcomes between PD and NPD, the incidence of wound infection and postoperative VAS score were significantly higher in the PD group(P < 0.05). While during the comparison of secondary outcomes, the operative duration, postoperative recovery time and hospitalization duration were significantly longer in the PD group than in the NPD group(P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

PD following LA for complicated appendicitis not only increases the incidence wound infection and aggravate patients' postoperative pain, but also prolongs the operative duration, postoperative recovery time and hospitalization duration. Therefore, routine PD after LA for acute complicated appendicitis is not recommended.

Conversion Rates, Causes, and Preoperative Associated Factors in 3,411 Laparoscopic Appendectomies: Insights after Nearly Three Decades of Laparoscopy and an Analysis of the Learning Curve

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic appendectomy is the current gold standard in treating acute appendicitis. Despite the low frequency of conversion to open surgery, it remains necessary in certain cases. Our primary outcome was to identify the conversion rate of laparoscopic appendectomy to open surgery and how this rate has changed over the learning curve. Second, we aim to determine the causes of conversion, their changes in frequency over time and to identify preoperative factors associated with conversion.

METHODS

A retrospective comparative study with prospective case registry was conducted. All patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy from January 2000 to December 2023 at a high-volume center were analyzed. The series was divided into six periods, each spanning 4 years. All patients who underwent totally laparoscopic appendectomy and those requiring conversion to open appendectomy were included.

RESULTS

A total of 3,411 appendectomies were performed during the study period, with an overall conversion rate of 0.96% (33/3,411). Our analysis showed that after the first three periods (12 years), the conversion rate decreased and reached a plateau of approximately 0.4%. The most common causes of conversion were perforation of the appendix base (9/33), abdominal cavity adhesions (8/33), and pneumoperitoneum intolerance (3/33). Age over 65, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score III/IV and symptom duration exceeding 24 h were preoperative factors significantly associated with conversion at univariate analysis. However, only age (p 0.0001) and symptoms exceeding 24 h (p 0.01) remained independently associated with conversion after multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

In experienced centers, conversion from laparoscopic appendectomy to open appendectomy is uncommon, but remains necessary in certain cases. Despite identifying a population with higher association with conversion which should be advised preoperatively, due to the low incidence of conversions once the learning curve is overcome, an initial laparoscopic approach is the preferred choice.

Controversies and Future Directions in Management of Acute Appendicitis: An Updated Comprehensive Review

Globally, acute appendicitis has an estimated lifetime risk of 7-8%. However, there are numerous controversies surrounding the management of acute appendicitis, and the best treatment approach depends on patient characteristics. Non-operative management (NOM), which involves the utilization of antibiotics and aggressive intravenous hydration, and surgical appendectomy are valid treatment options for healthy adults. NOM is also ideal for poor surgical candidates. Another important consideration is the timing of surgery, i.e., the role of interval appendectomy (IA) and the possibility of delaying surgery for a few hours on index admission. IA refers to surgical removal of the appendix 8-12 weeks after the initial diagnosis of appendicitis. It is ideal in patients with a contained appendiceal perforation on initial presentation, wherein an initial nonoperative approach is preferred. Furthermore, IA can help distinguish malignant and non-malignant causes of acute appendicitis, while reducing the risk of recurrence. On the contrary, a decision to delay appendectomy for a few hours on index admission should be made based on the patients' baseline health status and severity of appendicitis. Post-operatively, surgical drain placement may help reduce postoperative complications; however, it carries an increased risk of drain occlusion, fistula formation, and paralytic ileus. Furthermore, one of the most critical aspects of appendectomy is the closure of the appendiceal stump, which can be achieved with the help of endoclips, sutures, staples, and endoloops. In this review, we discuss different aspects of management of acute appendicitis, current controversies in management, and the potential role of endoscopic appendectomy as a future treatment option.

Risk Factors for Postoperative Infections Following Appendectomy of Complicated Appendicitis: A Meta-analysis and Retrospective Single-institutional Study

Patients with complicated appendicitis have an increased risk for postoperative infections. Potential risk factors for postoperative infections through a meta-analysis and retrospective chart review are discussed. A meta-analysis consisting of 35 studies analyzing complicated appendicitis treated with an appendectomy noting at least 1 postoperative infection was performed. A retrospective review was then conducted in patients diagnosed with complicated appendicitis after appendectomy. Of 5326 patients in total, 15.4% developed postoperative infections. Laparoscopic surgery and perioperative hyperoxygenation were found to be protective factors for the development of infection. Retrospectively, 53.2% of patients presented with complicated appendicitis. Patients with complicated appendicitis were more likely to be older in age and have an increased length of stay. Patient demographics, operative time, and comorbid status had no effect on postoperative infection or readmission rate. Physicians should strongly consider minimally invasive techniques to treat all cases of complicated appendicitis irrespective of comorbidities, age, sex, or body mass index.

The Outcome of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy in Childhood

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy in children is performed either lapa - roscopically (LA) or by open surgery (OA). We studied whether, and how, the outcome is affected by the technique used and by the intraoperative conversion of LA to OA.

METHODS

We analyzed routine data from children and adolescents in three age groups (1-5 years, 6-12 years, and 13-17 years) who were insured by the AOK statutory health insurance carrier in Germany and who underwent appendectomy in the period 2017-2019. General surgical complications and reoperations within 90 days were assessed with relevant indicators. Associations between the surgical technique and these indicators were studied with logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 21 541 patients included in the study, general surgical complications were observed in 2.1% and reoperations in 1.8% overall. Broken down by age group, the corresponding figures were 5.4% and 4.4% (age 1 to 5), 2.5% and 1.8% (age 6 to 12), and 1.5% and 1.6% (age 13 to 17). The main risk factors for complications and reoperations were acute complicated appendicitis and conversion from LA to OA. Regression analysis revealed similar outcomes with OA compared to LA in the 1-to-5 age group, (odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals: 1.1 [0.6; 2.1] for general surgical complications and 1.5 [0.8; 2.7] for reoperations), but worse outcomes with OA in the other two age groups (age 6 to 12: 1.9 [1.2; 2.9] and 2.1 [1.5; 2.9]; age 13 to 17: 1.7 [1.0; 2.9] and 2.2 [1.4; 3.6]). When conversions were assigned to the LA group, the odds ratio (OA compared to LA) for reoperation across all age groups was 3.5 [2.8; 4.4] in patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis and 4.2 [3.4; 5.3] in patients with complicated appendicitis. Complicated appendicitis also increased the rate of general surgical complications and the length of stay in hospital.

CONCLUSION

Among children in the two older age groups, LA was followed by fewer general surgical complications and reoperations than OA. These differences were less pronounced when conversions were counted as belonging to the LA group. Children aged 1-5 appear to benefit the least from the lapa - roscopic technique.

Perforated appendicitis treated with laparoscopic appendicectomy or open appendicectomy: A meta-analysis

Aim

This analysis compared the impact of laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) and open appendicectomy (OA) on treating adult perforated appendicitis (PA).

Methods

Articles relating to LA and OA in treating PA were retrieved from databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase since their founding to January 2022. These articles were independently filtered based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two investigators. The quality of these articles was assessed and article data were extracted. Dichotomous data were presented in the form of odd's ratio (OR), whereas continuous data were in the form of weighted mean difference (WMD). The included articles reported at least one of the following outcomes: intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), wound infection, operative time, hospital stay and complications.

Results

Three randomised control trials (198 LA cases vs. 205 OA cases) and 12 case - control trials (914 LA cases vs. 2192 OA cases) were included. This analysis revealed that although the IAA formation rate was similar in the LA and OA groups (OR: 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-1.88), the wound infection rate was lower in the LA group (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.28-0.51). Furthermore, LA was associated with shorter hospital stay (WMD: -1.43 days, 95% CI: -2.33--0.52) and fewer complications than OA (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.57).

Conclusion

LA has significant benefits in treating PA and is associated with better post-operative outcomes such as shorter hospital stay, lower incidence of wound infection and other complications. However, more studies with randomised and large-sample populations are still required to determine the clinical benefit of LA in treating PA.

Therapeutic strategy for acute appendicitis based on laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

An Update on Acute Appendicitis in Lebanon: Insights From a Single-Center Retrospective Study

Background Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency worldwide with scarce reports about its prevalence in the Middle East. To date, no epidemiological article has described the incidence of appendicitis in Lebanon. Our primary objective was to estimate the rate of appendicitis in a single center in Lebanon. Our secondary objectives included identifying differences between simple and complicated appendicitis regarding demographics, pre and postoperative characteristics, and symptoms and signs of appendicitis. Methodology A retrospective study was conducted at a single central university hospital in Lebanon. Patients with a clear diagnosis of acute appendicitis were included. Pregnant women, lactating women, patients with organ dysfunction, and patients younger than 18 years old or older than 80 years old were excluded. We reviewed and collected the data of patients who presented to the hospital between November 2018 and November 2019 and November 2020 and November 2021. Results A total of 95 patients were included in our study, with 35 women and 60 men. The mean body mass index of patients with simple appendicitis was 19.14 ± 9.66 kg/m² compared to 18.97 ± 10.37 kg/m² in patients with complicated appendicitis (p = 0.94). A total of 42.3% of patients who used antibiotics 24 hours after the operation had simple appendicitis, whereas 20.8% had complicated appendicitis (p = 0.004). Conclusions Antibiotic usage and the length of hospital stay were correlated with the severity of appendicitis, as reported in the literature. Further randomized studies with a larger number of patients and covering several hospitals in Lebanon are warranted.

Age-related disparities and trends in national healthcare spending for management of appendicitis in the United States: A retrospective cost-analysis

BACKGROUND

Changes in clinical care for appendicitis have impacted healthcare use associated with treatment. We evaluated national trends and assessed factors associated with healthcare costs for appendicitis in the United States.

DESIGN

The Disease Expenditure Project, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the National Inpatient Sample were used to estimate total national expenditures, per-capita costs for incident cases, and factors associated with inpatient costs for appendicitis management, respectively. The national estimates of appendicitis costs were obtained from 1996 to 2016. Appendicitis incidence was estimated to calculate per-capita costs. After application of survey weights for the stratified sample design, 191,180 weighted discharges for appendicitis from the 2016 National Inpatient Sample study were evaluated. The Disease Expenditure Project and the Global Burden of Disease study were used to estimate total and per-capita spending. Temporal trends were evaluated using joinpoint regression, expressed as annual percent change. Multivariable linear regression was used to evaluate patient factors associated with total hospital charges.

RESULTS

In 2016, total spending on appendicitis was $9.3 billion (95% confidence interval: $8.0-$10.8], a 2-fold increase from $4.7 billion ($4.0-$5.3) in 1996. Per-capita spending decreased significantly after 2011 (annual percent change -3.7% [-4.4% to -2.9%]). Patients ≥65 years accounted for 64.1% (61.1%-67.3%) of total spending for appendicitis. The hospital charges for older patients were significantly higher among those undergoing appendectomy.

CONCLUSION

Overall healthcare spending for appendicitis has doubled from 1996 to 2016, but per capita spending has decreased since 2011, driven by improved efficiency of inpatient care. Nearly two-thirds of spending is on patients ≥65 years, with significantly higher costs associated with surgical management in this population.

Subhepatic Appendicitis Presenting With Recurrent Abdominal Pain

Gut malrotation may result in failure of descent of the cecum to the right iliac fossa, resulting in the anomaly where the cecum and appendix are situated in the subhepatic/gallbladder region. Although the true incidence of subhepatic cecum or appendix is not known, there is a handful of case reports in the literature describing the diagnosis and management of subhepatic appendicitis and associated challenges. Some case reports describe subhepatic appendicitis, where the cecum is in a normal position, but the subhepatic tip of the long appendix gets perforated or inflamed, resulting in the process being in the subhepatic region. We report a patient with subhepatic appendicitis, who had multiple episodes of abdominal pain for almost one year, treated with antibiotics, but was never diagnosed properly. The case was diagnosed by abdominal sonography and was managed successfully in our institution.

Conversion from Laparoscopic to Open Appendectomy: Trends, Risk Factors and Outcomes. A 15-Year Single-Center Analysis of 2193 Adult Patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has become the standard of care for the management of acute appendicitis in adult patients. Despite the increasing experience in laparoscopy, conversion to open surgery might still occur. We aimed to identify preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for conversion and determine surgical outcomes in this population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of patients undergoing LA during the period 2006-2020. The cohort was divided into two groups: patients who underwent a fully laparoscopic appendectomy (FLA) and patients who were converted to open appendectomy (CA). Demographics, perioperative variables and postoperative outcomes were compared between both groups. Independent risk factors for conversion were determined by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 2193 patients were included for analysis; 2141 (98%) underwent FLA and 52 (2%) CA. Conversion rates decreased significantly over time (p = 0.006). Patients with CA had significantly higher overall postoperative morbidity rates (FLA 14.9% vs. CA 48.0%, p < 0.0001) and longer mean length of hospital stay (FLA 1.7 vs. CA 5 days). In the multivariate analysis, obesity (p < 0.001), previous abdominal operations (p = 0.013), peritonitis (p = 0.003) and complicated appendicitis (p < 0.001) were independent risk factor for conversion.

CONCLUSIONS

Although conversion from laparoscopic to open appendectomy is infrequent and has decreased over time, it is associated with significantly higher postoperative morbidity. Patients with previous abdominal operations, obesity and complicated appendicitis should be thoroughly advised about the higher risk of conversion.

Complete colonic duplication presenting as hip fistula in an adult with pelvic malformation: A case report

BACKGROUND

Alimentary tract duplication (ATD) is a rare congenital anomaly. Thus, a case of ATD with a complete colonic duplication isolated in the abdominal cavity with a fistula and multiple malformations is very distinctive. These characteristics show the variability of this disease and explain why it tends to be challenging to diagnose and treat.

CASE SUMMARY

A 25-year-old woman with a history of a fistula opening in her right hip since birth presented with the irregular discharge of foul fluid from the fistula and intermittent abdominal pain. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging findings revealed a duplicated tube isolated in her abdominal pelvic cavity along with a pelvic malformation and double ureter. Right foot radiographic examination showed pes cavus. During surgery, the tube appeared to be an almost complete colonic structure and was verified to be connected to the fistula. All of the involved tissue and fistula were removed, and the defect in the pelvic floor was closed by suturing after surgery. After 8 mo, the postoperative follow-up has been uneventful.

CONCLUSION

ATD may be a differential diagnosis in sinus tract cases. Laparoscopy combined with open surgery is a viable treatment option.

Decision-making changes for patients and medical personnel in the management of acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is the most common cause of acute abdomen. During the pandemic, to contain the spread of COVID-19, there were some integral changes in the medical processes based on the pandemic prevention policy, especially regarding emergency surgery. This study was conducted to investigate whether this pandemic also impacted the decision-making for both patients and medical personnel along with the treatment outcomes.

METHODS

Patients of age 18 years or older who were diagnosed clinically and radiologically with acute appendicitis between Jan 1, 2017, and Dec 31, 202,0 were reviewed. The data of 1991 cases were collected and used for this study. Two groups were formed, one group before and the other group after the outbreak. The gathered data included gender, age, appendiceal fecalith, outcomes of treatment, and long-term outcomes of non-operation (8 months follow-up). We also collected details of surgical cases from the above two groups. This data also included age, gender, appendiceal fecalith, fever, jaundice, length of onset before presenting to an emergency department (ED), anesthesia, surgery, white cell count, pathology, complications, and length of stay. We compared the above data respectively and analyzed the differences.

RESULTS

Compared to the period before the outbreak, patient visits for acute appendicitis remarkably dropped (19.8%), but surgical cases showed no change (dropped by roughly 5%). There were significant differences (P < 0.05) in failure of non-operation(after the pandemic 8.31% vs. before pandemic 3.22%), interval appendectomy(after pandemic 6.29% vs. before pandemic 12.84%), recurrence(after pandemic 23.27% vs. before pandemic 14.46%), and outcomes of recurrence. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in anesthesia method, surgery way, and complications( before pandemic 4.15% vs. after pandemic9.89% P < 0.05) in patients who underwent the surgery. There was no statistical difference (P > 0.05) concerning age, gender, fever, jaundice, appendiceal fecalith, white cell count, and length of onset before presenting to the ED.

CONCLUSION

The current pandemic prevention policy is very effective, but some decision-making processes of doctor-patient have changed in the context of COVID-19 pandemic, that further influenced some treatment outcomes and might lead to a potential economic burden. It is essential to address the undue concern of everyone and optimize the treatment process.

Complicated appendicitis increases the hospital length of stay

Background

There are insufficient data from Saudi Arabia regarding appendectomy outcomes and hospital length of stay. Further, there is a need to compare the length of stay of Saudi patients and the literature. The purpose is to evaluate the surgical outcomes and hospital length of stay for complicated appendicitis and simple appendicitis.

Method

This is a single-center retrospective review of patients who had undergone an appendectomy between 2016 and 2018. The patients were divided into 2 groups: complicated appendicitis versus simple appendicitis.

Results

Of 449 patients who underwent appendectomy, 60 (13.4%) had complicated appendicitis. The complicated appendicitis was significantly associated with increased age, pain duration, neutrophilia, high C-reactive protein, fecalith presence, and free fluid. The incidence rate of surgical site infection was 5.8% (identified in 26 patients). Compared to simple appendicitis, complicated appendicitis was associated more with wound infection (1.8% vs 10%, respectively, P = .001), postoperative collection (1.2% vs 11.6%, respectively, P = .001), and readmission within 30 days (2.3% vs 13.4%, respectively, P = .001). By multivariate analysis, factors associated more with increased hospitalization were pain duration (hazard ratio = 2.37, 95% confidence interval = 1.09–5.16, P = .029), operative time (hazard ratio = 2.09, 95% confidence interval = 1.04–4.21, P = .038), and complicated appendicitis (hazard ratio = 6.61, 95% confidence interval = 2.67–14.21, P = .001).

Conclusion

Complicated appendicitis correlates with significant morbidity, readmission rate, and 6 times more hospital LOS than simple appendicitis. This review might help in appreciating the burden of complicated appendicitis on hospital length of stay, which needs allocating patients and planning the discharge day for hospitals with limited beds.

•

Practically one fifth of acute appendicitis will be complicated.

•

Complicated appendicitis increases conversion to open, surgical site infection, hospital length of stay, and 30-day readmission rate.

•

Prolonged operation time and complicated appendicitis are independent risk factors to increase hospitalization.

Diffuse Appendicular Peritonitis: Laparoscopic vs Open Access — Viewpoint From Aside

The perforative acute appendicitis with the development of diffuse peritonitis increases the incidence of postoperative complications to 47%, and mortality to 3%. Mortality in the case of the development of diffuse purulent peritonitis makes 4.5-58%, and it can exceed 70% in severe forms of diffuse peritonitis with the development of infectious-toxic shock and multiple organ failure. National Clinical Guidelines for acute appendicitis with diffuse peritonitis allow for appendectomy from both the median and laparoscopic access in the absence of general contraindications to the creation of pneumoperitoneum. However, despite the proven advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy, there are opponents of its use in diffuse forms of appendicular peritonitis. An increased number of postoperative abscesses with a minimally invasive approach has been reported in literature; however, recent randomized studies refute this fact. There is also evidence that the laparoscopic method for appendicular peritonitis often leads to a lengthening of the operation time and higher operating costs, but at the same time there is a decrease in postoperative pain syndrome, a reduction in the length of inpatient treatment and early social and labor rehabilitation, which leads to an overall decrease in hospital costs. Thus, to date, there is no generally accepted opinion about the advisability of laparoscopic access for appendicular peritonitis. At the moment, the presence of diffuse peritonitis is the most common intraoperative reason for refusing a minimally invasive surgical treatment. However, there is a tendency to trying to standardize indications and contraindications, which was the objective of our literature review.

[Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic approach for widespread appendicular peritonitis]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze treatment outcomes in patients with acute appendicitis complicated by widespread peritonitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 165 patients acute appendicitis complicated by widespread peritonitis. Inclusion criteria: acute appendicitis complicated by widespread peritonitis MIP grade 1-2 in reactive or toxic phase (grading system by Simonyan K.S.), abdominal cavity index ≤16. Exclusion criteria: MIP grade 3, terminal phase, abdominal cavity index ≥17.

RESULTS

Analysis of postoperative data revealed no correlation between surgical approach and incidence of postoperative intra-abdominal abscesses and infiltrates. In the main group, intra-abdominal abscesses occurred in 4.9% of patients (n=5), infiltrates - 12.8% (n=13). In the control group, these parameters were 4.6% (n=2) and 18.2% (n=8), respectively. We have developed and introduced into clinical practice a differentiated approach to surgical treatment of widespread appendicular peritonitis based on laparoscopic data. Abdominal cavity was intraoperatively assessed. The proposed method included 5 criteria with establishment of appropriate points (min 3, max 14). In case of total score 3-8, laparoscopic approach was preferred. Overall score 9-11 required laparoscopic surgery with subsequent elective repeated laparoscopy, ≥12 scores - intraoperative conversion and open surgery. Thus, subject to the rules of surgical intervention, the number of intra-abdominal complications between laparoscopic and open methods is equalized.

CONCLUSION

The developed differentiated surgical strategy for patients with appendicular peritonitis is effective and reduces the incidence of wound infection, extra-abdominal complications, and hospital-stay, as well as contributes to early rehabilitation of patients.

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.

SARS-CoV-2 infection is not associated with a higher rate of post-operative complications in adult appendectomy patients in Peru: Cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

We present outcomes of patients with SARS-CoV-2 undergoing appendectomy in order to aid in clarification of current controversies regarding safety of therapeutic options for emergency surgical diseases in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Peru has the greatest number of per capita deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 of any country and is one of few with a COVID-dedicated hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective observational study included all adult patients with acute appendicitis admitted to an urban, public, COVID-dedicated hospital over two months. Baseline characteristics and post-operative outcomes at 28 days are reported.

RESULTS

58 patients, 35 male and 23 female, ages 15-73 years with SARS-CoV-2 as diagnosed by IgM (12%), IgG (19%) or both (69%) and acute appendicitis as diagnosed using the Alvarado Score and confirmed intraoperatively were enrolled. All patients presented with right lower quadrant pain, 86% with leukocytosis, 88% with nausea/emesis and no patients with respiratory complaints. All patients underwent open appendectomy, 90% under regional anesthesia. Average operative time was 54±25 min, length of stay 2.5±1.5 days. 14% of patients had a post-operative complication, all were minor, four (7%) incisional surgical site infections, one (2%) organ space, and three (5%) incisional seromas, no deaths or serious complications.

CONCLUSION

Open surgical management of acute appendicitis with regional anesthesia in adults with pre-operative diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 is feasible and not associated with an increased frequency or severity of post-operative complications, longer operative time, or extended hospitalization as compared to reports in similar patients without SARS-CoV-2.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nonoperative management versus open and laparoscopic surgery for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHODS

We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.

METHODS

We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer's perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

LA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

LA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer's perspective in the Colombian health system.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Early versus delayed (interval) appendicectomy for the management of appendicular abscess and phlegmon: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The safety and role of emergency (EA) versus interval appendicectomy (IA) for appendicular abscess and phlegmon remains debatable with no optimal strategy identified. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate outcomes of managing appendicular abscesses and phlegmon with emergency or interval appendicectomy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases using key terms including 'appendicular abscess', 'appendicular phlegmon' and 'interval appendicectomy'. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing the two management approaches were included. Operative time, post-operation complication, unplanned bowel resection, rate of surgical site infection, post-operative length of stay and overall mortality rate were evaluated.

RESULTS

We identified six studies (2 RCTs and 4 observational studies) with a total of 9264 patients of whom (n = 1352) underwent IA, and (n 7912) underwent EA. The EA group was associated with statistically significant unplanned bowel resection (OR 0.55, 95% CI [0.33-0.90], P = 0.02) and longer total operating time (MD - 14.11, 95% CI [- 18.26-- 9.96] P = 0.00001). However, the following parameters were compared for both EA and IA groups; there were no significant statistical differences: surgical site infection (OR 0.49, 95% CI [0.17-1.38], P = 0.18), post-operative intra-abdominal collection (RD - 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.04-0.01], P = 0.29), total length of hospital stay (MD 1.83, 95% CI [- 0.19-3.85], P = 0.08), post-operative length of hospital stay (MD - 0.27, 95% CI [- 3.66-3.13], P = 0.88) and mortality rate (MD - 0.27, 95% CI [- 3.66-3.13], P = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

Emergency operation for appendicular abscess and phlegmon may lead to a higher rate of reported morbidity when compared with interval appendicectomy. Although emergency appendicectomy performed for appendicular abscess and phlegmon is a feasible and safe operative approach, it is associated with significantly increased operative time and unplanned bowel resection (ileocolic and right hemicolectomies) compared to interval appendicectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Superficial Surgical Site Infections after Appendectomy for Acute Appendicitis: A Secondary Data Analysis

Background: The identification of risk factors for superficial surgical site infections (SSSIs) associated with appendectomy is paramount in the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA). Methods: This study was a secondary data analysis from a prospective multi-center observational study. It included all consecutive hospitalized patients with AA who underwent appendectomy and were monitored for complications at 30 days after the intervention. A case-control approach was used to evaluate risk factors associated with the occurrence of SSSI. Results: Among 2,667 patients, 156 (5.8%) developed an SSSI. The series included 1,449 males (54.3%) and 1,218 females with a median age of 29 years (interquartile range [IQR] 20-45 years). Antimicrobial therapy within the previous 30 days was reported by 170 patients (6.4%), and a C-reactive protein concentration (CRP) >50 mg/L was observed in 609 (22.8%). A total of 960 patients (36.0%) underwent open surgery, 1,699 (63.7%) laparoscopic surgery, and 8 (0.3%) another surgical intervention. In 2,575 patients (95.6%), a pathological appendix was detected during the operation. In 776 patients (29.1%), an intra-operative abdominal drain (IAD) was placed; 125 patients (4.7%) were admitted to the intensive care unit. The median hospital length of stay was 3 days (IQR 2-5 days). The overall mortality rate was 0.11%. Multinomial logistic regression analysis of risk factors demonstrated that statistically significant risk factors independently associated with the occurrence of SSSIs were antimicrobial therapy within the previous 30 days, CRP >50 mg/L, open surgical procedures, presence of IAD, and intra-operative findings of complex appendicitis. Conclusions: Knowledge of five easily recognizable variables, assessable at hospital admission or as soon as the surgical intervention is concluded, might identify patients with a greater risk of developing an SSSI.

The Bucharest ESTES consensus statement on peritonitis

INTRODUCTION

Peritonitis is still an important health problem associated with high morbidity and mortality. A multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with peritonitis may be an important factor to reduce the risks for patients and improve efficiency, outcome, and the cost of care.

METHODS

Expert panel discussion on Peritonitis was held in Bucharest on May 2017, during the 17th ECTES Congress, involving surgeons, infectious disease specialists, radiologists and intensivists with the goal of defining recommendations for the optimal management of peritonitis.

CONCLUSION

This document is an updated presentation of management of peritonitis and represents the summary of the final recommendations approved by a panel of experts.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open approach for diffuse peritonitis from appendicitis ethiology: a subgroup analysis from the Physiological parameters for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) study

Diffuse peritonitis represents a life-threatening complication of acute appendicitis (AA). Whether laparoscopy is a safe procedure and presents similar results compared with laparotomy in case of complicated AA is still a matter of debate. The objective of this study is to compare laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) for the management of diffuse peritonitis caused by AA. This is a prospective multicenter cohort study, including 223 patients with diffuse peritonitis from perforated AA, enrolled in the Physiological parameters for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) study from February to May 2018. Two groups were created: LA = 78 patients, mean age 42.51 ± 22.14 years and OA = 145 patients, mean age 38.44 ± 20.95 years. LA was employed in 34.98% of cases. There was no statically significant difference between LA and OA groups in terms of intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative peritonitis, rate of reoperation, and mortality. The wound infection rate was higher in the OA group (OR 21.63; 95% CI 3.46-895.47; P = 0.00). The mean postoperative hospital stay in the LA group was shorter than in the OA group (6.40 ± 4.29 days versus 7.8 ± 5.30 days; P = 0.032). Although LA was only used in one-third of cases, it is a safe procedure and should be considered in the management of patients with diffuse peritonitis caused by AA, respecting its indications.

Global incidence of surgical site infection after appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most studied healthcare-associated infections, the global burden of SSI after appendectomy remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We estimated the incidence of SSI after appendectomy at global and regional levels.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Appendectomy patients.

DATA SOURCES

EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science were searched, with no language restrictions, to identify observational studies and clinical trials published between 1 January 2000 and 30 December 2018 and reporting on the incidence of SSI after appendectomy. A random-effect model meta-analysis served to obtain the pooled incidence of SSI after appendectomy.

RESULTS

In total, 226 studies (729 434 participants from 49 countries) were included in the meta-analysis. With regard to methodological quality, 59 (26.1%) studies had low risk of bias, 147 (65.0%) had moderate risk of bias and 20 (8.8%) had high risk of bias. We found an overall incidence of SSI of 7.0 per 100 appendectomies (95% prediction interval: 1.0-17.6), varying from 0 to 37.4 per 100 appendectomies. A subgroup analysis to identify sources of heterogeneity showed that the incidence varied from 5.8 in Europe to 12.6 per 100 appendectomies in Africa (p<0.0001). The incidence of SSI after appendectomy increased when the level of income decreased, from 6.2 in high-income countries to 11.1 per 100 appendectomies in low-income countries (p=0.015). Open appendectomy (11.0 per 100 surgical procedures) was found to have a higher incidence of SSI compared with laparoscopy (4.6 per 100 appendectomies) (p=0.0002).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests a high burden of SSI after appendectomy in some regions (especially Africa) and in low-income countries. Strategies are needed to implement and disseminate the WHO guidelines to decrease the burden of SSI after appendectomy in these regions.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017075257.

Efficacy and Safety of Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetics in Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Intraperitoneal local anesthetics have been increasingly used nowadays. However, they are not routinely given in laparoscopic appendectomy and a lot of controversies are found about their administration in this procedure. The goal of this study is to review effectiveness and safety of intraperitoneal local anesthetics in laparoscopic appendectomy. We conducted a computer search of four authentic databases. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared intraperitoneal local anesthetics versus control group in laparoscopic appendectomy. Data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled in a meta-analysis model using RevMan software. We evaluated post-operative pain in different periods and safety outcomes including postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and shoulder pain. Furthermore, we assessed the length of hospital stay and postoperative opioid consumption within 24 hours. Seven RCTs were included with a total of 579 patients in this review. Our analysis indicated a significant difference in postoperative pain at different durations preferring intraperitoneal local anesthetics compared to control. Moreover, intraperitoneal local anesthetics were significantly linked to fewer patients experienced PONV and shoulder pain respectively (RR= 0.28, 95% CI [0.16, 0.50], p < 0.0001), (RR= 0.32, 95% CI [0.17, 0.58], p = 0.0002). We found less hospital stay duration in intraperitoneal local anesthetics group after removal of the heterogeneity (MD= -0.39, 95% CI [-0.63, -0.16], p = 0.001). Intraperitoneal local anesthetics were significantly linked to less postoperative opioid consumption (SMD = -0.60, 95% CI [-0.96, -0.24], p = 0.001). Intraperitoneal local anesthetics can be routinely used in laparoscopic appendectomy as it is associated with less postoperative pain and reduction in different adverse events postoperatively.

Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy Versus Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy, a Multicenter Randomized Control Trial: A Feasible and Safe Alternative to Standard Laparoscopy

Background: Acute appendicitis represents one of the main causes of surgical emergencies. It can be approached as open appendectomy or laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). LA uses different modalities, such as conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) or single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SPLA). The aim of this work is to compare the results of CLA versus SPLA in patients diagnosed with Acute Appendicitis. Materials and Methods: A comparative multicenter prospective study of patients undergoing LA with a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis was presented. They were divided into two groups (CLA group and SPLA group). Results: A total of n = 147 patients were included (72 CLA and 75 SPLA). Preoperative and intraoperative times were shorter for patients undergoing CLA (P = .002; P = .068). Postoperative and reinsertion time was lower for SPLA (P = .000; P = .0004). There were no differences in postoperative complications. The type of approach showed statistically significant differences with respect to pain within the first 12 hours of the postoperative period, as well as at discharge, while no differences were observed in relation to cosmetic satisfaction when the two approaches were compared. Conclusion: SPLA technique presented less intraoperative time, shorter time of labor reinsertion, and less postoperative pain. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications.

Early versus late surgical management for complicated appendicitis in adults: a multicenter propensity score matching study

Purpose

Surgeons may be uncertain about the optimal timing of appendectomy to decrease complications, especially for complicated appendicitis. The aim of the study was to compare clinical outcomes between early and late surgery for complicated appendicitis.

Methods

A prospectively maintained database of complicated appendicitis was queried. Elective interval surgery (EIS) group and early surgery (ES) were matched with propensity score and marked with a prefix ‘p.’ Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared.

Results

The propensity score-matched EIS group had a lower chance to underwent ileo-cecectomy or right hemicolectomy (1.5% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.031), a tendency of lower rate of postoperative complication (6.9% vs. 13.7%, P = 0.067), a lower rate of wound infection (1.5% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.010), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (3.72 days vs. 5.82 days, P < 0.001) than the propensity score-matched ES group. Multivariate analysis showed that delayed surgery for more than 48 hours or urgent surgery due to failure of EIS and open conversion were independent risk factors for postoperative complications (P = 0.001 and P = 0.025, respectively). In subgroup analysis, high American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification and distant abscess or generalized ascites in initial CT increased the risk of failure of EIS.

Conclusion

EIS can be a useful option for selected adult patients with complicated appendicitis.

Laparoscopic appendicectomy is superior to open surgery for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A clinical comparison of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for the treatment of complicated appendicitis: historical cohort study

Background

Appendectomy is one of the most common operations. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is considered first-line treatment, but the use of LA for treatment of complicated appendicitis remains controversial. Here, we performed a retrospective analysis to compare clinical outcomes between patients treated with LA and those who underwent open appendectomy (OA).

Methods

Data for 179 patients who underwent an operation for the treatment of complicated appendicitis at our hospital between 2011 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The selection included 89 patients who underwent a conventional appendectomy and 90 patients who were treated laparoscopically. Outcome measures such as mean operative time, blood loss, time until oral intake duration of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the concurrent effects of the examined factors on the rate of postoperative complications.

Results

The mean ages of patients in the OA and LA groups were 50.17 ± 22.77 and 50.13 ± 25.84 year. Mean operative times were longer in the LA group than OA (10.2.56 ± 44.4 versus 85.4 ± 43.11 min; p = 0.009). The duration of hospital stay was shorter for the LA group (9.61 ± 5.57 versus 12.19 ± 8.4; p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in return to consumption of oral intake between the LA and OA groups (2.03 ± 1.66 versus 2.48 ± 2.17; p = 0.123). Multivariable analysis found that the rate of postoperative complications was significantly reduced for the LA group, in comparison with the postoperative-complication rate of the OA group (16.7% versus 27%; odds ratio 0.376; 95% CI 0.153–0.923; p = 0.0327).

Conclusions

These results suggest that LA is a safe and efficient operative procedure that provides clinically beneficial advantages in comparison with OA. Thus, when possible, appendectomy for complicated appendicitis should be attempted using a laparoscopic approach.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

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

[Appendectomy: open versus laparoscopic versus single port : Evidence for choice of surgical procedure]

The treatment of choice in acute appendicitis is still the surgical removal of an inflamed vermiform appendix. There is still some disagreement regarding the optimal access route, i.e. conventional open or minimally invasive. The best available evidence is used to answer the question of the current optimal choice of procedure. For laparoscopic appendectomy there are evidence-based benefits in terms of access trauma, postoperative pain, wound infection rates and convalescence. For the alternative minimally invasive procedure single port appendectomy, mini-laparoscopic appendectomy or NOTES appendectomy, there is still a lack of scientific evidence to advocate the broad clinical use of these procedures. It is recommended that whenever the infrastructure permits, laparoscopic appendectomy should be the treatment of choice.

Is abdominal drainage after open emergency appendectomy for complicated appendicitis beneficial or waste of money? A single centre retrospective cohort study

Background

Appendicitis is a medical condition that causes painful inflammation of the appendix. For acute appendicitis, appendectomy is immediately required as any delay may lead to serious complications such as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis with or without localized abscess formation. Patients who had appendectomy for complicated appendicitis are more prone to develop post-operative complications such as peritoneal abscess or wound infection. Sometimes, abdominal drainage is used to reduce these complications. However, the advantage of the abdominal drainage to minimize post-operative complications is not clear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of abdominal drainage after open emergency appendectomy for complicated appendicitis (perforated appendicitis with localized abscess formation only) can prevent or significantly reduce post-operative complications such as intra-peritoneal abscess formation or wound infection.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, files and notes were reviewed retrospectively for patients who had open emergency appendectomy for complicated appendicitis (perforated appendicitis with localized abscess formation only) and who had already been admitted and discharged from the surgical wards of Kerbala medical university/Imam Hussein medical city hospital/Kerbala/Iraq. Patients were selected according to specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were divided into two groups; drainage and non-drainage groups. The drainage group had intra-abdominal drain inserted after the surgery, while the non-drainage group had no drain placed post-operatively. A comparison between both groups was done in terms of these parameters; (i) the development of post operative intra-peritoneal abscess and or wound infection. (ii) The length and cost of hospital stay. (iii) The mortality outcomes. Statistical analysis was done using Pearson Chi-square test, Independent sample t-test and Mann-Whitney U Test.

Results

Of 227 patients with open emergency appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, 114 had received abdominal drain after the surgery. Fifty out of 114 patients (43.9%) with abdominal drainage developed post-operative intra-peritoneal abscess (abdominal or pelvic) while 53 out of 113 patients (46.9%) without drainage developed the same complication (P = 0.65). It was also revealed that for patients with drainage, 42 patients (36.8%) had post-operative wound infection, whereas this number was 38 (33.6%) for patients without drainage (P = 0.61). On the other hand, the patients with drain had significantly longer length of hospital stay (mean length of stay: 4.99 days versus 2.12 days, P < 0.001) and significantly higher cost (median cost per patient: $120 versus $60, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Installation of abdominal drainage after open emergency appendectomy for complicated appendicitis did not bring any considerable advantage in terms of prevention or significant reduction of post-operative intra-peritoneal abscess and wound infection. Rather, it lengthened the hospital stay and doubled the cost of operation.

•

The use of abdominal drain after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis does not bring any considerable advantage in terms of prevention or significant reduction of post-operative intra-peritoneal abscess and wound infection.

•

Insertion of drain lengthens hospital stay and doubles the cost of operation.

•

No mortality complications had been identified in both drain and non drain groups.

Perforated vs. nonperforated acute appendicitis: evaluation of short-term surgical outcomes in an elderly population

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is a common acute surgical abdominal condition and despite the majority of cases are observed in children and young adults, its occurrence in the elderly seems to be increasing, with a higher risk of perforation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes following appendectomy for acute appendicitis in the elderly, making a comparison between perforated and nonperforated groups regarding operative time, hospital stay and postoperative complications.

METHODS

The medical records of 48 patients over the age of 60 years who had a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of acute appendicitis from January 2011 to December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped into those with perforated and those with non-perforated appendicitis (NPA) and a comparison was made between both groups regarding demography, operative time, length of hospital stay and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

From 48 patients over 60 years diagnosed with acute appendicitis, a PA was removed from 10 patients (20.8%). The PA group consisted of 3 males and 7 females, and their mean age was 71.6 years (range 65-84). The NPA group included 22 males and 16 females, and their mean age was 76.5 years (range 63-96). The mean operative time was 58±18.7 minutes and 43.3±9.9 minutes in the perforated and nonperforated groups respectively, with statistically significant difference (P=0.0013). The mean length of hospital stay was similar in the PA group and in the NPA group, being 6.5±1.8 days and 5.4±1.8 days respectively, but these differences were not statistically significant (P=0.093). The frequency of postoperative complications was similar in both groups as they were observed in 3 patients (30%) of the PA group and 10 patients (26%) of the NPA group (P=0.2488). No postoperative intraabdominal abscess was observed in both groups and there was no death after the surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

PA, despite requiring a longer mean operative time, in our series is not producing a longer hospital stay or more postoperative complications compared to NPA. The non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis is a reasonable option in frail patients in order to avoid the burden of morbidity related to operation, nevertheless surgery remains the standard of care in all age groups.

Role of Laparoscopic Appendectomy Radix Ligation Techniques on the Formation of Inner Abdomen Abscess

Objectives:

Our aim was to study whether laparoscopic appendectomy radix ligation techniques were eutrophic in the development of intra-abdominal abscess.

Methods:

Between September 2009 and April 2017, all emergency cases admitted to our surgery polyclinic were reviewed, and the results of the patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were collected. Appendectomy radix ligation techniques were reviewed from surgical notes on discharge reports. Postoperative controls were also reviewed, and any cases with abscess formation were reported.

Results:

A total of 350 patients were included in the study. Of these cases, 207 were males, and 143 were females. The mean age of the patients was 26.89±4.9 years. One hundred eighty-nine cases were found to have two endoloops placed on top of each other, whereas 161 cases had a 2 mm distance left in between the two endoloops and tied. None of the 189 cases who had endoloops placed on top of each other developed abscess formation. However, of the 161 cases who had endoloops with a 2 mm distance in between, 8 reported with abscess formation in the inner abdomen. Of these eight cases, seven had percutaneous abscess drainage by an interventional radiologist, whereas one was treated with relaparoscopy.

Conclusion:

In the present study, patients who had endoloops placed on top of each other developed no abscess formation, whereas in the literature’s gold standard procedure, those with a 2 mm distance left between two endoloops developed an inner abdominal abscess formation in 8 (4.9%) of the patients. We believe that this 2 mm dead space distance left between the two endoloops contributes to the formation of the abscess.

Effects of Timing of Appendectomy on the Risks of Perforation and Postoperative Complications of Acute Appendicitis

BACKGROUND

It is generally believed that appendectomy should be performed immediately to prevent perforation and complications. Therefore, our objectives were to investigate the effect of timing of appendectomy on the incidence of perforation and complications.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy between January 2014 and June 2015. The time from symptom onset to appendectomy was categorized into three periods: time from symptom onset to hospital admission (symptomatic time), time from admission to appendectomy (hospitalization time), and time from symptom onset to appendectomy [symptomatic period + hospitalization period (overall time)]. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify independent factors associated with perforation and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 1753 patients were included in the present study. Perforation occurred in 28.2% of patients, and postoperative complications occurred in 10.0% of patients. Multivariable analysis showed that BT > 38 °C (P = 0.006), WBC count >13,000 cells/µl (P = 0.02), neutrophil ratio >80% (P < 0.001), and symptomatic time >24 h (P < 0.001) were independent factors of appendiceal perforation, while the neutrophil ratio >80% (P < 0.001) and symptomatic time >48 h (P = 0.003) were independently associated with complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that the symptomatic time and overall time were significantly associated with perforation and complications, whereas hospitalization time was not associated with either perforation or complications.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Report on 1164 Operations at a Single-Institution, Safety-Net Hospital

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the standard of care for the treatment of acute appendicitis. There is an ongoing debate regarding the optimal management of appendicitis, which led us to study outcomes after an appendectomy at a large safety-net hospital. We hypothesize that despite a high-risk population, LA remains a safe and effective treatment for acute appendicitis. A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent an appendectomy from 2011 to 2013. The primary end point was significant morbidity defined as a score of three or greater on the Clavien-Dindo scale of surgical morbidity. Thousand hundred and sixty-four patients underwent an appendectomy. A total of 1102 (94.7%) patients underwent either an LA or laparoscopic converted to open appendectomy, and 62 (5.3%) patients underwent an open appendectomy (OA). Two hundred and forty six patients (21.1%) had complicated appendicitis. Laparoscopic converted to OA conversion rate was 4.4 per cent and differed between years (P < 0.001). LA had a significantly shorter length of stay, shorter length of postoperative antibiotics, and less postoperative morbidity. When limited to only patients with complicated appendicitis, major morbidity was still greater in the OA group (22.6 vs 52.0%, P = 0.001). Length of stay was significantly longer in the OA group [3.42 (2.01, 5.97) vs 7.04 (5.05, 10.13), P < 0.001]. Odds for complication were 2.6 times greater in the OA group compared with the LA group. In the absence of peritonitis and systemic illness necessitating urgent laparotomy, patients who are laparoscopic surgical candidates should be offered an LA. Our study demonstrates that these patients have better outcomes and shorter hospital stays.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendicectomy in Adults with Complicated Appendicitis: an Update of the Literature

AIMS

To review and compare the outcomes of laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendicectomy (OA) in complicated appendicitis in adult patients, eight years after the last literature review.

METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to. Pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to search the PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases and extract relevant data. Methodological and quality assessment was undertaken with outcome meta-analysis and subgroup analyses of methodological quality, type of study and year of study. Assessment of clinical and statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was conducted.

RESULTS

Three randomised control trials (RCTs) (154LA vs 155OA) and 23 case-control trials were included (2034LA vs 2096OA). Methodological quality was low to average but with low statistical heterogeneity. Risk of publication bias was low, and meta-regression indicated shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) in more recent studies, Q = 7.1, P = 0.007. In the combined analysis LA had significantly less surgical site infections [OR = 0.30 (0.22,0.40); p < 0.00001] with reduced time to oral intake [WMD = -0.98 (-1.09,-0.86); P < 0.00001] and LOS [WMD = -3.49(-3.70,-3.29); p < 0.00001]. There was no significant difference in intra-abdominal abscess rates [OR = 1.11(0.85,1.45); p = 0.43]. Operative time was longer during LA [WMD = 10.51 (5.14,15.87); p = 0.0001] but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.13) in the RCT subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

LA appears to have significant benefits with improved morbidity compared to OA in complicated appendicitis (level of evidence II).

Abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy, the surgical removal of the appendix, is performed primarily for acute appendicitis. Patients who undergo appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, defined as gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, are more likely to suffer from postoperative complications. The routine use of abdominal drainage to reduce postoperative complications after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is controversial.This is an update of the review first published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 6), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 30 June 2017), Ovid Embase (1974 to 30 June 2017), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 30 June 2017), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (30 June 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (30 June 2017) and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 30 June 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared abdominal drainage and no drainage in people undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (or a Peto odds ratio for very rare outcomes), and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six RCTs (521 participants), comparing abdominal drainage and no drainage in patients undergoing emergency open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The studies were conducted in North America, Asia and Africa. The majority of the participants had perforated appendicitis with local or general peritonitis. All participants received antibiotic regimens after open appendectomy. None of the trials was at low risk of bias.There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of abdominal drainage and no drainage on intra-peritoneal abscess at 14 days (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.21; 5 RCTs; 453 participants; very low-quality evidence) or for wound infection at 14 days (RR 2.01, 95% CI 0.88 to 4.56; 5 RCTs; 478 participants; very low-quality evidence). The increased risk of 30-day overall complication rate (morbidity) in the drainage group was rated as very low-quality evidence (RR 6.67, 95% CI 2.13 to 20.87; 1 RCT; 90 participants). There were seven deaths in the drainage group (N = 183) compared to one in the no drainage group (N = 180), equating to an increase in the risk of 30-day mortality from 0.6% to 2.7% (Peto odds ratio (OR) 4.88, 95% CI 1.18 to 20.09; 4 RCTs; 363 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There is 'very low-quality' evidence that drainage increases hospital stay compared to the no drainage group by 2.17 days (95% CI 1.76 to 2.58; 3 RCTs; 298 participants).Other outlined outcomes, hospital costs, pain, and quality of life, were not reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the current evidence is very low. The effect of abdominal drainage on the prevention of intra-peritoneal abscess or wound infection after open appendectomy is uncertain for patients with complicated appendicitis. The increased rates for overall complication rate and hospital stay for the drainage group compared to no drainage group is also subject to great uncertainty. Thus, there is no evidence for any clinical improvement by using abdominal drainage in patients undergoing open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. The increased risk of mortality with drainage comes from eight deaths observed in just under 400 people recruited to the studies. Larger studies are needed to determine the effects of drainage on morbidity and mortality outcomes more reliably.

Outcomes after open and laparoscopic appendectomy during pregnancy: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Acute appendicitis is the most prevalent cause of non-obstetrical surgical disease during pregnancy. There is no consensus on the optimal surgical management of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Our aim is to identify surgical and obstetrical outcomes of laparoscopic (LA) and open approach (OA) in pregnant patients with acute appendicitis.

STUDY DESIGN

Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for articles published up to May 2017, along with the references of all articles. Prospective and retrospective trials reporting outcomes among pregnant women undergoing laparoscopic and open appendectomy were included. Of the 493 records screened, 20 were eligible for meta-analysis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Statistical meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 6210 pregnant women from twenty studies were included in meta-analysis. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with significantly lower overall complication rates and shorter hospital stays (1835 patients OR 0.48 95% CI 0.29, 0.80 p = 0.005). While the open appendectomy group showed prolongation of gestational age for term deliveries, laparoscopic appendectomy patients had higher rates of fetal loss (543 patients MD -0.46 weeks 95% CI-0.87 to -0.04, p = 0.03 and 4867 patients OR 1.82 95% CI 1.30 to 2.57, p = 0.0006, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Current literature remains inconclusive on the optimal approach of appendectomy in pregnant women. Further larger-volume studies are needed in order to elucidate the critical effect of laparoscopic appendectomy on fetal loss rates.

Laparoscopic Procedure is Not Independently Associated With the Development of Intra-Abdominal Abscess After Appendectomy: A Multicenter Cohort Study With Propensity Score Matching Analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify independent risk factors for postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) after appendectomy for patients with acute appendicitis.

BACKGRAOUND

Although laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been performed universally, whether LA is associated with an increased incidence of postoperative IAA compared with open appendectomy (OA) remains controversial, which causes some surgeons' increasing concerns.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 6805 consecutive adult patients with acute appendicitis who underwent LA or OA at 7 general hospitals in China. Patient characteristics, operative variables, and surgical outcomes were collected and compared between patients who underwent LA and OA. Propensity score matching analysis was used to minimize the bias in patient selection differing from various procedure of appendectomy. Independent risk factors associated with the development of postoperative IAA after appendectomy were identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis in the propensity matched cohort.

RESULTS

Over a 3-year period, 2710 (39.8%) and 4095 (60.2%) patients underwent LA and OA respectively. Patients who underwent OA had more males, American Society of Anesthesiologists score 2-3, preoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and perforated appendicitis than those who underwent LA (all P<0.01). Propensity score matched analysis created 2542 pairs of patients. Univariate analysis revealed that patients who underwent LA had a higher incidence of postoperative IAA than patients who underwent OA (6.7% vs. 5.3%; P=0.039). However, multivariate logistic regression analysis identified LA not to be an independent risk factor associated with the development of postoperative IAA (odds ratio, 1.053; 95% confidence interval, 0.922-1.657; P=0.216).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study identified that laparoscopic procedure was not an independent risk factor associated with the development of postoperative IAA after appendectomy of acute appendicitis. Therefore, concerns of increased incidence of IAA because of laparoscopic procedure are unwarranted.

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: How to discourage surgeons using inadequate therapy

Acute appendicitis (AA) develops in a progressive and irreversible manner, even if the clinical course of AA can be temporarily modified by intentional medications. Reliable and real-time diagnosis of AA can be made based on findings of the white blood cell count and enhanced computed tomography. Emergent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is considered as the first therapeutic choice for AA. Interval/delayed appendectomy at 6-12 wk after disease onset is considered as unsafe with a high recurrent rate during the waiting time. However, this technique may have some advantages for avoiding unnecessary extended resection in patients with an appendiceal mass. Non-operative management of AA may be tolerated only in children. Postoperative complications increase according to the patient's factors, and temporal avoidance of emergent general anesthesia may be beneficial for high-risk patients. The surgeon's skill and cooperation of the hospital are important for successful LA. Delaying appendectomy for less than 24 h from diagnosis is safe. Additionally, a semi-elective manner (i.e., LA within 24 h after onset of symptoms) may be paradoxically acceptable, according to the factors of the patient, physician, and institution. Prompt LA is mandatory for AA. Fortunately, the Japanese government uses a universal health insurance system, which covers LA.