Prophylactic Drainage after Appendectomy for Perforated Appendicitis in Adults: A Post Hoc Analysis of an EAST Multi-Center Study

Diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains controversial. This systematic review details the evidence and current best practices for the evaluation and management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in adults and children.

METHODS

Eight questions regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis were formulated. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov/NLM were queried for articles published from 2010 to 2022 with key words related to at least one question. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Two reviewers screened each publication for eligibility and then extracted data from eligible studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on all quantitative data. The quality of randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 or Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively.

RESULTS

2792 studies were screened and 261 were included. Most had a high risk of bias. Computerized tomography scan yielded the highest sensitivity (> 80%) and specificity (> 93%) in the adult population, although high variability existed. In adults with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management resulted in higher odds of readmission (OR 6.10) and need for operation (OR 20.09), but less time to return to work/school (SMD - 1.78). In pediatric patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management also resulted in higher odds of need for operation (OR 38.31). In adult patients with complicated appendicitis, there were higher odds of need for operation following antibiotic treatment only (OR 29.00), while pediatric patients had higher odds of abscess formation (OR 2.23). In pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, higher risk of reoperation at any time point was observed in patients who had drains placed at the time of operation (RR 2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains nuanced. A personalized approach and appropriate patient selection remain key to treatment success. Further research on controversies in treatment would be useful for optimal management.

Impact of visceral obesity on the short-term outcomes after laparoscopic appendectomy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of visceral obesity on short-term outcomes after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).

METHODS

a retrospective study on 441 patients who underwent a LA between July 2019 and July 2020. According to the cutoff visceral fat area (VFA) for visceral obesity, the patients were divided into two groups: visceral obesity group (n = 123) and non-visceral obesity group (n = 318). The general information, comorbidities, perioperative monitoring indicators, and postoperative complications of the patients were collected.

RESULTS

Compared with the non-visceral obesity group, the proportion of overweight patients (56.10%), preoperative white blood cell count (12.92 (9.99, 15.58)*10⁹mg/dl), postoperative white blood cell count (9.71 ± 3.91*10⁹mg/dl), and hospitalization costs (16,220.93 ± 7038.76¥) in the visceral obesity group were significantly different (all p < 0.05). Additionally, multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that visceral obesity (2.679, 95%CI: 1.155-5.849, p = 0.027), indwelling drainage tube (7.832, 95%CI: 2.151-27.428, p < 0.001), and perforated appendicitis (3.181, 95%CI: 1.195-7.136, p = 0.025) were identified to be independent risk factors for incision infection after LA. The area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve value for VFA predicting incisional infection after LA was 0.770.

CONCLUSIONS

Visceral obesity is one of the independent risk factors for incisional infection after LA, and can be used as one of the reference indicators for prognostic assessment of short-term outcomes after LA.

Prophylactic abdominal drainage following appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: A meta-analysis

Background

To date, the value of prophylactic abdominal drainage (AD) following appendectomy in patients with complicated appendicitis (CA), including adults and children, has yet to be determined. This paper presents a meta-analysis of the effects of prophylactic AD on postoperative complications in patients with CA, with the goal of exploring the safety and effectiveness of prophylactic AD.

Methods

PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for relevant articles published before August 1, 2022. The primary outcomes were the complication rates [overall incidence of postoperative complications, incidence of intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), wound infection (WI), and postoperative ileus (PI), and the secondary outcome was the perioperative outcome]. The meta-analysis was performed with STATA V. 16.0A.

Results

A total of 2,627 articles were retrieved and 15 high-quality articles were eventually included after screening, resulting in a total of 5,123 patients, of whom 1,796 received AD and 3,327 did not. The results of this meta-analysis showed that compared with patients in the non-drainage group, patients in the drainage group had longer postoperative length of hospitalization (LOH) (SMD = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.01-1.35, P = 0.046), higher overall incidence of postoperative complications (OR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.19-0.81, P = 0.01), higher incidence of WI (OR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.08-0.51, P = 0.01) and PI (OR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.57-1.54, P = 0.01), the differences were statistically significant. However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of IAA (OR = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.31, P = 0.31) between the two groups. The results of subgroup meta-analysis showed that in the adult subgroup, the overall incidence of postoperative complications in the drainage group was higher than that in the non-drainage group (OR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.37-0.96, P = 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in IAA (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.64, P = 0.45) and WI (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: (-0.40 to 0.66, P = 0.63) and PI (OR = 2.71, 95% CI: -0.29 to 5.71, P = 0.08). In the children subgroup, there were no significant differences in the incidence of IAA (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: -0.06 to 1.09, P = 0.08) between the two groups. The overall incidence of postoperative complications (OR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.02-0.90, P = 0.04), incidences of WI (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.14-0.71, P = 0.01) and PI (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.10-1.39, P = 0.02) were significantly higher than those in the non-drainage group.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis concluded that prophylactic AD did not benefit from appendectomy, but increased the incidence of related complications, especially in children with CA. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of prophylactic AD following appendectomy.

The necessity of abdominal drainage for patients with complicated appendicitis undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy: a retrospective cohort study

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the necessity of abdominal drainage after laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with complicated appendicitis.

Methods

Patients with acute appendicitis undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy at two hospitals between January 2014 and December 2018 were retrospectively included. Complicated appendicitis was defined as the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade ≥ II. The patients were classified according to the AAST grade and the indwelling of abdominal drainage. The postoperative surgical outcomes and recovery were compared among patient groups to evaluate the impact of abdominal drainage for patients with complicated appendicitis undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy.

Results

A total of 1241 patients was retrospectively included. Among them, there were 820 patients with simple appendicitis (AAST grade I) and 421 patients with complicated appendicitis (AAST grade ≥ II). For complicated appendicitis, the drainage group (N = 192) tended to harbor more overall complications, intra-abdominal abscess formation, time to resume a soft diet, and the postoperative length of hospitalization (P = 0.0000 for all). Multivariate logistic regression confirmed that abdominal drainage increased the risk of overall complications [Odds ratio (OR) 2.439; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.597–3.726; P ≤ 0.0001] and failed to decrease the risk of intra-abdominal abscess formation (OR 1.655; 95% CI 0.487–5.616; P = 0.4193). Multivariate linear regression analysis also showed that the drainage group harbored longer postoperative length of hospitalization (Coefficients: 20.697; 95% CI 15.251–26.143; P < 0.0001) and time to resume a soft diet (Coefficients: 45.899; 95% CI 34.502–57.297; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Abdominal drainage did not prevent overall complications in patients with complicated appendicitis; paradoxically, it delayed the convalescence. Our results discourage the routine use of abdominal drainage and suggest that abdominal drainage should be performed sparingly.