A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Quality of Life of Antibiotic-only Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Appendicitis: Results of the COMMA Trial

SAGES guidelines for the use of laparoscopy during pregnancy

BACKGROUND

When pregnant patients present with nonobstetric pathology, the physicians caring for them may be uncertain about the optimal management strategy. The aim of this guideline is to develop evidence-based recommendations for pregnant patients presenting with common surgical pathologies including appendicitis, biliary disease, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Guidelines Committee convened a working group to address these issues. The group generated five key questions and completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. An expert panel then met to form evidence-based recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Expert opinion was utilized when the available evidence was deemed insufficient.

RESULTS

The expert panel agreed on ten recommendations addressing the management of appendicitis, biliary disease, and IBD during pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

Conditional recommendations were made in favor of appendectomy over nonoperative treatment of appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy over open appendectomy, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy over nonoperative treatment of biliary disease and acute cholecystitis specifically. Based on expert opinion, the panel also suggested either operative or nonoperative treatment of biliary diseases other than acute cholecystitis in the third trimester, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography rather than common bile duct exploration for symptomatic choledocholithiasis, applying the same criteria for emergent surgical intervention in pregnant and non-pregnant IBD patients, utilizing an open rather than minimally invasive approach for pregnant patients requiring emergent surgical treatment of IBD, and managing pregnant patients with active IBD flares in a multidisciplinary fashion at centers with IBD expertise.

Implementation of artificial intelligence-based computer vision model in laparoscopic appendectomy: validation, reliability, and clinical correlation

BACKGROUND

Application of artificial intelligence (AI) in general surgery is evolving. Real-world implementation of an AI-based computer-vision model in laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is presented. We aimed to evaluate (1) its accuracy in complexity grading and safety adherence, (2) clinical correlation to outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center study of 499 consecutive LA videos, captured and analyzed by 'Surgical Intelligence Platform,' Theator Inc. (9/2020-5/2022). Two expert surgeons viewed all videos and manually graded complexity and safety adherence. Automated annotations were compared to surgeons' assessments. Inter-surgeons' agreements were measured. Since 7/2021 videos were linked to patients' admission numbers. Data retrieval from medical records was performed (n = 365). Outcomes were compared between high and low complexity grades.

RESULTS

Low and high complexity grades comprised 74.8 and 25.2% of 499 videos. Surgeons' agreements were high (76.9-94.4%, kappa 0.77/0.91; p < 0.001) for all annotated complexity grades. Surgeons' agreements were also high (96.0-99.8%, kappa 0.78/0.87; p < 0.001) for full safety adherence, whereas agreement was moderate in partial safety adherence and none (32.8-58.8%). Inter-surgeons' agreements were high for complexity grading (kappa 0.86, p < 0.001) and safety adherence (kappa 0.88, p < 0.001). Comparing high to low grade complexity, preoperative clinical features were similar, except larger appendix diameter on imaging (13.4 ± 4.4 vs. 10.5 ± 3.0 mm, p < 0.001). Intraoperative outcomes were significantly higher (p < 0.001), including time to achieve critical view of safety (29.6, IQR 19.1-41.6 vs. 13.7, IQR 8.5-21.1 min), operative duration (45.3, IQR 37.7-65.2 vs. 25.0, IQR 18.3-32.7 min), and intraoperative events (39.4% vs. 5.9%). Postoperative outcomes (7.4% vs. 9.2%) including surgical complications, mortality, and readmissions were comparable (p = 0.6), except length of stay (4, IQR 2-5.5 vs. 1, IQR 1-2 days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The model accurately assesses complexity grading and full safety achievement. It can serve to predict operative time and intraoperative course, whereas no clinical correlation was found regarding postoperative outcomes. Further studies are needed.

SAGES guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is an extremely common disease with a variety of medical and surgical treatment approaches. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians and patients in decisions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted from 2010 to 2022 to answer 8 key questions relating to the diagnosis of appendicitis, operative or nonoperative management, and specific technical and post-operative issues for appendectomy. The results of this systematic review were then presented to a panel of adult and pediatric surgeons. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts.

RESULTS

Conditional recommendations were made in favor of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis being managed operatively, either delayed (>12h) or immediate operation (<12h), either suction and lavage or suction alone, no routine drain placement, treatment with short-term antibiotics postoperatively for complicated appendicitis, and complicated appendicitis previously treated nonoperatively undergoing interval appendectomy. A conditional recommendation signals that the benefits of adhering to a recommendation probably outweigh the harms although it does also indicate uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations should provide guidance with regard to current controversies in appendicitis. The panel also highlighted future research opportunities where the evidence base can be strengthened.

Clinical features and risk factors for appendiceal diverticulitis: a comparative study with acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

Despite their similar clinical characteristics, appendiceal diverticulitis (AD) and acute appendicitis (AA) are pathologically distinct. This study compared the clinical features of AD and AA and identified relevant risk factors.

METHODS

Patients who underwent appendectomy with a preoperative diagnosis of either AD or AA were categorized based on histopathological findings. The two groups were compared in terms of various clinical factors.

RESULTS

Among the 854 patients included in the study, a histopathological evaluation revealed 49 and 805 cases of AD and AA, respectively. A univariate analysis demonstrated that AD was more prevalent than AA among older, taller, and heavier males. A multivariate analysis revealed that male sex, a white blood cell (WBC) count < 13.5 × 103/μL, an eosinophil count ≥ 0.4%, and a mean corpuscular volume (MCV) ≥ 91.6 fL were significant factors differentiating AD from AA. In addition, pathological AD emerged as an independent risk factor for abscess and/or perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

AD was associated with an older age, robust physique, and significant risk of abscess and/or perforation despite a low WBC count. In addition to imaging modalities, the preoperative factors of male sex, a WBC count < 13.5 × 103/μL, an eosinophil count ≥ 0.4%, and a MCV ≥ 91.6 fL may be useful for distinguishing AD from AA.

Validation and comparison of two new scoring systems for the prediction of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis

OBJECTIVES

To validate the Atema and APSI scoring systems in the diagnosis of complicated vs uncomplicated appendicitis. To compare these scoring systems with computed tomography (CT) imaging alone to establish which method provides most accurate prediction of complicated vs uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of a sample of 160 patients that underwent appendicectomy and CT imaging for suspected appendicitis between 2018 and 2021 in a tertiary university teaching hospital. Each scoring system was applied to all patients and results analysed and compared with the effectiveness of CT imaging, RESULTS: 32.5% (n = 52) were found to have complicated appendicitis and 67.5% (n = 108) uncomplicated appendicitis. Application of the Atema score to our cohort of patients resulted in a sensitivity 76.9% [CI (64.2, 87.5), specificity 58.7% [CI (48.9, 68.1)], PPV 47.1% [CI (40.5, 53.8) and NPV 84.2% [CI (76.0, 89.9)]. By comparison, the APSI yielded a sensitivity 50.9% [CI (36.6, 65.4)], specificity 76.1% [CI (67.0, 87.8)], PPV 50% [CI (39.2, 60.6)] and NPV 76% [CI (71.1, 81.7)]. Radiology prediction of complicated vs uncomplicated appendicitis with CT imaging showed sensitivity 46% [CI (32.2, 60.5)], specificity 79%; [CI (69.8, 86)], PPV 51% [CI (39.6, 62.5)] and NPV 75% [CI (69.8, 79.9)].

CONCLUSION

By comparing the APSI and Atema et al. scoring systems with CT reporting in our hospital, it appears that the Atema may confer some benefit in stratifying patient risk of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis. Further larger scale prospective studies are required.

Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common emergency general surgical conditions worldwide. Uncomplicated/simple appendicitis can be treated with appendectomy or antibiotics. Some studies have suggested possible benefits with antibiotics with reduced complications, length of hospital stay, and the number of days off work. However, surgery may improve success of treatment as antibiotic treatment is associated with recurrence and future need for surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated/simple acute appendicitis compared with appendectomy for resolution of symptoms and complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov) on 19 July 2022. We also searched for unpublished studies in conference proceedings together with reference checking and citation search. There were no restrictions on date, publication status, or language of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included studies where most participants were adults with uncomplicated/simple appendicitis. Interventions included antibiotics (by any route) compared with appendectomy (open or laparoscopic).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Primary outcomes included mortality and success of treatment, and secondary outcomes included number of participants requiring appendectomy in the antibiotic group, complications, pain, length of hospital stay, sick leave, malignancy in the antibiotic group, negative appendectomy rate, and quality of life. Success of treatment definitions were heterogeneous although mainly based on resolution of symptoms rather than incorporation of long-term recurrence or need for surgery in the antibiotic group.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies in the review covering 1675 participants randomised to antibiotics and 1683 participants randomised to appendectomy. One study was unpublished. All were conducted in secondary care and two studies received pharmaceutical funding. All studies used broad-spectrum antibiotic regimens expected to cover gastrointestinal bacteria. Most studies used predominantly laparoscopic surgery, but some included mainly open procedures. Six studies included adults and children. Almost all studies aimed to exclude participants with complicated appendicitis prior to randomisation, although one study included 12% with perforation. The diagnostic technique was clinical assessment and imaging in most studies. Only one study limited inclusion by sex (male only). Follow-up ranged from hospital admission only to seven years. Certainty of evidence was mainly affected by risk of bias (due to lack of blinding and loss to follow-up) and imprecision. Primary outcomes It is uncertain whether there was any difference in mortality due to the very low-certainty evidence (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 4.95; 1 study, 492 participants). There may be 76 more people per 1000 having unsuccessful treatment in the antibiotic group compared with surgery, which did not reach our predefined level for clinical significance (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96; I2 = 69%; 7 studies, 2471 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes At one year, 30.7% (95% CI 24.0 to 37.8; I2 = 80%; 9 studies, 1396 participants) of participants in the antibiotic group required appendectomy or, alternatively, more than two-thirds of antibiotic-treated participants avoided surgery in the first year, but the evidence is very uncertain. Regarding complications, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in episodes of Clostridium difficile diarrhoea due to very low-certainty evidence (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.89; 1 study, 1332 participants). There may be a clinically significant reduction in wound infections with antibiotics (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.68; I2 = 16%; 9 studies, 2606 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether antibiotics affect the incidence of intra-abdominal abscess or collection (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.07; I2 = 19%; 6 studies, 1831 participants), or reoperation (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.16; 1 study, 492 participants) due to very low-certainty evidence, mainly due to rare events causing imprecision and risk of bias. It is uncertain if antibiotics prolonged length of hospital stay by half a day due to the very low-certainty evidence (MD 0.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.01; I2 = 97%; 11 studies, 3192 participants). The incidence of malignancy was 0.3% (95% CI 0 to 1.5; 5 studies, 403 participants) in the antibiotic group although follow-up was variable. Antibiotics probably increased the number of negative appendectomies at surgery (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.49; I2 = 17%; 5 studies, 707 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics may be associated with higher rates of unsuccessful treatment for 76 per 1000 people, although differences may not be clinically significant. It is uncertain if antibiotics increase length of hospital stay by half a day. Antibiotics may reduce wound infections. A third of the participants initially treated with antibiotics required subsequent appendectomy or two-thirds avoided surgery within one year, but the evidence is very uncertain. There were too few data from the included studies to comment on major complications.

Three-Year Outcomes of Oral Antibiotics vs Intravenous and Oral Antibiotics for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Secondary Analysis of the APPAC II Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Current short-term evidence has shown that uncomplicated acute appendicitis can be treated successfully with oral antibiotics alone, but longer-term results are lacking.

Objective

To assess the treatment effectiveness of oral antibiotic monotherapy compared with combined intravenous (IV) and oral antibiotics in computed tomography-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis at a longer-term follow-up.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This secondary analysis of a predefined year 3 follow-up of the Appendicitis Acuta II (APPAC II) noninferiority, multicenter randomized clinical trial compared oral moxifloxacin with combined IV ertapenem plus oral levofloxacin and metronidazole for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The trial was conducted at 9 university and central hospitals in Finland from April 2017 to November 2018, with the last follow-up in November 2022. Participants included patients aged 18 to 60 years, who were randomized to receive either oral antibiotics monotherapy (n = 301) or combined IV and oral antibiotics (n = 298).

Interventions

Antibiotics monotherapy consisted of oral moxifloxacin, 400 mg/d, for 7 days. Combined IV and oral antibiotics consisted of IV ertapenem sodium, 1 g/d, for 2 days plus oral levofloxacin, 500 mg/d, and metronidazole, 500 mg 3 times/d, for 5 days.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was treatment success, defined as the resolution of acute appendicitis and discharge from hospital without the need for surgical intervention and no appendicitis recurrence at the year 3 follow-up evaluated using a noninferiority design. The secondary end points included late (after 1 year) appendicitis recurrence as well as treatment-related adverse events, quality of life, length of hospital stay, and length of sick leave, which were evaluated using a superiority design.

Results

After exclusions, 599 patients (mean [SD] age, 36 [12] years; 336 males [56.1%]) were randomized; after withdrawal and loss to follow-up, 582 patients (99.8%) were available for the year 3 follow-up. The treatment success at year 3 was 63.4% (1-sided 95% CI, 58.8% to ∞) in the oral antibiotic monotherapy group and 65.2% (1-sided 95% CI, 60.5% to ∞) in the combined IV and oral antibiotics group. The difference in treatment success rate between the groups at year 3 was -1.8 percentage points (1-sided 95% CI, -8.3 percentage points to ∞; P = .14 for noninferiority), with the CI limit exceeding the noninferiority margin. There were no significant differences between groups in treatment-related adverse events, quality of life, length of hospital stay, or length of sick leave.

Conclusions and Relevance

This secondary analysis of the APPAC II trial found a slightly higher appendectomy rate in patients who received oral antibiotic monotherapy; however, noninferiority of oral antibiotic monotherapy compared with combined IV and oral antibiotics could not be demonstrated. The results encourage future studies to assess oral antibiotic monotherapy as a viable treatment alternative for uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03236961.

Development and Validation of a Deep Learning and Radiomics Combined Model for Differentiating Complicated From Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop and validate a deep learning and radiomics combined model for differentiating complicated from uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study included 1165 adult AA patients (training cohort, 700 patients; validation cohort, 465 patients) with available abdominal pelvic computed tomography (CT) images. The reference standard for complicated/uncomplicated AA was the surgery and pathology records. We developed our combined model with CatBoost based on the selected clinical characteristics, CT visual features, deep learning features, and radiomics features. We externally validated our combined model and compared its performance with that of the conventional combined model, the deep learning radiomics (DLR) model, and the radiologist's visual diagnosis using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

In the training cohort, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of our combined model in distinguishing complicated from uncomplicated AA was 0.816 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.785-0.844). In the validation cohort, our combined model showed robust performance across the data from three centers, with AUCs of 0.836 (95% CI: 0.785-0.879), 0.793 (95% CI: 0.695-0.872), and 0.723 (95% CI: 0.632-0.802). In the total validation cohort, our combined model (AUC = 0.799) performed better than the conventional combined model, DLR model, and radiologist's visual diagnosis (AUC = 0.723, 0.755, and 0.679, respectively; all P < 0.05). Decision curve analysis showed that our combined model provided greater net benefit in predicting complicated AA than the other three models.

CONCLUSION

Our combined model allows the accurate differentiation of complicated and uncomplicated AA.

A core outcome set for appendicitis: A consensus approach utilizing modified Delphi methodology

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is one of the most common pathologies encountered by general and acute care surgeons. The current literature is inconsistent, as it is fraught with outcome heterogeneity, especially in the area of nonoperative management. We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for future appendicitis studies to facilitate outcome standardization and future data pooling.

METHODS

A modified Delphi study was conducted after identification of content experts in the field of appendicitis using both the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) landmark appendicitis articles and consensus from the EAST ad hoc COS taskforce on appendicitis. The study incorporated three rounds. Round 1 utilized free text outcome suggestions, then in rounds 2 and 3 the suggests were scored using a Likert scale of 1 to 9 with 1 to 3 denoting a less important outcome, 4 to 6 denoting an important but noncritical outcome, and 7 to 9 denoting a critically important outcome. Core outcome status consensus was defined a priori as >70% of scores 7 to 9 and <15% of scores 1 to 3.

RESULTS

Seventeen panelists initially agreed to participate in the study with 16 completing the process (94%). Thirty-two unique potential outcomes were initially suggested in round 1 and 10 (31%) met consensus with one outcome meeting exclusion at the end of round 2. At completion of round 3, a total of 17 (53%) outcomes achieved COS consensus.

CONCLUSION

An international panel of 16 appendicitis experts achieved consensus on 17 core outcomes that should be incorporated into future appendicitis studies as a minimum set of standardized outcomes to help frame future cohort-based studies on appendicitis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Test or Criteria; Level V.

Diagnostic accuracy of doctors at the emergency department and radiologists in differentiating between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

To determine the accuracy of final judgements of doctors at the emergency department (ED) and radiologists to differentiate between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis, because these have different treatment options.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter study included adult patients with imaging-confirmed acute appendicitis, operated with intention to appendectomy. Both doctors at ED and radiologists assessed appendicitis severity as a final judgement of "uncomplicated" or "complicated" appendicitis. Doctors at ED integrated clinical, laboratory, and imaging findings. Radiologists relied solely on imaging findings. Outcomes were accuracy of these judgements for diagnosis of complicated appendicitis compared to the reference standard by an adjudication committee.

RESULTS

After imaging, 1070 patients with confirmed acute appendicitis were included. Doctors at ED accurately labelled 656 of 701 (93.6%) patients with true uncomplicated appendicitis as uncomplicated, and 163 of 369 (44.2%) patients with true complicated appendicitis were labelled as complicated. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) for complicated appendicitis were 44.2%, 93.6%, and 78.4% and 76.1%, respectively. Comparable accuracy was found for the radiologist's assessment in 941 patients, with true positive rates of 92.2% (581 of 630 patients) for uncomplicated appendicitis and 46.6% (145 of 311 patients) for complicated appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

More than half of all patients with true complicated appendicitis is incorrectly classified as uncomplicated appendicitis according to the judgements of doctors at ED, integrating clinical, laboratory, and imaging results, and of radiologists assessing diagnostic imaging. These judgements are thereby not sufficiently reliable in ruling out complicated appendicitis.

A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis comparing nonoperative versus operative management for uncomplicated appendicitis: a focus on randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to provide a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing conservative and surgical treatment in a population of adults with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. We have exclusively incorporated randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies involving participants with complicated appendicitis or children were excluded. The variables considered are as follows: treatment complications, complication-free treatment success at index admission and at 1 year follow-up, length of hospital stay (LOS), quality of life (QoL) and costs.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 3213 participants (1615 antibiotics/1598 appendectomy) were included. There was no significant difference between the two treatments in terms of complication rates (RR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.61-1.04, P = 0.07, I2 = 69%). Antibiotics had a reduced treatment efficacy compared with appendectomy (RR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90, p < 0.00001, I2 = 87%) and at 1 year was successful in 540 out of 837 (64.6%, RR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.77, p < 0.00001, I2 = 81%) participants. There was no difference in LOS (mean difference - 0.58 days 95% confidence interval - 1.59 to 0.43, p = 0.26, I2 = 99%). The trial sequential analysis has revealed that, concerning the three primary outcomes, it is improbable that forthcoming RCTs will significantly alter the existing body of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

As further large-scale trials have been conducted, antibiotic therapy proved to be safe, less expensive, but also less effective than surgical treatment. In order to ensure well-informed decisions, further research is needed to explore patient preferences and quality of life outcomes.

Modified endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy vs. laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children

OBJECTIVES

Modified endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (mERAT) has been proposed as an alternative to laparoscopic appendectomy for the treatment of appendicitis. However, data from children in large samples are lacking. The aim of this article is to evaluate the efficacy between mERAT and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in children with uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHOD

We retrospectively analyzed 594 patients with suspected uncomplicated appendicitis from October 2018 to May 2021. A pool of 294 consecutive patients who met the inclusion criteria were ultimately enrolled in this study (228 and 66 patients in mERAT and LA, respectively). Given the differences in baseline clinical data (gender, age), the regression equation including differences in clinical baseline, grouping factor, and white blood cell count was established to address the influence of potential confounding factors.

RESULT

The initial success rate of mERAT management was 96.9%, and the recurrence rate was 6.9% in the mERAT group and 1.7% in the LA group within 1 year, which was no significant difference. But the mERAT group had a lower rate of adverse events. Finally, those results indicated that the treatment modalities, LA or mERAT, had no significant effect on initial success rate (P = 0.99) or recurrence rate (P = 0.17) within 1 year, but a significant effect on the adverse events rate during hospitalization (P = 0.01) in the multivariate regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

Among children with uncomplicated appendicitis, an initial mERAT management strategy had a success rate of 96.9%, which was similar to the LA group at 1 year. This follow-up supports the feasibility of mERAT alone as an alternative to surgery for uncomplicated appendicitis.

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.

Outpatient Non-operative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Non-inferiority Study

INTRODUCTION

Non-operative management (NOM) of uncomplicated acute appendicitis is a well-established alternative to upfront surgery. The administration of intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics is usually performed in hospital, and only one study described outpatient NOM. The aim of this multicentre retrospective non-inferiority study was to evaluate both safety and non-inferiority of outpatient compared to inpatient NOM in uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

METHODS

The study included 668 consecutive patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Patients were treated according to the surgeon's preference: 364 upfront appendectomy, 157 inpatient NOM (inNOM), and 147 outpatient NOM (outNOM). The primary endpoint was the 30-day appendectomy rate, with a non-inferiority limit of 5%. Secondary endpoints were negative appendectomy rate, 30-day unplanned emergency department (ED) visits, and length of stay.

RESULTS

30-day appendectomies were 16 (10.9%) in the outNOM group and 23 (14.6%) in the inNOM group (p = 0.327). OutNOM was non-inferior to inNOM with a risk difference of-3.80% 97.5% CI (- 12.57; 4.97). No difference was found between inNOM and outNOM groups for the number of complicated appendicitis (3 vs. 5) and negative appendectomy (1 vs. 0). Twenty-six (17.7%) outNOM patients required an unplanned ED visit after a median of 1 (1-4) days. In the outNOM group, the mean cumulative in-hospital stay was 0.89 (1.94) days compared with 3.94 (2.17) days in the inNOM group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient NOM was non-inferior to inpatient NOM with regard to the 30-day appendectomy rate, while a shorter hospital stay was found in the outNOM group. Further, studies are required to confirm these findings.

Are Antibiotics the New Appendectomy?

Prior to the development of laparoscopic procedures, open appendectomy was the standard of care for the majority of appendicitis cases. Recently, studies have debated using antibiotics as a first-line treatment in uncomplicated appendicitis cases. The definition of uncomplicated appendicitis is not always clear-cut; however, with the large-scale accessibility of radiologic techniques, it is becoming increasingly easier to classify patient groups. As suggested by clinical and radiological patient data, this has raised the speculation of considering antibiotic therapy as the sole treatment modality in uncomplicated appendicitis cases. We aim to compare the options of surgery and antibiotics only in terms of efficacy, complications, and financial cost. A range of databases and search strategies were adopted, and various databases were used, including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and JAMA. Collectively, 30 studies were reviewed, but only 18 were included. Efficacy rates were higher in the appendectomy group. Nevertheless, the antibiotics-only group maintained an efficacy rate greater than 70% at one-year follow-up. Risk factors that decreased the efficacy in medical management included the presence of appendicolith, neoplasm, appendiceal dilatation, peri-appendiceal fluid collection, higher mean temperature, CRP, and bilirubin. Complications were more frequent and significant in the surgery group. These included complications related to anaesthesia, surgical site infections, damage to nearby structures, and pulmonary embolism. Despite several years of follow-up and disease recurrences, higher financial costs were observed in surgically treated patients compared to the antibiotics-only group. Given the high success rates post-appendectomy for acute appendicitis over the decades, the efficacy of conservatively treated acute appendicitis raises a strong argument when choosing one of the two options. The efficacy remained consistently higher across the literature in the surgery group than in the antibiotics-only group. However, it is still arguable that antibiotics may be a preferable option given an efficacy rate of more than 70% at one year and overall higher complications associated with surgery. The argument of missing a neoplasm by avoiding surgery is valid. However, most are carcinoid neuroendocrine neoplasms with a low probability of metastasis (<5%) and are usually considered benign. Given the current practice focused on conservative and minimally invasive treatments and recently the COVID-19 pandemic, with its restrictions and lessons learnt, antibiotics may be the future standard for treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Lastly, we noticed higher efficacy rates in articles published recently than those published at least five to ten years earlier. Antibiotics-only therapy for uncomplicated appendicitis is cost-effective with fewer complications than surgery. However, appendectomies have higher efficacy. Thus, surgical treatment prevails as the standard of care. Future literature should yield larger sample sizes and explore the numbers of emergency appendectomies mandated following antibiotics-only therapy.

Emulating Target Trials With Real-World Data to Inform Health Technology Assessment: Findings and Lessons From an Application to Emergency Surgery

OBJECTIVES

International health technology assessment (HTA) agencies recommend that real-world data (RWD) are used in some circumstances to add to the evidence base about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health interventions. The target trial framework applies the design principles of randomized-controlled trials to RWD and can help alleviate inevitable concerns about bias and design flaws with nonrandomized studies. This article aimed to tackle the lack of guidance and exemplar applications on how this methodology can be applied to RWD to inform HTA decision making.

METHODS

We use Hospital Episode Statistics data from England on emergency hospital admissions from 2010 to 2019 to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of emergency surgery for 2 acute gastrointestinal conditions. We draw on the case study to describe the main challenges in applying the target trial framework alongside RWD and provide recommendations for how these can be addressed in practice.

RESULTS

The 4 main challenges when applying the target trial framework to RWD are (1) defining the study population, (2) defining the treatment strategies, (3) establishing time zero (baseline), and (4) adjusting for unmeasured confounding. The recommendations for how to address these challenges, mainly around the incorporation of expert judgment and use of appropriate methods for handling unmeasured confounding, are illustrated within the case study.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations outlined in this study could help future studies seeking to inform HTA decision processes. These recommendations can complement checklists for economic evaluations and design tools for estimating treatment effectiveness in nonrandomized studies.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of antibiotic treatment and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHODS

We searched the randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing appendectomy with antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in the electronic database including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang. The primary outcomes included complication-free treatment success at 1 year, complications, surgical complications, and the complicated appendicitis rates. Secondary outcomes included negative appendicitis, length of hospital stay, the quality of life at 1 month, and the impact of an appendicolith on antibiotic therapy.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled studies were included. Compared with surgery group, the antibiotic group decreased the complication-free treatment success at 1 year (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; z = 3.65; p = 0.000). Statistically significance was existed between antibiotic group and surgical group with both surgical types(open and laparoscopic) (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.31-0.58; z = 5.36; p = 0.000), while no between the antibiotic treatment and laparoscopic surgery (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.41-1.24; z = 1.19; p = 0.236). There was no statistically significant differences between two groups of surgical complications (RR 1.38; 95% CI 0.70-2.73; z = 0.93; p = 0.353), the complicated appendicitis rate (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.36-1.42; z = 0.96; p = 0.338), negative appendectomy rate (RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.69-1.79; z = 0.43; p = 0.670), duration of hospital stay (SMD 0.08; 95%CI -0.11-0.27; z = 0.80; p = 0.422), and quality of life at 1 month (SMD 0.09; 95%CI -0.03-0.20; z = 1.53; p = 0.127). However, in the antibiotic treatment group, appendicolith rates were statistically higher in those whose symptoms did not improve (RR 2.94; 95% CI 1.28-6.74; z = 2.55; p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the cure rate of antibiotics is lower than surgery, antibiotic treatment is still a reasonable option for patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis who do not want surgery without having to worry about complications or complicating the original illness.

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes.

METHODS

We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations.

RESULTS

The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Development and Feasibility Testing of a Decision Aid for Acute Appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

Patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be increasingly asked to choose between surgery and antibiotic management. We developed a novel decision aid for patients in the emergency department (ED) with acute appendicitis who are facing this choice. We describe the development of the decision aid and an initial feasibility study of its implementation in a busy tertiary care ED.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prepost survey analysis comparing patients before and after standardized implementation of the decision aid. Patients were surveyed about their experience making treatment decisions after discharge from the hospital. The primary outcome measure was the total score on the decisional conflict scale (; 0-100; lower scores better).

RESULTS

The study included 24 participants (12 in the predecision aid period; 12 in the post period). Only 33% of participants in each group knew antibiotics were a treatment option prior to arriving at the ED. Prior to implementing the use of decision aid, only 75% of patients reported being told antibiotics were a treatment option, while this increased to 100% after implementation of the decision aid. The mean total decisional conflict scalescores were similar in the pre and post periods (mean difference = 0.13, 95% CI: -13 - 13, P > 0.9).

CONCLUSIONS

This novel appendicitis decision aid was effectively integrated into clinical practice and helped toinform patients about multiple treatment options. These data support further large-scale testing of the decision aid as part of standardized pathways for the management of patients with acute appendicitis.

Typical and Atypical Presentations of Appendicitis and Their Implications for Diagnosis and Treatment: A Literature Review

Appendicitis, an acute inflammation of the appendix, affects all demographic groups and exhibits various incidences and clinical manifestations. While acute appendicitis typically presents with colicky periumbilical abdominal pain that localizes to the right lower quadrant, atypical presentations are more common in children, geriatric, and pregnant patient populations, leading to delays in diagnosis. Clinical evaluation, clinical scoring systems, and inflammatory markers are commonly used, but their limitations have led to the increased use of diagnostic imaging in patients suspected of appendicitis. Acute appendicitis is managed by non-operative and operative management, depending on whether it is uncomplicated or complicated. Developing diagnostic pathways to improve outcomes and reduce complications is crucial. Although medical advancements have been made, diagnosing and managing appendicitis can be challenging, mainly when patients are present atypically. This literature review aims to comprehensively review typical and atypical presentations of appendicitis and their current implications for diagnosis and treatment modalities in pediatric, adult, pregnant, and geriatric patient populations.

Factors associated with recurrent appendicitis after nonoperative management

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to identify predictors for recurrent appendicitis in patients with appendicitis previously treated nonoperatively.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of all adult patients with appendicitis treated at a tertiary care hospital. Patient demographics, radiographic information, management, and clinical outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was recurrent appendicitis within 6 months after discharge from the index admission. Given the competing risk of interval appendectomy, a time-to-event competing-risk analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 699 patients presenting with appendicitis, 74 were treated nonoperatively (35 [47%] were women; median [IQR] age, 48 [33,64] years), and 21 patients (29%) had recurrent appendicitis. On univariate and multivariate analysis, presence of an appendicolith on imaging was the only factor associated with a higher risk of recurrent appendicitis (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of appendicolith was associated with an increased risk of developing recurrent appendicitis within 6 months.

A Video-Based Consent Tool: Development and Effect of Risk-Benefit Framing on Intention to Randomize

INTRODUCTION

Nearly 75% of clinical trials fail to enroll enough participants, and cohorts often fail to reflect the clinical and demographic diversity of at-risk populations. Effective recruitment strategies are critically important for successful clinical trials. Framing treatment risks are known to affect medical decision-making for both physicians and patients but has not been rigorously studied in surgical trials. We sought to examine the impact of a high-quality video-based consent tool and the effect of risk-benefit framing on patient willingness to participate in a surgical clinical trial.

METHODS

A standardized video consent was shown to all potential participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, a randomized controlled trial comparing antibiotics and surgery for acute appendicitis. We report (1) differences in recruitment between two versions of a video-based tool that differed in production quality and (2) the impact of risk-benefit framing on participant randomization rates. The reasons for declining randomization were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 4697 eligible patients approached to participate in the CODA trial, 1535 (33% [95% confidence interval (CI): 31%-34%]) agreed to randomization; this did not change from video version 1 to version 2. There was no difference in participation between positively framed videos (32% [95% CI: 30%-34%]) versus negatively framed videos (33.0% [95% CI: 30.8-35.2]). The most common reason for declining participation was treatment preference (72% for surgery and 18% for antibiotics).

CONCLUSIONS

Neither the change from video 1 to video 2 nor the positive versus negative framing affected participant willingness to randomize. The stakeholder-informed video-based consenting tool used in CODA was an effective strategy for the recruitment of a heterogeneous patient population within the proposed study period.

Techniques for mesoappendix transection and appendix resection: insights from the ESTES SnapAppy study

INTRODUCTION

Surgically managed appendicitis exhibits great heterogeneity in techniques for mesoappendix transection and appendix amputation from its base. It is unclear whether a particular surgical technique provides outcome benefit or reduces complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We undertook a pre-specified subgroup analysis of all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at index admission during SnapAppy (ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT04365491). We collected routine, anonymized observational data regarding surgical technique, patient demographics and indices of disease severity, without change to clinical care pathway or usual surgeon preference. Outcome measures of interest were the incidence of complications, unplanned reoperation, readmission, admission to the ICU, death, hospital length of stay, and procedure duration. We used Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to calculate incident rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Three-thousand seven hundred sixty-eight consecutive adult patients, included from 71 centers in 14 countries, were followed up from date of admission for 90 days. The mesoappendix was divided hemostatically using electrocautery in 1564(69.4%) and an energy device in 688(30.5%). The appendix was amputated by division of its base between looped ligatures in 1379(37.0%), with a stapler in 1421(38.1%) and between clips in 929(24.9%). The technique for securely dividing the appendix at its base in acutely inflamed (AAST Grade 1) appendicitis was equally divided between division between looped ligatures, clips and stapled transection. However, the technique used differed in complicated appendicitis (AAST Grade 2 +) compared with uncomplicated (Grade 1), with a shift toward transection of the appendix base by stapler (58% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). While no statistical difference in outcomes could be detected between different techniques for division of appendix base, decreased risk of any [adjusted IRR (95% CI): 0.58 (0.41-0.82), p = 0.002] and severe [adjusted IRR (95% CI): 0.33 (0.11-0.96), p = 0.045] complications could be detected when using energy devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Safe mesoappendix transection and appendix resection are accomplished using heterogeneous techniques. Technique selection for both mesoappendix transection and appendix resection correlates with AAST grade. Higher grade led to more ultrasonic tissue transection and stapled appendix resection. Higher AAST appendicitis grade also correlated with infection-related complication occurrence. Despite the overall well-tolerated heterogeneity of approaches to acute appendicitis, increasing disease acuity or complexity appears to encourage homogeneity of intraoperative surgical technique toward advanced adjuncts.

Outpatient management of acute uncomplicated appendicitis after laparoscopic appendectomy: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To confirm the safety and efficacy of outpatient management of laparoscopic appendectomy, with an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol, in adult patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy is feasible and secure in selected patients in observational studies. The benefits include reduced length of stay (LOS) and postoperative complications. This is the first randomized controlled trial of outpatient management following ERAS protocol.

METHODS

Patients admitted from the emergency department with acute appendicitis were randomized into one of two groups: standard care within the hospital (HG) or the outpatient group (OG). An ERAS protocol was followed for both groups. Patients in the HG were admitted to the surgical ward. Patients in the OG were referred to the day-surgery unit. The primary endpoint was the length of stay.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients were included: 49 in the OG and 48 in the HG. LOS was significantly shorter in the OG (mean 8.82 h) than in the HG (mean 43.53 h), p < 0.001. There was no difference in readmission rates (p = 0.320); we observed only one readmission in the OG. No further emergency consultations or complications were observed. The cost saving was $516.52/patient as a result of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient management of appendectomy is safe and feasible procedure in selected patients. This approach could become the standard of care for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, showing fewer complications, lower LOS and cost.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov (NCT05401188) Clinical Trial ID: NCT05401188.

Comparación de la seguridad y la eficacia del uso de antibióticos frente a la apendicectomía en el tratamiento de la apendicitis no complicada en adultos. Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis

Introducción. La apendicitis aguda es una emergencia quirúrgica frecuente, en la cual el tratamiento de tipo conservador basado en antibióticos se ha identificado como una opción terapéutica que necesita seguir siendo estudiada. El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar las diferencias en seguridad y eficacia del uso de antibióticos en comparación con la apendicectomía en adultos con apendicitis no complicada. Métodos. Revisión sistemática y metaanálisis. Se encontraron 452 estudios; después de una selección, 45 se evaluaron en texto completo y 15 para calidad metodológica; 11 estudios fueron seleccionados y 9 incluidos en el metaanálisis. Resultados. Se contó con 3186 participantes, de los cuales 1512 fueron tratados con terapia antibiótica y 1674 sometidos a apendicectomía. Se identificó estancia hospitalaria más corta en los pacientes sometidos a apendicectomía (SMD: 0,28; IC95%: 0,14 a 0,41). Para los pacientes tratados con terapia antibiótica, se evidenció puntajes de riesgo menores en las escalas de diagnóstico de apendicitis (SMD: -0,13; IC95%: -0,22 a -0,04), menor éxito terapéutico en un 16 % (RR: 0,84; IC95%: 0,77 a 0,92) y reducción del riesgo de complicaciones del 63 % (RR: 0,37; IC95%: 0,25 a 0,53). Se encontró alta heterogeneidad y riesgo de sesgo de publicación. Conclusiones. La terapia antibiótica necesita mayor evidencia para desenlaces como calidad de vida, satisfacción, dolor, o complicaciones específicas, entre otros, que permitan hacer comparaciones más contundentes. Los pacientes que consideren el manejo conservador necesitan ser adecuadamente asesorados y monitorizados para optimizar sus posibilidades de resultados favorables y la oportuna identificación de complicaciones que necesiten de otros abordajes.

Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy using a needle-type grasping forceps compared with conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis: a single-center retrospective study

Objective

To compare the clinical outcomes between single-port laparoscopic appendectomy using a needle-type grasping forceps (SLAN) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis.

Methods

We retrospectively collected clinical data of patients with uncomplicated appendicitis who underwent SLAN or CLA from May 2019 to May 2021 in our center. The patients’ baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up data were compared between the two groups. Additionally, baseline characteristics were compared with postoperative outcomes in the SLAN group.

Results

Ninety-six patients were enrolled (SLAN group, n = 32; CLA group, n = 64). The SLAN group had a shorter hospital stay, lower 24-hour postoperative visual analogue scale scores, shorter postoperative fasting time, lower frequency of antibiotic administration, and longer operative time than the CLA group. In the SLAN group, younger patients had a longer appendix and male patients had a thicker appendix; additionally, patients with an appendiceal diameter of 0.6 to 1.0 cm had a longer postoperative hospital stay and higher frequency of antibiotic administration.

Conclusions

Compared with CLA, SLAN may be less invasive, provide faster postoperative recovery, and result in better cosmesis for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. Further research should be performed to evaluate the long-term outcomes.

Nonoperative vs Operative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Appendectomy remains the standard of care for uncomplicated acute appendicitis despite several randomized clinical trials pointing to the safety and efficacy of nonoperative management of this disease. A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials may contribute to the body of evidence and help surgeons select which patients may benefit from surgical and nonsurgical treatment.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of nonoperative management vs appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis.

Data Sources

A systematic review was conducted using indexed sources (Embase and PubMed) to search for published randomized clinical trials in English comparing nonoperative management with appendectomy in adult patients presenting with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. To increase sensitivity, no limits were set for outcomes reported, sex, or year of publication. All nonrandomized or quasi-randomized trials were excluded, and validated primers were used.

Study Selection

Among 1504 studies imported for screening, 805 were duplicates, and 595 were excluded for irrelevancy. A further 96 were excluded after full-text review, mainly owing to wrong study design or inclusion of pediatric populations. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the meta-analysis.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Meta-extraction was conducted with independent extraction by multiple reviewers using the Covidence platform for systematic reviews and in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Data were pooled by a random-effects model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Treatment success and major adverse effects at 30 days' follow-up.

Results

The main outcome (treatment success proportion at 30 days of follow-up) was not significantly different in the operative and nonoperative management cohorts (risk ratio [RR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.66-1.11). Likewise, the percentage of major adverse effects was similar in both cohorts (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.29-1.79). However, in the nonoperative management group, length of stay was significantly longer (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.26-1.70), and a median cumulative incidence of 18% of recurrent appendicitis was observed.

Conclusions and Relevance

These results point to the general safety and efficacy of nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. However, this strategy may be associated with an increase in duration of hospital stay and a higher rate of recurrent appendicitis. This meta-analysis may help inform decision-making in nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Defining the optimal time to appendectomy: A step toward precision surgery

BACKGROUND

We aimed to investigate the association between time from admission to appendectomy on perioperative outcomes in order to determine optimal time-to-surgery windows.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all the appendectomies performed between July 2018 to May 2020. We first compared the perioperative outcomes using preselected time-to-surgery cut-offs, then determined optimal safe windows for surgery, and finally identified subgroups of patients who may require early intervention.

RESULTS

Six hundred twenty-one appendectomies were performed in the time period. The patients with a time-to-surgery of ≥12 hours had a significantly longer length of stay (median 2 days [interquartile range 1-3] vs 3 days [interquartile range 2-4], mean difference = 0.74 [95% confidence interval 0.32-1.17, P = .0006]) and higher 30-day readmission risk (odds ratio 2.58, 95% confidence interval 1.12-5.96, P = .0266) versus those with a time-to-surgery of <12 hours. These differences persisted when the time-to-surgery was dichotomized by <24 or ≥24 hours. A time-to-surgery beyond 25 hours was associated with a 3.34-fold increased odds of open conversion (P = .040), longer operation time (mean difference 15.8 mins, 95% confidence interval 3.4-28.3, P = .013) and longer postoperative length of stay (mean difference 10.3 hours, 95% confidence interval 3.4-20.2, P = .042) versus a time-to-surgery of <25 hours. The patients with time-to-surgery beyond 11 hours had a 1.35-fold increased odds of 30-day readmission (95% confidence interval 1.02-5.43, P = .046) compared with those who underwent appendectomy before 11 hours. Older patients, patients with American Society of Anesthesiologist score II to III, and individuals with long duration of preadmission symptoms had higher risk of prolonged operation time, open conversion, increased length of stay, and postoperative morbidity with increasing time-to-surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study identified the safe windows for appendectomy to be 11 to 25 hours from admission for most perioperative outcomes. However, certain patient subgroups may be less tolerant of surgical delays.

Comparing Outcomes of Appendectomy Versus Non-operative Antibiotic Therapy for Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common etiologies of an acute abdomen in the emergency department and first-line standard surgical care for the condition has recently been reconsidered. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and outcomes of surgical intervention versus non-operative antibiotic therapy in the treatment of acute appendicitis in adult and pediatric patients.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE. The search included all studies until January 15th, 2022. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Data were independently extracted by the authors of the study. Meta-analysis was performed and Cohen's Q test for heterogeneous effects was performed to determine if fixed or random-effects models were appropriate for use.

RESULTS

Twelve randomized controlled trials investigating a total of 3703 acute appendicitis patients met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. In the systematic review, eleven RCTs demonstrated that appendectomy had improved effectiveness compared to non-operative antibiotic management. The meta-analysis demonstrated that patients undergoing appendectomy had significantly higher treatment effectiveness compared with antibiotics-only treatment (98.4% vs. 73.3%, P < .0001). The meta-analysis did demonstrate a significant .54-day reduction in hospital length of stay for the appendectomy group compared to the non-operative antibiotic therapy group.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical intervention is associated with increased effectiveness of treatment and reduced in-hospital length of stay among patients with acute appendicitis. Guidelines established by institutions and surgical organizations should indicate appendectomy as the standard and superior treatment option for patients presenting with acute appendicitis.

Randomized clinical trials comparing antibiotic therapy with appendicectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This aim of this study was to provide an updated meta-analysis comparing antibiotic therapy with appendicectomy in adults (16 years or older) with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A search for randomized clinical trials comparing antibiotic therapy with appendicectomy in adults with uncomplicated acute appendicitis from inception to 3 October 2021 in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL with no language constraints was performed. Studies were excluded if they included paediatric participants or those with complicated appendicitis. Data on complications of treatment, treatment efficacy (defined in the antibiotic group as not undergoing appendicectomy within 1 year of enrolment, versus surgery without complications or no negative histology in the appendicectomy group), readmissions, and length of stay (LOS) were presented.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 3203 participants (1613 antibiotics/1590 appendicectomy; 2041 males/1162 females) were included. There was no significant benefit of antibiotic treatment on complication rates (risk ratio (RR) 0.66, 95 per cent c.i. 0.41 to 1.04). Antibiotics had a reduced treatment efficacy compared with appendicectomy (RR 0.75, 95 per cent c.i. 0.63 to 0.89). Antibiotic treatment at 1 year was successful in 1016 of 1613 (62.9 per cent) participants. There was a six-fold increase in hospital readmissions within 1 year of enrolment in participants receiving antibiotic treatment (RR 6.28, 95 per cent c.i. 2.87 to 13.74). There was no difference in index admission LOS (mean difference 0.15 days (95 per cent c.i. -0.05 to 0.35)).

CONCLUSIONS

Earlier optimism regarding the benefits of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis does not persist at the same level now that further, large trials have been included. If antibiotic treatment is to be offered routinely as first-line therapy, patients should be counselled appropriately.

Surgical Site Infection Following Single-Port Appendectomy: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are one of the most common postoperative complications after appendectomy leading to recurrent surgery, prolonged hospital stay, and the use of antibiotics. Numerous studies and meta-analyses have been published on the effect of open versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) reporting faster postoperative recovery and less postoperative pain for CLA. A development from CLA has been the single-port appendectomy (SPA), associated with a better cosmesis but seemingly having a higher risk of wound infections. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to investigate whether reduced port or SPA alters the ratio of SSIs.

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were screened for suitable articles. All articles published between January 1, 2002, and March 23, 2022, were included. Articles regarding children below the age of 18 were excluded as well as manuscripts that investigated solemnly open appendectomies. Articles were screened for inclusion criteria by two independent authors. Incidence of SSI was the primary outcome. Duration of operation and length of hospital stay were defined as secondary outcomes.

Results

A total of 25 studies were found through a database search describing 5484 patients. A total of 2749 patients received SPA and 2735 received CLA. There was no statistical difference in the rate of SSI (P = 0.98). A total of 22 studies including 4699 patients reported the duration of operation (2223 SPA and 2476 CLA). There was a significantly shorter operation time seen in CLA. The length of hospital stay was reported in 23 studies (4735 patients: 2235 SPA and 2500 CLA). A shorter hospital stay was seen in the SPA group (P &lt; 0.00001). Separately performed analysis of randomized controlled trials could not confirm this effect (P = 0.29).

Discussion

SPA is an equally safe procedure considering SSI compared to CLA and does not lead to an increased risk of SSI. A longer operation time for SPA and a minor difference in the length of stay does lead to the use of SPA in selected patients only.

Appendectomy versus nonoperative management of simple appendicitis: A post hoc analysis of an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study using a hierarchical ordinal scale

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists about the preferred initial treatment of appendicitis. We sought to compare the two treatments for initial management of simple appendicitis.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis of the Multicenter Study for the Treatment of Appendicitis in America: Acute, Perforated, and Gangrenous database, subjects were divided into appendectomy or nonoperative management (NOM; antibiotics only or percutaneous drainage) cohorts. A novel topic-specific hierarchical ordinal scale was created with eight mutually exclusive categories: mortality, reoperation, other secondary interventions, readmission, emergency department visit, wound complication, surgical site infection, and no complication. Pairwise comparisons of American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Imaging Severity Grade 1 (simple appendicitis) patients were compared using win-lose-tie scoring and the sums of appendectomy/NOM groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total 3,591 subjects were included: 3,262 appendectomy and 329 NOM, with significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Across 28 sites, the rate of NOM ranged from 0% to 48%, and the loss to follow-up rate was significantly higher for NOM compared with appendectomy (16.5% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.024). In the simple appendicitis hierarchical ordinal scale analysis, 2,319 subjects resulted in 8,714,304 pairwise comparisons; 75% of comparisons resulted in ties. The median (interquartile range) sums for the two groups are as follows: surgical, 400 (400-400), and NOM, 400 (-2,427 to 400) (p < 0.001). A larger proportion of appendectomy subjects (88.1%) had an outcome that was equivalent (or better) than at least half of the subjects compared with NOM subjects (NOM, 70.5%; OR [95% confidence interval], 0.3 [0.2-0.4]).

CONCLUSION

In contemporary American practice, appendectomy (compared with NOM) for simple appendicitis is associated with lower odds of developing clinically important unfavorable outcomes in the first year after illness.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Local Instrumental Variable Methods to Address Confounding and Heterogeneity when Using Electronic Health Records: An Application to Emergency Surgery

Background

Electronic health records (EHRs) offer opportunities for comparative effectiveness research to inform decision making. However, to provide useful evidence, these studies must address confounding and treatment effect heterogeneity according to unmeasured prognostic factors. Local instrumental variable (LIV) methods can help studies address these challenges, but have yet to be applied to EHR data. This article critically examines a LIV approach to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of emergency surgery (ES) for common acute conditions from EHRs.

Methods

This article uses hospital episodes statistics (HES) data for emergency hospital admissions with acute appendicitis, diverticular disease, and abdominal wall hernia to 175 acute hospitals in England from 2010 to 2019. For each emergency admission, the instrumental variable for ES receipt was each hospital’s ES rate in the year preceding the emergency admission. The LIV approach provided individual-level estimates of the incremental quality-adjusted life-years, costs and net monetary benefit of ES, which were aggregated to the overall population and subpopulations of interest, and contrasted with those from traditional IV and risk-adjustment approaches.

Results

The study included 268,144 (appendicitis), 138,869 (diverticular disease), and 106,432 (hernia) patients. The instrument was found to be strong and to minimize covariate imbalance. For diverticular disease, the results differed by method; although the traditional approaches reported that, overall, ES was not cost-effective, the LIV approach reported that ES was cost-effective but with wide statistical uncertainty. For all 3 conditions, the LIV approach found heterogeneity in the cost-effectiveness estimates across population subgroups: in particular, ES was not cost-effective for patients with severe levels of frailty.

Conclusions

EHRs can be combined with LIV methods to provide evidence on the cost-effectiveness of routinely provided interventions, while fully recognizing heterogeneity.

Highlights

Effectiveness of emergency surgery for five common acute conditions: an instrumental variable analysis of a national routine database

The effectiveness of emergency surgery vs. non-emergency surgery strategies for emergency admissions with acute appendicitis, gallstone disease, diverticular disease, abdominal wall hernia or intestinal obstruction is unknown. Data on emergency admissions for adult patients from 2010 to 2019 at 175 acute National Health Service hospitals in England were extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. Cohort sizes were: 268,144 (appendicitis); 240,977 (gallstone disease); 138,869 (diverticular disease); 106,432 (hernia); and 133,073 (intestinal obstruction). The primary outcome was number of days alive and out of hospital at 90 days. The effectiveness of emergency surgery vs. non-emergency surgery strategies was estimated using an instrumental variable design and is reported for the cohort and pre-specified sub-groups (age, sex, number of comorbidities and frailty level). Average days alive and out of hospital at 90 days for all five cohorts were similar, with the following mean differences (95%CI) for emergency surgery minus non-emergency surgery after adjusting for confounding: -0.73 days (-2.10-0.64) for appendicitis; 0.60 (-0.10-1.30) for gallstone disease; -2.66 (-15.7-10.4) for diverticular disease; -0.07 (-2.40-2.25) for hernia; and 3.32 (-3.13-9.76) for intestinal obstruction. For patients with 'severe frailty', mean differences (95%CI) in days alive and out of hospital for emergency surgery were lower than for non-emergency surgery strategies: -21.0 (-27.4 to -14.6) for appendicitis; -5.72 (-11.3 to -0.2) for gallstone disease, -38.9 (-63.3 to -14.6) for diverticular disease; -19.5 (-26.6 to -12.3) for hernia; and - 34.5 (-46.7 to -22.4) for intestinal obstruction. For patients without frailty, the mean differences (95%CI) in days alive and out of hospital were: -0.18 (-1.56-1.20) for appendicitis; 0.93 (0.48-1.39) for gallstone disease; 5.35 (-2.56-13.28) for diverticular disease; 2.26 (0.37-4.15) for hernia; and 18.2 (14.8-22.47) for intestinal obstruction. Emergency surgery and non-emergency surgery strategies led to similar average days alive and out of hospital at 90 days for five acute conditions. The comparative effectiveness of emergency surgery and non-emergency surgery strategies for these conditions may be modified by patient factors.

Temporal Trends in the Investigation, Management and Outcomes of Acute Appendicitis over 15 Years in the North of England: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is a common surgical emergency with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 8.6% for males and 6.7% for females. Despite the frequency of presentation, considerable variation in clinical practice exists. Our study aimed to explore temporal trends in the investigation, treatment and outcomes for patients with appendicitis between 2002 and 2016.

METHODS

Data collected included all patients aged ≥16 years across the NHS trusts in Northern England between 01/01/2002 and 31/12/2016 diagnosed with appendicitis. Patient demographics, co-morbidity and management strategies were included. Outcomes of interest were length of stay and inpatient mortality.

RESULTS

Over a 15 years period, 22,137 patients were admitted with acute appendicitis. A consistent male preponderance (n = 11,952, 54%) was observed, and median age increased over time (2002-2006: 36.4 vs. 2012-2016: 39.5, p < 0.001). Comorbidity of patients also increased (p < 0.001) in recent years. Computed tomography (CT) use increased from 0.8 to 21.9% (p < 0.001) over the study period. Following CT scanning, there was a longer time to theatre (1.22 vs. 0.70 days, p < 0.001), and patients were more frequently managed non-operatively (23.8% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.001). The utilisation of laparoscopic approaches significantly increased from 4.1 to 70.4% (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic patients had a shorter median length of stay (2.97 days) when compared with open surgery (4.44 days) or non-operative (6.19 days) patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 0.33% overall and decreased with time (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

CT and laparoscopic surgery are increasingly utilised in the management of appendicitis. Along with other advances in clinical practice, they have led to reduced lengths of stay and mortality.

Optimising diagnostics to discriminate complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis: a prospective cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Growing evidence is showing that complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis are two different entities that may be treated differently. A correct diagnosis of the type of appendicitis is therefore essential. The Scoring system of Appendicitis Severity (SAS) combines clinical, laboratory and imaging findings. The SAS rules out complicated appendicitis in 95% (negative predictive value, NPV) and detects 95% (sensitivity) of patients with complicated appendicitis in adults suspected of acute appendicitis. However, this scoring system has not yet been validated externally. In this study, we aim to provide a prospective external validation of the SAS in a new cohort of patients with clinical suspicion of appendicitis. We will optimise the score when necessary.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The SAS will be validated in 795 consecutive adult patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis confirmed by imaging. Data will be collected prospectively in multiple centres. The predicted diagnosis based on the SAS score will be compared with the combined surgical and histological diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy for ruling out complicated appendicitis will be calculated. If the SAS does not reach a sensitivity and NPV of 95% in its present form, the score will be optimised. After optimisation, a second external validation will be performed in a new group of 328 patients. Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical perspective of the treating physician for differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and the patient's preferences for different treatment options will be assessed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was granted by the Amsterdam UMC Medical Ethics Committee (reference W19_416 # 19.483). Because of the observational nature of this study, the study does not fall under the scope of the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals. This protocol is submitted for publication before analysis of the results.

From the Base of the Cecum to the Throne of England: King Edward VII’s Appendix

This historical retrospective explores the case of King Edward VII’s appendicitis at the time of his planned coronation in 1902, as well as the contributions of the king’s surgeons Frederick Treves and Joseph Lister, towards his medical care. The history of appendicitis, as well as a view of the king’s medical management in the lens of modern surgical and sociopolitical contexts, is also examined.

OUP accepted manuscript

BACKGROUND

Non-operative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis is an option, but omission of antibiotics from the regimen has not been tested.

METHODS

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, superiority RCT in adults with CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis was designed to compare placebo with antibiotics (intravenous ertapenem followed by oral levofloxacin and metronidazole). The primary endpoint was treatment success (resolution resulting in discharge without appendicectomy within 10 days); secondary outcomes included pain scores, complications, hospital stay, and return to work.

RESULTS

From May 2017 to September 2020, 72 patients with a mean(s.d.) age of 37.5 (11.1) years were recruited at five hospitals. Six were excluded after randomization (5 early consent withdrawals, 1 randomization protocol violation), 35 were assigned to receive antibiotics, and 31 to receive placebo. Enrolment challenges (including hospital pharmacy resources in an acute-care surgery setting) meant that only the lowest sample size of three predefined scenarios was achieved. The 10-day treatment success rate was 87 (95 per cent c.i. 75 to 99) per cent for placebo and 97 (92 to 100) per cent for antibiotics. This clinical difference of 10 (90 per cent c.i. -0.9 to 21) per cent was not statistically different for the primary outcome (1-sided P = 0.142), and secondary outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSION

The lack of antibiotic superiority statistically suggests that a non-inferiority trial against placebo is warranted in adults with CT-confirmed mild appendicitis. Registration number: EudraCT 2015-003634-26 (https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/eudract-web/index.faces), NCT03234296 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Diagnosis and Management of Acute Appendicitis in Adults: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Acute appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency in the world, with an annual incidence of 96.5 to 100 cases per 100 000 adults.

OBSERVATIONS

The clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis is based on history and physical, laboratory evaluation, and imaging. Classic symptoms of appendicitis include vague periumbilical pain, anorexia/nausea/intermittent vomiting, migration of pain to the right lower quadrant, and low-grade fever. The diagnosis of acute appendicitis is made in approximately 90% of patients presenting with these symptoms. Laparoscopic appendectomy remains the most common treatment. However, increasing evidence suggests that broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as piperacillin-tazobactam monotherapy or combination therapy with either cephalosporins or fluroquinolones with metronidazole, successfully treats uncomplicated acute appendicitis in approximately 70% of patients. Specific imaging findings on computed tomography (CT), such as appendiceal dilatation (appendiceal diameter ≥7 mm), or presence of appendicoliths, defined as the conglomeration of feces in the appendiceal lumen, identify patients for whom an antibiotics-first management strategy is more likely to fail. CT findings of appendicolith, mass effect, and a dilated appendix greater than 13 mm are associated with higher risk of treatment failure (≈40%) of an antibiotics-first approach. Therefore, surgical management should be recommended in patients with CT findings of appendicolith, mass effect, or a dilated appendix who are fit for surgery, defined as having relatively low risk of adverse outcomes or postoperative mortality and morbidity. In patients without high-risk CT findings, either appendectomy or antibiotics can be considered as first-line therapy. In unfit patients without these high-risk CT findings, the antibiotics-first approach is recommended, and surgery may be considered if antibiotic treatment fails. In unfit patients with high-risk CT findings, perioperative risk assessment as well as patient preferences should be considered.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Acute appendicitis affects 96.5 to 100 people per 100 000 adults per year worldwide. Appendectomy remains first-line therapy for acute appendicitis, but treatment with antibiotics rather than surgery is appropriate in selected patients with uncomplicated appendicitis.

Acute appendicitis–advances and controversies

Being one of the most common causes of the acute abdomen, acute appendicitis (AA) forms the bread and butter of any general surgeon’s practice. With the recent advancements in AA’s management, much controversy in diagnostic algorithms, possible differential diagnoses, and weighing the management options has been generated, with no absolute consensus in the literature. Since Alvarado described his eponymous clinical scoring system in 1986 to stratify AA risk, there has been a burgeoning of additional scores for guiding downstream management and mortality assessment. Furthermore, advancing literature on the role of antibiotics, variations in appendicectomy, and its adjuncts have expanded the surgeon’s repertoire of management options. Owing to the varied presentation, diagnostic tools, and management of AA have also been proposed in special groups such as pregnant patients, the elderly, and the immunocompromised. This article seeks to raise the critical debates about what is currently known about the above aspects of AA and explore the latest controversies in the field. Considering the ever-evolving coronavirus disease 2019 situation worldwide, we also discuss the pandemic’s repercussions on patients and how surgeons’ practices have evolved in the context of AA.