Background Appendicitis is a common surgical emergency with a global incidence rate of approximately 8%, necessitating prompt intervention to prevent complications. Appendectomy, either through open surgery or laparoscopy, is the standard treatment. Understanding the factors contributing to post-appendectomy complications is crucial for improving patient outcomes. Aim This retrospective study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of various surgical approaches for appendicitis in Taif City, Saudi Arabia, specifically at King Abdulaziz Specialist Hospital. Methodology A total of 220 patients who underwent appendectomy in 2022 were included in the study. Data were obtained from medical files, and statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (Released 2019; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were utilized, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Results The majority of patients fell within the 20-39 age group (n = 124, 56.4%), and males constituted 63% (n = 140) of the cohort. Mean complications post-surgery were observed in 5.5% (n = 12) of cases, with surgical site infection being the most common complication (n = 9, 75%). Patients with complicated appendicitis had a significantly higher rate of surgical complications (n = 8, 44.4%) compared to those without complicated appendicitis (n = 4, 2%, p = 0.000). Longer hospital stays were associated with a higher incidence of complications (p = 0.008). The American Society of Anesthesiologists classification showed a significant association with complications (p = 0.000). Conclusions Our study underscores the importance of early diagnosis, appropriate surgical management, and infection prevention strategies in reducing post-appendectomy complications. Factors such as complicated appendicitis, longer hospital stays, and higher ASA classification were associated with increased complication rates.

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.

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

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

Appendectomy is the most frequent and urgent gastrointestinal surgery. Overtime, the surgical techniques have been improved upon, in order to reduce complications, get better cosmetic results, and limit the discomfort associated with this procedure, by its high impact in the surgery departments. The traditional skin closure is associated with a poor cosmetic result and it requires stitches removal, alongside the pain associated with this procedure, and no benefits were demonstrated in the literature regarding separated stitches over intradermic stitch. This is a randomized controlled trial, and our objective is to compare two different skin closure techniques in open appendectomy.

A prospective randomized trial method was used, with a total number of 208 patients participating in the study, after acute appendicitis diagnosis in the emergency department. They were randomized into two groups: patients who would receive skin closure with a unique absorbable intradermic stitch (Group A) and another group that would receive the traditional closure technique, consistent in non-absorbable separated stitches (Group B). General characteristics like gender, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), comorbidities, and allergies were registered. Days of Evolution (DOE) until surgery, previous use of antibiotics, complicated or uncomplicated appendicitis, surgical time, and wound complications like skin infection, dehiscence, seroma or abscess were also registered in each case.

8 patients were excluded due to negative appendicitis during surgery and lack of follow-up. Two groups, each containing 100 patients, were formed. General characteristics and parity were compared, and no statistically significant differences were observed. Difference in the surgical time (Group A: 47.35 min vs Group B: 54.13 min, p < .001) and cases with complicated appendicitis (Group A: 58 and Group B:38, p = .005) were found to be statistically significant. Four wound complications were reported, and the incidence of seroma (Group A:0 and Group B:5, p = .02) and abscess (Group A:2 and Group B:8, p = .05) were found to have some statistical significant difference. In a multivariate analysis, a relationship was observed between BMI > 25 kg/m² and seroma (p = .006), BMI > 25 kg/m² and abscess (p = .02), surgical time >50 min and seroma (p < .001), >2 DOE and abscess (p = .001), and complicated appendicitis with seroma development (p = .03).

Open appendectomy skin closure with a unique absorbable intradermic stitch is safe, with a reduced seroma and abscess incidence, compared to traditional closure, and an equivalent dehiscence and superficial infection incidence, allowing a lower hospital attention cost and length of hospital stay for treatment of complications. The relative risk of complications with traditional skin closure is 2.91 higher, compared to this new technique.

The optimal treatment for appendiceal mass formed after appendiceal rupture due to acute appendicitis is surrounded with controversy. The treatment strategy ranges from open surgery (emergency or interval appendectomy), laparoscopic appendectomy, and image-guided drainage, to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics. Nonsurgical treatment (including conservative and drainage treatment), followed by interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence, is the traditional management of these patients. The need for interval appendectomy after a successful conservative or/and image-guided drainage treatment, has recently been questioned as the risk of recurrence is relatively small. Several authors consider that even in cases involving only ambulatory follow-up observation, without interval surgery after conservative management, the recurrence rate and risks of missing underlying pathologies were not high. This article evaluates the minimally invasive treatment modalities in the management of appendiceal mass, risk of undetected serious disease, and the need for interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence.

The evidence for treatment decision-making in emergency general surgery has not been summarized previously. The aim of this overview was to review the quantity and quality of systematic review evidence for the most common emergency surgical conditions.

Systematic reviews of the most common conditions requiring unplanned admission and treatment managed by general surgeons were eligible for inclusion. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases were searched to April 2014. The number and type (randomized or non-randomized) of included studies and patients were extracted and summarized. The total number of unique studies was recorded for each condition. The nature of the interventions (surgical, non-surgical invasive or non-invasive) was documented. The quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist.

The 106 included reviews focused mainly on bowel conditions (42), appendicitis (40) and gallstone disease (17). Fifty-one (48·1 per cent) included RCTs alone, 79 (74·5 per cent) included at least one RCT and 25 (23·6 per cent) summarized non-randomized evidence alone. Reviews included 727 unique studies, of which 30·3 per cent were RCTs. Sixty-five reviews compared different types of surgical intervention and 27 summarized trials of surgical versus non-surgical interventions. Fifty-seven reviews (53·8 per cent) were rated as low risk of bias.

This overview of reviews highlights the need for more and better research in this field.

Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis.

México is the second place in overweight and obese adults. Acute appendicitis (AA), is the most common indication for an emergency surgery around the world, with an estimated lifetime incidence of 7-14%. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been described as a safe and good surgery approach for this group of patients. Nevertheless, in México, there is not any evidence supporting these outcomes in our population.

All the patients that came to the ER from July to December 2014 with age >16-year, body mass index (BMI) > 25 kg/m(2) (overweight) and, BMI >30 kg/m(2) (obese) were included in the study. We recorded the age, gender, BMI, grade of appendicitis, complications classified by the Clavien-Dindo Classification, and a follow-up period of 7-day, 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year.

27 patients met the inclusion criteria, five had overweight (18.5%), and twenty-two were obese (81.5%). No surgical conversion was needed. The overall complications rate was 29.6%%, with 22.2% mild complications and 7.4% of moderate complication. The average in-hospital cost for the procedure was $15,860 MXN (range $12,860-$22,860 MXN). The surgical time was ≈53.7 ± 19.93 h and the LOS ≈1.6 ± 0.6 days.

The outcomes in the Mexican adult obese population with acute appendicitis when a laparoscopic appendectomy is performed are as good as reported in other countries.

Obese patients with general surgical emergencies provide unique challenges to the emergency surgical teams. Acute appendicitis is the most common adult acute surgical emergency encountered in practice. This systematic review evaluates the role of laparoscopic appendicectomy in obese by comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic appendicectomy in obese versus non-obese and the laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy in obese patients.

Relevant comparative studies were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed (1990-2013). Primary outcomes evaluated were mortality, overall morbidity and duration of surgery. Secondary outcomes evaluated were superficial (superficial wound infection) and deep surgical site infection (intra-abdominal abscesses), conversion to open surgery, and cost of the procedure.

Seven retrospective cohort studies and one prospective randomized controlled trial met the inclusion criteria. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary and secondary outcomes between the obese and non-obese patients undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy in obese patients is associated with reduced mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.19 (95% CI 0.12-0.30), reduced overall morbidity (RR: 0.49 (95% CI: 0.47-0.51)), reduced superficial wound infections (RR: 0.27 (95% CI 0.21-0.35)), shorter operating times and post-operative length of hospital stay, compared to open appendicectomy. Methodological quality of the included studies is low.

Laparoscopic appendicectomy appears to be a safer alternative approach to open surgery in obese adult patents. There is no significant difference in the outcomes between the obese and non-obese patients undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the effect of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) compared to open appendectomy (OA) on short-term and long-term post-operative bowel obstruction.

Medline, Embase, trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists were searched. Subset analysis was performed for paediatric patients, patients who presented with perforated appendicitis and studies with long-term follow-up and surveillance for bowel obstruction and with surgery for bowel obstruction.

Overall, 29 studies comprising 159,729 patients (60,875 LA versus 98,854 OA) were included. LA was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of post-operative bowel obstruction in the general population (pooled odds ratio (POR) = 0.43 [95 %C.I. 0.3-0.63]). Subset analysis demonstrated that LA significantly reduced the incidence of post-operative bowel obstruction in paediatric patients (POR = 0.48 [95 %C.I. 0.3-0.78]) and patients with perforated appendicitis (POR = 0.44 [95 %C.I. 0.26-0.74]). Furthermore, LA was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of long-term bowel obstruction (POR = 0.33 [95 %C.I. 0.19-0.56]) and bowel obstruction requiring surgery (POR = 0.31 [95 %C.I. 0.2-0.48]).

This present meta-analysis provides evidence to clearly demonstrate the benefits of a laparoscopic approach to appendectomy as reflected by a reduction in short- and long-term adhesive bowel obstruction. Important future areas for assessment include the influence of surgical approach on long-term quality of life following appendectomy.

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

In the past decade there has been an exponential increase in the use of Computerised Tomography (CT) imaging in the assessment of patients with acute appendicitis. The aim of this study was to compare management approaches and clinical outcomes of acute appendicitis in Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom.

Data was collected prospectively from 400 patients referred to the General Surgical department with a differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis, 200 at University Kelaniya Sri Lanka (SL group), and 200 at University College London Hospital (UK group).

The groups were similar with respect to gender, but the SL group was younger. Preoperative work-up included ultrasound more commonly in SL patients, and CT more commonly in UK patients. More patients underwent appendicectomy in the SL group, however a laparoscopic approach was utilised more often in the UK group (50.5% vs. 11.9%). Post-operative complications were similarly represented in both groups, but re-admission occurred with greater frequency in the UK group (16.2% vs. 0%). Histologically confirmed appendicitis was seen in a significantly greater proportion of SL patients (93.1% vs. 79.8%). Multivariate analysis confirmed male gender, and diagnosis and treatment in Sri Lanka to be only factors significantly associated with positive appendicitis.

Expensive investigations such as CT do not appear to improve the diagnostic accuracy of appendicitis or prevent complications. This study suggests diagnostic and treatment algorithms in the SL hospital are more accurate and efficient in confirming appendicitis than those seen in the UK hospital under investigation.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes following single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy (SILA) and conventional multiport laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA) for the treatment of acute appendicitis.

An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases was performed. Publications were included if they were clinical trials randomizing patients with appendicitis to SILA or CLA. Outcome measures evaluated included operating time, length of hospital stay, total postoperative complications, and, specifically, wound infection, intra-abdominal collection and ileus. Weighted mean difference was calculated for the effect size of SILA on continuous variables, and pooled odds ratios were calculated for discrete variables.

The literature search identified seven randomized clinical trials that met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. In total, 1108 appendicectomies were included, 555 SILA and 553 CLA procedures. There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal collection, ileus or length of hospital stay. However, SILA was associated with a significantly longer operating time compared with CLA (weighted mean difference 6·96 (95 per cent confidence interval 3·79 to 10·12) min; P < 0·001). Insertion of an additional port was required in 7·6 per cent of patients undergoing SILA.

SILA is a safe procedure for the treatment of acute appendicitis, with comparable clinical outcome to CLA when undertaken by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

The dramatic rise in the prevalence of obesity worldwide has led to the rapid growth of bariatric surgery. The aim of this pooled analysis is to evaluate the relationship between institutional and surgeon volume and outcomes following bariatric surgery. Medical, Embase, trial registries, conference proceedings and reference lists were searched for trials comparing clinical outcome following bariatric surgery at high and low volume hospitals and by high and low volume surgeons. Outcomes analysed were mortality, morbidity and length of hospital stay. Fifteen publications were included in this analysis. In total, 289,732 bariatric procedures were included in the institutional volume analysis, and 32,920 bariatric operations were included in the surgeon volume analysis. Mortality was reduced following surgery at high volume institutions (0.24 vs. 2.18 %; pooled odds ratio = 0.26; P = 0.004) and by high volume surgeons (0.41 vs. 2.77 %; pooled odds ratio = 0.21; P < 0.001). Similarly, morbidity was reduced in high volume institutions (7.84 vs. 8.85 %; pooled odds ratio = 0.52; P < 0.001) and with high volume surgeons (6.92 vs. 7.29 %; pooled odds ratio = 0.47; P < 0.001). There were insufficient data for conclusive statistical analysis of length of hospital stay. This pooled analysis does suggest a benefit in the centralisation of bariatric surgery to high volume institutions and surgeons with respect to mortality and morbidity. Future high-powered studies with adjustment for procedural and patient case mix are required to further define the volume-outcome relationship in bariatric surgery.