Aim: Approximately 20% of patients with uncomplicated appendicitis receive antibiotics as a first-line treatment; this study explores the impacts of expanding patient uptake of first-line antibiotics for appendicitis treatment. Materials & methods: We model the impacts on the patient, caregiver, payer and total societal costs associated with expanding antibiotics use from 20 to 50% for patients with appendicitis through use of a decision-tree model. Results: Increasing antibiotics uptake to 50% of eligible appendicitis patients is expected to decrease overall societal economic costs by $192 million, and these savings are driven by a $493 million reduction in initial treatment costs. For patients and their caregivers, out-of-pocket costs are expected to decrease by $18 million, appendectomies by 27,410 and missed work hours by 639,682. Conclusion: Increasing national uptake of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis may reduce patient, payer and total societal costs with minimal impact to patient health outcomes. An expansion may also decrease the total number of appendectomies, appendectomy-related medical complications, and lost wages for patients and caregivers, with minimal decreases in the number of appendiceal cancer cases treated early.

Appendectomy as the standard treatment for acute appendicitis has been challenged by accumulating evidence supporting nonoperative management with antibiotics as a potential primary treatment. This review aimed to summarize the clinical outcomes and the optimal indications for nonoperative management of acute appendicitis in adults. Current evidence suggests that uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis have different pathophysiologies and should be treated differently. Nonoperative management for uncomplicated appendicitis was not inferior to appendectomy in terms of complications and length of stay, with less than a 30% failure rate at 1 year. The risk of perforation and postoperative complications did not increase even if nonoperative management failed. Complicated appendicitis with localized abscess or phlegmon could also be treated conservatively, with a success rate of more than 80%. An interval appendectomy following successful nonoperative management is recommended only for patients over the age of 40 years to exclude appendiceal malignancy. The presence of appendicoliths increased the risk of treatment failure and complications; thus, it may be an indication for appendectomy. Nonoperative management is a safe and feasible option for both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Patients should be informed that nonoperative management may be a safe alternative to surgery, with the possibility of treatment failure.

Few studies have evaluated whether the timing of colectomy affects the prognosis of appendiceal cancer. This study compared long-term outcomes and recurrence patterns between initial appendectomy followed by two-stage colectomy and one-stage colectomy for appendiceal cancer.

We retrospectively evaluated 65 patients who underwent 2-stage (n = 17) or 1-stage (n = 48) right-sided colectomy with lymph node dissection for stage 0-III appendiceal cancer between August 2005 and December 2022. The recurrence types and risk factors were compared.

The 2-stage colectomy group had a more advanced disease stage than the 1-stage group (stage III cases: 29.4% vs. 14.6%, P = 0.03). The 5-year overall recurrence rates were similar between the groups (29.4% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.39). All peritoneal recurrence cases (n = 9) had pT3 or T4 depth. Among pT3 and T4 cases (n = 46), the peritoneal recurrence rates did not differ significantly (31.2% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.17). A multivariate analysis identified preoperative serum CA19-9 level of > 37 ng/mL (hazard ratio [HR], 35.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.08-406.8; P = 0.004) and lymph node metastasis (HR, 42.6; 95% CI, 9.90-183.6; P < 0.001) as independent risk factors for peritoneal recurrence.

Serum CA19-9 levels and lymph node metastasis are risk factors for peritoneal recurrence. The effect of colectomy timing on recurrence was not definitive.

Historically, appendectomy was the standard treatment for acute appendicitis (AA). Recently, interest has grown in conservative management of uncomplicated AA (UA). This study compared outcomes between non-operative management (NOM) and appendectomy, exploring preoperative factors to guide optimal UA management. In a monocentric retrospective study, we reviewed data on 774 pediatric patients with a primary diagnosis of AA from July 2017 to July 2022. We analyzed demographic, clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound data at first and last admission. Operated patients were stratified by management type and surgery timing. Minimum follow-up was 6 months. Of the 530 children (68.5%) who underwent surgery at first admission, 316 had UA and 214 had CA. The 244 patients (31.5%) not indicated for surgery received intravenous antibiotics. Of these, 104 underwent appendectomy at second admission, with 9 presenting CA, requiring multiple antibiotic therapy and a hospital stay of 9.1 ± 3.1 days. Twenty-eight underwent surgery at their third admission and 112 never underwent surgery. In conclusion, more invasive approach may be preferable for patients with significant clinical signs at first presentation, minimizing hospital stay, costs, antibiotic use, and complications. Further studies on NOM in acute appendicitis are essential to optimize its use.

Antibiotic therapy is currently considered a safe and effective treatment alternative for computed tomography (CT)-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis with recent studies reporting good results on both oral antibiotics only and outpatient management. Furthermore, there are promising pilot results on uncomplicated acute appendicitis management with symptomatic treatment (placebo). This trial aims to assess whether both antibiotics and hospitalization can be safely omitted from the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

The APPAC IV (APPendicitis Acuta IV) trial is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter noninferiority clinical trial comparing oral moxifloxacin with oral placebo in an outpatient setting with a discharge directly from the emergency room (ER). Adult patients (18-60 years) with CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis (absence of appendicolith, abscess, perforation, tumor, appendiceal diameter ⩾15 mm on CT, or body temperature >38 °C) will be enrolled in nine Finnish hospitals. Primary outcome is treatment success at 30 days, that is, the resolution of acute appendicitis resulting in discharge from the hospital without appendectomy during the 30-day follow-up evaluated using a noninferiority design with a noninferiority margin of 6 percentage points. Noninferiority will be evaluated using one-sided 95% confidence interval of proportion difference between groups. Secondary endpoints include postintervention complications, recurrent appendicitis after the 30-day follow-up, duration of hospital stay, admission to hospital and reason for admission, readmissions to emergency department or hospitalization, VAS pain scores, quality of life, sick leave, and treatment costs. The follow-up after discharge from the ER includes a phone call at day 1, and at 3-4 days, 30 days, and 1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 years. Those eligible patients, who decline to undergo randomization, will be invited to participate in a concurrent observational cohort study with follow-up at 30 days, and 1 and 5 years.

To our knowledge, APPAC IV trial is the first large randomized, double-blind, noninferiority multicenter clinical trial aiming to compare oral antibiotics and placebo for CT-diagnosed uncomplicated acute appendicitis in an outpatient setting. The study aims to bridge the major knowledge gap on whether antibiotics and hospitalization or both can be omitted in the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

The study protocol has been approved by the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), study number: 2023-506213-21-00 and the trial has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06210269.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have found antibiotics to be a feasible and safe alternative to appendicectomy in adults with imaging-confirmed acute appendicitis. However, patient inclusion criteria and outcome definitions vary greatly between RCTs. We aimed to compare antibiotics with appendicectomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis using individual patient data and uniform outcome definitions.

In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials without language restrictions between database inception and June 6, 2023, for RCTs comparing appendicectomy with antibiotics for the treatment of adults (≥18 years) with imaging-confirmed acute appendicitis. Studies without 1-year follow-up data on complications were excluded, as were patients. Corresponding authors of eligible studies were contacted and invited to share data; individual patient data were merged after validation. One-stage meta-analyses were conducted using a generalised, mixed-effects linear regression model, accounting for clustering of patients within studies. The primary outcome was the complication rate at 1-year follow-up, uniformly harmonised across trials using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Complications were further divided into minor (grade 1-2 or equivalent) and major (grade 3-5 or equivalent) complications. Appendicectomy rate during 1 year was a key secondary outcome but not considered a complication for the antibiotics group. Outcomes were described separately for patients with and without an appendicolith. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42023391676.

Of 887 potentially relevant articles, eight were eligible for inclusion, of which six RCTs could provide data for 2101 eligible patients (1050 assigned to antibiotics and 1051 assigned to appendicectomy; 830 [39·5%] women and 1271 [60·5%] men). All studies raised some bias concerns due to absence of blinding. One study was judged to have a high risk of bias due to the exclusion of eligible patients after randomisation, but these patients were eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis. At 1 year, 57 (5·4%) of 1050 patients randomly assigned to antibiotics had a complication compared with 87 (8·3%) of 1051 patients randomly assigned to appendicectomy (odds ratio [OR] 0·49 [95% CI 0·20 to 1·20]; risk difference -4·5 percentage points [95% CI -11·6 to 2·6]). At 1 year, 1025 (97·5%) patients in the appendicectomy group had undergone appendicectomy compared with 356 (33·9%) patients in the antibiotics group. In patients with an appendicolith at pre-interventional imaging, there were more complications at 1 year among patients who received antibiotic treatment than among those who underwent appendicectomy (29 [15·0%] of 193 patients vs 12 [6·3%] of 190 patients; OR 2·82 [95% CI 1·11 to 7·18]; risk difference 13·2 percentage points [95% CI 2·3 to 24·2]). In the antibiotics group, 94 (48·7%) of 193 patients with an appendicolith underwent appendicectomy within 1 year versus 262 (30·6%) of 857 patients without an appendicolith.

This meta-analysis showed that antibiotic treatment in adults with imaging-confirmed acute appendicitis was a safe alternative to surgery and resulted in around two-thirds of patients avoiding appendicectomy during the first year. In patients with an appendicolith, initial antibiotic treatment increased the risk of complications compared with appendicectomy, and around half of these patients assigned to antibiotics underwent step-up appendicectomy within 1 year. These data should be key components in shared decision making.

None.

This systematic review and network meta-analysis compared various antibiotic treatments with surgical treatment for acute appendicitis.

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Wanfang databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the prespecified inclusion criteria up to July 2023. The interventions included various antibiotics and surgery. The outcomes measured were initial treatment success, treatment success at 1-year follow-up, and treatment-related complications. Meta-analysis was conducted using R software with the gemtc package. Surfaces under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) were used to rank the interventions.

Thirteen RCTs involving nine treatments (cefotaxime [CTX] + tinidazole [TNZ], CTX + metronidazole [MTZ], ampicillin [AMP] + gentamicin [GEN] + MTZ, amoxicillin/clavulanate [AMC] + GEN, meropenem [MEM] + MTZ, AMC, ertapenem [ETP] + MTZ, ETP, and surgery) were included in this network meta-analysis. In head-to-head comparisons, no statistically significant difference was found between any two interventions for initial treatment success (p > 0.05). The SUCRA indicated that surgery ranked first (SUCRA, 66.5%) for initial treatment success. Surgery was associated with an increased treatment success rate at 1-year follow-up compared to AMC (OR = 0.01, 95% CrI = 0.00-0.14, p < 0.05), MEM + MTZ (OR = 0.06, 95% CrI = 0.00-0.42, p < 0.05), and AMP + GEN + MTZ (OR = 0.02, 95% CrI = 0.00-0.23, p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between any two interventions regarding complications (p > 0.05).

Our network meta-analysis suggests that surgery ranks highest for initial treatment success and treatment success at 1-year follow-up. However, surgery may increase the complication rate.

Appendicectomy is a well-established surgical procedure to manage acute appendicitis. The operation was historically performed as an open procedure and is currently performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques. A recent development in appendicectomy technique is the introduction of single-incision laparoscopic surgery. This incorporates all working ports (either one multi-luminal port or multiple mono-luminal ports) through a single skin incision; the procedure is known as single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy or SILA. Unanswered questions remain regarding the efficacy of this novel technique, including its effects on patient benefit and satisfaction, complications, and long-term outcomes, when compared to multi-incision conventional laparoscopy (CLA). This is an update of a review published in 2011.

To assess the effects of single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy, on benefits, complications, and short-term outcomes, in patients with acute appendicitis.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2018 Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE (1983 to January 2024), Ovid Embase (1983 to January 2024), the WHO International Clinical Trial Register (January 2024), and Clinicaltrials.gov (January 2024). We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases. The searches were carried out on 20 January 2024.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the single-incision procedure SILA against CLA for patients (male and female) over the age of 10 years, diagnosed with appendicitis, or symptoms of appendicitis, and undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy.

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data into a standardised form, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies. We extracted data relevant to the predetermined outcome measures. Where appropriate, we calculated a summary statistic: odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous data. We used Review Manager Web for our statistical analysis.

This review was first published in 2011, when there was no RCT evidence available. For this update, we identified 11 RCTs involving 1373 participants (689 in the SILA groups and 684 in the CLA groups). The participants were similar at baseline in terms of age (mean 31.7 (SILA) versus 30.9 years (CLA)) and sex (female: 53.0% (SILA) versus 50.3% (CLA)). Diagnosis of appendicitis was based on clinical assessment; none of the studies used a diagnosis confirmed by imaging as part of their inclusion criteria. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, and the outcomes were predominately reported in the short term. Pain scores at 24 hours after surgery may be similar between the SILA and CLA groups (mean score SILA 2.53 versus CLA 2.65; mean difference (MD) in pain score -0.12, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.28; 294 participants, 4 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). SILA probably had superior cosmetic results as indicated by patients using the Body Image questionnaire (5 to 20) (mean score SILA 14.9 versus CLA 12.4; cosmesis score MD 1.97, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.33; 266 participants, 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The rate of visceral and vascular injury was probably similar with both techniques (SILA 0/168 versus 4/169; OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79; 337 participants, 3 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The conversion rate to CLA or open surgery may be higher for SILA procedures than the conversion rate from CLA to open surgery (SILA 32/574 versus CLA 7/569; OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.36 to 6.42; 1143 participants, 9 RCTs; low-certainty evidence). Use of an additional port site was probably more likely with SILA compared to CLA (SILA 28/328 versus CLA 4/336; OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.13 to 12.72; 664 participants, 5 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). The recovery time was probably similar for both interventions for hospital stay (mean length of stay in hospital for SILA 2.25 days versus 2.29 days for CLA patients; MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.03; 1241 participants, 10 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and time to return to normal activities (SILA 9.28 days versus CLA 10.0 days; MD -0.59, 95% CI -1.99 to 0.81; 451 participants, 4 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence). We have low-to-moderate confidence in our findings due to differences in the measurement of certain outcomes, and lack of blinding in the studies, which makes them prone to performance bias.

There is low-to-moderate certainty evidence that single-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy is comparable to conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in terms of complications, length of hospital stay, return to normal activities, and postoperative pain in the first 24 hours. The disadvantage of SILA may be a higher conversion rate, but SILA is probably associated with better patient cosmetic satisfaction.

Acute appendicitis (AA) stands as the most prevalent cause of acute abdominal pain among children. The potential for morbidity escalates significantly when uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) progresses to complicated appendicitis (CA), which can encompass gangrenous, necrotic, or perforated appendicitis. Consequently, establishing an early and accurate diagnosis of AA, and effectively differentiating CA from UA, becomes paramount. This study explores the diagnostic utility of various blood biomarkers for distinguishing CA from UA in pediatric patients.

We conducted a retrospective review of medical records pertaining to pediatric patients who underwent surgery for AA. Patients were categorized as either having UA or CA based on histopathological examination of the appendix. The data collected and analyzed included demographic information, white blood cell (WBC) count, neutrophil proportion, lymphocyte proportion, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels upon admission.

Among the 192 pediatric patients who underwent surgery for AA, 150 were diagnosed with UA, while 42 were diagnosed with CA. The CA group exhibited significantly higher neutrophil proportions, NLRs, PLRs, and CRP levels, alongside lower lymphocyte proportions (all p < 0.01) compared to the UA group. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis disclosed that CRP exhibited the highest specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values for predicting CA.

CRP emerges as a valuable biomarker for differentiating complicated appendicitis from uncomplicated appendicitis.

Treating older patients with acute appendicitis with multiple underlying diseases is a challenging situation in the clinical setting. Throughout the history of East Asian medicine, many texts have noted the use of herbal decoctions to successfully treat symptoms associated with appendicitis, thereby providing an alternative management strategy for treating frail patients with acute appendicitis.

This report presents the case of a 93-year-old male diagnosed with acute appendicitis with appendicolith who was unsuitable for surgical intervention due to poor lung condition and prolonged prothrombin time caused by Apixaban. By receiving complementary therapy consisting of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and antibiotics, he recovered successfully.

In the early stage of acute appendicitis, infection control and gastrointestinal mobility are the most important factors to consider. Scientific research has demonstrated that many herbs used in TCM formulas possess anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidative and immune attenuation effects. For many patients who are unsuitable for surgical intervention due to unfavorable conditions, such as the prolonged prothrombin time presented in this case, complementary treatment with TCM offers adjuvant therapeutical effects associated with infection control, and improvement of the gastrointestinal environment and function of elderly patients.

Appendicitis is the commonest paediatric surgical emergency. Adult studies suggest non-operative management (NOM) may have a place in care. There have been no adequately powered randomized controlled trials in children.

to determine the safety and efficacy of NOM for paediatric simple appendicitis.

A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing operative (OM) to NOM of SA in children aged five-15 years. Primary outcome was treatment success (no unplanned or unnecessary operation, or complication) at 30 days and 12 months, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%. (anzctr.org.au: ACTRN12616000788471).

From 11 June 2016 to 30 November 2020, 222 children were randomized: 94 (42.34%) to OM and 128 (57.66%) to NOM. Non-inferiority of NOM was not demonstrated at either time point, with 45.67% of NOM patients subsequently undergoing operation. There was no significant difference in complications.

While noninferiority was not shown, NOM was safe, with no difference in adverse outcomes between the two groups. Further research to refine the place of NOM of simple appendicitis in children is required, including nuanced patient selection, longer term evaluation, the place of choice, and the acceptability of the treatment for children and their carers.

Conservative treatment of acute appendicitis is gaining popularity, and identifying patients with a higher risk of recurrence is becoming increasingly important. Previous studies have suggested that older age, male sex, diabetes, appendicolith and abscess formation may be contributing factors, however, results from the adult population are inconsistent.

This study aims to identify predictive factors for recurrent appendicitis after conservative treatment.

This retrospective study included patients with conservatively treated acute appendicitis at Skåne University Hospital, Sweden during 2012-2019. Information on patient demographics at index admission and follow-up data were retrieved from medical charts and radiologic images. Uni -and multivariable logistic regression analysis were performed using Stata Statistical Software.

In total, 379 patients with conservatively treated acute appendicitis were identified, of which 78 (20.6%) had recurrence. All patients were followed-up for a minimum of 41 months after the first diagnosis of acute appendicitis unless appendectomy after successful conservative treatment or death occurred during follow-up. The median time to recurrence was 6.5 (1-17.8) months. After multivariable logistic regression analysis, external appendix diameter >10 mm [OR 2.4 (CI 1.37-4.21), p = .002] and intra-abdominal abscess [OR 2.05 (CI 1.18-3.56), p = .011] on computed tomography were significant independent risk factors for recurrent appendicitis. Appendicolith was not associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

This study suggests abscess formation and appendix distension of >10 mm to be potential risk factors for recurrent acute appendicitis after initial successful conservative treatment.

Recent randomized trials have suggested non-operative management to be a safe alternative to appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Yet, there remains significant variability in treatment approach. This study sought to characterize center-level variation in non-operative management within a national cohort of adults presenting with appendicitis.

The 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried to identify all adult (≥18 years) hospitalizations for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Hierarchical, mixed-effects models were developed to ascertain factors linked with non-operative management. Bayesian methodology was applied to predict random effects, which were then used to rank centers by increasing hospital-attributed rate of non-operative management. Institutions with high center-specific rates of non-operative management (>90th percentile) were considered low-operating hospitals (LOH).

Of an estimated 447,500 patients, 52,523 (11.7 %) were managed non-operatively. Compared to those undergoing appendectomy, the non-operative cohort was older, more commonly male, and of a higher comorbidity burden. Approximately 30 % in the variability of non-operative management was attributable to hospital effects, with absolute, risk-adjusted rates ranging from 0.5 to 22.5 %. Centers with non-operative management rates ≥90th percentile were considered LOH.Following risk adjustment, among patients undergoing appendectomy, care at LOH was linked with greater odds of postoperative infection, resource utilization, and non-elective readmission.

We identified significant interhospital variation in the utilization of non-operative management for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Further, we found LOH to be associated with inferior outcomes following surgical management. Future work is needed to assess the care pathways that contribute to increased utilization of non-operative strategies, and disseminate best practices across institutions.

Whether to perform surgery or conservatively manage appendicitis in immunosuppressed patients is a concern for clinicians. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of these 2 treatment options for appendicitis in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

This retrospective study included 206 patients with cancer who were diagnosed with acute appendicitis between August 2001 and December 2021. Among them, patients who received chemotherapy within 1 month were divided into surgical and conservative groups. We evaluated the outcomes, including treatment success within 1 year, 1-year recurrence, and the number of days from the diagnosis of appendicitis to chemotherapy restart, between the 2 groups.

Among the 206 patients with cancer who were diagnosed with acute appendicitis, 78 received chemotherapy within 1 month. The patients were divided into surgery (n = 63) and conservative (n = 15) groups. In the surgery group, the duration of antibiotic therapy (7.0 days vs. 16.0 days, P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (8.0 days vs. 27.5 days, P = 0.002) were significantly shorter than conservative groups. The duration from the diagnosis of appendicitis to the restart of chemotherapy was shorter in the surgery group (20.8 ± 15.1 days vs. 35.2 ± 28.2 days, P = 0.028). The treatment success rate within 1 year was higher in the surgery group (100% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.001).

Surgical treatment showed a significantly higher success rate than conservative treatment for appendicitis in patients less than 1 month after chemotherapy. Further prospective studies will be needed to clinically determine treatment options.

The purpose of this analysis was to investigate the most appropriate duration of postoperative antibiotic treatment to minimize the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses and wound infections in patients with complicated appendicitis.

In this retrospective study, which included 396 adult patients who underwent appendectomy for complicated appendicitis between January 2010 and December 2020 at the University Hospital Erlangen, patients were classified into two groups based on the duration of their postoperative antibiotic intake: ≤ 3 postoperative days (group 1) vs. ≥ 4 postoperative days (group 2). The incidence of postoperative intraabdominal abscesses and wound infections were compared between the groups. Additionally, multivariate risk factor analysis for the occurrence of intraabdominal abscesses and wound infections was performed.

The two groups contained 226 and 170 patients, respectively. The incidence of postoperative intraabdominal abscesses (2% vs. 3%, p = 0.507) and wound infections (3% vs. 6%, p = 0.080) did not differ significantly between the groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that an additional cecum resection (OR 5.5 (95% CI 1.4-21.5), p = 0.014) was an independent risk factor for intraabdominal abscesses. A higher BMI (OR 5.9 (95% CI 1.2-29.2), p = 0.030) and conversion to an open procedure (OR 5.2 (95% CI 1.4-20.0), p = 0.016) were identified as independent risk factors for wound infections.

The duration of postoperative antibiotic therapy does not appear to influence the incidence of postoperative intraabdominal abscesses and wound infections. Therefore, short-term postoperative antibiotic treatment should be preferred.

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).

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.

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

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.

Acute appendicitis (AA) represents the most frequent surgical emergency. Perforation was long considered the ultimate outcome of AA, prompting appendectomy; which remains the standard treatment. New data have clarified the role of the appendix, justifying conservative treatment. This narrative review aims to summarize the evidence regarding the non-operative treatment (NOT) of AA in adults.

The literature search was performed via the PubMed Medline database. Our criteria-based selection resulted in a total of 48 articles for review.

Recent trials and meta-analyses have assessed NOT, which support primary antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated AA. Although it has a significant recurrence and failure rate, NOT does not appear to increase the risk of appendicular perforation. Moreover, NOT compared with appendectomy, seems to be associated with less morbidity, lower cost of care and preserved quality of life.

First-line NOT seems to be a reasonable approach for the treatment of uncomplicated CT-confirmed AA. Careful patient screening would definitely enhance the success rate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis is currently being promoted as treatment option, albeit 0.7-2.5% of appendectomies performed due to suspected acute appendicitis show histologically malignant findings. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of neoplasm and malignancy of the appendix in patients presenting with suspected acute appendicitis in real world setting.

This is a retrospective single-centre investigation of 457 patients undergoing appendectomy between the years 2017-2020. The patients' demographics, symptoms and diagnosis, intraoperative findings, and histopathological results were analysed.

In 3.7% (n = 17) histological analysis revealed neoplasms or malignancies. Median age was 48 years (20-90 years), without sex predominance. Leukocytes (11.3 ± 3.7 G/l) and C-reactive protein (54.2 ± 69.0 mg/l) were elevated. Histological analysis revealed low-grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasia (n = 3), sessile serrated adenoma of the appendix (n = 3), neuroendocrine tumours (n = 7), appendiceal adenocarcinoma of intestinal type (n = 3), and goblet cell carcinoma (n = 1). Additional treatment varied between no treatment or follow-up due to early tumour stage (n = 4), follow-up care (n = 3), additional surgical treatment (n = 8), or best supportive care (n = 2).

Preoperative diagnosis of appendiceal tumours is difficult. Nonoperative management of patients with acute, uncomplicated appendicitis potentially prevents the correct diagnosis of malignant appendiceal pathologies. Therefore, close follow-up or surgical removal of the appendix is mandatory.

Antibiotic treatment of unselected patients with acute appendicitis is safe and effective. However, it is unknown to what extent early provision of antibiotic treatment may represent overtreatment due to spontaneous healing of appendix inflammation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the role of antibiotic treatment versus active in-hospital observation on spontaneous regression of acute appendicitis.

Patients who sought acute medical care at Sahlgrenska University Hospital were block-randomized according to age (18-60 years) and systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein <60 mg/L, white blood cell <13,000/μL), in combination with clinical and abdominal characteristics of acute appendicitis. Study patients received antibiotic treatment and active observation, while control patients were allocated to classic active "wait and see observation" for either disease regression or the need for surgical exploration. According to our standard surgical care, certified surgeons in charge decided whether and when appendectomy was necessary. In total, 1,019 patients were screened for eligibility; 203 patients met inclusion criteria, 126 were accepted to participate, 29 declined, and 48 were missed for inclusion.

The antibiotic group (n = 69) and the control group (n = 57) were comparable at inclusion. Appendectomy at first hospital stay was 28% and 53% for study and control patients (χ2, P < .004). Life table analysis indicated a time-dependent difference in the need for appendectomy during follow-up (P < .03). Antibiotics prevented surgical exploration and appendectomy by 72% to 50% compared to 47% to 37% in the control group across the time course follow-ups between 5 and 1,200 days.

Early antibiotic treatment is superior to traditional "wait and see observation" to avoid surgical exploration and appendectomy.

In recent years, some studies have found that acute uncomplicated appendicitis can be treated with antibiotics alone. Because of the lack of relevant research on treating acute appendicitis in Taiwan, this study investigated the microbiological characteristics of acute appendicitis to permit accurate empirical antibiotic use for uncomplicated appendicitis.

In this single-center retrospective cohort study, patients listed in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database with a discharge diagnosis of acute appendicitis were identified. Data for bacterial specimens and antibiotic susceptibility tests among patients treated at Tri-Service General Hospital between January 2016 and December 2021 were analyzed.

Among 2805 patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis, 167 (6%) were <18 years old. The culture positivity rates among children and adults were 33% and 18%, respectively. In total, 367 aerobes and 207 anaerobes were isolated. The predominant aerobic gram-positive coccus was viridans group streptococci (8.9%), the most common aerobic gram-negative bacillus was Escherichia coli (27.9%), and the most common anaerobic microorganism was Bacteroides spp. (27.7%). The results of antibiotic susceptibility testing of the predominant microorganisms revealed that 86.3% of gram-positive aerobes were susceptible to ampicillin, 76.3% of gram-negative aerobes were susceptible to gentamicin, and all anaerobic isolates were susceptible to metronidazole.

Triple first-line antibiotic combination therapy, including ampicillin, gentamicin, and metronidazole, remains highly effective against the pathogens that cause acute appendicitis.

Appendicitis is a common surgical condition that requires urgent medical attention. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence and large language processing, such as ChatGPT, have demonstrated potential in supporting healthcare management and scientific research. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy and comprehensiveness of ChatGPT's knowledge on appendicitis management.

Six questions related to appendicitis management were created by experienced RACS qualified general surgeons to assess ChatGPT's ability to provide accurate information. The criteria of ChatGPT answers' accuracy were compared with current healthcare guidelines for appendicitis and subjective evaluation by two RACS qualified General Surgeons. Additionally, ChatGPT was then asked to provide five high level evidence references to support its responses.

ChatGPT provided clinically relevant information on appendicitis management, however, was inconsistent in doing so and often provided superficial information. Further to this, ChatGPT encountered difficulties in generating relevant references, with some being either non-existent or incorrect.

ChatGPT has the potential to provide timely and comprehensible medical information on appendicitis management to laypersons. However, its issue of inaccuracy in information and production of non-existent or erroneous references presents a challenge for researchers and clinicians who may inadvertently employ such information in their research or healthcare. Therefore, clinicians should exercise caution when using ChatGPT for these purposes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This study analyzes national trends in the management of uncomplicated appendicitis during pregnancy, comparing outcomes for nonoperative management (NOM) and appendectomy.

In the nonpregnant population, several randomized controlled trials demonstrated noninferiority of NOM compared with appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. However, it remains unclear whether these findings are generalizable to pregnant patients.

The National Inpatient Sample was queried for pregnant women diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis from January 2003 to September 2015. Patients were categorized by treatment: NOM, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), and open appendectomy. A quasi-experimental analysis with interrupted time series examined the relationship between the year of admission and the likelihood of receiving NOM. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate the association between treatment strategy and patient outcomes.

A total of 33,120 women satisfied the inclusion criteria. Respectively, 1070 (3.2%), 18,736 (56.6%), and 13,314 (40.2%) underwent NOM, LA, and open appendectomy. The NOM rate significantly increased between 2006 and 2015, with an annual increase of 13.9% (95% CI, 8.5-19.4, P <0.001). Compared with LA, NOM was significantly associated with higher rates of preterm abortion (odds ratio [OR]: 3.057, 95% CI, 2.210-4.229, P <0.001) and preterm labor/delivery (OR: 3.186, 95% CI, 2.326-4.365, P <0.001). Each day of delay to appendectomy was associated with significantly greater rates of preterm abortion (OR: 1.210, 95% CI, 1.123-1.303, P <0.001).

Although NOM has been increasing as a treatment for pregnant patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, compared with LA, it is associated with worse clinical outcomes.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) was a pandemic disease that was affecting our medical and surgical daily practice badly. The surgical management of acute appendicitis was the gold standard, but new studies suggest the safety of antibiotic treatment alone. Non-operative treatment for simple acute appendicitis (NOTA) avoids surgery, the risks of general anesthesia, and long hospital stays. It also decreases the risk of exposure to coronavirus. We aimed to study the cost-effectiveness and outcome of NOTA during the COVID-19 pandemic and compared it to single-incision pediatric endo-surgery appendectomy (SIPESA). A prospective cohort study for NOTA of patients from 6 to 12 years old in the COVID-19 pandemic period from April 1st, 2020, to April 30th, 2021, patients were divided into two groups: Group S was managed by SIPESA, and Group N was managed by NOTA. Family education and assurance with detailed explanation were done for early detection of any complications, and we continue monitoring the patients until their complete recovery. Group S had 24 cases (40%), mean age 9.3 years. Group N had 36 cases (60%), mean age 9.1 years. Six cases (17%) in group N were converted to surgical management in the first 6 months of the study. The mean cost dropped from $2736/day to $400/day. The mean psychological stress for the children improved from 4.4 in April to 2 in September. The mean follow-up was 3.5 months. NOTA is a feasible, cost-effective approach, and we recommend it, as we have learned this lesson during the COVID-19 pandemic days.

Low-impact laparoscopy (LIL), combining low-pressure insufflation and microlaparoscopy, is a surgical technique that is still not widely used and that has never been evaluated for the management of acute appendicitis. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility of an LIL protocol, to compare postoperative pain, average length of stay, and in-hospital use of analgesics by patients who underwent appendectomy according to a conventional laparoscopy or an LIL protocol.

Patients presenting with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on between January 1, 2021, and July 10, 2022, were included in this double-blind, single-center, prospective study. They were preoperatively randomly assigned to a group undergoing conventional laparoscopy, ie with an insufflation pressure of 12 mmHg and conventional instrumentation, and an LIL group, with an insufflation pressure of 7 mmHg and microlaparoscopic instrumentation.

Fifty patients were included in this study, 24 in the LIL group and 26 in the conventional group. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 patient groups, including weight and surgical history. The postoperative complication rate was comparable between the 2 groups (p = 0.81). Pain was reported as significantly lower according to the visual analog scale 2 hours after surgery among the LIL group (p = 0.019). For patients who underwent surgery according to the LIL protocol, the study confirms a statistically significant difference for theoretical and actual length of stay, ie -0.77 days and -0.59 days, respectively (p < 0.001 and p = 0.03). In-hospital use of analgesics was comparable between both groups.

In uncomplicated acute appendicitis, the LIL protocol could reduce postoperative pain and average length of stay compared to conventional laparoscopic appendectomy.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

Appendicitis is among the most common acute conditions treated by general surgery. While uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) can be treated delayed or even non-operatively, complicated appendicitis (CA) is a serious condition with possible long-term morbidity that should be managed with urgent appendectomy. Distinguishing both conditions is usually done with computed tomography. The goal of this study was to develop a model to reliably predict CA with widespread available clinical and laboratory parameters and without the use of sectional imaging.

Data from 1132 consecutive patients treated for appendicitis between 2014 and 2021 at a tertiary care hospital were used for analyses. Based on year of treatment, the data was divided into training (n = 696) and validation (n = 436) samples. Using the development sample, candidate predictors for CA-patient age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score, duration of symptoms, white blood count (WBC), total bilirubin and C-reactive protein (CRP) on admission and free fluid on ultrasound-were first investigated using univariate logistic regression models and then included in a multivariate model. The final development model was tested on the validation sample.

In the univariate analysis age, BMI, ASA score, symptom duration, WBC, bilirubin, CRP, and free fluid each were statistically significant predictors of CA (each p < 0.001) while gender was not (p = 0.199). In the multivariate analysis BMI and bilirubin were not predictive and therefore not included in the final development model which was built from 696 patients. The final development model was significant (x2 = 304.075, p < 0.001) with a sensitivity of 61.7% and a specificity of 92.1%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 80.4% with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 82.0%. The receiver operator characteristic of the final model had an area under the curve of 0.861 (95% confidence interval 0.830-0.891, p < 0.001. We simplified this model to create the NoCtApp score. Patients with a point value of ≤ 2 had a NPV 95.8% for correctly ruling out CA.

Correctly identifying CA is helpful for optimizing patient treatment when they are diagnosed with appendicitis. Our logistic regression model can aid in correctly distinguishing UA and CA even without utilizing computed tomography.

The HALP score, which is a combined index composed of hemoglobin, albumin, lymphocyte, and platelet, is a new indicator showing both inflammation and nutritional status. This study aims to evaluate the relationship of this combined index consisting of simple laboratory values with the degree of appendicitis complication and postoperative results in patients operated on for acute appendicitis. The data of 684 patients operated for acute appendicitis between January 2017 and December 2022 and inclusion criteria were analyzed with a single-center retrospective cross-sectional study design. Using routine laboratory data, patients' HALP scores were divided into two groups as low and high. The cut-off value of the HALP score according to the presence of postoperative complications was determined as < 31.2 by ROC analysis and the ROC curve. Patients were grouped as HALP score cut-off value below (group 1) and above (group 2). Complicated appendicitis and postoperative outcomes were compared to the HALP score groups. According to the cut-off value of the HALP score, 113 (16.5%) of the patients were in Group 1, and 571 (83.5%) were in Group 2. Complications developed in 15 (26%) patients (p < 0.001). Low HALP scores were a significant risk factor for peri-appendicular abscess (OR 29.12 95% CI 12.39-68.43), appendicitis perforation (OR = 20.82 95% 12.67-34.19), gangrenous appendicitis (OR = 35, 54, 95% 13.33-94.77), and postoperative complications (OR = 15.29 95% 7.95-29.41) (p < 0.001). Besides clinical and radiological findings, the HALP score shows the degree of acute appendicitis complication. It can be used as a simple, inexpensive, and easily applicable diagnostic tool.

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.