Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Awareness of the potential global overtreatment of patients with appendiceal neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) of 1–2 cm in size by performing oncological resections is increasing, but the rarity of this tumour has impeded clear recommendations to date. We aimed to assess the malignant potential of appendiceal NETs of 1–2 cm in size in patients with or without right-sided hemicolectomy. In this retrospective cohort study, we pooled data from 40 hospitals in 15 European countries for patients of any age and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status with a histopathologically confirmed appendiceal NET of 1–2 cm in size who had a complete resection of the primary tumour between Jan 1, 2000, and Dec 31, 2010. Patients either had an appendectomy only or an appendectomy with oncological right-sided hemicolectomy or ileocecal resection. Predefined primary outcomes were the frequency of distant metastases and tumour-related mortality. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of regional lymph node metastases, the association between regional lymph node metastases and histopathological risk factors, and overall survival with or without right-sided hemicolectomy. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the relative all-cause mortality hazard associated with right-sided hemicolectomy compared with appendectomy alone. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03852693. 282 patients with suspected appendiceal tumours were identified, of whom 278 with an appendiceal NET of 1–2 cm in size were included. 163 (59%) had an appendectomy and 115 (41%) had a right-sided hemicolectomy, 110 (40%) were men, 168 (60%) were women, and mean age at initial surgery was 36·0 years (SD 18·2). Median follow-up was 13·0 years (IQR 11·0–15·6). After centralised histopathological review, appendiceal NETs were classified as a possible or probable primary tumour in two (1%) of 278 patients with distant peritoneal metastases and in two (1%) 278 patients with distant metastases in the liver. All metastases were diagnosed synchronously with no tumour-related deaths during follow-up. Regional lymph node metastases were found in 22 (20%) of 112 patients with right-sided hemicolectomy with available data. On the basis of histopathological risk factors, we estimated that 12·8% (95% CI 6·5 –21·1) of patients undergoing appendectomy probably had residual regional lymph node metastases. Overall survival was similar between patients with appendectomy and right-sided hemicolectomy (adjusted hazard ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·36–2·17]; p=0·71). This study provides evidence that right-sided hemicolectomy is not indicated after complete resection of an appendiceal NET of 1–2 cm in size by appendectomy, that regional lymph node metastases of appendiceal NETs are clinically irrelevant, and that an additional postoperative exclusion of metastases and histopathological evaluation of risk factors is not supported by the presented results. These findings should inform consensus best practice guidelines for this patient cohort. Swiss Cancer Research foundation.

Introduction Although appendectomies are frequently performed and new procedural techniques have emerged, no nationwide analysis exists after the cessation of the German quality control in 2004. Methods One thousand eight hundred seventy surgical hospitals in Germany were asked to answer questions anonymously concerning the size of the department, applied procedural techniques, various technical details, as well as the approach to the intraoperative finding of an inconspicuous appendix. Results We received 643 questionnaires (34.4 %) for evaluation. Almost all hospitals (95.5 %) offer laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), 15.4 % offer single-port (SPA), and 2.2 % (hybrid-) NOTES technique (NA). LA is the standard procedure in 85.2 % of male and in 89.1 % for female patients. In an open procedure (OA), the appendix and mesoappendix are mostly ligated (93.8 and 91.5 %). A Veress needle and open access are employed equally for LA. In 66.6 % of LA, the appendix is divided using an Endo-GIA, the mesoappendix in 45.5 % with bipolar coagulation. Almost half of the hospitals routinely flush the site in OA and LA. In open surgery with an inconspicuous appendix but a pathological finding elsewhere in the abdomen, it is resected “en principe” in 64.7 % and in the absence of any pathological finding in 91.2 %. For laparoscopic procedures, the numbers are 54.8 and 88.4 %. Conclusions Most German hospitals perform appendectomies laparoscopically regardless of patients’ gender. Usage of an Endo-GIA is widely established. SPA has not gained much acceptance, nor is NA widely used yet. In the absence of any pathological findings in particular, the macroscopically inconspicuous appendix results in an appendectomy “en principe” in most German hospitals.

BackgroundConventional three-access laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) is currently the gold standard treatment, however, Single-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy (SILA) has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate safety and efficacy of SILA compared with conventional approach.MethodsPer PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CLA vs SILA for acute appendicitis. The randomised Mantel–Haenszel method was used for the meta-analysis. Statistical data analysis was performed with the Review Manager software and the risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane \"Risk of Bias\" assessment tool.ResultsTwenty-one studies (RCTs) were selected (2646 patients). The operative time was significantly longer in the SILA group (MD = 7,32), confirmed in both paediatric (MD = 9,80), (Q = 1,47) and adult subgroups (MD = 5,92), (Q = 55,85). Overall postoperative morbidity was higher in patients who underwent SILA, but the result was not statistically significant. In SILA group were assessed shorter hospital stays, fewer wound infections and higher conversion rate, but the results were not statistically significant. Meta-analysis was not performed about cosmetics of skin scars and postoperative pain because different scales were used in each study.ConclusionsThis analysis show that SILA, although associated with fewer postoperative wound infection, has a significantly longer operative time. Furthermore, the risk of postoperative general complications is still present. Further studies will be required to analyse outcomes related to postoperative pain and the cosmetics of the surgical scar.

Reported outcomes after appendectomy during pregnancy remain inconclusive, and the risk for preterm delivery is not necessarily procedure-related. This retrospective cohort study included 185 pregnant women who underwent appendectomy during pregnancy and gave birth between 2005 and 2022, compared using a 3:1 ratio to 555 parturients who did not undergo surgery. clinical, obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were analyzed. Laparoscopic appendectomy was the most common procedure (117/185; 63.2 ​%) whereas 68/185 (36.8 ​%) had open appendectomy. Pathological findings revealed that 141/185 cases (76.2 ​%) had an inflamed appendix, while 44/185 (23.8 ​%) were classified as having a “white appendix” (negative appendectomy). Preterm delivery occurred more frequently in the appendectomy group [22/185 (11.9 ​%) vs 30/555 (5.4 ​%), p ​= ​0.003] with even higher incidence in negative appendectomies compared to inflamed appendix cases [9/44 (20.5 ​%) vs 13/141 (9.2 ​%), p ​= ​0.044]. Multivariate analysis identified appendectomy (but not an inflamed appendix) as the sole significant risk factor for preterm birth (odds ratio 2.3, CI 1.26–4.15, p ​= ​0.006). Preterm delivery correlates with negative appendectomies. Careful assessment is essential to avoid unnecessary surgical interventions during pregnancy. •Appendectomy during pregnancy is associated with higher rates of preterm delivery.•Negative appendectomies are more prevalent in pregnant women compared with non-pregnant women.•Careful evaluation in pregnant women with suspected appendicitis could avoid needless exploration.•Preterm delivery after appendectomy during pregnancy is probably not procedure related.•A higher rate of preterm delivery was noticed among patients with negative appendectomy.

BackgroundLaparoscopic appendectomy is a common procedure and introduced early in general surgical training. How internal (i.e. surgeon’s experience) or external (i.e. disease severity) may affect procedure performance is not well-studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate factors that may have an influence on the performance scores for surgical trainees.MethodsA prospective, observational cohort study of laparoscopic appendectomies performed by surgical trainees (experience < 4 years) operating under supervision. Trainers evaluated trainees’ overall performance on a 6-point scale for proficiency. Perioperative data were recorded, including appendicitis severity, operating time and the overall difficulty of the procedure as assessed by the trainer. A “Challenging” procedure was defined as a combination of either/or “perforation” and “difficult”. Trainees who had performed > 30 appendectomies were defined as “experienced”. The trainees were asked if they had used simulation or web-based tools the week prior to surgery.Results142 procedure evaluation forms were included of which 19 (13%) were “perforated”, 14 (10%) “difficult” and 24 (17%) “Challenging”. Perforated appendicitis was strongly associated with procedure difficulty (OR 21.2, 95% CI 6.0–75.6). Experienced trainees performed “proficient” more often than non-experienced (OR 34.5, 95% CI 6.8–176.5). “Difficult” procedures were inversely associated with proficiency (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.0–0.9). In “Challenging” procedures, identifying the appendix had lowest proficiency (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.1–0.9). The procedures assessed as “difficult” had significantly longer operating time with a median (IQR) of 90 (75–100) min compared to 59 (25–120) min for the non-difficult (p < 0.001).ConclusionBoth internal and external factors contribute to the performance score. Perforated appendicitis, technical difficult procedures and trainee experience all play a role, but a “difficult” procedure had most overall impact on proficiency evaluation.

BackgroundPerforated appendicitis is associated with postoperative development of intraperitoneal abscess. Intraperitoneal drain placement during appendectomy is thought to reduce the risk of developing postoperative intraperitoneal abscess. The aim of this study was to determine whether intraperitoneal drainage could reduce the incidence of intraperitoneal abscess formation after laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis.MethodsThis is a retrospective study of all patients (aged 7 and above) who were diagnosed with perforated appendicitis and subsequently underwent laparoscopic appendectomy between January 2018 and December 2022 at two government hospitals in the state of Kuwait. Demographic, clinical, and perioperative characteristics were compared between patients who underwent intraoperative intraperitoneal drain placement and those who did not. The primary outcome was the development of postoperative intraperitoneal abscess. Secondary outcomes included overall postoperative complications, superficial surgical site infection (SSI), length of stay (LOS), readmission and postoperative percutaneous drainage.ResultsA total of 511 patients met the inclusion criteria between 2018 and 2022. Of these, 307 (60.1%) underwent intraoperative intraperitoneal drain placement. Patients with and without drains were similar regarding age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (Table 1). The overall rate of postoperative intraperitoneal abscess was 6.1%. Postoperatively, there was no difference in postoperative intraperitoneal abscess formation between patients who underwent intraperitoneal drain placement and those who did not (6.5% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.707). Patients with intraperitoneal drains had a longer LOS (4 [4, 6] vs. 3 [2, 5] days, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the overall complication (18.6% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.065), superficial SSI (2.9% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.791) or readmission rate (4.9% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.835).ConclusionsFollowing laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis, intraperitoneal drain placement appears to confer no additional benefit and may prolong hospital stay.

Background Several systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic versus open appendectomy have been published, but there has been no overview of SRs of these two interventions. This overview (review of review) aims to summarise the results of such SRs in order to provide the most up to date evidence, and to highlight discordant results. Methods Medline, Embase, Cinahl, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for SRs published up to August 2014. Study selection and quality assessment using the AMSTAR tool were carried out independently by two reviewers. We used standardised forms to extract data that were analysed descriptively. Results Nine SRs met the inclusion criteria. All were of moderate to high quality. The number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) they included ranged from eight to 67. The duration of surgery pooled by eight reviews was 7.6 to 18.3 minutes shorter using the open approach. Pain scores on the first postoperative day were lower after laparoscopic appendectomy in two out of three reviews. The risk of abdominal abscesses was higher for laparoscopic surgery in half of six meta-analyses. The occurrence of wound infections pooled by all reviews was lower after laparoscopic appendectomy. One review showed no difference in mortality. The laparoscopic approach shortened hospital stay from 0.16 to 1.13 days in seven out of eight meta-analyses, though the strength of the evidence was affected by strong heterogeneity. Conclusion Laparoscopic and open appendectomy are both safe and effective procedures for the treatment of acute appendicitis. This overview shows discordant results with respect to the magnitude of the effect but not to the direction of the effect. The evidence from this overview may prove useful for the development of clinical guidelines and protocols.

BackgroundOver the last three decades, laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) has become the routine treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The role of laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis (gangrenous and/or perforated) remains controversial due to concerns of an increased incidence of post-operative intra-abdominal abscesses (IAA) in LA compared to open appendicectomy (OA). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of LA versus OA for complicated appendicitis.MethodsA systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Database for randomised controlled trials (RCT) and case–control studies (CCS) that compared LA with OA for complicated appendicitis.ResultsData from three RCT and 30 CCS on 6428 patients (OA 3,254, LA 3,174) were analysed. There was no significant difference in the rate of IAA (LA = 6.1% vs. OA = 4.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.71–1.47, p = 0.91). LA for complicated appendicitis has decreased overall post-operative morbidity (LA = 15.5% vs. OA = 22.7%; OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.31–0.59, p < 0.0001), wound infection, (LA = 4.7% vs. OA = 12.8%; OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.19–0.36, p < 0.001), respiratory complications (LA = 1.8% vs. OA = 6.4%; OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.13–0.49, p < 0.001), post-operative ileus/small bowel obstruction (LA = 3.1% vs. OA = 3.6%; OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42–1.0, p = 0.048) and mortality rate (LA = 0% vs. OA = 0.4%; OR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04–0.61, p = 0.008). LA has a significantly shorter hospital stay (6.4 days vs. 8.9 days, p = 0.02) and earlier resumption of solid food (2.7 days vs. 3.7 days, p = 0.03).ConclusionThese results clearly demonstrate that LA for complicated appendicitis has the same incidence of IAA but a significantly reduced morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay compared with OA. The finding of complicated appendicitis at laparoscopy is not an indication for conversion to open surgery. LA should be the preferred treatment for patients with complicated appendicitis.

BackgroundThis study investigated the feasibility of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) for the treatment of acute appendicitis.MethodsThere were 210 patients included who were admitted to our hospital from January 2017 to October 2019 with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis. According to the method of treatment, patients were stratified into the ERAT group, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) group, or open appendectomy (OA) group for comparison of perioperative information extracted from the medical records of the patients.ResultsThe operations were successfully completed in all patients. The length of operation in the ERAT group (median: 48 min, range: 34–78 min) was significantly shorter compared to the LA group (median: 67 min, range: 47–90 min) or OA group (median: 85 min, range: 58–120 min). Postoperatively, the length of the hospital stay, the amount of time spent bedridden following surgery, surgery-related complications, and in-patient expenses were all significantly less than those in both the LA and OA groups (all p < 0.05). Moreover, the recurrence rate of appendicitis after ERAT was 2.86% during the first six months of postoperative follow-up. Thirteen patients in the ERAT group were diagnosed with appendicular abscesses, all of which successfully proceeded by colonoscopically incising the most protruding or fluctuating place around the appendix opening without procedure-related complications during the follow-up period.ConclusionERAT is a safe and effective endoscopic treatment method for acute appendicitis and abscesses of the appendix. The advantages include reduced trauma, faster recovery times, and lower costs in comparison with either OA or LA procedures. ERAT with internal incision and drainage can be safely performed with immediate effect, especially in patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis accompanied by either fecal stones or stenosis of the appendix cavity, or an abscess within the appendix cavity.