Aspiration versus peritoneal lavage in appendicitis: a meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Acute appendicitis is one of the most frequent abdominal surgical emergencies. Intra-abdominal abscess is a frequent post-operative complication. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare peritoneal irrigation and suction versus suction only when performing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis.Methods
According to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted and registered into the Prospero register (CRD42020186848). The risk of bias was defined to be from low to moderate.Results
Seventeen studies (9 RCTs and 8 CCTs) were selected, including 5315 patients. There was no statistical significance in post-operative intra-abdominal abscess in open (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.75-2.15; I2 = 74%) and laparoscopic group (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.73-3.13; I2 = 83%). No statistical significance in reoperation rate in open (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.04-2.49; I2 = 18%) and laparoscopic group (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.64-2.49; I2 = 18%). In both open and laparoscopic groups, operative time was lower in the suction group (RR 7.13, 95% CI 3.14-11.12); no statistical significance was found for hospital stay (MD - 0.39, 95% CI - 1.07 to 0.30; I2 = 91%) and the rate of wound infection (MD 1.16, 95% CI 0.56-2.38; I2 = 71%).Conclusions
This systematic review has failed to demonstrate the statistical superiority of employing intra-operative peritoneal irrigation and suction over suction-only to reduce the rate of post-operative complications after appendectomy, but all the articles report clinical superiority in terms of post-operative abscess, wound infection and operative times in suction-only group.
SUBMITTER: Burini G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8419906 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background:The use of peritoneal lavage to prevent postoperative intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) after appendicectomy has been debated widely. Methods:A systematic review and meta-analysis of suction alone versus lavage for appendicitis was performed to determine the relative benefit of lavage. Primary outcomes were postoperative IAA and wound infection (WI). Inclusion criteria were human studies reporting a comparison of appendicectomy with or without peritoneal lavage. Results:Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority of which were retrospective. Only three were RCTs. Four studies included analysis only of the paediatric population. The rate of IAA was 1·0-19·5 per cent in patients receiving suction alone and 1·5-18·6 per cent in those having lavage. WI rates were 1·0-29·2 per cent for suction alone and 0·8-20·5 per cent for lavage. The pooled risk difference for IAA was 0·01 (95 per cent c.i. -0·03 to 0·06; P = 0·50) and that for WI was 0·00 (-0·05 to 0·05; P = 0·98). Analyses of both outcomes indicated a medium degree of heterogeneity between effect estimates with I 2 values of 71 per cent (P = 0·001) and 70 per cent (P = 0·010) for IAA and WI respectively. Conclusion:There is no evidence of benefit of lavage over suction for postoperative infective complications, and no individual study demonstrated a significant benefit in patients receiving lavage.
| S-EPMC6354188 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFor more than a century, appendicectomy has been the treatment of choice for appendicitis. Recent trials have challenged this view. This study assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotic therapy compared with appendicectomy in patients with non-perforated appendicitis.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted for randomized trials comparing antibiotic therapy with appendicectomy in patients with non-perforated appendicitis. Key outcomes were analysed using random-effects meta-analysis, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsFive studies including 1116 patients reported major complications in 25 (4·9 per cent) of 510 patients in the antibiotic and 41 (8·4 per cent) of 489 in the appendicectomy group: risk difference -2·6 (95 per cent c.i. -6·3 to 1·1) per cent (low-quality evidence). Minor complications occurred in 11 (2·2 per cent) of 510 and 61 (12·5 per cent) of 489 patients respectively: risk difference -7·2 (-18·1 to 3·8) per cent (very low-quality evidence). Of 550 patients in the antibiotic group, 47 underwent appendicectomy within 1 month: pooled estimate 8·2 (95 per cent c.i. 5·2 to 11·8) per cent (high-quality evidence). Within 1?year, appendicitis recurred in 114 of 510 patients in the antibiotic group: pooled estimate 22·6 (15·6 to 30·4) per cent (high-quality evidence). For every 100 patients with non-perforated appendicitis, initial antibiotic therapy compared with prompt appendicectomy may result in 92 fewer patients receiving surgery within the first month, and 23 more experiencing recurrent appendicitis within the first year.ConclusionThe choice of medical versus surgical management in patients with clearly uncomplicated appendicitis is value- and preference-dependent, suggesting a change in practice towards shared decision-making is necessary.
| S-EPMC5069642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) is used to detect intraperitoneal bleeding in patients sustaining blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma. The procedure should be performed by an experienced general surgeon, and the fluid obtained analysed by haematology technicians. Current Advanced Trauma Life Support guidelines are very clear on what constitutes a positive result, mandating laparotomy. The aim of this work was to assess whether DPL could actually be performed in practice. METHODS:A telephone survey was performed of a random selection of haematology technicians in 40 major trauma units in the UK, to assess whether they could actually analyse a DPL sample if it were sent to them. This was performed both during the day, and "out of hours". Secondly the experience of performing DPL was determined among 1797 general surgical trainees and consultants, by means of a questionnaire. RESULTS:Between 9 am and 5 pm 29 of 40 haematology technicians questioned were able to analyse a sample of DPL fluid. This compared with a figure of 9 of 40 when the questionnaire was administered "out of hours". A total of 854 (48%) questionnaires were received from surgical trainees and consultants. Approximately 60% of those questioned had performed less than 10 DPLs throughout the whole of their careers. DISCUSSION:These results suggest that UK surgeons have little experience in performing DPL, and even if they do it is unlikely that any haematology departments will be able to analyse the sample, especially if performed after 5 pm. ATLS guidelines should be changed, and this investigation abandoned in favour of abdominal ultrasound.
| S-EPMC1756329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purulent peritonitis from acute left colon diverticulitis is a relatively common presentation of diverticular disease; historically the treatment was the Hartmann procedure. Laparoscopic peritoneal lavage has been proposed as a lesser invasive treatment option with great interest and debate among surgeons and with contrasting results. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the results of sigmoid resection with laparoscopic lavage.A systematic review was performed to select randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic lavage versus resection in Hinchey III diverticulitis. Studies' selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were done by two independent authors; results were shown as OR with 95 % C.I.Three RCT were selected for the meta-analysis including 315 patents. Laparoscopic lavage was associated with significantly more reoperations (OR 3.75, p?=?0.006) and more intra-abdominal abscesses (OR 3.50, p?=?0.0003) with no differences in mortality (OR 0.93, p?=?0.92). At 12 months follow up laparoscopic lavage was associated with lesser reoperations (OR 0.32, p?=?0.0004); there were no differences in term of stoma presence (OR 0.44 p?=?0.27) and mortality (OR 0.74 p?=?0.51).The present meta-analysis shows that in acute perforated diverticulitis with purulent peritonitis laparoscopic lavage is comparable to sigmoid resection in term of mortality but it is associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperations and a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscess. No differences in term of mortality were demonstrated at follow-up. Further studies are needed to better define the safety and appropriateness of this treatment.
| S-EPMC5006586 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundA wealth of evidence based on the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has indicated that surgery may be a better choice in the management of primary intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) compared to conservative treatment. However, there is considerable controversy over selecting appropriate surgical procedures for ICH. Thus, this meta-analysis was performed to assess the effects of stereotactic aspiration compared to craniotomy in patients with ICH.MethodsAccording to the study strategy, we searched PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Other sources such as the internet-based clinical trial registries, relevant journals and the lists of references were also searched. After literature searching, two investigators independently performed literature screening, assessment of quality of the included trials and data extraction. The outcome measures included death or dependence, total risk of complication, and the risk of rebleeding, gastrointestinal hemorrhage and systematic infection.ResultsFour RCTs with 2996 participants were included. The quality of the included trials was acceptable. Stereotactic aspiration significantly decreased the odds of death or dependence at the final follow-up (odds ratio (OR): 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-0.93; P?=?0.004) and the risk of intracerebral rebleeding (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.26-0.74; P?=?0.002) compared to craniotomy with no significant heterogeneity among the study results.ConclusionsThe present meta-analysis provides evidence that the stereotactic aspiration may be associated with a reduction in the odds of being dead or dependent in primary ICH, which should be interpreted with caution. Further trials are needed to identify those patients most likely to benefit from the stereotactic aspiration.
| S-EPMC4169548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopic appendicectomy has gained wide acceptance as an alternative to open appendicectomy during pregnancy. However, data regarding the safety and optimal surgical approach to appendicitis in pregnancy are still controversial.MethodsThis was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing laparoscopic and open appendicectomy in pregnancy identified using PubMed and Scopus search engines from January 1990 to July 2011. Two reviewers independently extracted data on fetal loss, preterm delivery, wound infection, duration of operation, hospital stay, Apgar score and birth weight between laparoscopic and open appendicectomy groups.ResultsEleven studies with a total of 3415 women (599 in laparoscopic and 2816 in open group) were included in the analysis. Fetal loss was statistically significantly worse in those who underwent laparoscopy compared with open appendicectomy; the pooled relative risk (RR) was 1·91 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 1·31 to 2·77) without heterogeneity. The pooled RR for preterm labour was 1·44 (0·68 to 3·06), but this risk was not statistically significant. The mean difference in length of hospital stay was - 0·49 (-1·76 to - 0·78) days, but this was not clinically significant. No significant difference was found for wound infection, birth weight, duration of operation or Apgar score.ConclusionThe available low-grade evidence suggests that laparoscopic appendicectomy in pregnant women might be associated with a greater risk of fetal loss.
| S-EPMC3494303 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) via flexible bronchoscopy is an essential diagnostic tool, its technique is not standardized in children. Our objective was to compare two different aspiration techniques of BAL in children (continuous wall suction vs. handheld syringe suction) in regards to the percentage of fluid recovered and the odds of performing a technically acceptable procedure (i.e., >40% of volume return).MethodsWe conducted a review of all pediatric flexible bronchoscopies with BAL conducted at our institution over a 2-year period. To minimize the differences between groups at baseline and reduce the possibility of bias, we used one-to-one propensity score (PS) caliper matching with no replacement for statistical analyses.ResultsWe identified 539 procedures that met pre-specified criteria. There were considerable covariate imbalances between procedures in the handheld syringe group (n = 147) and those in the continuous wall group (n = 392); however, these imbalances were substantially reduced after the PS matching. In the matched sample (n = 236), children in the handheld syringe group had ∼7% higher volume return (95% CI = 3.4-11.0, P < 0.001) from BAL and threefold higher odds (95% CI = 1.5-8.6, P = 0.002) of performing a technically acceptable procedure.ConclusionsOur results suggest that handheld syringe suction offers a higher percentage of volume return from BAL and increases the odds of performing a technically acceptable procedure in children when compared to continuous wall suction.
| S-EPMC3999312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHome-based peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an alternative to facility-based hemodialysis and has lower costs and greater freedom for patients with kidney failure. For a patient to undergo PD, a safe and reliable method of accessing the peritoneum is needed. However, different catheter insertion techniques may affect patient health outcomes.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of infectious and mechanical complications between surgical (open and laparoscopic) PD catheter insertion and percutaneous catheter insertion.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.SettingWe searched for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and SCOPUS from inception until June 2018. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers based on a preformed template.PatientsAdult (aged 18+) patients with kidney failure who underwent a PD catheter insertion procedure.MeasurementsWe analyzed leak, malfunction, and bleed as early complications (occurring within 1 month of catheter insertion). Infectious complications (exit-site infections, tunnel infections, and peritonitis) were presented as both early complications and with the longest duration of follow-up.MethodsRandom effects meta-analyses with the generic inverse variance method to estimate pooled rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals. We quantified heterogeneity by using the I2 statistic for inconsistency and assessed heterogeneity using the χ2 test. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing studies at high risk of bias as measured with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.ResultsTwenty-four studies (22 observational, 2 RCTs) with 3108 patients and 3777 catheter insertions were selected. Data from 2 studies were unable to be extracted and were qualitatively assessed. In the remaining 22 studies, percutaneous insertion was associated with a lower risk of both exit-site infections (risk ratio [RR] = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24-0.53, I2 = 0%) and peritonitis (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36-0.77, I2 = 3%) within 1 month of the procedure. There was no difference in mechanical complication rates between the 2 techniques.LimitationsLack of consistency in the time periods for the various outcomes reported, risk of bias concerns with respect to population comparability, and the inability to analyze individual component causes of primary nonfunction (catheter obstruction, catheter migration, and leak).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis suggests differences in early infectious complications in favor of percutaneous insertion and no significant differences in mechanical complications compared with surgical insertion. These findings have implications on the direction of PD programs in terms of maximizing operating room resources.
| S-EPMC8593295 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is ongoing debate regarding the optimal first-line thrombectomy technique for large-vessel occlusion. PURPOSE:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies on stent retriever-first and aspiration-first thrombectomy. DATA SOURCES:We searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE from 2009 to February 2018. STUDY SELECTION:Two reviewers independently selected the studies. The primary end point was successful reperfusion (TICI 2b/3). DATA ANALYSIS:Random-effects meta-analysis was used for analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS:Eighteen studies including 2893 patients were included. There was no significant difference in the rate of final successful reperfusion (83.9% versus 83.3%; OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62%-1.27%) or good functional outcome (mRS 0-2) at 90 days (OR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.80-1.44) between the stent-retriever thrombectomy and aspiration groups. The stent-retriever thrombectomy-first group achieved a statistically significant higher TICI 2b/3 rate after the first-line device than the aspiration-first group (74.9% versus 66.4%; OR = 1.53; 95% CI, 1.14%-2.05%) and resulted in lower use of a rescue device (19.9% versus 32.5%; OR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.14%-0.90%). The aspiration-first approach resulted in a statistically shorter groin-to-reperfusion time (weighted mean difference, 7.15 minutes; 95% CI, 1.63-12.67 minutes). There was no difference in the number of passes, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, vessel dissection or perforation, and mortality between groups. LIMITATIONS:Most of the included studies were nonrandomized. There was significant heterogeneity in some of the outcome variables. CONCLUSIONS:Stent-retriever thrombectomy-first and aspiration-first thrombectomy were associated with comparable final reperfusion rates and functional outcome. Stent-retriever thrombectomy was superior in achieving reperfusion as a stand-alone first-line technique, with lower use of rescue devices but a longer groin-to-reperfusion time.
| S-EPMC7655372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEndobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is an effective technique used to precisely detect enlarged mediastinal lymph nodes. The efficacy of EBUS-TBNA versus standard modalities for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis remains to be elucidated. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacies of these methods.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Wanfang, Cpvip, CNKI, and the bibliographies of the relevant references. We analyzed the data obtained with Revman 5.2 (Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, Denmark) and Stata 12.0 software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA). The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsSixteen studies with a total of 1823 participants met the inclusion criteria, and data were extracted regarding the diagnostic yield of each approach. The ORs for EBUS-TBNA versus transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB) for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis ranged from 0.26 to 126.58, and the pooled OR was 5.89 (95% CI, 2.20-15.79, P = 0.0004). These findings indicated that EBUS-TBNA provided a much higher diagnostic yield than TBLB. The pooled OR for EBUS-TBNA + TBLB + endobronchial biopsy (EBB) versus TBNA + TBLB + EBB was 1.54 (95% CI, 0.61-3.93, P = 0.36), implying that there was no significant difference between their diagnostic yields. However, clinical heterogeneity was reflected in the nature of the studies and in the operative variables.ConclusionsThe results of this meta-analysis suggest that EBUS-TBNA + TBLB + EBB could be used for the diagnosis of sarcoidosis, if available. At medical centers without EBUS-TBNA, TBNA + TBLB + EBB could be used instead.
| S-EPMC4931269 | biostudies-literature