Dataset Information

Comparison of Clinical Features and Outcomes of Appendectomy in Elderly vs. Non-Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The objective of this study is to compare clinical and surgical outcomes of appendectomy among elderly and non-elderly subjects.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Google academic databases. Studies, observational in design, that compared peri-and postoperative outcomes of appendectomy, in patients with acute appendicitis, between elderly and non-elderly/younger subjects were considered for inclusion. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA software.

Results

A total of 15 studies were included. Compared to non-elderly patients, those that were elderly had an increased risk of complicated appendicitis [relative risk (RR), 2.38; 95% CI: 2.13, 2.66], peritonitis [RR, 1.88; 95% CI: 1.36, 2.59], and conversion from laparoscopic to open appendectomy [RR, 3.02; 95% CI: 2.31, 3.95]. The risk of overall postoperative complications [RR, 2.59; 95% CI: 2.19, 3.06], intra-abdominal abscess [RR, 1.84; 95% CI: 1.15, 2.96], wound infection [RR, 3.80; 95% CI: 2.57, 5.61], and use of postoperative drainage [RR, 1.14; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.19] was higher among the elderly. The risk of readmission (30 days) [RR, 1.61; 95% CI: 1.16, 2.24] and mortality (30 days) [RR, 12.48; 95% CI: 3.65, 42.7] was also higher among elderly.

Conclusions

Findings suggest an increased risk of peri-and postoperative complications among elderly subjects undergoing appendectomy, compared to non-elderly subjects.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42021286157.

SUBMITTER: Yuan J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8899017 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Clinical Features and Outcomes of Appendectomy in Elderly vs. Non-Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Yuan Jie J Chen Qingfeng Q Hong Weicong W Yu Lifeng L Li Xuen X

Frontiers in surgery 20220221

<h4>Background</h4>The objective of this study is to compare clinical and surgical outcomes of appendectomy among elderly and non-elderly subjects.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Google academic databases. Studies, observational in design, that compared peri-and postoperative outcomes of appendectomy, in patients with acute appendicitis, between elderly and non-elderly/younger subjects were considered for inclusion. Statistical analysis was performed usin ...[more]

PMID: 35265661

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to review the applicability and complications rate associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer in elderly patients.MethodsDatabases of PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and ScienceDirect were searched till 15th April 2021. All types of studies comparing ESD in the elderly vs non-elderly were included. Subgroup analysis was conducted for the following groups: ≥80 years vs <80 years, ≥75 years vs < 75 years, and ≥65 years vs <65 years.Results17 studies were included. Meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in the en-bloc resection rates (OR: 0.92 95% CI: 0.68, 1.26 I2 = 8% p=0.62) and histological complete resection rates (OR: 0.93 95% CI: 0.75, 1.15 I2 = 26% p=0.50) between elderly and non-elderly patients. The results were non-significant even on subgroup analysis. Overall, we found a non-significant but a tendency of increased perforation rates in the elderly as compared to non-elderly patients (OR: 1.22 95% CI: 0.99, 1.52 I2 = 0% p=0.06). However, there was a significantly increased risk of perforation in elderly patients aged ≥80 years as compared to patients <80 years (OR: 1.50 95% CI: 1.00, 2.24 I2 = 3% p=0.05). Bleeding rates were not different in the two groups (OR: 1.07 95% CI: 0.87, 1.32 I2 = 19% p=0.52). Pooled analysis indicated a statistically significantly increased risk of pneumonia in elderly patients (OR: 2.52 95% CI: 1.72, 3.70 I2 = 7% p<0.00001). Length of hospital stay was reported only by five studies. Meta-analysis indicated no significant difference between the two study groups (MD: 0.67 95% CI: -0.14, 1.48 I2 = 83% p=0.10).ConclusionEn-bloc and histological complete resection rates do not differ between elderly and non-elderly patients undergoing ESD for early gastric cancer. Elderly patients have a small tendency of increased risk of perforation with significantly increased rates in the super-elderly (≥80 years of age). The risk of pneumonia is significantly higher in elderly patients but the rates of bleeding do not differ. The certainty of evidence is "very low" and there is a need for high-quality studies taking into account confounding factors to enhance the quality of evidence.

Project description:ImportancePostradiation oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) is a common secondary malignant neoplasm affecting survivors of head and neck cancer who underwent radiotherapy. The clinical, pathologic, and immune-related features of postradiation OCSCC are poorly characterized, and treatment options are limited because of surgical difficulty and high morbidity associated with reirradiation.ObjectiveTo determine whether postradiation OCSCC has distinctive clinical, pathologic, and immune-related features compared with demographic-matched sporadic OCSCC.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective matched cohort study was conducted at a single tertiary oncology center in Hong Kong. Participants included consecutive patients with OCSCC diagnosed between 2000 and 2020. Patients with postradiation OCSCC were matched with patients with sporadic OCSCC using age, year of diagnosis, sex, and anatomic subsites. Data analysis was performed from July to December 2022.ExposureHead and neck irradiation involving the oral cavity before the diagnosis of OCSCC.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were relapse pattern, survival, and causes of death. Pathologic features; immunohistochemical staining for programmed death-ligand 1, PD-1, MSH6, PMS2, FOXP3, and Ki67; and mRNA expression of 31 immune-related genes were also analyzed.ResultsA total of 173 patients, 60 with postradiation OCSCC (median [IQR] age, 63.8 [53.0-71.7] years; 43 men [71.7%]) and 113 with sporadic OCSCC (median [IQR] age, 64.4 [52.8-70.6] years; 83 men [73.5%]), were included. Patients with postradiation OCSCC had a higher proportion of N0 disease than those with sporadic OCSCC (50 patients [83.3%] vs 56 patients [49.6%]). With a median (IQR) follow-up of 10.2 (1.2-20.5) years, the 10-year relapse-free survival rates were lower in patients with postradiation OCSCC than sporadic OCSCC (29.6% [95% CI, 17.1%-43.2%] vs 52.4% [95% CI, 41.8%-62.0%]; P = .04), and the same was true for overall survival (30.5% [95% CI, 17.6%-44.4%] vs 52.3% [95% CI, 41.4%-62.1%]; P = .03). All relapses in patients with postradiation OCSCC were locoregional, whereas 35.2% of relapses (12 of 34 patients) in patients with sporadic OCSCC were distant. Despite similar 10-year disease-specific survival rates between the 2 groups (68.8% [95% CI, 55.8%-81.0%] vs 67.1% [95% CI, 57.5%-76.5%]; P = .91), patients with postradiation OCSCC had excess mortality due to pneumonia and cerebrovascular events. Postradiation OCSCC exhibited more adverse pathologic features (perineural invasion, worse pattern of invasion, and tumor budding), higher PD-1 expression, and higher gene expression of CD4 and TGF-β compared with sporadic OCSCC.Conclusions and relevanceThis retrospective matched cohort study found distinctive pathologic characteristics and relapse patterns of postradiation OCSCC compared with sporadic OCSCC, which may be attributable to the lack of adjuvant radiotherapy, aggressive biologic phenotype, and different host immune response. Further exploration of the role of immune checkpoint therapy may be justified.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent practice guidelines for optimal infusion rates during early intravenous hydration in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare treatment outcomes between aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration in severe and non-severe AP.MethodsThis study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on November 23, 2022, and hand-searched the reference lists of included RCTs, relevant review articles and clinical guidelines. We included RCTs that compared clinical outcomes from aggressive and non-aggressive intravenous hydration in AP. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model for participants with severe AP and non-severe AP. Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and several secondary outcomes included fluid-related complications, clinical improvement and APACHE II scores within 48 h.ResultsWe included a total of 9 RCTs with 953 participants. The meta-analysis indicated that, compared to non-aggressive intravenous hydration, aggressive intravenous hydration significantly increased mortality risk in severe AP (pooled RR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.37, 4.40), while the result in non-severe AP was inconclusive (pooled RR: 2.26, 95% CI: 0.54, 9.44). However, aggressive intravenous hydration significantly increased fluid-related complication risk in both severe (pooled RR: 2.22, 95% CI 1.36, 3.63) and non-severe AP (pooled RR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.53, 6.93). The meta-analysis indicated worse APACHE II scores (pooled mean difference: 3.31, 95% CI: 1.79, 4.84) in severe AP, and no increased likelihood of clinical improvement (pooled RR:1.20, 95% CI: 0.63, 2.29) in non-severe AP. Sensitivity analyses including only RCTs with goal-directed fluid therapy after initial fluid resuscitation therapy yielded consistent results.ConclusionsAggressive intravenous hydration increased the mortality risk in severe AP, and fluid-related complication risk in both severe and non-severe AP. More conservative intravenous fluid resuscitation protocols for AP are suggested.

Project description:BackgroundMore severe cases of COVID- 19 are more likely to be hospitalized and around one-fifth, needing ICU admission. Understanding the common laboratory features of COVID-19 in more severe cases versus non-severe patients could be quite useful for clinicians and might help to predict the model of disease progression. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the laboratory test findings in severe vs. non-severe confirmed infected cases of COVID-19.MethodsElectronic databases were systematically searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from the beginning of 2019 to 3rd of March 2020. Heterogeneity across included studies was determined using Cochrane's Q test and the I2 statistic. We used the fixed or random-effect models to pool the weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).FindingsOut of a total of 3009 citations, 17 articles (22 studies, 21 from China and one study from Singapore) with 3396 ranging from 12 to1099 patients were included. Our meta-analyses showed a significant decrease in lymphocyte, monocyte, and eosinophil, hemoglobin, platelet, albumin, serum sodium, lymphocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LCR), leukocyte to C-reactive protein ratio (LeCR), leukocyte to IL-6 ratio (LeIR), and an increase in the neutrophil, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine (Cr), erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), Procalcitonin (PCT), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), fibrinogen, prothrombin time (PT), D-dimer, glucose level, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in the severe group compared with the non-severe group. No significant changes in white blood cells (WBC), Creatine Kinase (CK), troponin I, myoglobin, IL-6 and K between the two groups were observed.InterpretationThis meta-analysis provides evidence for the differentiation of severe cases of COVID-19 based on laboratory test results at the time of ICU admission. Future well-methodologically designed studies from other populations are strongly recommended.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Clinical Features and Outcomes of Appendectomy in Elderly vs. Non-Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Systematic review registration

Publications

Comparison of Clinical Features and Outcomes of Appendectomy in Elderly vs. Non-Elderly: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets