Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in patients with suspected appendicitis: a systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-015-0277-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Related collections

Most cited references 18

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States.

DAVID G ADDISS, NATHAN SHAFFER, BARBARA S. FOWLER … (1990)

To describe the epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States, the authors analyzed National Hospital Discharge Survey data for the years 1979-1984. Approximately 250,000 cases of appendicitis occurred annually in the United States during this period, accounting for an estimated 1 million hospital days per year. The highest incidence of primary positive appendectomy (appendicitis) was found in persons aged 10-19 years (23.3 per 10,000 population per year); males had higher rates of appendicitis than females for all age groups (overall rate ratio, 1.4:1). Racial, geographic, and seasonal differences were also noted. Appendicitis rates were 1.5 times higher for whites than for nonwhites, highest (15.4 per 10,000 population per year) in the west north central region, and 11.3% higher in the summer than in the winter months. The highest rate of incidental appendectomy was found in women aged 35-44 years (43.8 per 10,000 population per year), 12.1 times higher than the rate for men of the same age. Between 1970 and 1984, the incidence of appendicitis decreased by 14.6%; reasons for this decline are unknown. A life table model suggests that the lifetime risk of appendicitis is 8.6% for males and 6.7% for females; the lifetime risk of appendectomy is 12.0% for males and 23.1% for females. Overall, an estimated 36 incidental procedures are performed to prevent one case of appendicitis; for the elderly, the preventive value of an incidental procedure is considerably lower.

0 comments Cited 421 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

Beverley Shea, Lex Bouter, Joan Peterson … (2007)

Background Thousands of systematic reviews have been conducted in all areas of health care. However, the methodological quality of these reviews is variable and should routinely be appraised. AMSTAR is a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews. Methodology AMSTAR was used to appraise 42 reviews focusing on therapies to treat gastro-esophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and other acid-related diseases. Two assessors applied the AMSTAR to each review. Two other assessors, plus a clinician and/or methodologist applied a global assessment to each review independently. Conclusions The sample of 42 reviews covered a wide range of methodological quality. The overall scores on AMSTAR ranged from 0 to 10 (out of a maximum of 11) with a mean of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 5.6) and median 4.0 (range 2.0 to 6.0). The inter-observer agreement of the individual items ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement. Nine items scored a kappa of >0.75 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.96). The reliability of the total AMSTAR score was excellent: kappa 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.00) and Pearson's R 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98). The overall scores for the global assessment ranged from 2 to 7 (out of a maximum score of 7) with a mean of 4.43 (95% CI: 3.6 to 5.3) and median 4.0 (range 2.25 to 5.75). The agreement was lower with a kappa of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.88). Construct validity was shown by AMSTAR convergence with the results of the global assessment: Pearson's R 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.84). For the AMSTAR total score, the limits of agreement were −0.19±1.38. This translates to a minimum detectable difference between reviews of 0.64 ‘AMSTAR points’. Further validation of AMSTAR is needed to assess its validity, reliability and perceived utility by appraisers and end users of reviews across a broader range of systematic reviews.

0 comments Cited 198 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Endoscopic appendectomy.

K. Semm (1983)

These newly developed endoscopic methods in gynaecology for haemostasis during surgical pelviscopy (Endocoagulation Roeder-loop ligation, endoligature, endo-suture with intra- and extracorporeal knotting) make it possible to carry out appendectomy by endoscopy for any of the following indications: Postoperative adhesion of the appendix especially in "sterility" patients, elongated appendix extending into the small pelvis, endometriosis of the appendix, subacute and chronic appendicitis. The instrument-set employed in this method permits the performance of all the usual classical operative steps (purse-string suture, and Z-suture acc. to McBurney and Sprengel). The point for resection has to be sterilized over 20-30 sec. at 212 degrees F using the crocodile forceps (endocoagulation procedure) before division and extraction of the appendix is effected.

0 comments Cited 196 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Thomas Jaschinski: Thomas.Jaschinski@uni-wh.de

Christoph Mosch: Christoph.Mosch@uni-wh.de

Michaela Eikermann: Michaela.Eikermann@uni-wh.de

Edmund AM Neugebauer: Edmund.Neugebauer@uni-wh.de

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Gastroenterol

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Gastroenterol

Title: BMC Gastroenterology

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1471-230X

Publication date (Electronic): 15 April 2015

Publication date PMC-release: 15 April 2015

Publication date Collection: 2015

Volume: 15

Electronic Location Identifier: 48

Affiliations

Department for Evidence-based health services research, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200 (building 38), 51109 Cologne, Germany

Article

Publisher ID: 277

DOI: 10.1186/s12876-015-0277-3

PMC ID: 4399217

PubMed ID: 25884671

SO-VID: 1e567fda-33c3-457b-821a-74cdf060b0d4

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.