Outcomes Of Appendectomy Research Articles

Pediatric Obesity's Effect on Open and Laparoscopic Appendectomy Outcomes

Pediatric Obesity's Effect on Open and Laparoscopic Appendectomy Outcomes

Surgical and Pre-surgical Factors Affecting Appendectomy Outcomes in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A Retrospective Record Review.

Appendectomy is the preferred treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis and the most common emergency abdominal surgery. While previous studies have investigated variables affecting post-appendectomy complications, local research is limited, and data on complication rates are scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate appendectomy outcomes and the factors influencing them. This retrospective record review included all patients who underwent appendectomies at our center between 2013 and 2023, excluding those who underwent appendectomies as part of other procedures. Data were retrieved from the hospital database and recorded on predesigned Google Forms. A total of 556 patients were included. Complications occurred in 60 patients (10.8%); the most common included intra-abdominal collections (n=19, 3.4%), postoperative fever (n=13, 2.3%), and surgical site infections (n=11, 2.0%). The most frequently documented histopathological diagnoses included acute appendicitis (n=402, 72.3%), perforated appendicitis (n=109, 19.6%), and gangrenous appendicitis (n=19, 4.4%). Surgical site infection rates were higher after open appendectomies (6.0% vs. 0.9%, P=0.006), while intra-abdominal collections were more frequent after laparoscopic appendectomies (4.1% vs. 0.0%, P=0.095). Additionally, histopathology results showing complicated or chronic appendicitis were associated with higher complication rates (P<0.001, odds ratio=3.793, 95% confidence interval=1.957-7.350). To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest retrospective review of appendectomy cases in Saudi Arabia. However, this study was conducted in a tertiary care center, which may have caused the rates of complications to appear lower than those in primary centers. We recommend a multi-center study be conducted to establish more accurate results.

Surgical management of 1- to 2-cm neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix: Appendectomy or right hemicolectomy?

BackgroundThe surgical management of 1- to 2-cm neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix is an area of debate. We analyzed the clinical outcomes of appendectomy and compared them to right hemicolectomy. MethodsWe queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients treated for 1- to 2-cm ANETs from 2004 to 2018. Patients were stratified by surgical approach (appendectomy vs. hemicolectomy). Multivariable models were used to identify factors associated with the choice of surgical approach and the association between surgical approach and overall survival. ResultsOf the 3,189 patients we included, 1,573 (49.3%) underwent right hemicolectomy and 1,616 (50.7%) appendectomy. The appendectomy rate increased from 37.7% in 2004 to 58.9% in 2018. On multivariable analysis, patients with grade 2 and 3 tumors were less likely to undergo appendectomy alone (odds ratio = 0.41, 95% confidence interval = 0.26–0.66). Longer travel distance was associated with a higher likelihood of undergoing appendectomy (odds ratio = 2.52, 95% confidence interval = 1.15–5.51). After adjusting for tumor grade, appendectomy alone had similar survival to hemicolectomy (hazard ratio = 1.03, 95% confidence interval = 0.67–1.59). ConclusionIn this updated analysis of the National Cancer Database, right hemicolectomy was not associated with improved overall survival compared to appendectomy alone for 1- to 2-cm neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix. Although patients with grade 2 or 3 tumors are more likely to undergo right hemicolectomy, this procedure may not improve their treatment or overall outcome.

Outcomes of Incidental Appendectomy During Ovarian Operations in a National Pediatric Cohort

IntroductionThe utility of incidental appendectomy (IA) during many ovarian operations has not been evaluated in the pediatric population. This study sought to compare outcomes after ovarian surgery with IA in the pediatric population. MethodsFemales (≤20 y old) undergoing ovarian surgeries (oophorectomy, detorsion and/or drainage) were identified from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2018). Those with appendicitis were excluded. A propensity score-matched analysis (PSMA) with 46 covariates (demographics, comorbidities, hospitalization factors, etc.) was performed between those receiving ovarian surgery with or without IA. ResultsThere were 13,202 females (median age 17 [IQR 14-20] y old) who underwent oophorectomy (90%), detorsion (26%), and/or ovarian drainage (13%). There were more episodes of torsion in the PSMA cohort receiving ovarian surgery alone (17% versus 10% IA; P = 0.016), while other indications (ovarian mass, cyst) were similar. Open (66% versus 34% laparoscopic) IAs were more frequent. Length of stay (LOS) was longer for those undergoing IA (3 [2-4] versus 2 [2-4] days ovarian surgery alone; P < 0.001). There was a higher rate of postoperative GI complications in the IA cohort. Subgroup analysis of those undergoing laparoscopic operations demonstrated no difference in LOS or postoperative complications between patients undergoing IA or not. ConclusionsThese data indicate that IA in pediatric ovarian operations is associated with longer LOS and higher GI postoperative complications. However, laparoscopic IA was not associated with higher cost, complications, LOS, or readmissions. This suggests that IA performed during ovarian surgeries in select patients may be cost-effective and worthy of future study.

Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics

Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants. To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics. This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022. Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy. Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants. Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups. A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

How does the number of training years in pediatric surgery affect appendectomy outcomes?

Appendectomy has traditionally been considered as a training operation for junior pediatric surgeons during their training period. However, with the increase of laparoscopic appendectomy, there has been a growing concern about the performance of this procedure by junior trainees. Our aim is to analyze intra-/postoperative appendectomy outcomes according to the number of training years during Pediatric Surgical residency training program. A retrospective study was performed in patients who underwent appendectomy between 2018 and 2021 in our institution, who were divided into 5 groups according to the number of training years of the junior surgeon who performed the intervention (Y1-Y5). Demographics, complicated appendicitis rate, operation time, and postoperative complications were compared. A stratified analysis according to the technique performed (open/laparoscopic) was performed. A total of 1274 appendectomized patients were analyzed, of which 1257 (98.7%) were operated on by junior trainees (81 in Y1; 407 in Y2; 337 in Y3; 261 in Y4; and 171 in Y5) without demographic differences between groups. As the year of training increased, an elevation in complicated appendicitis rate was observed, although without statistically significant differences. However, laparoscopic/open appendectomies ratio increased with increasing year of training (p < 0.001). Operative time decreased significantly with increasing year of training (p < 0.001), both in open and laparoscopic appendectomies. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications, nor in the stratified analysis according to surgical technique. Appendectomy performed by junior pediatric surgery trainees can be considered a safe procedure from the first year of training, regardless of the technique used.

Were surgical outcomes for acute appendicitis impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic?

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare systems throughout the world. We examine whether appendectomy outcomes in 2020 and 2021 were affected by the pandemic.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 30-day appendectomy outcomes using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2019 through 2021. Logistic regression and linear regression analyses were performed to create models of post-operative outcomes.ResultsThere were no associations between the time period of surgery and death, readmission, reoperation, deep incisional SSI, organ space SSI, sepsis, septic shock, rate of complicated appendicitis, failure to wean from the ventilator, or days from admission to operation. During the first 21 months of the pandemic (April 2020 through December 2021), there was a decreased length of hospital stay (p = 0.016), increased operative time (p < 0.001), and increased likelihood of laparoscopic versus open surgery (p < 0.001) in compared to 2019.ConclusionsThere were minimal differences in emergent appendectomy outcomes during the first 21 months of the pandemic when compared to 2019. Surgical systems in the US successfully adapted to the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact of appendectomy of a grossly normal appendix on the survival outcomes of mucinous ovarian carcinomas in a tertiary hospital.

To evaluate the survival outcomes of appendectomy for a grossly normal appendix in patients with mucinous ovarian carcinomas. Retrospective cohort study. Patients with mucinous ovarian carcinomas with grossly normal appendices who underwent primary surgery between 2002 and 2022 were enrolled. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of appendectomy and non-appendectomy groups were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to determine the independent factors associated with OS and PFS. Of 192 patients, appendectomy was performed in 138 (71.9%). Three (1.6%) patients had primary appendiceal tumors and two (1.0%) had appendiceal metastases of ovarian origin. The median follow-up time was 68.8months. The OS and PFS were better in patients in the appendectomy group than in those in the non-appendectomy group (5-year OS: 80.72% vs. 65.05%, P= 0.012; 5-year PFS: 76.32% vs. 58.60%, P= 0.020). Independent factors associated with poor OS and PFS were no omentectomy, peritoneal seeding, and advanced International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage. Appendectomy of a grossly normal appendix was not an independent prognostic factor for OS and PFS in patients with mucinous ovarian carcinomas.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Appendicectomy in Pediatric Patients; A Comparative Study in A Single Center

Appendicitis is the commonest surgical emergency in paeadtric patients. Appendicectomy is still being performed by both open and laparoscopic methods. The first laparoscopic appendicectomy was performed in 1983. Objective: To compare the outcome of open appendectomies with laparoscopic appendectomies in pediatric patients was the objective of this study. Methods: Two hundred pediatric patients of both genders with acute appendicitis were enrolled from emergency department of Pediatric Surgery, Qazi Hussain Ahmad medical complex, Nowshehra, from March 2020- December 2020. In this convenient study patients were dividing into two groups. Group A patients received open appendectomy and Group B received laparoscopic appendectomy. Outcome of both procedures were noted and compared between groups by chi square test. Results: Mean ages of patients were 10.11±2.67 and 10.01±2.31 years (p=0.796) in group A and B, respectively. There were 63.0% and 69.0% males 1) in group A and B, respectively. Mean operative time, mean hospital stay and mean VAS were26.19±8.14 vs. 36.79±11.41 min.,2.01±0.61 vs. 1.03±0.01 days and 3.67±1.41 and 6.07±2.01 (p=0.000) in group A and B, respectively. Complications were hemorrhage (0.0% vs. 0.0%; p=1.0), Iatrogenic injury (0.0% vs. 0.0%; p=1.0) and Pelvic collection (3.0% vs. 0.05; p=1.0), SSI (6.0% vs. 0.0%; p=0.00) in group A and B, respectively. None of the pediatric patients after laparoscopic appendectomy required another exploration to deal with complications however, 3.0% patients needed exploration in open appendectomy. No mortality (0.0%) was observed in any group. Conclusions: laparoscopic appendectomies in pediatric patients is safe and feasible as compared to open appendectomy

A Video-Based Consent Tool: Development and Effect of Risk–Benefit Framing on Intention to Randomize

IntroductionNearly 75% of clinical trials fail to enroll enough participants, and cohorts often fail to reflect the clinical and demographic diversity of at-risk populations. Effective recruitment strategies are critically important for successful clinical trials. Framing treatment risks are known to affect medical decision-making for both physicians and patients but has not been rigorously studied in surgical trials. We sought to examine the impact of a high-quality video-based consent tool and the effect of risk–benefit framing on patient willingness to participate in a surgical clinical trial. MethodsA standardized video consent was shown to all potential participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, a randomized controlled trial comparing antibiotics and surgery for acute appendicitis. We report (1) differences in recruitment between two versions of a video-based tool that differed in production quality and (2) the impact of risk–benefit framing on participant randomization rates. The reasons for declining randomization were also assessed. ResultsOf 4697 eligible patients approached to participate in the CODA trial, 1535 (33% [95% confidence interval (CI): 31%-34%]) agreed to randomization; this did not change from video version 1 to version 2. There was no difference in participation between positively framed videos (32% [95% CI: 30%-34%]) versus negatively framed videos (33.0% [95% CI: 30.8-35.2]). The most common reason for declining participation was treatment preference (72% for surgery and 18% for antibiotics). ConclusionsNeither the change from video 1 to video 2 nor the positive versus negative framing affected participant willingness to randomize. The stakeholder-informed video-based consenting tool used in CODA was an effective strategy for the recruitment of a heterogeneous patient population within the proposed study period.

Association of Patient Belief About Success of Antibiotics for Appendicitis and Outcomes

A patient's belief in the likely success of a treatment may influence outcomes, but this has been understudied in surgical trials. To examine the association between patients' baseline beliefs about the likelihood of treatment success with outcomes of antibiotics for appendicitis in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial. This was a secondary analysis of the CODA randomized clinical trial. Participants from 25 US medical centers were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. Included in the analysis were participants with appendicitis who were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics in the CODA trial. After informed consent but before randomization, participants who were assigned to receive antibiotics responded to a baseline survey including a question about how successful they believed antibiotics could be in treating their appendicitis. Participants were categorized based on baseline survey responses into 1 of 3 belief groups: unsuccessful/unsure, intermediate, and completely successful. Three outcomes were assigned at 30 days: (1) appendectomy, (2) high decisional regret or dissatisfaction with treatment, and (3) persistent signs and symptoms (abdominal pain, tenderness, fever, or chills). Outcomes were compared across groups using adjusted risk differences (aRDs), with propensity score adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical factors. Of the 776 study participants who were assigned antibiotic treatment in CODA, a total of 425 (mean [SD] age, 38.5 [13.6] years; 277 male [65%]) completed the baseline belief survey before knowing their treatment assignment. Baseline beliefs were as follows: 22% of participants (92 of 415) had an unsuccessful/unsure response, 51% (212 of 415) had an intermediate response, and 27% (111 of 415) had a completely successful response. Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those who believed antibiotics could be completely successful had a 13-percentage point lower risk of appendectomy (aRD, -13.49; 95% CI, -24.57 to -2.40). The aRD between those with intermediate vs unsuccessful/unsure beliefs was -5.68 (95% CI, -16.57 to 5.20). Compared with the unsuccessful/unsure group, those with intermediate beliefs had a lower risk of persistent signs and symptoms (aRD, -15.72; 95% CI, -29.71 to -1.72), with directionally similar results for the completely successful group (aRD, -15.14; 95% CI, -30.56 to 0.28). Positive patient beliefs about the likely success of antibiotics for appendicitis were associated with a lower risk of appendectomy and with resolution of signs and symptoms by 30 days. Pathways relating beliefs to outcomes and the potential modifiability of beliefs to improve outcomes merit further investigation. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

The Predictive Value of Ultrasound, Alvarado Score, and C-Reactive Protein in Pediatric Appendectomy Outcomes

Aim: This retrospective study aimed to investigate the combined accuracy of appendix diameter, C reactive protein, and Alvarado score in classifying patients with negative appendectomy and acute appendicitis. Material and Methods: This descriptive observational cohort study research was conducted at the Emergency Department of a Training and Research Hospital between November 2017 and April 2019. We included the data of appendicitis cases aged under 18 years in this restrospective study and gathered data on patients’s demographics, preoperative laboratory values, signs, symptoms, and final pathological diagnosis, restrospectively. Then, cases were divided into acute appendicitis or negative appendectomy groups according to formal pathology reports. Results: The final study population consisted of 60 patients; the negative appendectomy rate was 25%. The diagnostic accuracy of the multivariate model`s involving CRP, Alvarado score, and appendix diameter was 93.3%, with a sensitivity and specificity of 93.3% for identifying acute appendicitis (+LR: 14 and -LR: 0.07). Applying the model could have prevented 93.3% of negative appendectomy cases (25% to 1.7%) from undergoing unnecessary surgery in our cohort. Conclusion: In conclusion, CRP, Alvarado score, or appendix diameter should not be used individually to diagnose AA in children. However, combining these variables can increase the accuracy of acute appendicitis diagnosis and may provide a significant reduction in negative appendectomy rates.

Nationwide outcomes of incidental appendectomy during cholecystectomy versus cholecystectomy alone in children: a propensity score-matched analysis.

The utility of incidental appendectomy, appendectomy during another index surgery in the absence of appendicitis, has not been evaluated in the pediatric population during cholecystectomy. This study sought to compare nationwide outcomes after cholecystectomy with incidental appendectomy in children. Patients ≤ 18years old who underwent cholecystectomy from 2010-2014 were identified from the Nationwide Readmissions Database. A propensity score-matched analysis (PSMA) with > 40 covariates including demographics, comorbidities, and hospitalization factors was performed between those receiving cholecystectomy alone versus incidental appendectomy at the time of cholecystectomy. 34,390 patients underwent cholecystectomy (median age 15 [13-17] years). Laparoscopic (92%) approach was utilized most frequently, with 2% requiring conversion to open cholecystectomy. PSMA demonstrated a higher frequency of perforation or laceration of adjacent organs occurring in those receiving cholecystectomy alone during index admission. No significant differences in readmissions within 30days or the calendar year were detected. Those undergoing cholecystectomy alone had higher overall readmission costs ($11,783 [$4942-$39,836] vs. $6,100 [$2358-$19,719] cholecystectomy with appendectomy; p = 0.010). This nationwide PSMA indicates that incidental appendectomy in pediatric cholecystectomies is not associated with higher postoperative complications, cost, or readmissions. This suggests that incidental appendectomy during cholecystectomy is safe, cost-effective, and worthy of future study. Level III.

Air ambulance retrievals of patients with suspected appendicitis and acute abdominal pain: The patients’ journeys, referral pathways and appendectomy outcomes using linked data in Central Queensland, Australia

IntroductionAcute appendicitis is the most common cause of acute abdominal pain presentations to the ED and common air ambulance transfer. Aims: describe how linked data can be used to explore patients’ journeys, referral pathways and request-to-activation responsiveness of patients’ appendectomy outcomes (minor vs major complexity). MethodsData sources were linked: aeromedical, hospital and death. Request-to-activation intervals showed strong right-tailed skewness. Quantile regression examined whether the longest request-to-activation intervals were associated with appendicitis complexity in patients who underwent an appendectomy. ResultsThere were 684 patients in three referral pathways based on hospital capability levels. In total, 5.6 % patients were discharged from ED. 83.3 % of all rural origins entered via the ED. 3.8 % of appendicitis patients were triaged to tertiary hospitals. Appendectomy patients with major complexity outcomes were less likely to have longer request-to-activation wait times & had longer lengths of stay than patients with minor complexity outcomes. ConclusionsLinked data highlighted four aspects of a functioning referral system: appendectomy outcomes of major complexity were less likely to have longer request-to-activation intervals compared to minor (sicker patients were identified); few were discharged from EDs (validated transfer); few were triaged to tertiary hospitals (appropriate level for need), and no deaths relating to appendectomy.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing perioperative outcomes of emergency appendectomy performed by trainee vs trained surgeon

BackgroundAppendectomy is a benchmark operation for trainee progression, but this should be weighed against patient safety and perioperative outcomes. MethodsSystematic literature review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes of appendectomy performed by trainees versus trained surgeons. ResultsOf 2086 articles screened, 29 studies reporting on 135,358 participants were analyzed. There was no difference in mortality (Odds ratio [OR] 1.08, P = 0.830), overall complications (OR 0.93, P = 0.51), or major complications (OR 0.56, P = 0.16). There was no difference in conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery (OR 0.81, P = 0.12) and in intraoperative blood loss (Mean Difference [MD] 5.58 mL, P = 0.25). Trainees had longer operating time (MD 7.61 min, P < 0.0001). Appendectomy by trainees resulted in shorter duration of hospital stay (MD 0.16 days, P = 0.005) and decreased reoperation rate (OR 0.78, P = 0.05). ConclusionsAppendectomy performed by trainees does not compromise patient safety. Due to statistical heterogeneity, further randomized controlled trials, with standardized reported outcomes, are required.

Analysis of Outcomes Associated With Outpatient Management of Nonoperatively Treated Patients With Appendicitis

In the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which found antibiotics to be noninferior, approximately half of participants randomized to receive antibiotics had outpatient management with hospital discharge within 24 hours. If outpatient management is safe, it could increase convenience and decrease health care use and costs. To assess the use and safety of outpatient management of acute appendicitis. This cohort study, which is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, included 776 adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis who received antibiotics at 25 US hospitals from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. Participants randomized to antibiotics (intravenous then oral) could be discharged from the emergency department based on clinician judgment and prespecified criteria (hemodynamically stable, afebrile, oral intake tolerated, pain controlled, and follow-up confirmed). Outpatient management and hospitalization were defined as discharge within or after 24 hours, respectively. Outcomes compared among patients receiving outpatient vs inpatient care included serious adverse events (SAEs), appendectomies, health care encounters, satisfaction, missed workdays at 7 days, and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) score at 30 days. In addition, appendectomy incidence among outpatients and inpatients, unadjusted and adjusted for illness severity, was compared. Among 776 antibiotic-randomized participants, 42 (5.4%) underwent appendectomy within 24 hours and 8 (1.0%) did not receive their first antibiotic dose within 24 hours, leaving 726 (93.6%) comprising the study population (median age, 36 years; range, 18-86 years; 462 [63.6%] male; 437 [60.2%] White). Of these participants, 335 (46.1%; site range, 0-89.2%) were discharged within 24 hours, and 391 (53.9%) were discharged after 24 hours. Over 7 days, SAEs occurred in 0.9 (95% CI, 0.2-2.6) per 100 outpatients and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.9) per 100 inpatients; in the appendicolith subgroup, SAEs occurred in 2.3 (95% CI, 0.3-8.2) per 100 outpatients vs 2.8 (95% CI, 0.6-7.9) per 100 inpatients. During this period, appendectomy occurred in 9.9% (95% CI, 6.9%-13.7%) of outpatients and 14.1% (95% CI, 10.8%-18.0%) of inpatients; adjusted analysis demonstrated a similar difference in incidence (-4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to 0.6). At 30 days, appendectomies occurred in 12.6% (95% CI, 9.1%-16.7%) of outpatients and 19.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-23.4%) of inpatients. Outpatients missed fewer workdays (2.6 days; 95% CI, 2.3-2.9 days) than did inpatients (3.8 days; 95% CI, 3.4-4.3 days) and had similar frequency of return health care visits and high satisfaction and EQ-5D scores. These findings support that outpatient antibiotic management is safe for selected adults with acute appendicitis, with no greater risk of complications or appendectomy than hospital care, and should be included in shared decision-making discussions of patient preferences for outcomes associated with nonoperative and operative care. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Self-selection vs Randomized Assignment of Treatment for Appendicitis

For adults with appendicitis, several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy. However, it remains unknown how the characteristics of patients in such trials compare with those of patients who select their treatment and whether outcomes differ. To compare participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a parallel cohort study of participants who declined randomization and self-selected treatment. The CODA trial was conducted in 25 US medical centers. Participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020; all participants were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up, with all follow-up ending in 2021. The randomized cohort included 1094 adults with appendicitis; the self-selection cohort included patients who declined participation in the randomized group, of whom 253 selected appendectomy and 257 selected antibiotics. In this secondary analysis, characteristics and outcomes in both self-selection and randomized cohorts are described with an exploratory analysis of cohort status and receipt of appendectomy. Appendectomy vs antibiotics. Characteristics among participants randomized to either appendectomy or antibiotics were compared with those of participants who selected their own treatment. Clinical characteristics were similar across the self-selection cohort (510 patients; mean age, 35.8 years [95% CI, 34.5-37.1]; 218 female [43%; 95% CI, 39%-47%]) and the randomized group (1094 patients; mean age, 38.2 years [95% CI, 37.4-39.0]; 386 female [35%; 95% CI, 33%-38%]). Compared with the randomized group, those in the self-selection cohort were less often Spanish speaking (n = 99 [19%; 95% CI, 16%-23%] vs n = 336 [31%; 95% CI, 28%-34%]), reported more formal education (some college or more, n = 355 [72%; 95% CI, 68%-76%] vs n = 674 [63%; 95% CI, 60%-65%]), and more often had commercial insurance (n = 259 [53%; 95% CI, 48%-57%] vs n = 486 [45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%]). Most outcomes were similar between the self-selection and randomized cohorts. The number of patients undergoing appendectomy by 30 days was 38 (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.7%-19.7%) among those selecting antibiotics and 155 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.9%-22.5%) in those who were randomized to antibiotics (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 9.5%). Differences in the rate of appendectomy were primarily observed in the non-appendicolith subgroup. This secondary analysis of the CODA RCT found substantially similar outcomes across the randomized and self-selection cohorts, suggesting that the randomized trial results are generalizable to the community at large. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Complicated appendicitis increases the hospital length of stay

BackgroundThere are insufficient data from Saudi Arabia regarding appendectomy outcomes and hospital length of stay. Further, there is a need to compare the length of stay of Saudi patients and the literature. The purpose is to evaluate the surgical outcomes and hospital length of stay for complicated appendicitis and simple appendicitis. MethodThis is a single-center retrospective review of patients who had undergone an appendectomy between 2016 and 2018. The patients were divided into 2 groups: complicated appendicitis versus simple appendicitis. ResultsOf 449 patients who underwent appendectomy, 60 (13.4%) had complicated appendicitis. The complicated appendicitis was significantly associated with increased age, pain duration, neutrophilia, high C-reactive protein, fecalith presence, and free fluid. The incidence rate of surgical site infection was 5.8% (identified in 26 patients). Compared to simple appendicitis, complicated appendicitis was associated more with wound infection (1.8% vs 10%, respectively, P = .001), postoperative collection (1.2% vs 11.6%, respectively, P = .001), and readmission within 30 days (2.3% vs 13.4%, respectively, P = .001). By multivariate analysis, factors associated more with increased hospitalization were pain duration (hazard ratio = 2.37, 95% confidence interval = 1.09–5.16, P = .029), operative time (hazard ratio = 2.09, 95% confidence interval = 1.04–4.21, P = .038), and complicated appendicitis (hazard ratio = 6.61, 95% confidence interval = 2.67–14.21, P = .001). ConclusionComplicated appendicitis correlates with significant morbidity, readmission rate, and 6 times more hospital LOS than simple appendicitis. This review might help in appreciating the burden of complicated appendicitis on hospital length of stay, which needs allocating patients and planning the discharge day for hospitals with limited beds.

Outcomes of emergency appendectomies and cholecystectomies performed at weekends.

To determine the impact of hospital admissions and operations at weekends on two common emergency general surgeries (cholecystectomy and appendectomy) and their outcomes. A total of 539 patients were included in the study. Information on patient demographics, comorbidities, admission date, surgery date, complications, readmission, and follow-up details were collected from electronic medical records. Most patients were admitted to hospital on weekdays (n = 391), and 444 surgeries were performed on weekdays, while 86 surgeries were performed at weekends. No significant difference was found between the type of surgery performed on weekday and weekend admissions (P = 0.384). Surgical procedures of patients admitted to hospital on a weekend tended to be delayed by a median of one day compared with weekday admissions, with a similar overall length of stay for both groups. Weekend admissions were associated with higher complication rates than weekday admissions (12.2 vs. 6.1%). Patients who were operated on at weekends were younger in age than those admitted on weekdays (32 vs. 30years old, P = 0.019). More appendectomies were performed at weekends (77.9% vs. 45.9%), and fewer cholecystectomies were performed (22.1 vs. 54.1%, P = 0.000). The surgical procedures of patients admitted to hospital on weekends tended to be delayed by 1day and had a higher rate of complications. Appendectomy was the most common performed weekend surgery.

No association between hospital volume and short-term outcomes of some common surgeries: a retrospective cohort study based on a Japanese nationwide database.

Centralization of high-risk surgeries has become a widespread strategy. However, whether or not the hospital volume affects the outcomes of common surgeries remains unclear. This study explored the association between hospital volume and short-term outcomes of common surgeries, as represented by appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and pneumothorax surgery, by analyzing data from a Japanese nationwide database. All hospitals were categorized into four groups (very low-, low-, high-, and very high-volume) according to the annual hospital volume of all gastrointestinal surgeries or all respiratory surgeries in 2017. Patient demographic data and surgical outcomes were evaluated across hospital volume categories. We analyzed 2392 facilities which performed 771,182 gastrointestinal surgeries, and 992 facilities which performed 98,656 respiratory surgeries. Short-term outcomes of patients who underwent appendectomy (n = 50,568), cholecystectomy (n = 104,262), and pneumothorax surgery (n = 11,723) were evaluated. The incidences of postoperative complications, reoperation, and readmission were similar among the groups. Multivariable logistic regression analyses revealed hospital volume to have no association with these short-term outcomes. Analyses of a Japanese nationwide database revealed that the hospital volume was not associated with short-term outcomes of appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and pneumothorax surgery. These common surgical procedures may not require centralization into high-volume hospitals.