Characterization of naproxen-loaded solid SMEDDSs prepared by spray drying: the effect of the polysaccharide carrier and naproxen concentration.

Katja Čerpnjak,A. Zvonar,F. Vrečer,M. Gašperlin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2015.03.015

IF: 6.51

2015-05-15

International Journal of Pharmaceutics

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Comparison of polymeric clip and endoloop in laparoscopic appendectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aashish Kumar,Muhammad Saqlain Mustafa,Muhammad Ashir Shafique,Abdul Haseeb,Hussain Sohail Rangwala,Haimath Kumar,Burhanuddin Sohail Rangwala,Adarsh Raja,Sandesh Raja,Syed Muhammad Sinaan Ali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2024.07.014

IF: 4.348

Surgery

Abstract:Background: Appendicitis is a common surgical emergency with diverse clinical presentations, making its diagnosis challenging. Laparoscopic appendectomy has become the standard treatment, with various methods for appendiceal stump closure, including polymeric clips and endoloops. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of polymeric clips compared with endoloops in laparoscopic appendectomy. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted followingPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Embase were searched for studies up to March 25, 2024. Results: In total, 13 studies, including 6 randomized controlled trials, were analyzed. Polymeric clipping demonstrated significantly shorter surgical time compared with the endoloop (standardized mean difference 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.53, P < .00001), with no difference in hospital stay or overall complications. However, the endoloop was associated with a greater incidence of intra-abdominal abscess (risk ratio 3.53, 95% confidence interval 1.56-8.00, P = .003). Other outcomes, including time from instrument application to appendiceal cutting, ileus, and surgical-site infection, showed no significant differences between the 2 techniques. Conclusion: Polymeric clipping appears to be superior to endoloop in terms of shorter surgical time and lower risk of intra-abdominal abscess formation in laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis. However, both techniques have similar outcomes regarding hospital stay and overall complications. Further research addressing study limitations and exploring patient-centered outcomes is warranted to guide clinical practice.
Import of plastid precursor proteins into pea chloroplasts.

B. Bölter,J. Soll

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-466-7_13

Abstract:
Laparoscopy or Not: A Meta-analysis of the Surgical Effects of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendicectomy

Zhihua Liu,Peng Zhang,Yanlei Ma,Hongqi Chen,Yukun Zhou,Ming Zhang,Zhaoxin Chu,Huanglong Qin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sle.0b013e3182006f40

2010-01-01

Abstract:Both open appendicectomy and laparoscopic appendicectomy have their own advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of our meta-analysis is to compare the surgical effects of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. In our study, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Only prospective randomized controlled trials that compared the 2 methods of operation were included. Evaluation indexes in our study involved are operating time, complications, hospital stay, time to return to normal activities, time to return to normal diet, and the overall cost. Results showed that operating time of laparoscopic appendicectomy was significantly longer [weighted mean difference (WMD) 7.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.03-9.17 min; P<0.00001]. Time of hospital stay (WMD -0.82; 95% CI: -0.93 to -0.70 d), time to return to normal activities (WMD -6.85; 95% CI: -7.62 to -6.09 d), and diet (WMD -0.61; 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.36 d) were significantly decreased in the laparoscopic appendicectomy group (all P<0.00001). There is no convincing difference in complications (odds ratio 0.99; 95% CI: 0.80-1.22; P=0.92) and death rates (odds ratio 0.97; 95% CI: 0.29-3.25; P=0.96). In conclusion, laparoscopic appendicectomy may have advantages over open appendicectomy in hospital stay and postoperative recovery.
Meta-analysis of Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Conservative Treatment for Appendiceal Abscess

Yi Dong,Shanjun Tan,Yong Fang,Wenkui Yu,Ning Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274.2018.12.018

2018-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery versus conservative treatment for appendiceal abscess. METHODS:The databases of CNKI, Wangfang, VIP, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCT) or clinical controlled trials (CCT) comparing laparoscopic surgery with conservative treatment for appendiceal abscess published before June 2018. The search terms were Chinese or English. Chinese search terms included appendix, abscess, and laparoscopy; English search terms included appendix, abscess, and laparoscope. References of the resulted papers, related reviews or meta-analysis references were also induded. Literature inclusion criteria: (1)RCT or CCT, whether or not to assign concealment or blinding; (2) appendiceal abscess was diagnosed at admission; (3) laparoscopic group: laparoscopic appendectomy or laparoscopy surgical methods, such as irrigation and drainage, for appendiceal abscess; conservative treatment group: conservative methods, such as antibiotics or percutaneous abscess drainage were used to treat appendiceal abscess. EXCLUSION CRITERIA:(1) review, case report, single cohort study and other non-controlled studies literature; (2) single study sample size ≤ 20; (3) subjects with simple appendicitis or perforation of appendix to form diffuse peritonitis; (4) no valid data available for extraction; (5) repeated publication of the literature. Data were extracted from the included studies, and the Cochrane Collaboration RevMan 5.1.0 version software was used for this meta-analysis. RESULTS:Three RCTs and four CCTs with a total of 591 patients were included in this study. There were 312 patients in the laparoscopic group and 279 patients in the conservative group. Compared with the conservative group, the laparoscopic group had higher uneventful recovery rate (OR=11.91, 95%CI: 4.59 to 30.88, P<0.05), shorter hospital stay (WMD=-2.98, 95%CI: -5.96 to -0.01, P=0.05), lower incidence of recurrent or residual abscess (OR=0.07, 95%CI:0.03 to 0.20, P<0.05), and shorter time to recover to normal condition for body temperature and white blood cell respectively (SMD=-2.12, 95%CI:-2.49 to -1.75, P<0.05; SMD=-2.07, 95%CI: -3.84 to -0.29, P<0.05). However, no significant difference was found in hospital charge(P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Laparoscopic surgery for appendiceal abscess is safe and feasible. It can improve the recovery with shorter postoperative hospital stay and less recurrent or residual abscess.
Laparoscopy or Not

Zhihua Liu,Peng Zhang,Yanlei Ma,Hongqi Chen,Yukun Zhou,Ming Zhang,Zhaoxin Chu,Huanglong Qin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sle.0b013e3182006f40

2010-01-01

Abstract:In Brief Both open appendicectomy and laparoscopic appendicectomy have their own advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of our meta-analysis is to compare the surgical effects of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy. In our study, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Only prospective randomized controlled trials that compared the 2 methods of operation were included. Evaluation indexes in our study involved are operating time, complications, hospital stay, time to return to normal activities, time to return to normal diet, and the overall cost. Results showed that operating time of laparoscopic appendicectomy was significantly longer [weighted mean difference (WMD) 7.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.03-9.17 min; P<0.00001]. Time of hospital stay (WMD −0.82; 95% CI: −0.93 to −0.70 d), time to return to normal activities (WMD −6.85; 95% CI: −7.62 to −6.09 d), and diet (WMD −0.61; 95% CI: −0.86 to −0.36 d) were significantly decreased in the laparoscopic appendicectomy group (all P<0.00001). There is no convincing difference in complications (odds ratio 0.99; 95% CI: 0.80-1.22; P=0.92) and death rates (odds ratio 0.97; 95% CI: 0.29-3.25; P=0.96). In conclusion, laparoscopic appendicectomy may have advantages over open appendicectomy in hospital stay and postoperative recovery. Supplemental Digital Content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Website www.surgical-laparoscopy.com.
Open Versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Comparison of Outcome in a Teaching Hospital, Northeast Nigeria

Emmanuel Louis Mba,Mohammed Ibrahim Guduf,Nuhu Musa Mshelia,Usman Deba Babayo,Michael Ayedima Misauno,Felix Markus Wina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jwas.jwas_165_23

Abstract:Background: Appendectomy could be open or laparoscopic. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is gradually gaining ground in Nigeria, but its outcome is not entirely known. Objective: This study compared the outcomes of LA with those of open appendectomy (OA) in terms of the surgical site infection rate, post-operative pain, time to return of bowel sounds, length of hospital stay, return to normal activities and direct cost of treatment. Patients and methods: This was a prospective randomised study. All patients above 18 years who were diagnosed with acute appendicitis in Federal Teaching Hospital, Gombe, were recruited after adequate counselling and consent obtained over the 18 months of the study. Results: Forty (40) patients were recruited with 20 on each arm. The average age was 25 years (±) 6 years and M:F was 1:1.9. The rates of surgical site infection and post-operative pain between both methods were not statistically different, while the time to return of bowel sound, the length of hospital stay and the return to normal activity were significantly reduced in LA compared to OA. However, OA was cheaper in terms of direct cost compared to LA. Conclusion: This study showed that LA may be the preferred method when a quicker recovery from treatment is anticipated, provided the patient can afford the direct cost of the procedure.
Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy using new surgical procedure versus conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy

Fei Liu,Quan Lv,Chun-Yi Wang,Zi-Wei Li,Xu-Rui Liu,Dong Peng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-024-01775-w

2024-03-06

Updates in Surgery

Abstract:The aim of this study was to compare the clinic outcomes between new single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (NSLA) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy (CTLA) for patients with acute appendicitis. Patients who were diagnosed with acute appendicitis and underwent appendectomy were retrospectively collected from a single clinical center from September 2021 to June 2023. Baseline characteristics, surgical information, and postoperative information were compared between the NSLA group and the CTLA group. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to find out the predictors of overall complications. A total of 296 patients were enrolled from a single clinical medical center. There were 146 (49.3%) males and 150 (50.7%) females. There were 54 (18.2%) patients in the NSLA group and 242 (81.8%) patients in the CTLA group. After data analysis, we found the patients in the NSLA group had a shorter postoperative hospital stay ( P < 0.01) than the CTLA group. The other outcomes including intraoperative blood loss ( P = 0.167), operation time ( P = 0.282), nature of the appendix ( P = 0.971), and overall complications ( P = 0.543) were not statistically different. After univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis, we found that age ( P = 0.018, OR = 1.039, 95% CI = 1.007–1.072), neutrophil percentage ( P = 0.018, OR = 1.070, 95% CI = 1.011–1.132), and fever ( P = 0.019, OR = 6.112, 95% CI = 1.340–27.886) were the predictors of overall complications. However, the surgical procedure (NSLA versus CTLA) was not a predictor of overall complications ( P = 0.376, OR = 1.964, 95% CI = 0.440–8.768). Compared with CTLA, there was no significant increase in postoperative overall complications with NSLA, making it a safe and feasible new surgical procedure. More studies are needed to evaluate the long-term results.

surgery
Is LigaSure Alone Sufficient for the Closure of the Appendix Stump?

Deniz Tazeoglu,Ahmet Cem Esmer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506241234005

2024-02-17

Surgical Innovation

Abstract:Surgical Innovation, Ahead of Print. PurposesClosure of the appendix stump is necessary for laparoscopic appendectomy. Problems that occur during the appendix stump closure can cause severe morbidity. Several methods of stump closure have been described. This study aimed to investigate the adequacy of LigaSure alone in closing the appendix stump.MethodsPatients who were operated on with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis between October 2021 and January 2022 were evaluated retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to the closure technique of the appendix stump hemoclip(group I) and LigaSure only(group II). In addition, demographic data (age, gender), body mass index (BMI), presence of comorbid disease, perioperative appendicitis classification, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, radiological and pathological appendix size of the patients included in the study were recorded. Clavien Dindo was used for postoperative complication assessment.ResultThe study included 77 patients. 48(62.3%) of the patients were in group I, and 29(37.7%) were in group II. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding age, gender distribution, BMI, presence of comorbid disease (P > .05). The operation time of group I was longer than group II (P < .001). There was no difference between the groups in terms of both radiological and pathological appendix size. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding postoperative complications and severity of complications (P = .76, P = .99, respectively).ConclusionAppendiceal stump closure can be performed with Ligasure, but it should be noted that this procedure can be performed on selected patients, as in the study group, not on all patients.

surgery
Clinical Health Service Research on the Surgical Therapy of Acute Appendicitis: Comparison of Outcomes Based on 3 German Multicenter Quality Assurance Studies Over 21 Years

Maik Sahm,Matthias Pross,Ronny Otto,Andreas Koch,Ingo Gastinger,Hans Lippert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001115

Abstract:Objective: The treatment of acute appendicitis has seen changes in diagnosis and therapy in Germany. The objective of this analysis was to assess changes in therapy and outcome after open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) over the last 21 years. Background: The analysis was based on 3 prospective multicenter quality assurance studies conducted by the Institute for Quality Control in Operative Medicine of the University of Magdeburg. Methods: All inpatients with a diagnosis of appendicitis in these studies (1988/1989, 1996/1997, 2008/2009) were included. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were performed. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: Data from 17,732 treatments of patients diagnosed with appendicitis were collected. The average age of patients increased between the 3 studies from 25.7 to 34.6 years (P < 0.001). The preoperative selection of LA or OA was based on American Society of Anesthesiologists' classification (P < 0.001). Between 1996/1997 and 2008/2009, the share of LA climbed from 33.1% to 85.8% (P < 0.001). In the study from 2008 to 2009, LA showed a significant advantage over the conventional technique in wound healing disturbances (P < 0.001) and the clinical duration of stay (P < 0.001). At no stage of appendix inflammation did LA significantly increase intra-abdominal abscesses. The use of a stapler is currently the most common method of appendiceal stump closure (83.6%). Conclusions: Changes in patient data reflected demographic changes. Preoperative selection leads to 2 clearly defined groups. LA is the most dominant method of current operative therapy. The negative selection in OA group has influenced the worse outcome of that group.
Stapler Vs Suture Closure of Pancreatic Remnant after Distal Pancreatectomy: a Meta-Analysis.

Wei Zhou,Ran Lv,Xianfa Wang,Yiping Mou,Xiujun Cai,Ingrid Herr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.12.022

2010-01-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Suture closure and stapler closure of the pancreatic remnant after distal pancreatectomy are the techniques used most often. The ideal choice remains a matter of debate.METHODS:Five bibliographic databases covering 1970 to July 2009 were searched.RESULTS:Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria. Stapler closure was performed in 671 patients, while suture closure was conducted in 1,615 patients. The pancreatic fistula rate ranged from 0% to 40.0% for stapler closure of the pancreatic stump and from 9.3% to 45.7% for the suture closure technique. There were no significant difference between the stapler and suture closure groups with respect to the pancreatic fistula formation rate (22.1% vs 31.2%; odds ratio, .85; 95% confidence interval, .66-1.08), although there was a trend toward favoring stapler closure. In 4 studies including 437 patients, stapler closure was associated with a trend (not statistically significant) toward a reduction in intra-abdominal abscess (odds ratio, .53; 95% confidence interval, .24-1.15).CONCLUSIONS:No significant differences occur between suture and stapler closure with respect to the pancreatic fistula or intra-abdominal abscess after distal pancreatectomy, though there is a trend favoring stapler closure.
Effect of suture closure and staple closure on postoperative wound complications in patients undergoing knee replacement surgery: A meta‐analysis

Xiongfei Tang,Wenfeng Shi,Yuening Qian,Zhen Ge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.14372

2023-09-09

International Wound Journal

Abstract:The purpose of this meta‐analysis is to determine if the application of stitching in the closed area of the knee arthroplasty remains significantly superior to that of the staples. Data sources: EMBASE, Cochrane Libraryand, publications, and the Web of Science. Patients were treated with staples for closure of their wounds, or with conventional stitches for closure of wounds. The main findings were surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, and cutting time. The secondary results were the time to completion, the duration of the hospitalization, and the time to discharge. We incorporated the SIX trial into the meta‐analyses with Review Manager V.5.3. The hazard ratio was computed as a therapeutic outcome with respect to the heterogeneity. For more than 50% of heterogeneous samples, we employed a stochastic effect model. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the degree of infection, the degree of dehiscence, the length of the cut and the degree of satisfaction of the wound. But the time to close the wound and the time to operate were significantly different. The time needed to close the wound was shorter than that of the suture (OR, −227. 22; 95% CI, −238. 74, −215. 69 p

dermatology,surgery
New Strategy During Complicated Open Appendectomy: Convert Open Operation to Laparoscopy

Jin-Hui Zhu,Wei Li,Kai Yu,Jia Wu,Yun Ji,Jian-Wei Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i31.10938

IF: 5.374

2014-01-01

World Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:AIM:To introduce a new strategy during complicated open appendectomy - converting open operation to laparoscopy.METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed databases at two institutions between October 2010 and January 2013, identifying 826 patients who had undergone complicated appendectomy for histologically confirmed acute or chronic appendicitis. They included 214 complicated appendectomies: 155 lengthened-incision open appendectomies (LIA group) and 59 open appendectomies with conversion to laparoscopy (OACL group).RESULTS:A total of 214 patients with complicated appendectomies were included in the study, including 155 cases of LIA and 59 cases of OACL. No major complication leading to death occurred in the study. Patient characteristics of the two groups were similar. Several parameters showed a significant difference between the two groups. For the OACL vs LIA groups they were, respectively: incision length (3.8 ± 1.4 cm vs 6.2 ± 3.5 cm, P < 0.05); time to flatus recovery (2.3 ± 0.6 d vs 4.2 ± 0.8 d, P < 0.05), drainage rate (61.0% vs 80.0%, P < 0.05); pain level (3.6 ± 1.8 vs 7.2 ± 2.4, P < 0.05); hospital stay (5.1 ± 2.7 d vs 8.7 ± 3.2 d, P < 0.05); complication rate (8.5% vs 14.7%, P < 0.05). Other factors showed no significant differences.CONCLUSION:Lengthened-incision open appendectomy increases the incidence of complications and prolongs the hospital stay. Conversion of open to laparoscopic appendectomy is feasible and efficient in complicated cases. It decreases the rate of incisional and abdominal infections, allows faster return of bowel movements, and shortens the hospital stay.
Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis versus chronic appendicitis.

Zhanlong Shen,Yingjiang Ye,Mujun Yin,Shan Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/08941939.2011.619248

2012-01-01

Journal of Investigative Surgery

Abstract:Background: The advantage or disadvantage of laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis remains unclear. Patients and Methods: Data were collected prospectively from 129 consecutive patients with appendicitis between June 2008 and December 2009. The clinical outcomes of acute appendicitis after laparoscopic and open operation were compared. Furthermore, the outcomes of laparoscopic procedure for acute and chronic appendicitis were compared. Results: The length of hospitalization and incidence of intra-abdominal abscess were significantly decreased in patients with laparoscopic group after operation as compared to open operation. The mean operation time, the time of first anal exsufflation, and oral intake after operation were longer for acute appendicitis patients than for chronic appendicitis in laparoscopic group. The incidence of postoperative intestinal obstruction in patients with acute appendicitis was higher after laparoscopic surgery than after open procedure. Conclusions: Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis is feasible and safe. However, laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis might cause more postoperative complications including intra-abdominal abscess and small intestinal obstruction compared to laparoscopic appendectomy for chronic appendicitis. These complications could potentially be avoided by improving techniques in operation.
Application and curative effect of laparoscopic purse-string sutures in the treatment of adult acute complicated appendicitis

Wenzhong Bao,Jie Wang,Dawei Tang,Liang Li,Xiangling Meng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-022-01884-6

2023-01-01

BMC Surgery

Abstract:Objective To investigate the effect of laparoscopic purse-string sutures in adult complicated appendicitis treatment. Methods The data of 568 adult cases of complicated appendicitis treated by laparoscopic appendectomy at the Hefei Second People’s Hospital, Anhui Province, China, from September 2018 to September 2021 were analysed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: 295 cases in the laparoscopic purse-string suture treatment group (observation group) and 273 cases in the simple Hem-o-lok ® clamp treatment group (control group). The baseline data collected included age, gender, preoperative body temperature, leukocyte count and percentage of neutrophils and the surgery time. The postoperative data collected included antibiotic treatment duration, drainage tube placement time and the incidence of complications. Results There were no significant differences in the baseline data of the two groups, including age, gender, preoperative body temperature, leukocyte count and neutrophil percentage (all P > 0.05). Compared with the control group, the postoperative hospital length of stay, duration of antibiotic treatment, the recovery time of peripheral white blood cell and neutrophil counts and the incidence of postoperative complications in the observation group were significantly decreased ( P < 0.05). Conclusion Purse-string sutures can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative complications after a laparoscopic appendectomy for adult acute complicated appendicitis. There was faster postoperative recovery when patients’ appendiceal stumps were treated with laparoscopic purse-string sutures.
Single-Incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Jie Hua,Jian Gong,Bin Xu,Tingsong Yang,Zhenshun Song

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-013-2328-9

2013-01-01

Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

Abstract:Background Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) has gained enormous popularity worldwide. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess feasibility, safety, and benefits of SILA as compared with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA). Methods A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was performed to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcome measures were total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and ileus. Secondary outcome measures were operative time, length of hospital stay, pain scores, conversion rate, reoperation rate, and time to return to normal activity. Results Eight RCTs, totaling 1,211 patients (604 for SILA and 607 for CLA), met the inclusion criteria. The incidences of total postoperative complications, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and ileus were statistically similar between the SILA and CLA groups. Compared with CLA, SILA was associated with a significantly longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 5.28 min; 95 % confidence interval = 3.61 to 6.94). Time to return to normal activity was shorter in the SILA group (by 0.69 days). Length of hospital stay, pain scores, conversion rate, and reoperation rate were similar between groups. Conclusion SILA is feasible and safe with no obvious advantages over CLA. Therefore, it may be considered as an alternative to CLA.
Adaptation of Synthetic Data for Coarse-to-Fine Viewpoint Refinement

Pau Panareda Busto,Joerg Liebelt,Juergen Gall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5244/C.29.14

Abstract:Figure 1: Humans are perfect for annotating coarse viewpoints of objects in real images, but fail to estimate pose accurately at a fine level. 3D graphic models can be used to synthesize data at very accurate fine angles, but it is time-consuming to model all appearance variations present in real images. We therefore propose to leverage the abilities of humans of estimating coarse viewpoints and the pose accuracy of synthetic data.
Is Endoscopic Retrograde Appendicitis Therapy a Better Modality for Acute Uncomplicated Appendicitis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ying Wang,Chen-Yu Sun,Jie Liu,Yue Chen,Chandur Bhan,John Pocholo Whitaker Tuason,Sudha Misra,Yu-Ting Huang,Shao-Di Ma,Xing-Yu Cheng,Qin Zhou,Wen-Chao Gu,Dan-Dan Wu,Xia Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i33.10208

2021-01-01

World Journal of Clinical Cases

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Previous studies had shown endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) is an effective treatment for acute appendicitis. However, different studies reported conflicting outcomes regarding the effectiveness of ERAT in comparison with laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).AIM:To compare the effectiveness of ERAT with LA.METHODS:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies of ERAT for acute uncomplicated appendicitis were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the WanFang Database, and Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP) from the establishment date to March 1 2021. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared statistic. Pooled odds ratios (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and standard mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated through either fixed-effects or random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis was also performed. Publication bias was tested by Egger's test, and Begg's test. The quality of included RCT were evaluated by the Jadad scale, while Newcastle-Ottawa scale is adopted for assessing the methodological quality of case-control studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Stata 15.1 statistical software. All statistical analysis was performed using Stata 15.1 statistical software. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021243955.RESULTS:After screening, 10 RCTs and 2 case-control studies were included in the current systematic review. Firstly, the length of hospitalizations [WMD = -1.15, 95%CI: -1.99, -0.31; P = 0.007] was shorter than LA group. Secondly, the level of post-operative CRP [WMD = -10.06, 95%CI: (-17.39, -2.73); P = 0.007], TNF-α [WMD = -7.70, 95%CI: (-8.47, -6.93); P < 0.001], and IL-6 Levels [WMD = -9.78, 95%CI: (-10.69, -8.88); P < 0.001; P < 0.001] in ERAT group was significantly lower than LA group. Thirdly, ERAT group had a lower incidence of intestinal obstruction than LA group. [OR = 0.19, 95%CI: (0.05, 0.79); P = 0.020]. Moreover, the quality of 10 RCTs were low with 0-3 Jadad scores, while the methodological quality of two case-control studies were fair with a score of 2 (each).CONCLUSION:Compared with LA, ERAT reduces operation time, the level of postoperative inflammation, and results in fewer complications and shorter recovery time, with preserving the appendix and its immune and biological functions.
Comparision of Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery and Traditional Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis

Yue Zhao

2012-01-01

Abstract:Objective:To compare the clinical effect of laparoscopic versus open surgery(LA) and traditional open appendectomy(OA).Methods:One hundreds and thirty-eight patients were included in this study performed from September 2007 to March 2011 at the traditional Chinese medical hospital of Bazhong.Patients who gave informed consent were divided into either OA or LA groups by their intention and were operated by McBurney′s or laparoscopic technique,respectively.The data of operation time,time to resume normal activity,short term complications were collected and analysed.Results:The average operation time was longer in LA than in OA(P0.01).The post-operative pain showed less pain in LA at day1 post-operative times(P0.05).Time to resume normal activity was shorter in LA than in OA groups,(P0.01).The complications didn′t show a significant difference between two groups(P0.05).Conclusion:Laparoscopic appendectomy is a useful tool in the treatment of appendicitis.Its advantages lie in its minimal invasiveness,its better cosmetic outcome,its lower rate of complications.
Surgical and Pre-surgical Factors Affecting Appendectomy Outcomes in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A Retrospective Record Review

Hussain A Alkhalifah,Khalid M Aljehani,Sultan R Algethami,Saud A Alyahya,Abdulaziz A Alzubide,Rayan M Alharbi,Hassan A Khafaji,Fatma K Althoubaity

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.62960

2024-06-23

Cureus

Abstract:Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusion: 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.
Single-incision versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for suspected uncomplicated appendicitis

Ahmer Irfan,Ahsan Rao,Irfan Ahmed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd009022.pub3

IF: 8.4

2024-11-07

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Appendicectomy is a well‐established surgical procedure to manage acute appendicitis. The operation was historically performed as an open procedure and is currently performed using minimally invasive surgical techniques. A recent development in appendicectomy technique is the introduction of single‐incision laparoscopic surgery. This incorporates all working ports (either one multi‐luminal port or multiple mono‐luminal ports) through a single skin incision; the procedure is known as single‐incision laparoscopic appendicectomy or SILA. Unanswered questions remain regarding the efficacy of this novel technique, including its effects on patient benefit and satisfaction, complications, and long‐term outcomes, when compared to multi‐incision conventional laparoscopy (CLA). This is an update of a review published in 2011. To assess the effects of single‐incision laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with multi‐incision laparoscopic appendicectomy, on benefits, complications, and short‐term outcomes, in patients with acute appendicitis. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2018 Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE (1983 to January 2024), Ovid Embase (1983 to January 2024), the WHO International Clinical Trial Register (January 2024), and Clinicaltrials.gov (January 2024). We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases. The searches were carried out on 20 January 2024. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the single‐incision procedure SILA against CLA for patients (male and female) over the age of 10 years, diagnosed with appendicitis, or symptoms of appendicitis, and undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy. Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data into a standardised form, and assessed the risk of bias in the studies. We extracted data relevant to the predetermined outcome measures. Where appropriate, we calculated a summary statistic: odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous data. We used Review Manager Web for our statistical analysis. This review was first published in 2011, when there was no RCT evidence available. For this update, we identified 11 RCTs involving 1373 participants (689 in the SILA groups and 684 in the CLA groups). The participants were similar at baseline in terms of age (mean 31.7 (SILA) versus 30.9 years (CLA)) and sex (female: 53.0% (SILA) versus 50.3% (CLA)). Diagnosis of appendicitis was based on clinical assessment; none of the studies used a diagnosis confirmed by imaging as part of their inclusion criteria. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, and the outcomes were predominately reported in the short term. Pain scores at 24 hours after surgery may be similar between the SILA and CLA groups (mean score SILA 2.53 versus CLA 2.65; mean difference (MD) in pain score ‐0.12, 95% CI ‐0.52 to 0.28; 294 participants, 4 RCTs; low‐certainty evidence). SILA probably had superior cosmetic results as indicated by patients using the Body Image questionnaire (5 to 20) (mean score SILA 14.9 versus CLA 12.4; cosmesis score MD 1.97, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.33; 266 participants, 3 RCTs; moderate‐certainty evidence). The rate of visceral and vascular injury was probably similar with both techniques (SILA 0/168 versus 4/169; OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.79; 337 participants, 3 RCTs; moderate‐certainty evidence). The conversion rate to CLA or open surgery may be higher for SILA procedures than the conversion rate from CLA to open surgery (SILA 32/574 versus CLA 7/569; OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.36 to 6.42; 1143 participants, 9 RCTs; low‐certainty evidence). Use of an additional port site was probably more likely with SILA compared to CLA (SILA 28/328 versus CLA 4/336; OR 3.80, 95% CI 1.13 to 12.72; 664 participants, 5 RCTs; moderate‐certainty evidence). The recovery time was probably similar for both interventions for hospital stay (mean length of stay in hospital for SILA 2.25 days versus 2.29 days for CLA patients; MD ‐0.13, 95% CI ‐0.23 to 0.03; 1241 participants, 10 RCTs; moderate‐certainty evidence) and time to return to normal activities (SILA 9.28 days versus CLA 10.0 days; MD ‐0.59, 95% CI ‐1.99 to 0.81; 451 participants, 4 RCTs; moderate‐certainty evidence). We have low‐to‐moderate confidence in our findings due to differences in the measurement of certain outcomes, and lack of blinding in the studies, which makes them prone to performance bias. There is low‐to‐moderate certainty evidence that single‐incision laparoscopic appendicectomy is comparable to conventional laparoscopic appendicectomy in terms of complications, length of hospital stay, return to normal activities, and postoperative pain in the first 24 hours. The disadvantage of SILA may be a higher conversion rate, but SILA is pro -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal

Characterization of naproxen-loaded solid SMEDDSs prepared by spray drying: the effect of the polysaccharide carrier and naproxen concentration.

Comparison of polymeric clip and endoloop in laparoscopic appendectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Import of plastid precursor proteins into pea chloroplasts.

Laparoscopy or Not: A Meta-analysis of the Surgical Effects of Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendicectomy

Meta-analysis of Laparoscopic Surgery Versus Conservative Treatment for Appendiceal Abscess

Laparoscopy or Not

Open Versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Comparison of Outcome in a Teaching Hospital, Northeast Nigeria

Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy using new surgical procedure versus conventional three-port laparoscopic appendectomy

Is LigaSure Alone Sufficient for the Closure of the Appendix Stump?

Clinical Health Service Research on the Surgical Therapy of Acute Appendicitis: Comparison of Outcomes Based on 3 German Multicenter Quality Assurance Studies Over 21 Years

Stapler Vs Suture Closure of Pancreatic Remnant after Distal Pancreatectomy: a Meta-Analysis.

Effect of suture closure and staple closure on postoperative wound complications in patients undergoing knee replacement surgery: A meta‐analysis

New Strategy During Complicated Open Appendectomy: Convert Open Operation to Laparoscopy

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis versus chronic appendicitis.

Application and curative effect of laparoscopic purse-string sutures in the treatment of adult acute complicated appendicitis

Single-Incision Versus Conventional Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Adaptation of Synthetic Data for Coarse-to-Fine Viewpoint Refinement

Is Endoscopic Retrograde Appendicitis Therapy a Better Modality for Acute Uncomplicated Appendicitis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Comparision of Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery and Traditional Open Appendectomy for Appendicitis

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

Single-incision versus conventional multi-incision laparoscopic appendicectomy for suspected uncomplicated appendicitis