Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis
Brett Doleman,Siv Fonnes,Jon N Lund,Hannah Boyd-Carson,Hannah Javanmard-Emamghissi,Susan Moug,Marianne Hollyman,Gillian Tierney,Samson Tou,John P Williams
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd015038.pub2
IF: 8.4
2024-05-01
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:Acute appendicitis is one of the most common emergency general surgical conditions worldwide. Uncomplicated/simple appendicitis can be treated with appendectomy or antibiotics. Some studies have suggested possible benefits with antibiotics with reduced complications, length of hospital stay, and the number of days off work. However, surgery may improve success of treatment as antibiotic treatment is associated with recurrence and future need for surgery. To assess the effects of antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated/simple acute appendicitis compared with appendectomy for resolution of symptoms and complications. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov) on 19 July 2022. We also searched for unpublished studies in conference proceedings together with reference checking and citation search. There were no restrictions on date, publication status, or language of publication. We included parallel‐group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included studies where most participants were adults with uncomplicated/simple appendicitis. Interventions included antibiotics (by any route) compared with appendectomy (open or laparoscopic). We used standard methodology expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Primary outcomes included mortality and success of treatment, and secondary outcomes included number of participants requiring appendectomy in the antibiotic group, complications, pain, length of hospital stay, sick leave, malignancy in the antibiotic group, negative appendectomy rate, and quality of life. Success of treatment definitions were heterogeneous although mainly based on resolution of symptoms rather than incorporation of long‐term recurrence or need for surgery in the antibiotic group. We included 13 studies in the review covering 1675 participants randomised to antibiotics and 1683 participants randomised to appendectomy. One study was unpublished. All were conducted in secondary care and two studies received pharmaceutical funding. All studies used broad‐spectrum antibiotic regimens expected to cover gastrointestinal bacteria. Most studies used predominantly laparoscopic surgery, but some included mainly open procedures. Six studies included adults and children. Almost all studies aimed to exclude participants with complicated appendicitis prior to randomisation, although one study included 12% with perforation. The diagnostic technique was clinical assessment and imaging in most studies. Only one study limited inclusion by sex (male only). Follow‐up ranged from hospital admission only to seven years. Certainty of evidence was mainly affected by risk of bias (due to lack of blinding and loss to follow‐up) and imprecision. Primary outcomes It is uncertain whether there was any difference in mortality due to the very low‐certainty evidence (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 4.95; 1 study, 492 participants). There may be 76 more people per 1000 having unsuccessful treatment in the antibiotic group compared with surgery, which did not reach our predefined level for clinical significance (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96; I 2 = 69%; 7 studies, 2471 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes At one year, 30.7% (95% CI 24.0 to 37.8; I 2 = 80%; 9 studies, 1396 participants) of participants in the antibiotic group required appendectomy or, alternatively, more than two‐thirds of antibiotic‐treated participants avoided surgery in the first year, but the evidence is very uncertain. Regarding complications, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in episodes of Clostridium difficile diarrhoea due to very low‐certainty evidence (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.89; 1 study, 1332 participants). There may be a clinically significant reduction in wound infections with antibiotics (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.68; I 2 = 16%; 9 studies, 2606 participants; low‐certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether antibiotics affect the incidence of intra‐abdominal abscess or collection (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.07; I 2 = 19%; 6 studies, 1831 participants), or reoperation (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.16; 1 study, 492 participants) due to very low‐certainty evidence, mainly due to rare events causing imprecision and risk of bias. It is uncertain if antibiotics prolonged length of hospital stay by half a day due to the very low‐certainty evidence (MD 0.54, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.01; I 2 = 97%; 11 studies, 3192 participants). The incidence of malignancy was 0.3% (95% CI 0 to 1.5; 5 studies, 403 participants) in the antibiotic group although follow‐up was variable. Antibiotics probably increased the number of negative appendectomies at surgery (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.49; I 2< -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal