Meta‐analysis of in‐hospital delay before surgery as a risk factor for complications in patients with acute appendicitis. BJS 2018; 105: 933-945.
Published: 14th June 2018
Authors: S. T. van Dijk, A. H. van Dijk, M. G. Dijkgraaf, M. A. Boermeester
The traditional fear that every case of acute appendicitis will eventually perforate has led to the generally accepted emergency appendicectomy with minimized delay. However, emergency and thereby sometimes night‐time surgery is associated with several drawbacks, whereas the consequences of surgery after limited delay are unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess in‐hospital delay before surgery as risk factor for complicated appendicitis and postoperative morbidity in patients with acute appendicitis.
PubMed and EMBASE were searched from 1990 to 2016 for studies including patients who underwent appendicectomy for acute appendicitis, reported in two or more predefined time intervals. The primary outcome measure was complicated appendicitis after surgery (perforated or gangrenous appendicitis); other outcomes were postoperative surgical‐site infection and morbidity. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were pooled using forest plots if possible. Unadjusted data were pooled using generalized linear mixed models.
Forty‐five studies with 152 314 patients were included. Pooled adjusted ORs revealed no significantly higher risk for complicated appendicitis when appendicectomy was delayed for 7–12 or 13–24 h (OR 1·07, 95 per cent c.i. 0·98 to 1·17, and OR 1·09, 0·95 to 1·24, respectively). Meta‐analysis of unadjusted data supported these findings by yielding no increased risk for complicated appendicitis or postoperative complications with a delay of 24–48 h.
This meta‐analysis demonstrates that delaying appendicectomy for presumed uncomplicated appendicitis for up to 24 h after admission does not appear to be a risk factor for complicated appendicitis, postoperative surgical‐site infection or morbidity. Delaying appendicectomy for up to 24 h may be an acceptable alternative for patients with no preoperative signs of complicated appendicitis.Full text
You may also be interested in
Authors: T. J. Patterson, J. Beck, P. J. Currie, R. A. J. Spence, G. Spence
Authors: L. de Munter, S. Polinder, C. L. P. van de Ree, N. Kruithof, K. W. W. Lansink, E. W. Steyerberg et al.
Surgical removal of the index node marked using magnetic seed localization to assess response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with stage III melanoma.
Authors: B. Schermers, V. Franke, E. A. Rozeman, B. A. van de Wiel, A. Bruining, M. W. Wouters et al.
Nationwide observational study of mortality from complicated intra‐abdominal infections and the role of bacterial cultures.
Authors: A. Tsuchiya, H. Yasunaga, Y. Tsutsumi, T. Kawahara, H. Matsui, K. Fushimi et al.
Impact of enhanced recovery on oncological outcomes following minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer.
Authors: B. J. Quiram, J. Crippa, F. Grass, J. K. Lovely, K. T. Behm, D. T. Colibaseanu et al.
Prospective cohort study of ultrasound surveillance of regional lymph nodes in patients with intermediate‐risk cutaneous melanoma.
Authors: A. J. Hayes, E. Moskovic, K. O'Meara, H. G. Smith, R. J. E. Pope, J. Larkin et al.
Authors: S. Biondo
Multicentre study of non‐surgical management of diverticulitis with abscess formation. BJS 2019; 106: 458-466.
Authors: D. P. V. Lambrichts, H. E. Bolkenstein, D. C. H. E. van der Does, D. Dieleman, R. M. P. H. Crolla, J. W. T. Dekker et al.
Randomized clinical trial
Randomized clinical trial of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in elective colorectal cancer surgery (SELECT trial). BJS 2019; 106: 355-363.
Authors: G. S. A. Abis, H. B. A. C. Stockmann, H. J. Bonjer, N. van Veenendaal, M. L. M. van Doorn‐Schepens, A. E. Budding et al.
Population‐based study of surgical treatment with and without tumour resection in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer.
Authors: K. Westberg, G. Palmer, F. Hjern, T. Holm, A. Martling
Time to calcitonin normalization after surgery for node‐negative and node‐positive medullary thyroid cancer. BJS 2019; 106: 412-418.
Authors: A. Machens, K. Lorenz, H. Dralle
Notes: Sensitive as prognostic tool