Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
2.
Langenbecks Arch Surg ; 408(1): 307, 2023 Aug 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37578533

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the new RCSEng guidelines resulted in appendicitis being more commonly managed conservatively to avoid aerosol-generating procedures. This resulted in shorter hospital stays without increased short-term complications. The 2-year outcomes of this change, specifically recurrence and re-admission rates remain unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, prospective, observational study including all adult patients treated as appendicitis after the implementation of the new surgical guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Outcomes included initial management failure, re-admission rate, appendicitis recurrence, and interval appendicectomy. A historical cohort prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was used for comparison. Patients were followed up for 2-years post index admission. Categorical and continuous variables were compared using Fisher's exact test and Student's T or Mann-Whitney U tests as appropriate. RESULTS: Sixty-three and 79 patients with appendicitis were included from four NHS trusts, before (A) and after (B) the new intercollegiate guidelines respectively. Operative management was used less frequently in cohort B (28/79 vs 52/63; p<0.001). More patients re-presented in cohort B (14/79 vs 3/63; p=0.020), but not when comparing only those managed conservatively (2/11 vs 13/52; p=1.000). A similar trend was observed for appendicitis recurrence although without statistical significance (2/63 vs 9/79; p=0.112); with loss of trend when comparing those managed conservatively-only (2/11 vs 9/52; p=1.000). Among all patients, four (2.8%) were found to have underlying neoplasia of which three were initially managed conservatively (3/63; 4.8%). CONCLUSION: Conservative management of appendicitis has previously been shown to have short-term benefits in expedited hospital discharge without early complications. The present study shows it has a higher readmission and appendicitis recurrence rates. The risks of this alongside missed/delayed management of neoplasia needs to be considered alongside the benefits including avoidance of aerosol-generating general anaesthesia and laparoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic or similar future health crises. Small case numbers limit analysis.


Subject(s)
Appendicitis , COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Appendicitis/surgery , Prospective Studies , Pandemics , Appendectomy/methods , Retrospective Studies
4.
Langenbecks Arch Surg ; 406(2): 357-365, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33169297

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has reformed global healthcare delivery. On 25 March 2020, Intercollegiate guidelines were published in the UK to promote safe surgical provision during the COVID-19 outbreak advocating non-operative management or avoidance of laparoscopy when surgery is essential. The effects of this on the investigation and management of appendicitis remain unknown. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, prospective, observational study from the start of the new guidelines to the 6th of May 2020. We included all patients referred to surgical teams with suspected appendicitis. A recent historical cohort was identified for comparison. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use of non-operative management in appendicitis. Secondary outcomes included imaging, negative appendicectomy rate (NAR), length of stay (LOS) and 30-day complications. RESULTS: A total of 63/164 (38%) patients compared to 79/191 (41%) were diagnosed with appendicitis before and after the guidelines were introduced (p = 0.589). CT scanning increased (71/164 vs 105/191; p = 0.033) while ultrasound scanning decreased (71/164 vs 62/191; p = 0.037). Appendicitis was more likely to be managed non-operatively (11/63 vs 51/79; p < 0.001) and, of those managed surgically, with an open approach (3/52 vs 26/28 p < 0.001). The NAR also reduced (5/52 vs 0/28; p = 0.157). LOS was shorter in non-operatively managed patients (1 day vs 3 days; p < 0.001) without a difference in complications (10/51 vs 4/28; p = 0.760). CONCLUSION: Introduction of the guidelines was associated with changes in practice. Despite these changes, short-term complications did not increase and LOS decreased. Questions remain on the longer-term complication rates in non-operatively managed patients.


Subject(s)
Appendicitis/diagnosis , Appendicitis/therapy , COVID-19/prevention & control , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Appendectomy , Appendicitis/etiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Laparoscopy , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , United Kingdom , Young Adult
6.
S Afr J Surg ; 56(2): 59-62, 2018 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30010266

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple studies comparing the two methods, the real advantages of laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) compared to open appendicectomy (OA) are still unclear. Purpose of the current study was to compare the results between the two techniques in a district general hospital. METHODS: The electronic records of all patients who underwent OA or LA in a one year period were reviewed retrospectively. The comparative data points assessed included age, gender, overall complications, length of stay and Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications, including the rates of the main types of complications. RESULTS: 300 patients were included in the study. 166 patients underwent OA and 134 patients LA. Postoperative complications were documented in 26 patients (8.7%). LA was employed predominantly in female patients (p = 0.004) and in older patients (p = 0.0015) and was associated with significantly more negative appendicectomies than OA (p = 0.002). No statistically significant difference was noted with regards to the length of hospital stay (p = 0.577), overall postoperative morbidity (p = 0.543) and grading of complications (p = 0.460). Finally, following comparison of the incidence of specific types of complications, only wound infections were significantly different, in favour of LA. CONCLUSION: LA is safe and effective, however, besides the lower incidence of wound sepsis, demonstrates no clear advantage over OA. The selection between OA and LA should thus be tailored to the clinical scenario and the surgeon's preference.


Subject(s)
Appendectomy/methods , Appendicitis/surgery , Laparoscopy/methods , Laparotomy/methods , Adult , Aged , Appendectomy/adverse effects , Appendicitis/diagnosis , Cohort Studies , Databases, Factual , Female , Hospitals, District , Hospitals, General , Humans , Laparoscopy/adverse effects , Laparotomy/adverse effects , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , London , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Safety/statistics & numerical data , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/physiopathology , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Surgical Wound Infection/diagnosis , Surgical Wound Infection/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom
7.
S. Afr. j. surg. (Online) ; 56(2): 59-63, 2018. tab
Article in English | AIM (Africa) | ID: biblio-1271016

ABSTRACT

Background:Despite multiple studies comparing the two methods, the real advantages of laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) compared to open appendicectomy (OA) are still unclear. Purpose of the current study was to compare the results between the two techniques in a district general hospital.Methods:The electronic records of all patients who underwent OA or LA in a one year period were reviewed retrospectively. The comparative data points assessed included age, gender, overall complications, length of stay and Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications, including the rates of the main types of complications. Results:300 patients were included in the study. 166 patients underwent OA and 134 patients LA. Postoperative complications were documented in 26 patients (8.7%). LA was employed predominantly in female patients (p = 0.004) and in older patients (p = 0.0015) and was associated with significantly more negative appendicectomies than OA (p = 0.002). No statistically significant difference was noted with regards to the length of hospital stay (p = 0.577), overall postoperative morbidity (p = 0.543) and grading of complications (p = 0.460). Finally, following comparison of the incidence of specific types of complications, only wound infections were significantly different, in favour of LA.Conclusions:LA is safe and effective, however, besides the lower incidence of wound sepsis, demonstrates no clear advantage over OA. The selection between OA and LA should thus be tailored to the clinical scenario and the surgeon's preference


Subject(s)
Adult , Appendectomy , Osteoarthritis , Osteoarthritis/complications , Osteoarthritis/diagnosis , Patients , Women
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...