Open Versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Post Hoc Analysis of the EAST Appendicitis MUSTANG Study.

Background: We sought to understand which factors are associated with open appendectomy as final operative approach. We hypothesize that higher American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Emergency General Surgery (EGS) grade is associated with open appendectomy. Patients and Methods: Post hoc analysis of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Multicenter Study of the Treatment of Appendicitis in America: Acute, Perforated and Gangrenous (MUSTANG) prospective appendicitis database was performed. All adults (age >18) undergoing appendectomy were stratified by final operative approach: laparoscopic or open appendectomy (including conversion from laparoscopic). Univariable analysis was performed to compare group characteristics and outcomes, and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify demographic, clinical, or radiologic factors associated with open appendectomy. Results: A total of 3,019 cases were analyzed. One hundred seventy-five (5.8%) patients underwent open appendectomy, including 127 converted from laparoscopic to open. The median age was 37 (25) years and 53% were male. Compared with the laparoscopic group, open appendectomy patients had more comorbidities, higher proportion of symptoms greater than 96 hours, and higher AAST EGS grade. Moreover, on intraoperative findings, the open appendectomy group had a higher incidence of perforated and gangrenous appendicitis with purulent contamination, abscess/phlegmon, and purulent abdominal/pelvic fluid. On multivariable analysis controlling for comorbidities, clinical and imaging AAST grade, duration of symptoms, and intra-operative findings, only AAST Clinical Grade 5 appendicitis was independently associated with open appendectomy (odds ratio [OR], 5.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-25.55; p = 0.025). Conclusions: In the setting of appendicitis, generalized peritonitis (AAST Clinical Grade 5) is independently associated with greater odds of open appendectomy.

Meralgia paresthetica treated by injection, decompression, and neurectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of pain and operative outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Meralgia paresthetica is caused by entrapment of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) and often presents with pain. Multiple treatment options targeting the LFCN can be pursued to treat the pain should conservative measures fail, with the most common options being injection, neurolysis, and neurectomy. However, their efficacy in causing pain relief and their clinical outcomes have yet to be directly compared. The aim of this study was to interrogate the contemporary literature and quantitatively define how these options compare. METHODS: The electronic databases Ovid Embase, PubMed, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Library were interrogated from inception to May 2020 following the PRISMA guidelines. Candidate articles were screened against prespecified criteria. Outcome data were abstracted and pooled by random-effects meta-analysis of proportions. RESULTS: There were 25 articles that satisfied all criteria, reporting outcomes for a total of 670 meralgia paresthetica patients, with 78 (12%) treated by injection, 496 (74%) by neurolysis, and 96 (14%) by neurectomy. The incidence of complete pain relief was 85% (95% CI 71%-96%) after neurectomy, 63% (95% CI 56%-71%) after neurolysis, and 22% (95% CI 13%-33%) after injection, which were all statistically different (p < 0.01). The incidence of revision procedures was 12% (95% CI 4%-22%) after neurolysis and 0% (95% CI 0%-2%) after neurectomy, which were significantly lower than 81% (95% CI 64%-94%) after injection (p < 0.01). The incidences of treatment complications were statistically comparable across all three treatments, ranging from 0% to 5% (p = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: There are multiple treatment options to target pain in meralgia paresthetica. The incidence of complete pain relief appears to be the greatest among the 3 interventions after neurectomy, accompanied by the lowest incidence of revision procedures. These findings should help inform patient preference and expectations. Greater exploration of the anatomical rationale for incomplete pain relief after surgical intervention will assist in optimizing further surgical treatment for meralgia paresthetica.