Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment in acute appendicitis. a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. Randomized controlled trial of appendicectomy versus antibiotic therapy for acute appendicitis. Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid versus appendicectomy for treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Conservative management of acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: prospective randomized trial. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized trial of 81 patients. [Does laparoscopy increase the bacteriological risk of appendectomy? Results of a randomized prospective study]. Randomized controlled trial with sequential design of laparoscopic versus conventional appendicectomy. Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy.
Appendectomy has been the treatment for acute appendicitis for over 120 years. Antibiotic treatment has occasionally been used in small uncontrolled studies, instead of operation, but this alternative has never before been tried in a multicenter randomized trial.
                Male patients, 18-50 years of age, admitted to six different hospitals in Sweden between 1996 and 1999 were enrolled in the study. No women were enrolled by decision of the local ethics committee. If appendectomy was planned, patients were asked to participate, and those who agreed were randomized either to surgery or to antibiotic therapy. Patients randomized to surgery were operated on with open surgery or laparoscopically. Those randomized to antibiotic therapy were treated intravenously for 2 days, followed by oral treatment for 10 days. If symptoms did not resolve within 24 hours, an appendectomy was performed. Participants were monitored at the end of 1 week, 6 weeks, and 1 year.
                During the study period 252 men participated, 124 in the surgery group and 128 in the antibiotic group. The frequency of appendicitis was 97% in the surgery group and 5% had a perforated appendix. The complication rate was 14% in the surgery group. In the antibiotic group 86% improved without surgery; 18 patients were operated on within 24 hours, and the diagnosis of acute appendicitis was confirmed in all but one patient, and he was suffering from terminal ileitis. There were seven patients (5%) with a perforated appendix in this group. The rate of recurrence of symptoms of appendicitis among the 111 patients treated with antibiotics was 14% during the 1-year follow-up.
                Acute non-perforated appendicitis can be treated successfully with antibiotics. However, there is a risk of recurrence in cases of acute appendicitis, and this risk should be compared with the risk of complications after appendectomy. In a prospective controlled study the effect of antibiotics as the only treatment in acute appendicitis was evaluated. Of 40 patients admitted with a duration of abdominal pain of less than 72 h, 20 received antibiotics intravenously for 2 days followed by oral treatment for 8 days and 20 considered as controls were randomized to surgery. All patients treated conservatively were discharged within 2 days, except one who required surgery after 12 h because of peritonitis secondary to perforated appendicitis. Seven patients were readmitted within 1 year as a result of recurrent appendicitis and underwent surgery, when appendicitis was confirmed. The diagnostic accuracy within the operated group was 85 per cent. One patient had perforated appendicitis at operation. Antibiotic treatment in patients with acute appendicitis was as effective as surgery. The patients had less pain and required less analgesia, but the recurrence rate was high. Researchers have suggested that antibiotics could cure acute appendicitis. We assessed the efficacy of amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid by comparison with emergency appendicectomy for treatment of patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.
                In this open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial, adult patients (aged 18-68 years) with uncomplicated acute appendicitis, as assessed by CT scan, were enrolled at six university hospitals in France. A computer-generated randomisation sequence was used to allocate patients randomly in a 1:1 ratio to receive amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid (3 g per day) for 8-15 days or emergency appendicectomy. The primary endpoint was occurrence of postintervention peritonitis within 30 days of treatment initiation. Non-inferiority was shown if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in rates was lower than 10 percentage points. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were done. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00135603.
                Of 243 patients randomised, 123 were allocated to the antibiotic group and 120 to the appendicectomy group. Four were excluded from analysis because of early dropout before receiving the intervention, leaving 239 (antibiotic group, 120; appendicectomy group, 119) patients for intention-to-treat analysis. 30-day postintervention peritonitis was significantly more frequent in the antibiotic group (8%, n=9) than in the appendicectomy group (2%, n=2; treatment difference 5·8; 95% CI 0·3-12·1). In the appendicectomy group, despite CT-scan assessment, 21 (18%) of 119 patients were unexpectedly identified at surgery to have complicated appendicitis with peritonitis. In the antibiotic group, 14 (12% [7·1-18·6]) of 120 underwent an appendicectomy during the first 30 days and 30 (29% [21·4-38·9]) of 102 underwent appendicectomy between 1 month and 1 year, 26 of whom had acute appendicitis (recurrence rate 26%; 18·0-34·7).
                Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid was not non-inferior to emergency appendicectomy for treatment of acute appendicitis. Identification of predictive markers on CT scans might enable improved targeting of antibiotic treatment.
                French Ministry of Health, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique 2002.
                Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. The acute appendicitis is the most common abdominal emergency, and the primary treatment has been appendicectomy. Antibiotics are started preoperatively and continued postoperatively as needed.
                This prospective study was carried out at Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura, Srinagar, Kashmir, India to determine the role of antibiotics as the only treatment in acute appendicitis and the analgesic consumption needed. Total of 80 patients were included in the study with a duration of abdominal pain less than 72 h. Out of 80 patients, 40 patients received antibiotics intravenously for 2 days followed by oral treatment for 7 days, while another 40 patients considered as controls were randomized to surgery.
                Patients managed conservatively were discharged within 3 days except for two--patients who required surgery after 12 and 24 h, respectively, because of peritonitis due to perforated appendicitis. Four patients were readmitted within 1 year as a result of recurrent appendicitis and had to undergo surgery when appendicitis was confirmed. The diagnostic accuracy within the operated group was 90%. Two patients had perforated appendicitis at operation.
                Our conclusion is that antibiotic treatment in the patients with acute appendicitis is quite effective, and these patients may not need surgery. The patients managed conservatively with antibiotics alone experience less pain and require less analgesia but have high recurrent rate. A prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy in patients with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis was conducted between October 1992 and April 1994. Of the 158 patients randomized, 7 patients were excluded because of protocol violations (conversion to laparotomy in 4, appendix not removed in 3). The 151 patients randomized to either a laparoscopic (n = 79) or an open appendectomy (n = 72) showed no difference in sex, age, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) rating, or previous abdominal surgery. The histologic classification of normal, catarrhal, inflamed, suppurative, and gangrenous appendicitis was not different between the two groups. Conversion from laparoscopic to open appendectomy was necessary in seven patients (9%) who had advanced forms of appendiceal inflammation. When compared to open appendectomy the laparoscopic group had a longer median operating time (63 minutes versus 40 minutes), fewer wound infections (2% versus 11%), less requirement for narcotic analgesia, and an earlier return to normal activity (median 7 days versus 14 days). There was no difference in morbidity, and both groups had a median time to discharge of 3 days. Laparoscopic appendectomy is as safe as open appendectomy; and despite the longer operating time, the advantages such as fewer wound infections and earlier return to normal activity make it a worthwhile alternative for patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis. To compare the efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) in the treatment of acute appendicitis.
                A prospective randomized trial.
                A university teaching hospital.
                Eighty-one patients with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis were prospectively randomized to undergo either LA or OA. The two groups were matched for age and sex.
                LA or OA.
                Number of days in hospital and time to full recovery.
                The mean hospital stay for LA was 3.23 days compared with 3.03 days for OA (p < 0.001). The mean number of narcotic injections required for patients in the LA group was 4.05 compared with 5.58 for patients in the OA group (p < 0.001). The mean time to complete recovery for patients in the LA group was 9.0 days compared with 16.2 days for patients in the OA group (p < 0.001). The mean operative time for LA was 73.8 minutes compared with 45.0 minutes for OA (p < 0.001). Three patients in the LA group had intra-abdominal abscesses (p > 0.25). No significant difference in wound infection rates was demonstrated (p > 0.05). Similarly, pain scores at 7 and 28 days showed no significant difference (p > 0.05).
                With LA significantly fewer narcotic injections are required and there is a more rapid return to normal activities. LA takes longer to perform and was associated with three intra-abdominal abscesses. In cases of simple acute appendicitis the hospital stay for LA is significantly shorter. The authors compare the risk of bacteraemia in open and laparoscopic appendectomy in a prospective randomized study.
                35 patients with a presumptive diagnosis of acute appendicitis were randomized to have conventional open or laparoscopic surgical procedures. Before randomization, patients signed a consent form to participate in the study. Patients who were converted from laparoscopic to open appendectomy (3 cases), HIV+, allergic to Augmentin or who had contraindications to laparoscopic surgery were excluded from the study. A total of 32 patients were randomized: 17 to open (group I) and 15 to laparoscopic surgery (group II). There were no significant differences with regard to age, ASA score, symptoms or macroscopic aspect of the appendix. Two patients had a normal appendix, 12 had acute appendicitis, 14 gangrenous appendicitis and 4 ruptured or abscessed appendicitis. All patients received preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis (Augmentin) after blood cultures (H1) were drawn. Five other blood cultures were performed in standard medium and medium neutralizing Augmentin: at the time of opening the peritoneum (H2), after appendectomy (H3), after closure of the abdomen (H4), and at 6 (H5) and 12 hours (H6) after the operation. Bacterial cultures from the appendix site were performed before (P1) and after (P2) appendectomy.
                The operative mortality rate after conventional or laparoscopic appendectomy was nil. The incidence of post-operative morbidity was 4 cases in group I and 2 cases in group II. No positive bacterial culture was obtained in 17 patients. The distribution of these patients was similar in groups I and II. Samples P1 and P2 were positive in 5 cases. Nine of 27 cases with negative P1 became positive in P2 (33%). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the appearance of the appendix. Only two patients had positive blood cultures at H1. One of them had blood cultures at H3, H4 positive for a second germ.
                A low risk of bacteraemia exists for both open and laparoscopic appendectomy. This risk did not appear to increase for laparoscopy. Conventional and laparoscopic surgical procedures led to positive peritoneal bacterial cultures after appendectomy in 33% of cases. A prospective study including 272 patients with suspected appendicitis was performed. The aims were to evaluate the representativity of the study group and to compare diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy with conventional appendicectomy.
                The study was an open, randomized, single-centre trial with sequential design. One hundred and eight patients were randomized between laparoscopy or conventional appendicectomy, of whom 84 had acute appendicitis. Duration of postoperative convalescence was the major endpoint.
                The study patients were representative of the eligible population regarding age and stage of appendicitis. The risk of unnecessary appendicectomy was significantly (P = 0.03) lower after laparoscopy. The mean difference in duration of postoperative convalescence was 4.7 days in favour of of laparoscopic appendicectomy (P = 0.07), and 26 min in duration of operation in favour of conventional appendicectomy (P < 0.01). No differences were detected in postoperative hospital stay, pain assessment or complications.
                The laparoscopic procedure is at least as good as conventional appendicectomy. Initial laparoscopy reduces the rate of misdiagnosis. Laparoscopy in patients with a clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis has not gained wide acceptance, and its use remains controversial.
                In a randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy, 583 of 828 consecutive patients consented to participate. Three hundred and one patients were allocated to open appendicectomy and 282 patients to laparoscopy, 65 of whom required conversion to open appendicectomy. Length of stay in hospital was the primary endpoint, while operating time, postoperative morbidity, duration of convalescence and cosmesis were secondary endpoints.
                Intention-to-treat analysis revealed an equally short hospital stay in the two groups (median 2 days). The median time to return to normal activity (7 versus 10 days) and work (10 versus 16 days) was significantly shorter following laparoscopy. Laparoscopy was associated with fewer wound infections (P < 0.03) and improved cosmesis (P < 0.001), but the operating time was longer (60 versus 40 min). Laparoscopy was associated with more intraperitoneal abscesses (5 versus 1 per cent) but, adjusted for a greater number of gangrenous or perforated appendices in this group, the difference failed to reach statistical significance.
                Hospital stay was equally short, whereas laparoscopic appendicectomy was associated with fewer wound infections, faster recovery, earlier return to work and improved cosmesis.
The upper bound of the 95% CI of ABT for cure within two weeks without major complications crosses the 20% margin of appendectomy, so the outcome is inconclusive. Also the quality of the studies was low to moderate, for that reason the results should be interpret with caution and definite conclusions cannot be made. Therefore we conclude that appendectomy remains the standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Antibiotic treatment might be used as an alternative treatment in a good quality RCT or in specific patients or conditions were surgery is contraindicated.