Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33416987›Full record

SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021

Early versus delayed (interval) appendicectomy for the management of appendicular abscess and phlegmon: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Akinfemi A Akingboye, Fahad Mahmood, Shafquat Zaman, Jenny Wright, Fatima Mannan, Ali Yasen Y Mohamedahmed

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Akinfemi A AkingboyeDepartment of General Surgery, Russells Hall Hospital, The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Russells Hall Hospital, Pensnett Road, Dudley, DY1 2HQ, UK. a.akingboye@nhs.net.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0325-8440
Fahad MahmoodDepartment of General Surgery, Russells Hall Hospital, The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Russells Hall Hospital, Pensnett Road, Dudley, DY1 2HQ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1776-8828
Shafquat ZamanDepartment of General Surgery, Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals, West Bromwich, B71 4HJ, UK.
Jenny WrightDepartment of General Surgery, Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals, West Bromwich, B71 4HJ, UK.
Fatima MannanDepartment of General Surgery, Russells Hall Hospital, The Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust, Russells Hall Hospital, Pensnett Road, Dudley, DY1 2HQ, UK.
Ali Yasen Y MohamedahmedDepartment of General Surgery, Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals, West Bromwich, B71 4HJ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1219-7571
Russells Hall Hospital · GBSandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe safety and role of emergency (EA) versus interval appendicectomy (IA) for appendicular abscess and phlegmon remains debatable with no optimal strategy identified. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate outcomes of managing appendicular abscesses and phlegmon with emergency or interval appendicectomy.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search of electronic databases using key terms including 'appendicular abscess', 'appendicular phlegmon' and 'interval appendicectomy'. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing the two management approaches were included. Operative time, post-operation complication, unplanned bowel resection, rate of surgical site infection, post-operative length of stay and overall mortality rate were evaluated.

resultsWe identified six studies (2 RCTs and 4 observational studies) with a total of 9264 patients of whom (n = 1352) underwent IA, and (n 7912) underwent EA. The EA group was associated with statistically significant unplanned bowel resection (OR 0.55, 95% CI [0.33-0.90], P = 0.02) and longer total operating time (MD - 14.11, 95% CI [- 18.26-- 9.96] P = 0.00001). However, the following parameters were compared for both EA and IA groups; there were no significant statistical differences: surgical site infection (OR 0.49, 95% CI [0.17-1.38], P = 0.18), post-operative intra-abdominal collection (RD - 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.04-0.01], P = 0.29), total length of hospital stay (MD 1.83, 95% CI [- 0.19-3.85], P = 0.08), post-operative length of hospital stay (MD - 0.27, 95% CI [- 3.66-3.13], P = 0.88) and mortality rate (MD - 0.27, 95% CI [- 3.66-3.13], P = 0.66).

conclusionEmergency operation for appendicular abscess and phlegmon may lead to a higher rate of reported morbidity when compared with interval appendicectomy. Although emergency appendicectomy performed for appendicular abscess and phlegmon is a feasible and safe operative approach, it is associated with significantly increased operative time and unplanned bowel resection (ileocolic and right hemicolectomies) compared to interval appendicectomy.

Indexed as

AppendicitisLaparoscopyAbscessAppendectomyCellulitisHumansLength of StayAbscessAppendicectomyInterval and emergencyPhlegmon

Identifiers

PMID33416987
OpenAlexW3118395927

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.