Harnoss Julian C, Zelienka Isabelle, Probst Pascal, Grummich Kathrin, Müller-Lantzsch Catharina, Harnoss Jonathan M, Ulrich Alexis, Büchler Markus W, Diener Markus K
*Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany †Study Center of the German Surgical Society, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ann Surg. 2017 May;265(5):889-900. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002039.
The aim was to investigate available evidence regarding effectiveness and safety of surgical versus conservative treatment of acute appendicitis.
There is ongoing debate on the merits of surgical and conservative treatment for acute appendicitis.
A systematic literature search (Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase) and hand search of retrieved reference lists up to January 2016 was conducted to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies. After critical appraisal, data were analyzed using a random-effects model in a Mantel-Haenszel test or inverse variance to calculate risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Four trials and four cohort studies (2551 patients) were included. We found that 26.5% of patients in the conservative group needed appendectomy within 1 year, resulting in treatment effectiveness of 72.6%, significantly lower than the 99.4% in the surgical group, (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.7-0.79; P = 0.00001; I = 62%). Overall postoperative complications were comparable (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.35-2.58; P = 0.91; I = 0%), whereas the rate of adverse events (RR 3.18; 95% CI 1.63-6.21; P = 0.0007; I = 1%) and the incidence of complicated appendicitis (RR 2.52; 95% CI 1.17-5.43; P = 0.02; I = 0%) were significantly higher in the antibiotic treatment group. Randomized trials showed significantly longer hospital stay in the antibiotic treatment group (RR 0.3 days; 95% CI 0.07-0.53; P = 0.009; I = 49%).
Although antibiotics may prevent some patients from appendectomies, surgery represents the definitive, one-time only treatment with a well-known risk profile, whereas the long-term impact of antibiotic treatment on patient quality of life and health care costs is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis helps physicians and patients in choosing between treatment options depending on whether they are risk averse or risk takers.
旨在研究有关急性阑尾炎手术治疗与保守治疗的有效性和安全性的现有证据。
对于急性阑尾炎的手术治疗和保守治疗的优点,目前仍存在争议。
进行了系统的文献检索(Cochrane图书馆、Medline、Embase),并人工检索了截至2016年1月检索到的参考文献列表,以确定随机和非随机研究。经过严格评估后,使用Mantel-Haenszel检验中的随机效应模型或逆方差分析数据,以计算风险比(RR)或平均差(MD)以及95%置信区间(CI)。
纳入了四项试验和四项队列研究(共2551例患者)。我们发现,保守治疗组中26.5%的患者在1年内需要进行阑尾切除术,治疗有效率为72.6%,显著低于手术组的99.4%,(RR 0.75;95%CI 0.7 - 0.79;P = 0.00001;I² = 62%)。总体术后并发症相当(RR 0.95;95%CI 0.35 - 2.58;P = 0.91;I² = 0%),而抗生素治疗组的不良事件发生率(RR 3.18;95%CI 1.63 - 6.21;P = 0.0007;I² = 1%)和复杂性阑尾炎的发生率(RR 2.52;95%CI 1.17 - 5.43;P = 0.02;I² = 0%)显著更高。随机试验显示,抗生素治疗组的住院时间明显更长(RR 0.3天;95%CI 0.07 - 0.53;P = 0.009;I² = 49%)。
虽然抗生素可能使一些患者避免进行阑尾切除术,但手术是一种明确的、一次性的治疗方法,其风险已知,而抗生素治疗对患者生活质量和医疗费用的长期影响尚不清楚。这项系统评价和荟萃分析有助于医生和患者根据他们是规避风险还是愿意冒险来选择治疗方案。