Mohammed Omeralfarouk H, Humidan Abubakr Ali M, Ahmed Almegdad S, Ahmed Sharwany S, Ibrahim Rami F, Omer Malaz Abusefian Elbagir, Hassan Muaz, Hussen Mostafa Adam Mosab, Ali Abdallah M, Mohamed Shakir, Salim Omer H
General Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, SDN.
Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, SDN.
Cureus. 2024 Nov 19;16(11):e73979. doi: 10.7759/cureus.73979. eCollection 2024 Nov.
Acute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies. Simple appendicitis can be a complicated periappendiceal abscess. Despite the fact that there are several treatment options for periappendiceal abscesses, there is no consensus on the optimal treatment method; some surgeons prefer appendectomy, while others prefer relying on non-operative approaches using antibiotic therapy with or without percutaneous drainage. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of antibiotics-only therapy to antibiotics plus percutaneous drainage in the management of periappendicular abscess. An electronic database and clinical trial register search was performed on the PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane libraries. After the removal of duplicate records, the studies went through a screening process to determine their eligibility. A meta-analysis was performed for the length of hospital stay and treatment success rate for the comparison groups (antibiotics-only and antibiotics plus percutaneous drainage), in which the mean difference with a 95% confidence interval, and odds ratio using the Mantel-Haenszel method were calculated. The heterogeneity among the studies was assessed using the I value. Four studies were included in the review and the meta-analysis. Most of the included studies had a retrospective design with the exception of one study, which was a randomized controlled trial. A total of 1,422 patients were included in the four studies; the majority of them (1192, 83.8%) received antibiotics only for the treatment of periappendiceal abscesses, while the rest (230, 16.2%) had percutaneous drainage plus antibiotic therapy. Patients in the antibiotics-only group had a statistically significant mean difference of 2.77 (confidence interval (CI): 3.99-1.55) days of hospital stay less than the percutaneous drainage plus antibiotics group, with a P-value of <0.001. Moreover, they had an average odds ratio of 0.51 (CI: 0.08-3.27) of having more treatment success than the percutaneous drainage plus antibiotics group. However, this was not statistically significant, with a P-value of 0.47. In conclusion, antibiotics-only therapy had a slightly higher odds ratio in terms of treatment success, but this was not statistically significant. In addition, patients in the antibiotics-only group had a decreased length of hospital stay. On the other hand, patients in the antibiotics plus percutaneous drainage group had lower rates of recurrence and required fewer interval appendectomies. More well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to further solidify the evidence.
急性阑尾炎是最常见的外科急症之一。单纯性阑尾炎可能会发展为复杂的阑尾周围脓肿。尽管对于阑尾周围脓肿有多种治疗选择,但对于最佳治疗方法尚无共识;一些外科医生倾向于阑尾切除术,而另一些则倾向于采用非手术方法,即使用抗生素治疗,可联合或不联合经皮引流。本研究的目的是比较单纯抗生素治疗与抗生素联合经皮引流在阑尾周围脓肿治疗中的疗效。在PubMed、EMBASE、SCOPUS、ClinicalTrials.gov和Cochrane图书馆进行了电子数据库和临床试验注册搜索。去除重复记录后,对研究进行筛选以确定其是否符合条件。对比较组(单纯抗生素组和抗生素联合经皮引流组)的住院时间和治疗成功率进行了荟萃分析,计算了平均差值及95%置信区间,并用Mantel-Haenszel法计算了比值比。使用I值评估研究间的异质性。本综述和荟萃分析纳入了四项研究。除一项为随机对照试验外,大多数纳入研究为回顾性设计。四项研究共纳入1422例患者;其中大多数(1192例,83.8%)仅接受抗生素治疗阑尾周围脓肿,其余(230例,16.2%)接受经皮引流加抗生素治疗。单纯抗生素组患者的住院时间平均差值在统计学上显著短于经皮引流加抗生素组2.77天(置信区间(CI):3.99 - 1.55),P值<0.001。此外,与经皮引流加抗生素组相比,其治疗成功的平均比值比为0.51(CI:0.08 - 3.27)。然而,这在统计学上并不显著,P值为0.47。总之,单纯抗生素治疗在治疗成功方面的比值比略高,但在统计学上并不显著。此外,单纯抗生素组患者的住院时间缩短。另一方面,抗生素联合经皮引流组患者的复发率较低,且需要的间隔期阑尾切除术较少。需要更多设计良好的随机对照试验来进一步巩固证据。