Overview of management procedure of acute Appendicitis · 2018. 2. 1. · Appendicitis . Bader Muhammed AlSawadi, Bassam Ali Othman hakami, Yazeed Abdullah Hassan Faqih, Mohammed

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 9, Issue 1, January-2018 1687 ISSN 2229-5518

IJSER © 2018 http://www.ijser.org

Overview of management procedure of acute Appendicitis

Bader Muhammed AlSawadi, Bassam Ali Othman hakami, Yazeed Abdullah Hassan Faqih, Mohammed khamis Albalawi, Sameer Ahmed Holal, Naser Husein Yahia

almalki

Abstract Appendicitis is the most normal indicator for abdominal surgery in children and

make up a considerable proportion of procedure-related expenses within the degree

of pediatric surgical strategy. Regardless of the high event as well as substantial

source use gotten in touch with appendicitis in children, there is a lack of

arrangement surrounding the perfect timing of appendectomy when it concerned

opening danger and also post-operative problem rates. Lots of providers consider

acute appendicitis an urgent surgical diagnosis requiring emerging treatment while

others might prefer to deal with a child supplying over night with anti-biotics

complied with by appendectomy the next morning. Data surrounding whether this

variation in operative timing raises the danger of opening vary substantially and

might add to the broad method variation observed in the management of pediatric

appendicitis. In Conclusion, There is a paucity of high-quality evidence in the

literature regarding timing of appendectomy for patients with acute appendicitis

and its association with adverse events or resource utilization. Based on available

evidence, appendectomy performed within the first 24 hours from presentation is

not associated with an increased risk of perforation or adverse outcomes.

• Introduction Appendicitis is the most usual indication for abdominal surgery in children and

make up a considerable proportion of procedure-related expenses within the extent

of pediatric surgical technique(1,2). Despite the high occurrence as well as

IJSER

http://www.ijser.org/



considerable source use connected with appendicitis in children, there is an

absence of agreement surrounding the ideal timing of appendectomy when it come

to opening danger and also post-operative difficulty rates(3-10). Lots of carriers

consider acute appendicitis an urgent surgical diagnosis requiring emerging

treatment while others could prefer to handle a child providing over night with

anti-biotics complied with by appendectomy the next early morning. Data

surrounding whether this variation in operative timing raises the danger of opening

vary significantly and could add to the broad technique variation observed in the

management of pediatric appendicitis.

Prior research studies have demonstrated an association in between difficult

appendicitis and also boosted source usage (e.g. boosted size of stay, post-

operative difficulties, as well as medical facility price)(6,8,11). As a result, there is

incentive to define better the relationship in between time to appendectomy from

preliminary diagnosis and risk of opening with the ultimate goal of boosting

patient outcomes, lowering unnecessary expense, and also enhancing patient

complete satisfaction. In this testimonial, our purpose was to assess the literature

systematically as it relates to patients going through an appendectomy who were

confessed with the intent to continue to operative intervention. Ultimately, we

looked for to determine the very best readily available evidence and also

recommend objective referrals based on the toughness of the offered data relating

to optimal timing of appendectomy.

• Methodology A literature search was conducted with the aid of a health sciences librarian to

identify publications in the English language from January 1, 1970 to November 3,

IJSER




2017 using OVID MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases.

Given the paucity of data in the pediatric literature, it was the consensus of the

committee members that the literature search could include studies in the adult

population. The selected questions were researched with Medical Subject Headings

(MeSH) search terms including: “appendicitis”, “appendectomy”, “emergencies”,

“emergency service”, “hospital”, “emergency treatment”, “time to treatment”,

“night care”, “timing”, “complications”, “adverse event”, “treatment outcome”,

“patient admission”, “hospitalization”, “health resources”, "length of stay", "costs

and cost analysis" and “patient satisfaction”. Subject heading searches were

exploded to include all narrower terms in the MeSH or EMTREE (subject headings

unique to Embase) hierarchy. The search terms were combined by "or" if they

represented similar concepts, and by "and" if they represented different concepts.

The citations of relevant articles generated from the database search were reviewed

but no new articles were identified using this “snowball” methodology. Articles

addressing non-surgical management of acute appendicitis or interval management

of complicated appendicitis were excluded.

• Results and Discussion

Is there an association between timing of appendectomy, relative to

hospital admission, and overall adverse event rate?

Of the 83 papers that were evaluated, 65 articles examined the result that time to

appendectomy relative to medical facility admission carried adverse event prices,

including (but not limited to) price of perforation and medical site infection. The

bulk (49) of these researches were retrospective collection with differing inclusion

requirements and also statistical approaches as well as will not be further gone over

IJSER




however are available in the table 1. The continuing to be 34 articles are gone over

in detail in the succeeding areas of this evaluation. No randomized test has

attended to the concern of the proper timing for appendectomy.

Rate of perforation

Eight possible, empirical trials characterized the organization between timing of

appendectomy for acute appendicitis about hospital admission and also findings of

opening. Most of these studies did not locate an increase in opening prices with a

longer time to appendectomy. In a tiny collection by Maroju et al, 111 adult

patients with appendicitis were organized into very early appendicitis (56%) and

progressed appendicitis (44%), where early was defined by an inflamed appendix

and also advanced was perforated or gangrenous appendicitis(14). When analyzing

in-hospital time to surgery, no distinction was located between the two teams (8

hours, 26 minutes versus 7 hours, 38 mins). A single-institution study by Hansson

et al also reported no association in between in-hospital time prior to procedure as

well as degree of appendiceal inflammation (p= 0.063)(15). In a possible research by

Narsule et al, 202 children with appendicitis were followed from discussion to the

emergency situation department to procedure(16). Time from discussion to surgery

was not dramatically various between patients discovered to have perforation (5

hrs) as compared to those without perforation (9 hours). A research study executed

in the UK explained 2510 patients from 95 centers that were contrasted based on

specific time-blocks to operation (0-11 hours, 12-23 hours, 24-47 hours and also

greater than 48 hours)(17). The writers located no distinction in the price of easy

versus complicated appendicitis between the different time-blocks. The UK

Surgical Collaborative after that performed a meta-analysis to more examine the

result of timing of surgery on opening rate. This meta- analysis consisted of 11

studies and also did not locate a distinction in perforation price based on time to

IJSER




operation (p= 0.410). One more study with 230 patients also discovered no

difference in opening rates when time from diagnosis to operation (in teams of 0-3

hours, 3-6 hours and also > 6 hours) was contrasted in between teams(18). Beecher

et alia discovered that opening was related to earlier procedures (much less

compared to 8 hours to appendectomy adhering to choice to interfere), which the

writers attributed to sicker patients at presentation being required to the operating

area much more expeditiously(19).

Only two prospective research studies discovered a distinction in perforation prices

based on the timing of appendectomy relative to admission. The very first, a large

(n= 1675) multi-institutional research from Sweden, reported no distinction in

perforation for in-hospital time intervals of 6 or 9 hours, yet there was a significant

increase in opening at 12, 18, and 24 hours of in-hospital time from admission to

operation(20). Of note, the diagnosis of acute appendicitis was based on clinical

factors alone, regular imaging was not performed. Smaller institution dimension (<

10,000 admissions/year), time of admission (regular daytime hrs) and also kind of

surgical procedure (open appendectomy) were separately related to an in-hospital

time to appendectomy of more than 12 hours. In the 2nd research, time from

physical exam in the emergency situation department to surgery was assessed in

389 adults(21). A subgroup analysis was done in patients with a C-reactive protein

(CRP) level less compared to 99 mg/L suggesting a low chance of opening at

initial presentation (n= 311). Of those with a reduced CRP (unlikely to have

opening at diagnosis), the patients with complex appendicitis had a considerably

longer time to surgery (average 12 hours) compared to patients with basic

appendicitis (typical 8 hours, p = 0.048).

IJSER




Eight research studies examined huge data sources to take a look at the result

timing of appendectomy had on opening prices. In general, these studies mirror the

possible research results, with the exception of two research studies that did find a

rise in perforation rate when time to surgery was greater than 12-24 hours (10,22). A

study from the Washington State Surgical Treatment and also Outcomes and also

Assessment Program (SCOAP) analyzed time from admission to surgery in over

7000 patients and the mean perforation price was 15.8%.5 Time to surgery was

examined based upon opening condition and also patients with both perforated as

well as non-perforated appendicitis undertook an appendectomy a mean of 8.6

hours after admission (p= 0.82). On multivariate analysis, time to surgery remained

non-significant in predicting result. Utilizing the National Surgical Top Quality

Enhancement Program (NSQIP)- Pediatric database, Boomer et al. located no

distinction in time from emergency division to operating suite (p= 0.34) or

admission to the medical service to operation (p= 0.63) between patients with

simple as well as complicated appendicitis(23). This study combined prospectively-

collected NSQIP-Pediatric information with a multi-institutional evaluation of

1338 patients. There was a direct organization in between the time from symptom

start to surgery and searchings for of perforation, whereas no substantial

association between time from health center discussion to surgery was found. In

another multi-institutional data source from Switzerland, time from admission to

procedure of 6 or 12 hours did not boost perforation rates on multivariable

analyses(24).

Papandria et al. utilized the Nationwide Inpatient Example (NIS) and also

Children' Inpatient Database (KID) to take a look at opening rates based upon

timing of appendectomy(6). Appendectomy performed on the day of admission was

used as the referral. Adults that had an appendectomy done on day 2 had an

IJSER




enhanced danger of opening with an incremental increase each subsequent day.

Children were noted to have actually an increased risk of perforation beginning on

medical facility day 3. The writers limited the preoperative length of remain to ≤ 7

days in order to leave out encounters where interval appendectomy was done,

nevertheless, they did not give additional insight regarding the clinical situations

represented by a patient undergoing appendectomy on health center day 3 or 4,

making the outcomes challenging to interpret. NSQIP data was analyzed in a study

by Ingraham et al, which evaluated data from over 32,000 appendectomies in

adults(25). The regularity of opening reduced from 16.7% to 14.8% when

comparing patients that undertook surgery less than 6 hours from admission to

those that underwent surgery between 6 as well as 12 hours from admission. The

frequency, however, enhanced again from 14.8% to 18.7% (p < 0.001) when

analyzing patients who went through surgery greater than 12 hours from

admission. The authors suggested that these searchings for may be clarified by the

fact that patients who show up sicker (i.e. have perforated disease on presentation)

might undergo earlier operations and also this could negate any kind of visible

difference in perforation prices connected with enhanced time to appendectomy.

Rate of adverse events

9 studies attended to negative events that were typically defined as surgical website

infections (SSIs) as well as reviews to the emergency situation department or

inpatient setting, though some research studies did not explicitly define negative

occasions. Five researches did not find a distinction in postoperative complications

based on timing of surgery (one pediatric as well as 4 adult)(19,24 –27). Two research

studies discovered a rise in post-operative complications if surgery was carried out

above 2 Days after admission, yet no distinction if surgery was executed within 24-

IJSER




HOUR of admission(17,27 2). extra studies showed distinctions in surgical

complications when surgery was postponed by 1 Day(10,22). Among these

researches checked out over 600,000 adult and pediatric patients as well as located

a significantly higher rate of operative water drainage and digestive tract resections

done in patients undergoing appendectomy above 24 hours after admission(10). It is

significant that in the delayed therapy group, nonetheless, there was a higher

incidence of comorbid diseases such as acute lymphoblastic leukemia and as a

result this cohort could represent greater danger patients providing with more

advanced disease or with a missed out on diagnosis in the setting of comorbid

disease.

Section Recap as well as Recommendations

Based on offered evidence, expanded time to appendectomy (> 24-HOUR) might

boost the risk of perforation yet timing of surgery within 24 hours of discussion

does not show up to have an organization with perforation prices. The prevalence

of offered proof reports no organization in between timing of surgery and post-

operative negative events. (Quality C recommendation, level 3-4 evidence).

Is there an association between timing of appendectomy, relative to hospital admission, and hospital costs or other resource utilization? Our search did not reveal any randomized trials or prospective observational

studies that evaluated the impact of timing of appendectomy on hospital cost or

resource utilization. Seventeen articles examined the association between time

from admission to appendectomy and hospital costs or other measures of resource

utilization (e.g. length of stay, LOS). All were retrospective studies with variable

inclusion criteria and statistical methods. The majority of studies using the NIS and

IJSER




a two-center study were also included in this review. All recommendations

presented are, therefore, based on Level 4 evidence (Table 2).

Six articles evaluated the association of an acute care surgery (ACS) model on

overall cost and LOS for patients with appendicitis. The structure of the ACS

models, however, varied between the studies(28-33). Three of the studies described a

daytime ACS model in which patients with appendicitis were admitted at night by

an on-call team and scheduled for surgery by a dedicated ACS team the following

day(29-31). In these studies, they compared the ACS model to the traditional model

of on-call general surgeons where operative procedures can take place overnight.

In all three studies, there was no change in hospital LOS for patients managed with

the ACS model compared to those managed with the traditional model. In one of

these studies the authors described an increase in time to appendectomy with the

ACS model (18 hours compared to 15 hours for the traditional model, p<0.001)(29).

In another of these studies the authors found no difference in total admission costs

for patients managed with the ACS model compared to those treated under the

traditional model ($7512 ± 4667 for ACS model versus $7487 ± 4981 for the

traditional model, p=0.9)(31). Two other studies examined the association between

the implementation of a 24/7 ACS model and resource utilization and outcomes for

patients with appendicitis(32,33). While both studies found a decrease in time from

admission to appendectomy in the 24/7 ACS model, only one study found a

decrease in mean cost per patient and mean hospital LOS associated with this 24/7

ACS model(32). All of these studies included adult patients and 3 studies excluded

patients < 18 years old.

10 research studies reviewed the organization in between the moment from

admission to appendectomy and also general cost as well as LOS.(4,8,10,19,22,34-38).

IJSER




The reviewed time intervals varied between studies as well as varied from 6 hours

to 24 hours. All research studies examining periods ≤ 10 hours as compared to >

10 hours revealed no differences in LOS. Three studies identified raised LOS

connected with time from admission to appendectomy of > 18 hours compared

with ≤ 18 hours as well as > 24 Hour compared to ≤ 24 hours(8,36,39). Eko and also

colleagues located that time to appendectomy > 18 hours had considerably higher

ordinary hospital prices ($19,374) compared to those operated on ≤ 6 hours

($14,076), 6-12 hours ($15,414) and also 12-18 hours ($16,061) from admission

(all p<0.05). Two studies examined differences in hospital costs between patients

undergoing operation within 8 hours of admission to those undergoing operation

>< 0.05 ). 2 studies analyzed differences in medical facility expenses between

patients undergoing operation within 8 hours of admission to those undertaking

procedure > 8 hours from admission and also both located no differences in health

center prices in between teams(37,38). Of the nine write-ups, Almstrom as well as

associates released the only study limited to pediatric patients(4). They carried out a

single-center retrospective testimonial of 2,756 children going through

appendectomy for suspected acute appendicitis at Karolinska Teaching hospital

over a 7-year duration. The time to appendectomy was the main direct exposure

and was specified as the moment from presentation in the emergency situation

department (ED) to the time of laceration for appendectomy. They defined medical

delay as patients having an appendectomy greater than 12 hours after ED

discussion and stratified hold-up right into 12-24 hours, 24-36 hours and also > 36

hrs. They found that a shorter time to appendectomy was connected with a boosted

health center LOS with the 0-12 hour time to appendectomy team having the

lengthiest LOS (46.9 hours as compared to 43.8, 39.4, and 38.7 hours for 12-24,

24-36, as well as > 36 hours to appendectomy, specifically, p=<0.001). This

IJSER




research did not examine the impact of timing of appendectomy relative to

admission on medical facility expenses or costs.

Two big nationwide data source research studies assessed the association between

time to appendectomy relative to admission and source utilization. In 2012, Lee

and also associates released a research study utilizing the NIS to identify factors

related to health center hold-up in operative administration of acute appendicitis in

children(10).In this research study, hold-up was specified as a time from admission

to procedure of ≥ 2 days. The private investigators discovered that a delay of this

period was related to women gender, African-American race, medical co-

morbidities, boosted risk of opening in addition to enhanced medical facility LOS

and also costs ($53,481 versus $17,897, p<0.001).

Al-Qurayshi and colleagues published a research study utilizing NIS information

to compare post-appendectomy results for procedures performed > 24-HOUR after

admission or on the weekend break to treatments done <24 hours after admission

or on a weekday(22). Of 264,972 appendectomies performed, 83.4% were done on

the exact same day as admission and 16.6% were done the adhering to day. The

mean age of patients in this research was 32.9 ± 2 years. The danger of a medical

facility stay of above 3 days was connected with following day and weekend cases

compared with exact same day as well as weekday instances, specifically. On top

of that, indicate medical facility expenses were enhanced for patients going

through next day as compared to same day appendectomies ($9890 versus $8744,

p<0.001) and also for weekend compared to weekday appendectomies ($8847

versus $8710, p<0.001).

IJSER




Based on available proof, short time intervals (<18 hours) from admission to

appendectomy for patients with acute appendicitis are not connected with

enhanced hospital prices or a much longer LOS. Time periods between admission

and appendectomy greater than 18 hours could be connected with enhanced

healthcare facility expenses and also an increased LOS, though it is vague if this is

a true organization or because of selection prejudice. (Grade D recommendation,

level 4 proof).

Table 1: Retrospective studies addressing the association between timing of appendectomy and adverse events1-49. Abbreviations: hr = hour, OR = Odds ratio, TTA = time to appendectomy, SSI = surgical site infection, OSI = organ space infection, SBO = small bowel obstruction, ED = emergency department

Study Design

Year

Does timing affect adverse events ?

Study Cohot (N)

Perforation Rates

Adverse Events

Level of Evidence

Almstrom

Retrospective, single center

2016

No

2756

An increase inTTA (>12 hrs) was not associated with perforation.

There was no association between TTA and post- operative wound infection, intra- abdominal abscess, reoperation or revisit.

4

Gurien


2016

No

484

Time from admission to operating room did not predict perforation (p=0.921).

Delays of 6 hrs did not increase surgical site infection.

4

IJSER




Jeon


2016

No

4148

Delaying appendecto my more than 18 hrs had no statistically significant impact on perforation rate (p=0.133).

Delays > 18 hr had increased complication s (p=0.023) compared to cases performed 12-18 hr (specifically post- operative ileus).

4

Kim, Kim


2016

No

192

Perforation rates were not associated with a delayed TTA from hospital arrival.

4

Kim, Oh


2016

No

397

Time from CT scan to operation has no effect on perforation rates

Time from CT scan to operating room had no statistical relation to ileus, wound complication , length of stay

4

Abbas


2016

No

1211

Preoperative delay was not associated with post-

4

IJSER




operative complication s or organ space infection.

Bonadio


2015

Yes

248

In hospital delay of greater than 8 hrs is associated with perforation in kids with computed tomography documented uncomplicat ed appendicitis.

4

Is there an association between timing of appendectomy, relative to hospital admission, and parent/patient satisfaction?

In the study duration, there were no recognized research studies addressing the

relationship in between the timing of appendectomy relative to health center

admission as well as parent/patient contentment in the pediatric population. Sideso

et al. released outcomes of a study of 42 successive adult patients undergoing

appendectomy for straightforward appendicitis at a single facility in England. In

their technique version, instances that would take place after 10 pm were accepted

the following early morning as well as were defined as postponed. Patients were

checked on post-operative day one regarding the high quality of their rest the

evening prior to surgery when they would have chosen their surgery to take place.

The study results demonstrated that 57% of patients would choose a procedure

IJSER




earlier after admission as opposed to delaying to the complying with day, and all of

these patients reported bad sleep the evening prior to the procedure(40).

There were no studies attending to an organization between timing of

appendectomy and parent/patient complete satisfaction in the administration of

pediatric appendicitis. Data in adults are additionally restricted. No suggestions

pertaining to decisions of operative timing in an effort to enhance patient/parent

complete satisfaction can be made.

• Conclusion In recap, there is a paucity of top quality proof in the literary works showing an

association in between timing of appendectomy with damaging occasions, source

application, as well as patient satisfaction, therefore limiting the committee's

capability to derive high-grade referrals for the selected research concerns. For this

reason it was essential to include research studies with grown-up patients in the

review.

When attempting to summarize results across research studies, numerous essential

restrictions exist in the pediatric and adult literature that must be considered. These

limitations consist of a lack of standardized definitions for complex disease, time

periods to appendectomy, as well as irregularity in the patient populaces examined.

Records from single-center experiences could be underpowered as well as deal

with an absence of generalizability, while multi-center research studies have been

limited by the use administrative-based meanings for specifying end results (e.g.

Global Classification of Diseases diagnostic codes), dimension of treatment hold-

up in the context of calendar days rather than hours, lack of ability to determine

IJSER




inter-hospital transfers (as well as therefore an exact assessment of treatment hold-

up about "presentation"), and failure to adjust for medical facility- level

distinctions in perforation prices at presentation in pooled threat designs. Without

the ability to readjust for such distinctions among healthcare facilities (which is

just possible via the schedule of distinct health center identifiers in the dataset),

attempts to define an organization between therapy delay and also outcome might

be strongly prejudiced towards the null theory (i.e. an unfavorable research). We

did not attend to the inquiry of non-operative monitoring of acute appendicitis and

although this is not a constraint, it is feasible that even more recent studies in our

testimonial could include patients that failed desired medical management. Not all

studies reported on timing of antibiotic management, which may have an influence

on outcomes. In spite of the limitations of available data, appendectomy executed

within 24-HOUR of admission in patients with acute appendicitis does not seem

associated with raised opening rates or unfavorable occasions based on ideal

readily available evidence (levels 3 as well as 4; Grade C).

These searchings for have important ramifications for workflow and staffing

options by specialists, ACS services, and also running rooms. The supreme choice

surrounding timing of appendectomy ought to stabilize the advantages of a timely

treatment (e.g. possibly decreased health center expense, LOS, and also lost days

from school as well as work on behalf of the patient and their family) versus a

medical facility's easily offered sources. If it could be carried out in a budget-

friendly time structure, these choices ought to not be influenced by issue for

clinically relevant disease advancement. Future evaluations ought to consist of

prospectively gathered, risk-adjusted, multi-institutional information with

standardized interpretations and adjustments for healthcare center degree

IJSER




distinctions in rates of tough (and undiagnosed disease) at conversation to figure

out the perfect timing of appendectomy in children using with acute appendicitis.

• References 1. Guthery SL, Hutchings C, Dean JM, Hoff C. National estimates of hospital utilization by children

with gastrointestinal disorders: analysis of the 1997 kids' inpatient database. J Pediatr. 2004;144(5):589-594.

2. Cameron DB, Graham DA, Milliren CE, et al. Quantifying the Burden of Interhospital Cost Variation in Pediatric Surgery: Implications for the Prioritization of Comparative Effectiveness Research. JAMA Pediatr. 2016:e163926.

3. Bickell NA, Aufses AH, Jr., Rojas M, Bodian C. How time affects the risk of rupture in appendicitis. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202(3):401-406.

4. Almstrom M, Svensson JF, Patkova B, Svenningsson A, Wester T. In-hospital Surgical Delay Does Not Increase the Risk for Perforated Appendicitis in Children: A Single-center Retrospective Cohort Study. Ann Surg. 2016.

5. Drake FT, Mottey NE, Farrokhi ET, et al. Time to appendectomy and risk of perforation in acute appendicitis. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(8):837-844.

6. Papandria D, Goldstein SD, Rhee D, et al. Risk of perforation increases with delay in recognition and surgery for acute appendicitis. J Surg Res. 2013;184(2):723-729.

7. Yardeni D, Hirschl RB, Drongowski RA, Teitelbaum DH, Geiger JD, Coran AG. Delayed versus immediate surgery in acute appendicitis: do we need to operate during the night? J Pediatr Surg. 2004;39(3):464-469; discussion 464-469.

8. Eko FN, Ryb GE, Drager L, Goldwater E, Wu JJ, Counihan TC. Ideal timing of surgery for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. N Am J Med Sci. 2013;5(1):22-27.

9. Abbas PI, Peterson M, Stephens LJ, et al. Evaluating the effect of time process measures on appendectomy clinical outcomes. Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 2016;51(5):810-814.

10. Lee J, Tashjian DB, Moriarty KP. Missed opportunities in the treatment of pediatric appendicitis. Pediatr Surg Int. 2012;28(7):697-701.

11. Feng C, Anandalwar S, Sidhwa F, et al. Beyond perforation: Influence of peritoneal contamination on clinical severity and resource utilization in children with perforated appendicitis. J Pediatr Surg. 2016;51(11):1896-1899.

12. Guyatt GH OA, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-926.

13. Liberati A AD, Tetzladd J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. 2009.

14. Maroju NK, Robinson Smile S, Sistla SC, Narasimhan R, Sahai A. Delay in surgery for acute appendicitis. ANZ J Surg. 2004;74(9):773-776.

15. Hansson LE, Laurell H, Gunnarsson U. Impact of time in the development of acute appendicitis. Dig Surg. 2008;25(5):394-399.

IJSER




16. Narsule CK, Kahle EJ, Kim DS, Anderson AC, Luks FI. Effect of delay in presentation on rate of perforation in children with appendicitis. Am J Emerg Med. 2011;29(8):890-893.

17. United Kingdom National Surgical Research C, Bhangu A. Safety of short, in-hospital delays before surgery for acute appendicitis: multicentre cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2014;259(5):894-903.

18. Mandeville K, Monuteaux M, Pottker T, Bulloch B. Effects of Timing to Diagnosis and Appendectomy in Pediatric Appendicitis. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2015;31(11):753-758.

19. Beecher S, O'Leary DP, McLaughlin R. Hospital tests and patient related factors influencing time-to-theatre in 1000 cases of suspected appendicitis: a cohort study. World Journal Of Emergency Surgery. 2015;10:6.

20. Busch M, Gutzwiller FS, Aellig S, Kuettel R, Metzger U, Zingg U. In-hospital delay increases the risk of perforation in adults with appendicitis. World J Surg. 2011;35(7):1626-1633.

21. Damelopres HE, Leppaniemi A, Mentula P. High admission C-reactive protein level and longer in-hospital delay to surgery are associated with increased risk of complicated appendicitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2015;400(2):221-228.

22. Al-Qurayshi Z, Kadi A, Srivastav S, Kandil E. Risk and outcomes of 24-h delayed and weekend appendectomies. J Surg Res. 2016;203(1):246-252.e241.

23. Boomer LA, Cooper JN, Deans KJ, et al. Does delay in appendectomy affect surgical site infection in children with appendicitis? J Pediatr Surg. 2014;49(6):1026-1029; discussion 1029.

24. Sauvain MO, Slankamenac K, Muller MK, et al. Delaying surgery to perform CT scans for suspected appendicitis decreases the rate of negative appendectomies without increasing the rate of perforation nor postoperative complications. Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery. 2016;401(5):643-649.

25. Ingraham AM, Cohen ME, Bilimoria KY, et al. Effect of delay to operation on outcomes in adults with acute appendicitis. Arch Surg. 2010;145(9):886-892.

26. Boomer LA, Cooper JN, Anandalwar S, et al. Delaying Appendectomy Does Not Lead to Higher Rates of Surgical Site Infections: A Multi-institutional Analysis of Children With Appendicitis. Ann Surg. 2016;264(1):164-168.

27. Fair BA, Kubasiak JC, Janssen I, et al. The impact of operative timing on outcomes of appendicitis: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Project analysis. Am J Surg. 2015;209(3):498-502.

28. Devanathan R, Aw HC, Li Wai Suen CF, Paul E, Rodgers-Wilson S. Outcomes of patients with appendicitis who present to an outer metropolitan hospital. ANZ J Surg. 2012;82(5):338-341.

29. Suen K, Hayes IP, Thomson BN, Shedda S. Effect of the introduction of an emergency general surgery service on outcomes from appendicectomy. Br J Surg. 2014;101(1):e141-146.

30. Gandy RC, Truskett PG, Wong SW, Smith S, Bennett MH, Parasyn AD. Outcomes of appendicectomy in an acute care surgery model. Medical Journal of Australia. 2010;193(5):281-284.

IJSER




31. Lancashire JF, Steele M, Parker D, Puhalla H. Introduction of an acute surgical unit: comparison of performance indicators and outcomes for operative management of acute appendicitis. World J Surg. 2014;38(8):1947-1953.

32. Cubas RF, Gomez NR, Rodriguez S, Wanis M, Sivanandam A, Garberoglio CA. Outcomes in the management of appendicitis and cholecystitis in the setting of a new acute care surgery service model: impact on timing and cost. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215(5):715-721.

33. Earley AS, Pryor JP, Kim PK, et al. An acute care surgery model improves outcomes in patients with appendicitis. Ann Surg. 2006;244(4):498-504.

34. Nagpal K, Udgiri N, Sharma N, Curras E, Cosgrove JM, Farkas DT. Delaying an appendectomy: is it safe? Am Surg. 2012;78(8):897-900.

35. Stahlfeld K, Hower J, Homitsky S, Madden J. Is acute appendicitis a surgical emergency? Am Surg. 2007;73(6):626-629; discussion 629-630.

36. Chen CC, Ting CT, Tsai MJ, et al. Appendectomy timing: Will delayed surgery increase the complications? J Chin Med Assoc. 2015;78(7):395-399.

37. Shin CS, Roh YN, Kim JI. Delayed appendectomy versus early appendectomy in the treatment of acute appendicitis: a retrospective study. World J Emerg Surg. 2014;9(1):8.

38. Taylor M, Emil S, Nguyen N, Ndiforchu F. Emergent vs urgent appendectomy in children: a study of outcomes. J Pediatr Surg. 2005;40(12):1912-1915.

39. Omundsen M, Dennett E. Delay to appendicectomy and associated morbidity: a retrospective review. ANZ J Surg. 2006;76(3):153-155.

40. Sideso E RT, Galland RB. Appendectomy deferred to a CEPOD list: The patients' opinion. Surgeon. 2008;6(4):198-200.

IJSER


Documents

Overview of management procedure of acute Appendicitis · 2018. 2. 1. · Appendicitis . Bader Muhammed AlSawadi, Bassam Ali Othman hakami, Yazeed Abdullah Hassan Faqih, Mohammed