RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: We 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). CONCLUSION: Emergency 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.
Asunto(s)
Apendicitis , Laparoscopía , Absceso/cirugía , Apendicectomía/efectos adversos , Apendicitis/cirugía , Celulitis (Flemón)/cirugía , Humanos , Tiempo de InternaciónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To compare the durability of the crossover femorofemoral bypass graft (CFFBG) in combination with aorto-uni-iliac stent graft (AUIS) for abdominal aortic aneurysm with the durability of CFFBG used in the treatment of unilateral iliac occlusive disease (UIOD). METHODS: We analyzed the clinical records of 69 patients who underwent CFFBG from 1992 until 2010. Group I consisted of 34 patients who received CFFBGs in combination with AUIS. Group II consisted of 35 patients treated with CFFBG for UIOD. The mean period of follow up was 2.7 years. Outcomes analyzed included primary graft patency, secondary graft patency, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: There was one death in each group. Wound infection complicated 11.4% of CFFBGs performed as a sole procedure for UIOD and 5.8% of cases in combination with AUIS (P = 0.673). Primary graft patency was 96.5% and 96.5% at 2 and 5 years in group I, compared with 76.6% and 53.7% in group II (P = 0.046, 0.009). Secondary graft patency at 5 years was 100% and 92.9% for groups I and II, respectively. No variables independently influenced primary graft patency. Patients in group I experienced complications that could be linked to the bypass graft in 20.5% of cases, after long-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The CFFBG possesses superior long-term durability and patency when implemented in combination with aorto-uni-iliac stent grafts and does not seem to compromise the endpoint success of endovascular treatment.