EAES/SAGES evidence-based recommendations and expert consensus on optimization of perioperative care in older adults.

BACKGROUND: As the population ages, more older adults are presenting for surgery. Age-related declines in physiological reserve and functional capacity can result in frailty and poor outcomes after surgery. Hence, optimizing perioperative care in older patients is imperative. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) may influence surgical outcomes, but current use and impact on older adults patients is unknown. The aim of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations on perioperative care of older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery. METHODS: Expert consensus determined working definitions for key terms and metrics related to perioperative care. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases for 24 pre-defined key questions in the topic areas of prehabilitation, MIS, and ERAS in major abdominal surgery (colorectal, upper gastrointestinal (UGI), Hernia, and hepatopancreatic biliary (HPB)) to generate evidence-based recommendations following the GRADE methodology. RESULT: Older adults were defined as 65 years and older. Over 20,000 articles were initially retrieved from search parameters. Evidence synthesis was performed across the three topic areas from 172 studies, with meta-analyses conducted for MIS and ERAS topics. The use of MIS and ERAS was recommended for older adult patients particularly when undergoing colorectal surgery. Expert opinion recommended prehabilitation, cessation of smoking and alcohol, and correction of anemia in all colorectal, UGI, Hernia, and HPB procedures in older adults. All recommendations were conditional, with low to very low certainty of evidence, with the exception of ERAS program in colorectal surgery. CONCLUSIONS: MIS and ERAS are recommended in older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery, with evidence supporting use in colorectal surgery. Though expert opinion supported prehabilitation, there is insufficient evidence supporting use. This work has identified evidence gaps for further studies to optimize older adults undergoing major abdominal surgery.

European Robotic Surgery Consensus (ERSC): Protocol for the development of a consensus in robotic training for gastrointestinal surgery trainees.

BACKGROUND: The rapid adoption of robotic surgical systems across Europe has led to a critical gap in training and credentialing for gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons. Currently, there is no existing standardised curriculum to guide robotic training, assessment and certification for GI trainees. This manuscript describes the protocol to achieve a pan-European consensus on the essential components of a comprehensive training programme for GI robotic surgery through a five-stage process. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In Stage 1, a Steering Committee, consisting of international experts, trainees and educationalists, has been established to lead and coordinate the consensus development process. In Stage 2, a systematic review of existing multi-specialty robotic training curricula will be performed to inform the formulation of key position statements. In Stage 3, a comprehensive survey will be disseminated across Europe to capture the current state of robotic training and identify potential challenges and opportunities for improvement. In Stage 4, an international panel of GI surgeons, trainees, and robotic theatre staff will participate in a three-round Delphi process, seeking ≥ 70% agreement on crucial aspects of the training curriculum. Industry and patient representatives will be involved as external advisors throughout this process. In Stage 5, the robotic training curriculum for GI trainees will be finalised in a dedicated consensus meeting, culminating in the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document. REGISTRATION DETAILS: The study protocol has been registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/br87d/).

Uterine artery embolization vs myomectomy for the management of women with uterine leiomyomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether uterine artery embolization offers a better quality of life than myomectomy in premenopausal women diagnosed with leiomyomas of the uterus. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed using the electronic databases of PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to January 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing uterine artery embolization with myomectomy in women of premenopausal age suffering from uterine leiomyomas were considered. METHODS: The primary outcome was quality of life. The secondary outcomes were reintervention rate and timing, successful pregnancy, stillbirth and miscarriage, cesarean delivery on delivery, and perioperative morbidity. Moreover, time-to-event and standard pairwise meta-analyses were performed, as appropriate. The certainty of the evidence was assessed in line with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. RESULTS: A total of 6 randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis suggested little to no difference in terms of quality of life between uterine artery embolization and myomectomy (standard mean difference, 0.05; 95% confidence interval, -0.38 to 0.48; I2=92%; very low certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analysis, including randomized controlled trials, which included solely myomectomy procedures in the control arm, demonstrated better quality of life for women treated with myomectomy (standard mean difference, -0.32; 95% confidence interval, -0.49 to -0.15; I2=15%). Concerning reintervention, myomectomy was likely associated with a decreased risk of future reintervention (risk ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.69; I2=60%; low certainty of evidence) and a more prolonged time interval since a potential reintervention because of recurrence than uterine artery embolization (hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.77; I2=77%; low certainty of evidence). No difference was found between the 2 interventions concerning severe perioperative adverse events (relative risk, 4.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-39.20; I2=0%; low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: Uterine artery embolization is likely associated with increased reintervention rates and less time to reintervention compared with myomectomy in premenopausal women diagnosed with uterine leiomyomas. Evidence suggests no difference between the 2 interventions regarding perioperative morbidity. Uterine artery embolization may exert no effect on quality of life and successful pregnancy; however, the evidence is very uncertain.

EAES Multidisciplinary Rapid Guideline: systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment and evidence-informed recommendations on the surgical management of paraesophageal hernias.

BACKGROUND: New evidence has emerged since latest guidelines on the management of paraesophageal hernia, and guideline development methodology has evolved. Members of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery have prioritized the management of paraesophageal hernia to be addressed by pertinent recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on paraesophageal hernias, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. METHODS: We performed three systematic reviews, and we summarized and appraised the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. A panel of general and upper gastrointestinal surgeons, gastroenterologists and a patient advocate discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost and use of resources, moderated by a Guidelines International Network-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: The panel suggests surgery over conservative management for asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic paraesophageal hernias (conditional recommendation), and recommends conservative management over surgery for asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic paraesophageal hernias in frail patients (strong recommendation). Further, the panel suggests mesh over sutures for hiatal closure in paraesophageal hernia repair, fundoplication over gastropexy in elective paraesophageal hernia repair, and gastropexy over fundoplication in patients who have cardiopulmonary instability and require emergency paraesophageal hernia repair (conditional recommendation). A strong recommendation means that the proposed course of action is appropriate for the vast majority of patients. A conditional recommendation means that most patients would opt for the proposed course of action, and joint decision-making of the surgeon and the patient is required. Accompanying evidence summaries and evidence-to-decision frameworks should be read when using the recommendations. This guideline applies to adult patients with moderate to large paraesophageal hernias type II to IV with at least 50% of the stomach herniated to the thoracic cavity. The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/j7q7Gn . CONCLUSION: An interdisciplinary panel provides recommendations on key topics on the management of paraesophageal hernias using highest methodological standards and following a transparent process. GUIDELINE REGISTRATION NUMBER: PREPARE-2023CN018.

EAES, SAGES, and ESCP rapid guideline: bowel preparation for minimally invasive colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Variation exists in practice pertaining to bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A survey of EAES members prioritized this topic to be addressed by a clinical practice guideline. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop evidence-informed clinical practice recommendations on the use of bowel preparation before minimally invasive colorectal surgery, through evidence synthesis and a structured evidence-to-decision framework by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. METHODS: This is a collaborative project of EAES, SAGES, and ESCP. We updated a previous systematic review and performed a network meta-analysis of interventions. We appraised the certainty of the evidence for each comparison, using the GRADE and CINeMA methods. A panel of general and colorectal surgeons, infectious diseases specialists, an anesthetist, and a patient representative discussed the evidence in the context of benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, acceptability, feasibility, equity, cost, and use of resources, moderated by a GIN-certified master guideline developer and chair. We developed the recommendations in a consensus meeting, followed by a modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: The panel suggests either oral antibiotics alone prior to minimally invasive right colon resection or mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) plus oral antibiotics; MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive left colon and sigmoid resection, and prior to minimally invasive right colon resection when there is an intention to perform intracorporeal anastomosis; and MBP plus oral antibiotics plus enema prior to minimally invasive rectal surgery (conditional recommendations); and recommends MBP plus oral antibiotics prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery, when there is an intention to localize the lesion intraoperatively (strong recommendation). The full guideline with user-friendly decision aids is available in https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/LwvKej . CONCLUSION: This guideline provides recommendations on bowel preparation prior to minimally invasive colorectal surgery for different procedures, using highest methodological standards, through a structured framework informed by key stakeholders. Guideline registration number PREPARE-2023CN045.

Methods of quality assurance in multicenter trials in laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Operative performance may affect the internal and external validity of randomized trials. The aim of this study was to review the use of surgical quality assurance mechanisms of published trials on laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery, with the objective to appraise their internal (research quality) and external validity (applicability to the clinical setting). METHODS: Building upon a previous systematic review and network meta-analysis published by the authors, Medline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and OpenGrey databases were searched for randomized control trials comparing different methods of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery for the management of gastroesophageal disease. Quality assurance in individual studies was appraised using a specified framework addressing surgeon accreditation, procedure standardization, and performance monitoring. RESULTS: In total, 2276 articles were screened to obtain 43 publications reporting 29 randomized controlled trials. Twenty-five out of 43 (58.1%) articles reported the number of participating centers and surgeons involved. Additionally, only 21/43 (48.8%) of articles reported consistent use of a bougie, while 23/43 (53.5%) of articles reported consistent division of the short gastric arteries during fundoplication. Surgical experience and credentials were stated in half of the studies. Standardization of the technique was reported in almost 70% of cases, whereas operative notes or video was submitted in one fourth of the studies. Monitoring of the operative performance during the trial was not documented in most of the trials (62%). CONCLUSION: Surgical quality assurance in randomized trials on laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery is insufficient, which does not allow appraisal of the internal and external validity of this research. With improved reporting, trials assessing the use of laparoscopic anti-reflux surgery will enable surgeons to make informed treatment decisions to enhance patient care in the surgical management of GERD.

The role of systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy in the management of patients with advanced epithelial ovarian, tubal, and peritoneal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy offers superior survival rates in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), tubal, or peritoneal cancer. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases PubMed (from 1996), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (from 1996), and Scopus (from 2004) to September 2021. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy with no lymphadenectomy in patients with advanced EOC. Primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes were peri-operative morbidity and operative mortality. The revised Cochrane tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) was utilised for the risk of bias assessment in the included studies. We performed time-to-event and standard pairwise meta-analyses, as appropriate. RESULTS: Two RCTs with a total of 1074 patients were included in our review. Meta-analysis demonstrated similar overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95% CI [0.85-1.24]; low certainty) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.63-1.35]; very low certainty). Regarding peri-operative morbidity, systematic lymphadenectomy was associated with higher rates of lymphoedema and lymphocysts formation (RR = 7.31, 95% CI [1.89-28.20]; moderate certainty) and need for blood transfusion (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.06-1.29]; moderate certainty). No statistically significant differences were observed in regard to other peri-operative adverse events between the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy is likely associated with similar overall survival and progression-free survival compared to no lymphadenectomy in optimally debulked patients with advanced EOC. Systematic lymphadenectomy is also associated with an increased risk for certain peri-operative adverse events. Further research needs to be conducted on whether we should abandon systematic lymphadenectomy in completely debulked patients during primary debulking surgery.

Use of High Energy Devices (HEDs) versus electrocautery for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: According to the literature, there is no clear definition of a High Energy Devices (HEDs), and their proper indications for use are also unclear. Nevertheless, the flourishing market of HEDs could make their choice in daily clinical practice arduous, possibly increasing the risk of improper use for a lack of specific training. At the same time, the diffusion of HEDs impacts the economic asset of the healthcare systems. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: On behalf of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and New Technologies, experts performed a systematic review and meta-analysis and synthesised the evidence assessing the efficacy and safety of HEDs compared to electrocautery devices while performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies were included. Outcomes were: operating time, bleeding, intra-operative and post-operative complications, length of hospital stay, costs, and exposition to surgical smoke. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021250447). RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included: 21 RCTs, one prospective parallel arm comparative non-RCT, and one retrospective cohort study, while three were prospective comparative studies. Most of the studies included laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed in an elective setting. All the studies but three analysed the outcomes deriving from the utilisation of US sources of energy compared to electrocautery. Operative time was significantly shorter in the HED group compared to the electrocautery group (15 studies, 1938 patients; SMD - 1.33; 95% CI - 1.89 to 0.78; I2 = 97%, Random-effect). No other statistically significant differences were found in the other examined variables. CONCLUSIONS: HEDs seem to have a superiority over Electrocautery while performing LC in terms of operative time, while no difference was observed in terms of length of hospitalisation and blood loss. No concerns about safety were raised.

EHS Rapid Guideline: Evidence-Informed European Recommendations on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-With ESCP and EAES Participation.

Background: Growing evidence on the use of mesh as a prophylactic measure to prevent parastomal hernia and advances in guideline development methods prompted an update of a previous guideline on parastomal hernia prevention. Objective: To develop evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations, informed by an interdisciplinary panel of stakeholders. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review on the use of a prophylactic mesh for end colostomy, and we synthesized evidence using pairwise meta-analysis. A European panel of surgeons, stoma care nurses, and patients developed an evidence-to-decision framework in line with GRADE and Guidelines International Network standards, moderated by a certified guideline methodologist. The framework considered benefits and harms, the certainty of the evidence, patients' preferences and values, cost and resources considerations, acceptability, equity and feasibility. Results: The certainty of the evidence was moderate for parastomal hernia and low for major morbidity, surgery for parastomal hernia, and quality of life. There was unanimous consensus among panel members for a conditional recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy and fair life expectancy, and a strong recommendation for the use of a prophylactic mesh in patients at high risk to develop a parastomal hernia. Conclusion: This rapid guideline provides evidence-informed, interdisciplinary recommendations on the use of prophylactic mesh in patients with an end colostomy. Further, it identifies research gaps, and discusses implications for stakeholders, including overcoming barriers to implementation and specific considerations regarding validity.

Update Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and GRADE Assessment of the Evidence on Parastomal Hernia Prevention-A EHS, ESCP and EAES Collaborative Project.

Objective: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of prophylactic mesh for the prevention of parastomal hernia in end colostomy, with the ultimate objective to summarize the evidence for an interdisciplinary, European rapid guideline. Methods: We updated a previous systematic review with de novo evidence search of PubMed from inception up to June 2022. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were clinical diagnosis of parastomal hernia, surgery for parastomal hernia, and 30 day or in-hospital complications Clavien-Dindo ≥3. We utilised the revised Cochrane Tool for randomised trials (RoB 2 tool) for risk of bias assessment in the included studies. Minimally important differences were set a priori through voting of the panel members. We appraised the evidence using GRADE and we developed GRADE evidence tables. Results: We included 12 randomized trials. Meta-analysis suggested no difference in QoL between prophylactic mesh and no mesh for primary stoma construction (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.14 to 0.2], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). With regard to parastomal hernia, the use of prophylactic synthetic mesh resulted in a significant risk reduction of the incidence of the event, according to data from all available randomized trials, irrespective of the follow-up period (OR = 0.33, 95% CI [0.18-0.62], I2 = 74%, moderate certainty of evidence). Sensitivity analyses according to follow-up period were in line with the primary analysis. Little to no difference in surgery for parastomal hernia was encountered after pooled analysis of 10 randomised trials (OR = 0.52, 95% CI [0.25-1.09], I2 = 14%). Finally, no significant difference was found in Clavien-Dindo grade 3 and 4 adverse events after surgery with or without the use of a prophylactic mesh (OR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.45-1.30], I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence). Conclusion: Prophylactic synthetic mesh placement at the time of permanent end colostomy construction is likely associated with a reduced risk for parastomal hernia and may confer similar risk of peri-operative major morbidity compared to no mesh placement. There may be no difference in quality of life and surgical repair of parastomal hernia with the use of either approach.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Versus Primary Debulking Surgery in FIGO Stage III and IV Epithelial Ovarian, Tubal or Peritoneal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To investigate whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) confers superior outcomes compared to primary debulking surgery (PDS) in patients with stage III and IV epithelial ovarian, tubal or peritoneal cancer as well as in patients with high tumour load. Methods: We searched the electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, and Scopus from inception to March 2021. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NACT with PDS for women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) stages III and IV. The primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival. Secondary outcomes were optimal cytoreduction rates, peri-operative adverse events, and quality of life. Results: Six RCTs with a total of 1901 participants were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated similar overall survival (HR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.86-1.07]) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.89-1.08]) between NACT and PDS. Subgroup analyses did not demonstrate higher survival for stage IV patients (HR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.71-1.09]) nor for patients with metastatic lesions >5 cm (HR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.69-1.08]) treated with NACT, albeit with some uncertainty due to imprecision. Similarly, no survival benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with metastatic lesions >10 cm (HR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.78-1.12]). NACT was associated with significantly higher rates of complete cytoreduction (RR = 2.34, 95% CI [1.48-3.71]). Severe peri-operative adverse events were less frequent in the NACT arm (RR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.16-0.72]. Conclusion: Patients with stage III and IV epithelial ovarian cancer undergoing NACT or PDS have similar overall survival. NACT is likely associated with higher rates of complete cytoreduction and lower risk of severe adverse events and peri-operative death.

EAES rapid guideline: updated systematic review, network meta-analysis, CINeMA and GRADE assessment, and evidence-informed European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND: Choledocholithiasis presents in a considerable proportion of patients with gallbladder disease. There are several management options, including preoperative or intraoperative endoscopic cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE). OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-informed, interdisciplinary, European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones in the context of intact gallbladder with a clinical decision to intervene to both the gallbladder and the common bile duct stones. METHODS: We updated a systematic review and network meta-analysis of LCBDE, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative ERCP. We formed evidence summaries using the GRADE and the CINeMA methodology, and a panel of general surgeons, gastroenterologists, and a patient representative contributed to the development of a GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to select among multiple interventions. RESULTS: The panel reached unanimous consensus on the first Delphi round. We suggest LCBDE over preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative ERCP, when surgical experience and expertise are available; intraoperative ERCP over LCBDE, preoperative or postoperative ERCP, when this is logistically feasible in a given healthcare setting; and preoperative ERCP over LCBDE or postoperative ERCP, when intraoperative ERCP is not feasible and there is insufficient experience or expertise with LCBDE (weak recommendation). The evidence summaries and decision aids are available on the platform MAGICapp ( https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/nJ5zyL ). CONCLUSION: We developed a rapid guideline on the management of common bile duct stones in line with latest methodological standards. It can be used by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to inform clinical and policy decisions. GUIDELINE REGISTRATION NUMBER: IPGRP-2022CN170.

UEG and EAES rapid guideline: Update systematic review, network meta-analysis, CINeMA and GRADE assessment, and evidence-informed European recommendations on surgical management of GERD.

BACKGROUND: There are several options for the surgical management of GERD in adults. Previous guidelines and systematic reviews have compared the effects of total fundoplication versus pooled effects of different techniques of partial fundoplication. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-informed, trustworthy, pertinent recommendations on the use of total, posterior partial and anterior partial fundoplications for the management of GERD in adults. METHODS: We performed an update systematic review, network meta-analysis, and evidence appraisal using the GRADE and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis methodologies. An international, multidisciplinary panel of surgeons, gastroenterologists, and a patient representative reached unanimous consensus through an evidence-to-decision framework to select among multiple interventions, and a Delphi process to formulate the recommendation. The project was developed in an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), and was overseen by an external auditor. RESULTS: We suggest posterior partial fundoplication over total posterior or anterior 90° fundoplication in adult patients with GERD. We suggest anterior >90° fundoplication as an alternative, although relevant comparative evidence is limited (weak recommendation). The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries and decision aids in user friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/j20X4n. CONCLUSION: This rapid guideline was developed in line with highest methodological standards and provides evidence-informed recommendations on the surgical management of GERD. It provides user-friendly decision aids to inform healthcare professionals' and patients' decision making.

EAES rapid guideline: systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment, and evidence-informed European recommendations on appendicitis in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice recommendations for the management of acute appendicitis in pregnancy are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-informed, trustworthy guideline on the management of appendicitis in pregnancy. We aimed to address the questions of conservative or surgical management, and laparoscopic or open surgery for acute appendicitis. METHODS: We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and evidence appraisal using the GRADE methodology. A European, multidisciplinary panel of surgeons, obstetricians/gynecologists, a midwife, and 3 patient representatives reached consensus through an evidence-to-decision framework and a Delphi process to formulate the recommendations. The project was developed in an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp). RESULTS: Research evidence was of very low certainty. We recommend operative treatment over conservative management in pregnant patients with complicated appendicitis or appendicolith on imaging studies (strong recommendation). We suggest operative treatment over conservative management in pregnant patients with uncomplicated appendicitis and no appendicolith on imaging studies (weak recommendation). We suggest laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis until the 20th week of gestation, or when the fundus of the uterus is below the level of the umbilicus; and laparoscopic or open appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis beyond the 20th week of gestation, or when the fundus of the uterus is above the level of the umbilicus, depending on the preference and expertise of the surgeon. CONCLUSION: Through a structured, evidence-informed approach, an interdisciplinary panel provides a strong recommendation to perform appendectomy for complicated appendicitis or appendicolith, and laparoscopic or open appendectomy beyond the 20th week, based on the surgeon's preference and expertise. GUIDELINE REGISTRATION NUMBER: IPGRP-2022CN210.