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.

Cost-benefit analysis of robotic surgery in gynaecological oncology.

Robotic approach is a rather new technique that can be used to optimise the management of patients with gynaecological cancer. However, concerns have been raised regarding the cost of such an approach compared to laparoscopic or open techniques. The aim of our chapter is to review the data of papers published so far that analyse the cost of robotic gynaecological oncology. A systematic review of the current literature was performed trying to assess the cost of the robotic technique including parameters that affect it and ways to minimise it in favour of the patients and health care systems.

Robotics in general surgery: A systematic cost assessment.

The utilisation of robotic-assisted techniques is a novelty in the field of general surgery. Our intention was to examine the up to date available literature on the cost assessment of robotic surgery of diverse operations in general surgery. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched in a systematic way to retrieve the included studies in our review. Thirty-one studies were retrieved, referring on a vast range of surgical operations. The mean cost for robotic, open and laparoscopic ranged from 2539 to 57,002, 7888 to 16,851 and 1799 to 50,408 Euros, respectively. The mean operative charges ranged from 273.74 to 13,670 Euros. More specifically, for the robotic and laparoscopic gastric fundoplication, the cost ranged from 1534 to 2257 and 657 to 763 Euros, respectively. For the robotic and laparoscopic colectomy, it ranged from 3739 to 17,080 and 3109 to 33,865 Euros, respectively. For the robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy, ranged from 1163.75 to 1291 and from 273.74 to 1223 Euros, respectively. The mean non-operative costs ranged from 900 to 48,796 from 8347 to 8800 and from 870 to 42,055 Euros, for robotic, open and laparoscopic technique, respectively. Conversions to laparotomy were present in 34/18,620 (0.18%) cases of laparoscopic and in 22/1488 (1.5%) cases of robotic technique. Duration of surgery robotic, open and laparoscopic ranged from 54.6 to 328.7, 129 to 234, and from 50.2 to 260 min, respectively. The present evidence reveals that robotic surgery, under specific conditions, has the potential to become cost-effective. Large number of cases, presence of industry competition and multidisciplinary team utilisation are some of the factors that could make more reasonable and cost-effective the robotic-assisted technique.

Cost assessment of robotics in gynecologic surgery: a systematic review.

AIM: The application of robotics is an innovation in the field of gynecologic surgery. Our objective was to evaluate the currently available literature on the cost assessment of robotic surgery of various operations in the field of gynecologic surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PubMed and Scopus databases were systematically searched in order to retrieve the included studies in our review. RESULTS: We retrieved 23 studies on a variety of gynecologic operations. The mean cost for robotic, open and laparoscopic surgery ranged from 1731 to 48,769, 894 to 20,277 and 411 to 41,836 Euros, respectively. Operative charges, in hysterectomy, for robotic, open and laparoscopic technique ranged from 936 to 33,920, 684 to 25,616 and 858 to 25,578 Euros, respectively. In sacrocolpopexy, these costs ranged from 2067 to 7275, 2904 to 69,792 and 1482 to 2000 Euros, respectively. Non-operative charges ranged from 467 to 39,121 Euros. The mean total costs for myomectomy ranged from 27,342 to 42,497 and 13,709 to 20,277 Euros, respectively, for the robotic and open methods, while the mean total cost of the laparoscopic technique was 26,181 Euros. Conversions to laparotomy were present in 79/36,185 (0.2%) cases of laparoscopic surgery and in 21/3345 (0.62%) cases of robotic technique. Duration of robotic, open and laparoscopic surgery ranged from 50 to 445, 83.7 to 701 and 74 to 330 min, respectively. CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery has the potential to become cost-effective in centers with many patients while industry competition could reduce the cost of the robotic instrumentation, making robotic technology more affordable and cost-effective.

The role of 3-dimensional power Doppler imaging in the assessment of ovarian teratoma in pregnancy: a case report.

Background. Conventional sonography is the primary imaging tool for these pregnant women who present with an ovarian teratoma. In some cases, however, sonography diagnosis is difficult. We report a case of ovarian teratoma during pregnancy diagnosed by three-dimensional Power Doppler. The cyst was removed via laparotomy without fetal or maternal complications. Three-dimensional ultrasound with multiplanar view can better discriminate a benign ovarian teratoma from complex ovarian lesions or malignant tumors. Its role is significant especially during pregnancy as it may assist in determining which patients are requiring surgery and which are not. The results of three-dimensional sonography and magnetic resonance (MR) were equal but the role of MR imaging is limited in early pregnancy. Conclusions. Three-dimensional technique is a reliable diagnostic modality for preoperative assessment of an ovarian teratoma as it can be performed during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Single-dose azithromycin versus erythromycin or amoxicillin for Chlamydia trachomatis infection during pregnancy: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

This review aimed to compare data regarding the effectiveness and safety of azithromycin with alternative regimens in the treatment of pregnant women with Chlamydia trachomatis infection. PubMed and Scopus databases were searched to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The main analysis focused on comparison of azithromycin with erythromycin. In a secondary analysis, azithromycin was compared with erythromycin or amoxicillin. Eight RCTs studying 587 pregnant women with microbiologically documented C. trachomatis infection were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was no difference between azithromycin and erythromycin regarding treatment success in intention-to-treat patients (pooled odds ratio (OR)=2.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-10.29) or in clinically evaluated patients (OR=1.46, 95% CI 0.56-3.78). Furthermore, azithromycin was associated with fewer gastrointestinal adverse events (OR=0.11, 95% CI 0.07-0.18), fewer total adverse events (OR=0.11, 95% CI 0.07-0.18), a smaller proportion of patients who withdrew from the study (OR=0.12, 95% CI 0.04-0.37) and better compliance (OR=23.7, 95% CI 9.34-60.14) than erythromycin. The results of the secondary analysis comparing azithromycin with erythromycin or amoxicillin were similar to those of the main analysis. In conclusion, azithromycin was associated with similar effectiveness but less adverse events compared with erythromycin or amoxicillin in the treatment of pregnant women with C. trachomatis infection.