Monopolar diathermy versus a vessel-sealing device for reducing postoperative drain output after simple mastectomy: randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Electrosurgical devices are commonly used during mastectomy for simultaneous dissection and haemostasis, and can provide potential benefits regarding vessel and lymphatic ligation. The aim of this prospective RCT was to assess whether using a vessel-sealing device (LigaSure™) improves perioperative outcomes compared with monopolar diathermy when performing simple mastectomy. METHODS: Patients were recruited prospectively and randomized in a 1 : 1 manner to undergo simple mastectomy using either LigaSure™ or conventional monopolar diathermy at a single centre. The primary outcome was the number of days the drain remained in situ after surgery. Secondary outcomes of interest included operating time and complications. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients were recruited (42 were randomized to the monopolar diathermy group and 44 were randomized to the LigaSure™ group). There was no significant difference in the mean number of days the drain remained in situ between the monopolar diathermy group and the LigaSure™ group (7.75 days versus 8.23 days; P = 0.613) and there was no significant difference in the mean total drain output between the monopolar diathermy group and the LigaSure™ group (523.50 ml versus 572.80 ml; P = 0.694). In addition, there was no significant difference in the mean operating time between the groups, for simple mastectomy alone (88.25 min for the monopolar diathermy group versus 107.20 min for the LigaSure™ group; P = 0.078) and simple mastectomy with sentinel lymph node biopsy (107.20 min for the monopolar diathermy group versus 114.40 min for the LigaSure™ group; P = 0.440). CONCLUSION: In this double-blinded single-centre RCT, there was no difference in the total drain output or the number of days the drain remained in situ between the monopolar diathermy group and the LigaSure™ group. REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT 2018-003191-13 BEAUMONT HOSPITAL REC 18/66.

A Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Quality of Life of Antibiotic-only Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Appendicitis: Results of the COMMA Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy and quality of life associated with conservative treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Conservative management with antibiotics only has emerged as a potential treatment option for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. However the reported failure rates are highly variable and there is a paucity of data in relation to quality of life. METHODS: Symptomatic patients with radiological evidence of acute, uncomplicated appendicitis were randomized to either intravenous antibiotics only or undergo appendectomy. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-six patients underwent randomization. In the antibiotic-only group, 23 patients (25.3%) experienced a recurrence within 1 year following randomization. There was a significantly better EQ-VAS quality of life score in the surgery group compared with the antibiotic-only group at 3 months (94.3 vs 91.0, P < 0.001) and 12 months postintervention (94.5 vs 90.4, P < 0.001). The EQ-5D-3L quality-of-life score was significantly higher in the surgery group indicating a better quality of life (0.976 vs 0.888, P < 0.001). The accumulated 12-month sickness days was 3.6 days shorter for the antibiotics only group (5.3 vs 8.9 days; P < 0.01). The mean length of stay in both groups was not significantly different (2.3 vs 2.8 days, P = 0.13). The mean total cost in the surgery group was significantly higher than antibiotics only group (€4,816 vs €3,077, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with acute, uncomplicated appendicitis treated with antibiotics only experience high recurrence rates and an inferior quality of life. Surgery should remain the mainstay of treatment for this commonly encountered acute surgical condition.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on management and outcomes in acute appendicitis: Should these new practices be the norm?

BACKGROUND: In early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly altered management of surgical patients globally. International guidelines recommended that non-operative management be implemented wherever possible (e.g. in proven uncomplicated appendicitis) to reduce pressure on healthcare services and reduce risk of peri-operative viral transmission. We sought to compare our management and outcomes of appendicitis during lockdown vs a non-pandemic period. METHODS: All presentations to our department with a clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis between 12/03/2020 and 30/06/2020 were compared to the same 110-day period in 2019. Quantity and severity of presentations, use of radiological investigations, rate of operative intervention and histopathological findings were variables collected for comparison. RESULTS: There was a reduction in appendicitis presentations (from 74 to 56 cases), and an increase in radiological imaging (from 70.27% to 89.29%) (P = 0.007) from 2019 to 2020. In 2019, 93.24% of patients had appendicectomy, compared to 71.42% in 2020(P < 0.001). This decrease was most pronounced in uncomplicated cases, whose operative rates dropped from 90.32% to 62.5% (P = 0.009). Post-operative histology confirmed appendicitis in 73.9% in 2019, compared to 97.5% in 2020 (P = 0.001). Normal appendiceal pathology was reported for 17 cases (24.64%) in 2019, compared to none in 2020 (P < 0.001) - a 0% negative appendicectomy rate (NAR). DISCUSSION: The 0% NAR in 2020 is due to a combination of increased CT imaging, a higher threshold to operate, and is impacted by increased disease severity due to delayed patient presentation. This study adds to growing literature promoting routine use of radiological imaging to confirm appendicitis diagnosis. As we enter a second lockdown, patients should be encouraged to avoid late presentations, and surgical departments should continue using radiological imaging more liberally in guiding appendicitis management.

Validation and comparison of two new scoring systems for the prediction of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the Atema and APSI scoring systems in the diagnosis of complicated vs uncomplicated appendicitis. To compare these scoring systems with computed tomography (CT) imaging alone to establish which method provides most accurate prediction of complicated vs uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of a sample of 160 patients that underwent appendicectomy and CT imaging for suspected appendicitis between 2018 and 2021 in a tertiary university teaching hospital. Each scoring system was applied to all patients and results analysed and compared with the effectiveness of CT imaging, RESULTS: 32.5% (n = 52) were found to have complicated appendicitis and 67.5% (n = 108) uncomplicated appendicitis. Application of the Atema score to our cohort of patients resulted in a sensitivity 76.9% [CI (64.2, 87.5), specificity 58.7% [CI (48.9, 68.1)], PPV 47.1% [CI (40.5, 53.8) and NPV 84.2% [CI (76.0, 89.9)]. By comparison, the APSI yielded a sensitivity 50.9% [CI (36.6, 65.4)], specificity 76.1% [CI (67.0, 87.8)], PPV 50% [CI (39.2, 60.6)] and NPV 76% [CI (71.1, 81.7)]. Radiology prediction of complicated vs uncomplicated appendicitis with CT imaging showed sensitivity 46% [CI (32.2, 60.5)], specificity 79%; [CI (69.8, 86)], PPV 51% [CI (39.6, 62.5)] and NPV 75% [CI (69.8, 79.9)]. CONCLUSION: By comparing the APSI and Atema et al. scoring systems with CT reporting in our hospital, it appears that the Atema may confer some benefit in stratifying patient risk of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis. Further larger scale prospective studies are required.