The Experts below are selected from a list of 282 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Nan-sheng Cheng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Cochrane Library - Early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017
    Co-Authors: Yao Cheng, Xian-ze Xiong, Rong-xing Zhou, Nan-sheng Cheng
    Abstract:

    Background Appendiceal Phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms and avoid complications. The timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess is controversial. Objectives To assess the effects of early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess, in terms of overall morbidity and mortality. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to 23 August 2016), Embase Ovid (1974 to 23 August 2016), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 23 August 2016), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 23 August 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (23 August 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (23 August 2016) for ongoing trials. Selection criteria We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials, irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results We included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 80 participants in this review. 1. Early versus delayed open appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon Forty participants (paediatric and adults) with appendiceal Phlegmon were randomised either to early appendicectomy (appendicectomy as soon as appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission) (n = 20), or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy six weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no mortality in either group. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of using either early or delayed open appendicectomy onoverall morbidity (RR 13.00; 95% CI 0.78 to 216.39; very low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infection (RR 9.00; 95% CI 0.52 to 156.91; very low quality evidence) or faecal fistula (RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; very low quality evidence). The quality of evidence for increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in the early appendicectomy group (MD 6.70 days; 95% CI 2.76 to 10.64, and MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48, respectively) is very low quality evidence. The trial reported neither quality of life nor pain outcomes. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscess Forty paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess were randomised either to early appendicectomy (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy) (n = 20) or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial did not report on overall morbidity or complications. There was no mortality in either group. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of using either early or delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for outcomes relating to hospital stay between the groups (MD −0.20 days; 95% CI −3.54 to 3.14; very low quality of evidence). Health-related quality of life was measured with the Pediatric Quality of Life Scale-Version 4.0 questionnaire (a scale of 0 to 100 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Health-related quality of life score measured at 12 weeks after appendicectomy was higher in the early appendicectomy group than in the delayed appendicectomy group (MD 12.40 points; 95% CI 9.78 to 15.02) but the quality of evidence was very low. This trial reported neither the pain nor the time away from normal activities. Authors' conclusions It is unclear whether early appendicectomy prevents complications compared to delayed appendicectomy for people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. The evidence indicating increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in people with early open appendicectomy is of very low quality. The evidence for better health-related quality of life following early laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with delayed appendicectomy is based on very low quality evidence. For both comparisons addressed in this review, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy. Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery and resolution of the appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities, quality of life and the length of hospital stay.

  • early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017
    Co-Authors: Yao Cheng, Xian-ze Xiong, Rong-xing Zhou, Nan-sheng Cheng
    Abstract:

    Background Appendiceal Phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms and avoid complications. The timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess is controversial. Objectives To assess the effects of early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess, in terms of overall morbidity and mortality. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to 23 August 2016), Embase Ovid (1974 to 23 August 2016), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 23 August 2016), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 23 August 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (23 August 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (23 August 2016) for ongoing trials. Selection criteria We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials, irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results We included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 80 participants in this review. 1. Early versus delayed open appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon Forty participants (paediatric and adults) with appendiceal Phlegmon were randomised either to early appendicectomy (appendicectomy as soon as appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission) (n = 20), or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy six weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no mortality in either group. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of using either early or delayed open appendicectomy onoverall morbidity (RR 13.00; 95% CI 0.78 to 216.39; very low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infection (RR 9.00; 95% CI 0.52 to 156.91; very low quality evidence) or faecal fistula (RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; very low quality evidence). The quality of evidence for increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in the early appendicectomy group (MD 6.70 days; 95% CI 2.76 to 10.64, and MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48, respectively) is very low quality evidence. The trial reported neither quality of life nor pain outcomes. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscess Forty paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess were randomised either to early appendicectomy (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy) (n = 20) or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial did not report on overall morbidity or complications. There was no mortality in either group. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of using either early or delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for outcomes relating to hospital stay between the groups (MD −0.20 days; 95% CI −3.54 to 3.14; very low quality of evidence). Health-related quality of life was measured with the Pediatric Quality of Life Scale-Version 4.0 questionnaire (a scale of 0 to 100 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Health-related quality of life score measured at 12 weeks after appendicectomy was higher in the early appendicectomy group than in the delayed appendicectomy group (MD 12.40 points; 95% CI 9.78 to 15.02) but the quality of evidence was very low. This trial reported neither the pain nor the time away from normal activities. Authors' conclusions It is unclear whether early appendicectomy prevents complications compared to delayed appendicectomy for people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. The evidence indicating increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in people with early open appendicectomy is of very low quality. The evidence for better health-related quality of life following early laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with delayed appendicectomy is based on very low quality evidence. For both comparisons addressed in this review, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy. Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery and resolution of the appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities, quality of life and the length of hospital stay.

Yao Cheng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Cochrane Library - Early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017
    Co-Authors: Yao Cheng, Xian-ze Xiong, Rong-xing Zhou, Nan-sheng Cheng
    Abstract:

    Background Appendiceal Phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms and avoid complications. The timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess is controversial. Objectives To assess the effects of early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess, in terms of overall morbidity and mortality. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to 23 August 2016), Embase Ovid (1974 to 23 August 2016), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 23 August 2016), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 23 August 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (23 August 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (23 August 2016) for ongoing trials. Selection criteria We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials, irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results We included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 80 participants in this review. 1. Early versus delayed open appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon Forty participants (paediatric and adults) with appendiceal Phlegmon were randomised either to early appendicectomy (appendicectomy as soon as appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission) (n = 20), or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy six weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no mortality in either group. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of using either early or delayed open appendicectomy onoverall morbidity (RR 13.00; 95% CI 0.78 to 216.39; very low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infection (RR 9.00; 95% CI 0.52 to 156.91; very low quality evidence) or faecal fistula (RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; very low quality evidence). The quality of evidence for increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in the early appendicectomy group (MD 6.70 days; 95% CI 2.76 to 10.64, and MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48, respectively) is very low quality evidence. The trial reported neither quality of life nor pain outcomes. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscess Forty paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess were randomised either to early appendicectomy (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy) (n = 20) or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial did not report on overall morbidity or complications. There was no mortality in either group. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of using either early or delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for outcomes relating to hospital stay between the groups (MD −0.20 days; 95% CI −3.54 to 3.14; very low quality of evidence). Health-related quality of life was measured with the Pediatric Quality of Life Scale-Version 4.0 questionnaire (a scale of 0 to 100 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Health-related quality of life score measured at 12 weeks after appendicectomy was higher in the early appendicectomy group than in the delayed appendicectomy group (MD 12.40 points; 95% CI 9.78 to 15.02) but the quality of evidence was very low. This trial reported neither the pain nor the time away from normal activities. Authors' conclusions It is unclear whether early appendicectomy prevents complications compared to delayed appendicectomy for people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. The evidence indicating increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in people with early open appendicectomy is of very low quality. The evidence for better health-related quality of life following early laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with delayed appendicectomy is based on very low quality evidence. For both comparisons addressed in this review, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy. Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery and resolution of the appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities, quality of life and the length of hospital stay.

  • early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017
    Co-Authors: Yao Cheng, Xian-ze Xiong, Rong-xing Zhou, Nan-sheng Cheng
    Abstract:

    Background Appendiceal Phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms and avoid complications. The timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess is controversial. Objectives To assess the effects of early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess, in terms of overall morbidity and mortality. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to 23 August 2016), Embase Ovid (1974 to 23 August 2016), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 23 August 2016), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 23 August 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (23 August 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (23 August 2016) for ongoing trials. Selection criteria We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials, irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results We included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 80 participants in this review. 1. Early versus delayed open appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon Forty participants (paediatric and adults) with appendiceal Phlegmon were randomised either to early appendicectomy (appendicectomy as soon as appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission) (n = 20), or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy six weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no mortality in either group. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of using either early or delayed open appendicectomy onoverall morbidity (RR 13.00; 95% CI 0.78 to 216.39; very low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infection (RR 9.00; 95% CI 0.52 to 156.91; very low quality evidence) or faecal fistula (RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; very low quality evidence). The quality of evidence for increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in the early appendicectomy group (MD 6.70 days; 95% CI 2.76 to 10.64, and MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48, respectively) is very low quality evidence. The trial reported neither quality of life nor pain outcomes. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscess Forty paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess were randomised either to early appendicectomy (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy) (n = 20) or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial did not report on overall morbidity or complications. There was no mortality in either group. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of using either early or delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for outcomes relating to hospital stay between the groups (MD −0.20 days; 95% CI −3.54 to 3.14; very low quality of evidence). Health-related quality of life was measured with the Pediatric Quality of Life Scale-Version 4.0 questionnaire (a scale of 0 to 100 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Health-related quality of life score measured at 12 weeks after appendicectomy was higher in the early appendicectomy group than in the delayed appendicectomy group (MD 12.40 points; 95% CI 9.78 to 15.02) but the quality of evidence was very low. This trial reported neither the pain nor the time away from normal activities. Authors' conclusions It is unclear whether early appendicectomy prevents complications compared to delayed appendicectomy for people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. The evidence indicating increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in people with early open appendicectomy is of very low quality. The evidence for better health-related quality of life following early laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with delayed appendicectomy is based on very low quality evidence. For both comparisons addressed in this review, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy. Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery and resolution of the appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities, quality of life and the length of hospital stay.

Rong-xing Zhou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Cochrane Library - Early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017
    Co-Authors: Yao Cheng, Xian-ze Xiong, Rong-xing Zhou, Nan-sheng Cheng
    Abstract:

    Background Appendiceal Phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms and avoid complications. The timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess is controversial. Objectives To assess the effects of early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess, in terms of overall morbidity and mortality. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to 23 August 2016), Embase Ovid (1974 to 23 August 2016), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 23 August 2016), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 23 August 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (23 August 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (23 August 2016) for ongoing trials. Selection criteria We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials, irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results We included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 80 participants in this review. 1. Early versus delayed open appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon Forty participants (paediatric and adults) with appendiceal Phlegmon were randomised either to early appendicectomy (appendicectomy as soon as appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission) (n = 20), or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy six weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no mortality in either group. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of using either early or delayed open appendicectomy onoverall morbidity (RR 13.00; 95% CI 0.78 to 216.39; very low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infection (RR 9.00; 95% CI 0.52 to 156.91; very low quality evidence) or faecal fistula (RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; very low quality evidence). The quality of evidence for increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in the early appendicectomy group (MD 6.70 days; 95% CI 2.76 to 10.64, and MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48, respectively) is very low quality evidence. The trial reported neither quality of life nor pain outcomes. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscess Forty paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess were randomised either to early appendicectomy (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy) (n = 20) or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial did not report on overall morbidity or complications. There was no mortality in either group. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of using either early or delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for outcomes relating to hospital stay between the groups (MD −0.20 days; 95% CI −3.54 to 3.14; very low quality of evidence). Health-related quality of life was measured with the Pediatric Quality of Life Scale-Version 4.0 questionnaire (a scale of 0 to 100 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Health-related quality of life score measured at 12 weeks after appendicectomy was higher in the early appendicectomy group than in the delayed appendicectomy group (MD 12.40 points; 95% CI 9.78 to 15.02) but the quality of evidence was very low. This trial reported neither the pain nor the time away from normal activities. Authors' conclusions It is unclear whether early appendicectomy prevents complications compared to delayed appendicectomy for people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. The evidence indicating increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in people with early open appendicectomy is of very low quality. The evidence for better health-related quality of life following early laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with delayed appendicectomy is based on very low quality evidence. For both comparisons addressed in this review, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy. Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery and resolution of the appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities, quality of life and the length of hospital stay.

  • early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017
    Co-Authors: Yao Cheng, Xian-ze Xiong, Rong-xing Zhou, Nan-sheng Cheng
    Abstract:

    Background Appendiceal Phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms and avoid complications. The timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess is controversial. Objectives To assess the effects of early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess, in terms of overall morbidity and mortality. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to 23 August 2016), Embase Ovid (1974 to 23 August 2016), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 23 August 2016), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 23 August 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (23 August 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (23 August 2016) for ongoing trials. Selection criteria We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials, irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results We included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 80 participants in this review. 1. Early versus delayed open appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon Forty participants (paediatric and adults) with appendiceal Phlegmon were randomised either to early appendicectomy (appendicectomy as soon as appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission) (n = 20), or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy six weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no mortality in either group. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of using either early or delayed open appendicectomy onoverall morbidity (RR 13.00; 95% CI 0.78 to 216.39; very low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infection (RR 9.00; 95% CI 0.52 to 156.91; very low quality evidence) or faecal fistula (RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; very low quality evidence). The quality of evidence for increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in the early appendicectomy group (MD 6.70 days; 95% CI 2.76 to 10.64, and MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48, respectively) is very low quality evidence. The trial reported neither quality of life nor pain outcomes. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscess Forty paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess were randomised either to early appendicectomy (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy) (n = 20) or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial did not report on overall morbidity or complications. There was no mortality in either group. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of using either early or delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for outcomes relating to hospital stay between the groups (MD −0.20 days; 95% CI −3.54 to 3.14; very low quality of evidence). Health-related quality of life was measured with the Pediatric Quality of Life Scale-Version 4.0 questionnaire (a scale of 0 to 100 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Health-related quality of life score measured at 12 weeks after appendicectomy was higher in the early appendicectomy group than in the delayed appendicectomy group (MD 12.40 points; 95% CI 9.78 to 15.02) but the quality of evidence was very low. This trial reported neither the pain nor the time away from normal activities. Authors' conclusions It is unclear whether early appendicectomy prevents complications compared to delayed appendicectomy for people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. The evidence indicating increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in people with early open appendicectomy is of very low quality. The evidence for better health-related quality of life following early laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with delayed appendicectomy is based on very low quality evidence. For both comparisons addressed in this review, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy. Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery and resolution of the appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities, quality of life and the length of hospital stay.

Xian-ze Xiong - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Cochrane Library - Early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2017
    Co-Authors: Yao Cheng, Xian-ze Xiong, Rong-xing Zhou, Nan-sheng Cheng
    Abstract:

    Background Appendiceal Phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms and avoid complications. The timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess is controversial. Objectives To assess the effects of early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess, in terms of overall morbidity and mortality. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to 23 August 2016), Embase Ovid (1974 to 23 August 2016), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 23 August 2016), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 23 August 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (23 August 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (23 August 2016) for ongoing trials. Selection criteria We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials, irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results We included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 80 participants in this review. 1. Early versus delayed open appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon Forty participants (paediatric and adults) with appendiceal Phlegmon were randomised either to early appendicectomy (appendicectomy as soon as appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission) (n = 20), or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy six weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no mortality in either group. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of using either early or delayed open appendicectomy onoverall morbidity (RR 13.00; 95% CI 0.78 to 216.39; very low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infection (RR 9.00; 95% CI 0.52 to 156.91; very low quality evidence) or faecal fistula (RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; very low quality evidence). The quality of evidence for increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in the early appendicectomy group (MD 6.70 days; 95% CI 2.76 to 10.64, and MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48, respectively) is very low quality evidence. The trial reported neither quality of life nor pain outcomes. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscess Forty paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess were randomised either to early appendicectomy (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy) (n = 20) or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial did not report on overall morbidity or complications. There was no mortality in either group. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of using either early or delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for outcomes relating to hospital stay between the groups (MD −0.20 days; 95% CI −3.54 to 3.14; very low quality of evidence). Health-related quality of life was measured with the Pediatric Quality of Life Scale-Version 4.0 questionnaire (a scale of 0 to 100 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Health-related quality of life score measured at 12 weeks after appendicectomy was higher in the early appendicectomy group than in the delayed appendicectomy group (MD 12.40 points; 95% CI 9.78 to 15.02) but the quality of evidence was very low. This trial reported neither the pain nor the time away from normal activities. Authors' conclusions It is unclear whether early appendicectomy prevents complications compared to delayed appendicectomy for people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. The evidence indicating increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in people with early open appendicectomy is of very low quality. The evidence for better health-related quality of life following early laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with delayed appendicectomy is based on very low quality evidence. For both comparisons addressed in this review, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy. Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery and resolution of the appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities, quality of life and the length of hospital stay.

  • early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess
    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017
    Co-Authors: Yao Cheng, Xian-ze Xiong, Rong-xing Zhou, Nan-sheng Cheng
    Abstract:

    Background Appendiceal Phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms and avoid complications. The timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess is controversial. Objectives To assess the effects of early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess, in terms of overall morbidity and mortality. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to 23 August 2016), Embase Ovid (1974 to 23 August 2016), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 23 August 2016), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 23 August 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (23 August 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (23 August 2016) for ongoing trials. Selection criteria We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials, irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results We included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 80 participants in this review. 1. Early versus delayed open appendicectomy for appendiceal Phlegmon Forty participants (paediatric and adults) with appendiceal Phlegmon were randomised either to early appendicectomy (appendicectomy as soon as appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission) (n = 20), or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy six weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no mortality in either group. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of using either early or delayed open appendicectomy onoverall morbidity (RR 13.00; 95% CI 0.78 to 216.39; very low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infection (RR 9.00; 95% CI 0.52 to 156.91; very low quality evidence) or faecal fistula (RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; very low quality evidence). The quality of evidence for increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in the early appendicectomy group (MD 6.70 days; 95% CI 2.76 to 10.64, and MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48, respectively) is very low quality evidence. The trial reported neither quality of life nor pain outcomes. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscess Forty paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess were randomised either to early appendicectomy (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy) (n = 20) or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial did not report on overall morbidity or complications. There was no mortality in either group. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of using either early or delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for outcomes relating to hospital stay between the groups (MD −0.20 days; 95% CI −3.54 to 3.14; very low quality of evidence). Health-related quality of life was measured with the Pediatric Quality of Life Scale-Version 4.0 questionnaire (a scale of 0 to 100 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Health-related quality of life score measured at 12 weeks after appendicectomy was higher in the early appendicectomy group than in the delayed appendicectomy group (MD 12.40 points; 95% CI 9.78 to 15.02) but the quality of evidence was very low. This trial reported neither the pain nor the time away from normal activities. Authors' conclusions It is unclear whether early appendicectomy prevents complications compared to delayed appendicectomy for people with appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. The evidence indicating increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in people with early open appendicectomy is of very low quality. The evidence for better health-related quality of life following early laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with delayed appendicectomy is based on very low quality evidence. For both comparisons addressed in this review, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy. Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery and resolution of the appendiceal Phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities, quality of life and the length of hospital stay.

Andrea Antinori - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • left thigh Phlegmon caused by nocardia farcinica identified by 16s rrna sequencing in a patient with leprosy a case report
    BMC Infectious Diseases, 2013
    Co-Authors: Pasquale De Nardo, Maria Letizia Giancola, Salvatore Noto, Elisa Gentilotti, Piero Ghirga, Chiara Tommasi, Rita Bellagamba, Maria Grazia Paglia, Emanuele Nicastri, Andrea Antinori
    Abstract:

    In recent years, Nocardia farcinica has been reported to be an increasingly frequent cause of localized and disseminated infections in the immunocompromised patient. However, recent literature is limited. We report a case of left thigh Phlegmon caused by N. farcinica that occurred in a patient with Leprosy undergoing treatment with prednisone for leprosy reaction. We describe the case of left thigh Phlegmon caused by Nocardia farcinica in a 54-year-old Italian man affected by multi-bacillary leprosy. The patient had worked in South America for 11 years. Seven months after his return to Italy, he was diagnosed with Leprosy and started multi-drug antibiotic therapy plus thalidomide and steroids. Then, during therapy with rifampicin monthly, minocycline 100 mg daily, moxifloxacin 400 mg daily, and prednisone (the latter to treat type 2 leprosy reaction), the patient complained of high fever associated with erythema, swelling, and pain in the left thigh. Therefore, he was admitted to our hospital with the clinical suspicion of cellulitis. Ultrasound examination and Magnetic Resonance Imaging showed left thigh Phlegmon. He was treated with drainage and antibiotic therapy (meropenem and vancomycin replaced by daptomycin). The responsible organism, Nocardia farcinica, was identified by 16S rRNA sequencing in the purulent fluid taken out by aspiration. The patient continued treatment with intravenous trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and imipenem followed by oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and moxifloxacin. A whole-body computed tomography did not reveal dissemination to other organs like the lung or brain. The patient was discharged after complete remission. Oral therapy with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, moxifloxacin, rifampicin monthly, clofazimine and thalidomide was prescribed to be taken at home. One month after discharge from the hospital the patient is in good clinical condition with complete resolution of the Phlegmon. N. farcinica is a rare infectious agent that mainly affects immunocompromised patients. Presentation of Phlegmon only without disseminated infection is unusual, even in these kinds of patients. In any case, a higher index of suspicion is needed, as diagnosis can easily be missed due to the absence of characteristic symptoms and the several difficulties usually encountered in identifying the pathogen.