The safety and efficacy of appendectomy, endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy, and antibiotic treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Jianing Wang, Jiaxin Yin, Chongmin Wang, Yan Zhu
{"title":"The safety and efficacy of appendectomy, endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy, and antibiotic treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Jianing Wang, Jiaxin Yin, Chongmin Wang, Yan Zhu","doi":"10.1186/s12893-025-03176-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Appendicitis, as a prevalent acute abdominal condition in general surgery, has established a comprehensive diagnostic and therapeutic framework. However, significant academic debate persists regarding the optimal treatment strategy. With advancements in minimally invasive techniques, endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) has emerged as an innovative therapeutic approach, providing new options for clinical decision-making. This study employed network meta-analysis to systematically evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and safety profiles of three treatment modalities: conventional appendectomy, the ERAT, and pharmacological conservative therapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through 2024 that evaluated the three treatment strategies for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Wanfang. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank the comparative effectiveness of each intervention.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 23 RCTs were included. Regarding complications, the ERAT group (SUCRA, 99.7%) demonstrated significantly lower rates than antibiotics (SUCRA, 37.8%; OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.67), while appendectomy (SUCRA, 12.5%) showed significantly higher rates versus the ERAT (OR, 6.33; 95% CI, 2.35-17.03), with no significant difference between appendectomy and antibiotics. For recurrence, appendectomy (SUCRA, 99.9%) exhibited lower rates than both antibiotics (SUCRA, 2.2%; OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.11) and the ERAT (SUCRA, 53.2%; OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64), while the ERAT showed significantly lower recurrence than antibiotics (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.57). Treatment failure analysis revealed appendectomy (SUCRA, 94.6%) had significantly lower rates than antibiotics (SUCRA, 2.2%; OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.15), with no other significant intergroup differences. Hospital stay showed no statistical differences. Cochrane RoB 2.0 assessment indicated overall sound methodological quality. Network meta-analysis demonstrated good consistency (P > 0.05) with low heterogeneity (τ² low-to-moderate; I² < 50%), and adult subgroup analysis yielded similar trends.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Each treatment modality demonstrates unique value in specific clinical scenarios. Conventional appendectomy remains the most reliable definitive treatment approach at present. As a minimally invasive alternative, the ERAT shows promising potential in select patient populations, though broader clinical implementation requires further evidentiary support. While antibiotic therapy avoids surgical intervention, it carries significantly higher risks of recurrence and treatment failure. Additional rigorously designed multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to optimize current therapeutic decision-making frameworks.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The network meta-analysis and systematic review were registered in PROSPERO on December 2, 2024. (CRD42024616515).</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":"25 1","pages":"435"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12495716/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-03176-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Appendicitis, as a prevalent acute abdominal condition in general surgery, has established a comprehensive diagnostic and therapeutic framework. However, significant academic debate persists regarding the optimal treatment strategy. With advancements in minimally invasive techniques, endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) has emerged as an innovative therapeutic approach, providing new options for clinical decision-making. This study employed network meta-analysis to systematically evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and safety profiles of three treatment modalities: conventional appendectomy, the ERAT, and pharmacological conservative therapy.

Methods: We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through 2024 that evaluated the three treatment strategies for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Wanfang. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank the comparative effectiveness of each intervention.

Results: A total of 23 RCTs were included. Regarding complications, the ERAT group (SUCRA, 99.7%) demonstrated significantly lower rates than antibiotics (SUCRA, 37.8%; OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.67), while appendectomy (SUCRA, 12.5%) showed significantly higher rates versus the ERAT (OR, 6.33; 95% CI, 2.35-17.03), with no significant difference between appendectomy and antibiotics. For recurrence, appendectomy (SUCRA, 99.9%) exhibited lower rates than both antibiotics (SUCRA, 2.2%; OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.11) and the ERAT (SUCRA, 53.2%; OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64), while the ERAT showed significantly lower recurrence than antibiotics (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.57). Treatment failure analysis revealed appendectomy (SUCRA, 94.6%) had significantly lower rates than antibiotics (SUCRA, 2.2%; OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.15), with no other significant intergroup differences. Hospital stay showed no statistical differences. Cochrane RoB 2.0 assessment indicated overall sound methodological quality. Network meta-analysis demonstrated good consistency (P > 0.05) with low heterogeneity (τ² low-to-moderate; I² < 50%), and adult subgroup analysis yielded similar trends.

Conclusion: Each treatment modality demonstrates unique value in specific clinical scenarios. Conventional appendectomy remains the most reliable definitive treatment approach at present. As a minimally invasive alternative, the ERAT shows promising potential in select patient populations, though broader clinical implementation requires further evidentiary support. While antibiotic therapy avoids surgical intervention, it carries significantly higher risks of recurrence and treatment failure. Additional rigorously designed multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to optimize current therapeutic decision-making frameworks.

Trial registration: The network meta-analysis and systematic review were registered in PROSPERO on December 2, 2024. (CRD42024616515).

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

阑尾切除术、内镜逆行性阑尾炎治疗和抗生素治疗急性无并发症阑尾炎的安全性和有效性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和网络荟萃分析。
背景:阑尾炎作为普通外科常见的急腹症,已经建立了一个全面的诊断和治疗框架。然而,关于最佳治疗策略的重大学术争论仍然存在。随着微创技术的进步,内镜逆行性阑尾炎治疗(ERAT)已经成为一种创新的治疗方法,为临床决策提供了新的选择。本研究采用网络荟萃分析系统评价和比较三种治疗方式的临床疗效和安全性:传统阑尾切除术、ERAT和药物保守治疗。方法:我们系统地回顾了截至2024年发表的随机对照试验(rct),这些试验评估了急性无并发症阑尾炎的三种治疗策略。检索的数据库包括PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、CNKI、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials和万方。采用累积排序曲线(SUCRA)下的曲面对各干预措施的比较效果进行排序。结果:共纳入23项rct。在并发症方面,ERAT组(SUCRA, 99.7%)的发生率明显低于抗生素组(SUCRA, 37.8%; OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.67),而阑尾切除术(SUCRA, 12.5%)的发生率明显高于ERAT组(OR, 6.33; 95% CI, 2.35-17.03),阑尾切除术与抗生素组之间无显著差异。对于复发率,阑尾切除术(SUCRA, 99.9%)的复发率低于两种抗生素(SUCRA, 2.2%; OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.11)和ERAT (SUCRA, 53.2%; OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64),而ERAT的复发率明显低于抗生素(OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.57)。治疗失败分析显示,阑尾切除术(SUCRA, 94.6%)的失败率显著低于抗生素(SUCRA, 2.2%; OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.15),其他组间差异无统计学意义。住院时间差异无统计学意义。Cochrane RoB 2.0评估显示整体的方法学质量良好。网络meta分析显示一致性好(P > 0.05),异质性低(τ²低至中等;I²< 50%),成人亚组分析也有类似的趋势。结论:每种治疗方式在特定的临床情况下都有其独特的价值。传统的阑尾切除术仍然是目前最可靠的治疗方法。作为一种微创替代方法,ERAT在特定患者群体中显示出良好的潜力,尽管更广泛的临床应用需要进一步的证据支持。虽然抗生素治疗避免了手术干预,但它具有明显更高的复发和治疗失败的风险。需要更多严格设计的多中心随机对照试验来优化当前的治疗决策框架。试验注册:网络荟萃分析和系统评价于2024年12月2日在PROSPERO注册。(CRD42024616515)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Surgery
BMC Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
391
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: BMC Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on surgical research, training, and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信