A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis comparing nonoperative versus operative management for uncomplicated appendicitis: a focus on randomized controlled trials.

Background: The aim of this study is to provide a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing conservative and surgical treatment in a population of adults with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. We have exclusively incorporated randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies involving participants with complicated appendicitis or children were excluded. The variables considered are as follows: treatment complications, complication-free treatment success at index admission and at 1 year follow-up, length of hospital stay (LOS), quality of life (QoL) and costs. Results: Eight RCTs involving 3213 participants (1615 antibiotics/1598 appendectomy) were included. There was no significant difference between the two treatments in terms of complication rates (RR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.61—1.04, P = 0.07, I2 = 69%). Antibiotics had a reduced treatment efficacy compared with appendectomy (RR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90, p < 0.00001, I2 = 87%) and at 1 year was successful in 540 out of 837 (64.6%, RR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.77, p < 0.00001, I2 = 81%) participants. There was no difference in LOS (mean difference − 0.58 days 95% confidence interval − 1.59 to 0.43, p = 0.26, I2 = 99%). The trial sequential analysis has revealed that, concerning the three primary outcomes, it is improbable that forthcoming RCTs will significantly alter the existing body of evidence. Conclusions: As further large-scale trials have been conducted, antibiotic therapy proved to be safe, less expensive, but also less effective than surgical treatment. In order to ensure well-informed decisions, further research is needed to explore patient preferences and quality of life outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]