Advertisement

Der Chirurg

pp 1–6 | Cite as

Evidenz für chirurgische Standardverfahren: Appendizitis, Divertikulitis und Cholezystitis

  • M. TachezyEmail author
  • J. R. Izbicki
Leitthema
  • 106 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die akute Appendizitis, Cholezystitis und Sigmadivertikulitis sind die häufigsten entzündlichen viszeralchirurgischen Notfälle. Der evidenzbasierten Medizin entsprechend sollten chirurgische Indikation und Therapie stetig durch hochwertige Studien hinterfragt bzw. validiert werden.

Ziel der Arbeit

Darstellung und Einordnung der aktuellen Studienlage bzw. des Evidenzniveaus zu den o. g. Indikationen und Therapien.

Material und Methoden

Selektive Literaturrecherche Medline, Cochrane Library und Studienregister (clinicaltrials.gov).

Ergebnisse und Diskussion

Die genannten Indikationen unterliegen durch zunehmend hochwertige klinische Studien einem Wandel; in frühen Stadien scheinen konservative Therapien erfolgreich durchführbar zu sein. Dem gegenüber sind viele chirurgische Teilschritte bisher nicht ausreichend validiert. Weiterhin besteht ein großer Bedarf an hochwertigen, prospektiv-randomisierten klinischen Studien, sodass eine Förderung von Studien und der Studienkultur in der Chirurgie von größtem Interesse sein sollte.

Schlüsselwörter

Viszeralchirurgische Notfälle Sigmadivertikulitis Chirurgische Indikation Prospektiv-randomisierte klinische Studien Evidenzbasierte Medizin 

Evidence for standard surgical procedures: appendicitis, diverticulitis and cholecystitis

Abstract

Background

Acute appendicitis, cholecystitis and sigmoid diverticulitis are the most common inflammatory visceral surgical emergencies. According to the principles of evidence-based medicine, treatment methods and surgical indications should be constantly questioned and validated by high-quality clinical studies.

Objective

To identify and classify the current evidence on surgical treatment of acute appendicitis, cholecystitis and sigmoid diverticulitis.

Material and methods

Targeted literature search in Medline, the Cochrane Library and study registers (clinicaltrials.gov).

Results and conclusion

The indications for surgery are changing due to increasing numbers of high-quality clinical studies. Conservative treatment seems to be feasible in the early stages. In contrast, many surgical steps have not yet been sufficiently validated. Furthermore, there is a great need for high-quality, prospective randomized clinical trials, so that promotion of studies and the study culture in surgery should continue to be of greatest interest.

Keywords

Emergency visceral surgery Sigmoid diverticulitis Surgical indications Prospective randomized clinical studies Evidence-based medicine 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

M. Tachezy und J.R. Izbicki geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Gorter RR, Eker HH, Gorter-Stam MA, Abis GS, Acharya A, Ankersmit M, Antoniou SA, Arolfo S, Babic B, Boni L, Bruntink M, van Dam DA, Defoort B, Deijen CL, DeLacy FB, Go PM et al (2016) Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015. Surg Endosc 30(11):4668–4690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Helling TS, Soltys DF, Seals S (2017) Operative versus non-operative management in the care of patients with complicated appendicitis. Am J Surg 214(6):1195–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vons C, Barry C, Maitre S, Pautrat K, Leconte M, Costaglioli B, Karoui M, Alves A, Dousset B, Valleur P, Falissard B, Franco D (2011) Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid versus appendicectomy for treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 377(9777):1573–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Poprom N, Numthavaj P, Wilasrusmee C, Rattanasiri S, Attia J, McEvoy M, Thakkinstian A (2018) The efficacy of antibiotic treatment versus surgical treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. Am J Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.10.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harnoss JC, Zelienka I, Probst P, Grummich K, Muller-Lantzsch C, Harnoss JM, Ulrich A, Buchler MW, Diener MK (2017) Antibiotics versus surgical therapy for uncomplicated appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials (PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016882). Ann Surg 265(5):889–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wagner M, Tubre DJ, Asensio JA (2018) Evolution and current trends in the management of acute appendicitis. Surg Clin North Am 98(5):1005–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Dijk ST, van Dijk AH, Dijkgraaf MG, Boermeester MA (2018) Meta-analysis of in-hospital delay before surgery as a risk factor for complications in patients with acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 105(8):933–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Li J, Xu R, Hu DM, Zhang Y, Gong TP, Wu XL (2018) Effect of delay to operation on outcomes in patients with acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-018-3866-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Darwazeh G, Cunningham SC, Kowdley GC (2016) A systematic review of perforated appendicitis and phlegmon: interval appendectomy or wait-and-see? Am Surg 82(1):11–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kaminski A, Liu IL, Applebaum H, Lee SL, Haigh PI (2005) Routine interval appendectomy is not justified after initial nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg 140(9):897–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheng Y, Xiong X, Lu J, Wu S, Zhou R, Cheng N (2017) Early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011670.pub2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dai L, Shuai J (2017) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults and children: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. United European Gastroenterol J 5(4):542–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Athanasiou C, Lockwood S, Markides GA (2017) Systematic review and meta-analysis of Laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy in adults with complicated appendicitis: an update of the literature. World J Surg 41(12):3083–3099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mannu GS, Sudul MK, Bettencourt-Silva JH, Cumber E, Li F, Clark AB, Loke YK (2017) Closure methods of the appendix stump for complications during laparoscopic appendectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006437.pub3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Antoniou SA, Mavridis D, Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Antoniou GA, Gorter R, Tenhagen M, Koutras C, Pointner R, Chalkiadakis GE, Granderath FA, Fragiadakis GF, Philalithis AE, Bonjer HJ (2017) Optimal stump management in laparoscopic appendectomy: a network meta-analysis by the minimally invasive surgery synthesis of interventions and outcomes network. Surgery 162(5):994–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jacobs PP, Koeyers GF, Bruyninckx CM (1992) Simple ligation superior to inversion of the appendiceal stump; a prospective randomized study. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 136(21):1020–1023PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Street D, Bodai BI, Owens LJ, Moore DB, Walton CB, Holcroft JW (1988) Simple ligation vs stump inversion in appendectomy. Arch Surg 123(6):689–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Kelly A, Shah J, Khan RMA, Panda N, Mansour M, Malik S, Dalmia S (2018) Irrigation versus suction alone in laparoscopic appendectomy: is dilution the solution to pollution? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Innov 25(2):174–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singal R, Zaman M, Mittal A, Singal S, Sandhu K, Mittal A (2016) No need of fascia closure to reduce trocar site hernia rate in Laparoscopic surgery: a prospective study of 200 non-obese patients. Gastroenterology Res 9(4–5):70–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Al-Dhahiry J, Melek H, Abduljabbar T (2017) Laparoscopic surgery: is it essential to close the Trocar site fascial defects of 5 and 10 millimeters in diameter? J Med Sci Clin Res 5(2):17420–17424.  https://doi.org/10.18535/jmscr/v5i2.34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li Z, Zhao L, Cheng Y, Cheng N, Deng Y (2018) Abdominal drainage to prevent intra-peritoneal abscess after open appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010168.pub3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aly OE, Black DH, Rehman H, Ahmed I (2016) Single incision laparoscopic appendicectomy versus conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 35:120–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bulian DR, Kaehler G, Magdeburg R, Butters M, Burghardt J, Albrecht R, Bernhardt J, Heiss MM, Buhr HJ, Lehmann KS (2017) Analysis of the first 217 appendectomies of the German NOTES Registry. Ann Surg 265(3):534–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Emile SH, Elfeki H, Sakr A, Shalaby M (2018) Management of acute uncomplicated diverticulitis without antibiotics: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of predictors of treatment failure. Tech Coloproctol 22(7):499–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Dijk ST, Bos K, de Boer MGJ, Draaisma WA, van Enst WA, Felt RJF, Klarenbeek BR, Otte JA, Puylaert J, van Geloven AAW, Boermeester MA (2018) A systematic review and meta-analysis of outpatient treatment for acute diverticulitis. Int J Colorectal Dis 33(5):505–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gregersen R, Mortensen LQ, Burcharth J, Pommergaard HC, Rosenberg J (2016) Treatment of patients with acute colonic diverticulitis complicated by abscess formation: a systematic review. Int J Surg 35:201–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Buchwald P, Dixon L, Wakeman CJ, Eglinton TW, Frizelle FA (2017) Hinchey I and II diverticular abscesses: long-term outcome of conservative treatment. ANZ J Surg 87(12):1011–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cirocchi R, Afshar S, Di Saverio S, Popivanov G, De Sol A, Gubbiotti F, Tugnoli G, Sartelli M, Catena F, Cavaliere D, Tabola R, Fingerhut A, Binda GA (2017) A historical review of surgery for peritonitis secondary to acute colonic diverticulitis: from Lockhart-Mummery to evidence-based medicine. World J Emerg Surg 12:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schmidt S, Ismail T, Puhan MA, Soll C, Breitenstein S (2018) Meta-analysis of surgical strategies in perforated left colonic diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 403(4):425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kruis W, Germer CT, Leifeld L, German Society for Gastroenterology D, Metabolic D (2014) The German Society for G and Visceral S. Diverticular disease: guidelines of the german society for gastroenterology, digestive and metabolic diseases and the german society for general and visceral surgery. Digestion 90(3):190–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lamb MN, Kaiser AM (2014) Elective resection versus observation after nonoperative management of complicated diverticulitis with abscess: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dis Colon Rectum 57(12):1430–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    You K, Bendl R, Taut C, Sullivan R, Gachabayov M, Bergamaschi R (2018) Randomized clinical trial of elective resection versus observation in diverticulitis with extraluminal air or abscess initially managed conservatively. Br J Surg 105(8):971–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Khan RMA, Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S (2017) Early elective versus delayed elective surgery in acute recurrent diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 46:92–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Benn PL, Wolff BG, Ilstrup DM (1986) Level of anastomosis and recurrent colonic diverticulitis. Am J Surg 151(2):269–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cirocchi R, Afshar S, Shaban F, Nascimbeni R, Vettoretto N, Di Saverio S, Randolph J, Zago M, Chiarugi M, Binda GA (2018) Perforated sigmoid diverticulitis: Hartmann’s procedure or resection with primary anastomosis—a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials. Tech Coloproctol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1819-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sohn M, Iesalnieks I, Agha A, Steiner P, Hochrein A, Pratschke J, Ritschl P, Aigner F (2018) Perforated diverticulitis with generalized peritonitis: low stoma rate using a “damage control strategy”. World J Surg 42(10):3189–3195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cirocchi R, Fearnhead N, Vettoretto N, Cassini D, Popivanov G, Henry BM, Tomaszewski K, D’Andrea V, Davies J, Di Saverio S (2018) The role of emergency laparoscopic colectomy for complicated sigmoid diverticulits: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgeon.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2018.08.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Meara MP, Alexander CM (2018) Emergency presentations of diverticulitis. Surg Clin North Am 98(5):1025–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Izquierdo KM, Unal E, Marks JH (2018) Natural orifice specimen extraction in colorectal surgery: patient selection and perspectives. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 11:265–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sohn M, Agha A (2018) Erhalt der A. rectalis superior. Coloproctology 40(1):9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gutt CN, Encke J, Koninger J, Harnoss JC, Weigand K, Kipfmuller K, Schunter O, Gotze T, Golling MT, Menges M, Klar E, Feilhauer K, Zoller WG, Ridwelski K, Ackmann S, Baron A et al (2013) Acute cholecystitis: early versus delayed cholecystectomy, a multicenter randomized trial (ACDC study, NCT00447304). Ann Surg 258(3):385–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wu XD, Tian X, Liu MM, Wu L, Zhao S, Zhao L (2015) Meta-analysis comparing early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 102(11):1302–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Blohm M, Osterberg J, Sandblom G, Lundell L, Hedberg M, Enochsson L (2017) The sooner, the better? The importance of optimal timing of cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis: data from the national Swedish registry for gallstone surgery, gallRiks. J Gastrointest Surg 21(1):33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Roulin D, Saadi A, Di Mare L, Demartines N, Halkic N (2016) Early versus delayed cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, are the 72 h still the rule?: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 264(5):717–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Loozen CS, van Santvoort HC, van Duijvendijk P, Besselink MG, Gouma DJ, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Kelder JC, Donkervoort SC, van Geloven AA, Kruyt PM, Roos D, Kortram K, Kornmann VN, Pronk A, van der Peet DL, Crolla RM et al (2018) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy versus percutaneous catheter drainage for acute cholecystitis in high risk patients (CHOCOLATE): multicentre randomised clinical trial. BMJ 363:k3965CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Coccolini F, Catena F, Pisano M, Gheza F, Fagiuoli S, Di Saverio S, Leandro G, Montori G, Ceresoli M, Corbella D, Sartelli M, Sugrue M, Ansaloni L (2015) Open versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute cholecystitis. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 18:196–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Gurusamy KS, Vaughan J, Rossi M, Davidson BR (2014) Fewer-than-four ports versus four ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007109.pub2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    van de Graaf FW, Zaimi I, Stassen LPS, Lange JF (2018) Safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a systematic review of bile duct injury prevention. Int J Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.11.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yong L, Guang B (2016) Abdominal drainage versus no abdominal drainage for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Int J Surg 36(Pt A):358–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ricci C, Pagano N, Taffurelli G, Pacilio CA, Migliori M, Bazzoli F, Casadei R, Minni F (2018) Comparison of efficacy and safety of 4 combinations of Laparoscopic and Intraoperative techniques for management of gallstone disease with biliary duct calculi: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 153(7):e181167CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und ThoraxchirurgieUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations