View clinical trials related to Appendicitis.
Filter by:There is no consensus among pediatric surgeons regarding the optimal treatment for children with complicated appendicitis with delayed diagnosis. With the development of broad-spectrum antibiotics, some surgeons have advocated expectant management for these children. However, there is little evidence to determine which children are most likely to benefit from this approach. Prior attempts to determine the effectiveness of expectant management for perforated appendicitis with delayed diagnosis often have not controlled for inherent differences in the clinical status of patients treated non-operatively vs. those treated with immediate appendectomy.
Recent advances in laparoscopic instrumentation have made it possible to perform intra-abdominal operations entirely through a small incision that can be hidden within the umbilicus. The goal is to perform surgery with fewer incisions and no visible scars. Other potential benefits are faster recovery, less pain, and fewer wound complications. The term SILS (Single Incision Laparoscopic Surgery) is being used to describe such techniques, and many have touted SILS as a major breakthrough in minimally-invasive surgery, moving the field closer to surgery that is bloodless, incisionless, and painless. Despite the hype, prospective comparisons of SILS versus conventional laparoscopy are lacking. Results of SILS procedures have generally been limited to case reports and small case series that lack controls. The investigators propose to conduct a prospective, randomized, single-center trial of SILS appendectomy versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy to treat acute appendicitis. Primary end-points are operative time, complication rate, postoperative pain, recovery time, and long-term cosmetic outcome. The investigators hypothesize SILS appendectomy is equivalent to laparoscopic appendectomy with respect to operative time, complication rate, postoperative pain, and recovery time while providing a better cosmetic outcome.
Patients with acute abdominal pain and suspicion of appendicitis are common. The management of these patients is controversial with large variations between hospitals. The clinical diagnosis is regarded as insufficient necessitating the use of diagnostic techniques like ultrasound, computerized tomography and diagnostic laparoscopy. However, the role of these diagnostic techniques is not clear. This aim of this prospective interventional study is to analyze the impact of the implementation of a clinical score to improve the clinical diagnosis and to serve as a basis for a structured management of these patients by comparison of the results after the implementation of the score with that of a baseline period. In the group of patients with indeterminate diagnosis according to the clinical score, the value of diagnostic imaging will be evaluated and compared with a period of in-hospital observation by randomization. The hypothesis is that a clinical score will decrease the use of unnecessary diagnostic imaging and unnecessary admissions to hospital for observation.
To determine the most cost effective way to treat children with perforated appendicitis we will randomize all children presenting with perforated appendicitis to initial operation, with in 24 hours of admission, or to initial antibiotics, with or without percutaneous drainage, and subsequent interval appendectomy after 8 weeks. Our outcomes will include cost, complications, length of stay, and quality of life measures.
The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of two treatment regimens in treating patients with complicated appendicitis. Appendicitis requires antibiotic treatment when the appendix ruptures (complicated appendicitis). This is a study comparing intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy of levofloxacin/metronidazole versus piperacillin/tazobactam for 4 to 14 days. Patients may be switched to oral therapy after 48 hours, at the doctor's discretion.