View clinical trials related to Appendicitis.
Filter by:This study evaluates operative and non-operative management of acute appendicitis (infection or inflammation of the appendix) and acute cholecystitis (inflammation/infection of the gallbladder) in patients with active mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. The hypothesis is that COVID+ patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis or acute cholecystitis amendable to a laparoscopic procedure can have safe operative outcomes compared to those managed non-operatively.
Purpose: The diagnostic approach of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) remains debated. A number of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) exist for diagnosis of AA with variable sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy, in different ethnic populations. Among these, the Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) score was shown to have a high sensitivity though with a poor specificity. The aim of this study is to modify and validate the RIPASA score in 4 distinct ethnic groups, and to compare the performance of the new score to the original RIPASA and Alvarado scores. Methods: This multicenter, international prospective observational study will be conducted in 6 countries, and will include all eligible patients referred to surgical specialists with acute right iliac fossa pain or suspected AA in the participating centres. Patients will be categorized into 4 ethnic groups based on the country of origin. The modified RIPASA score will be developed in one ethnic group, and along with the original RIPASA and Alvarado scores, will be externally validated in the other 3 ethnic groups. Management of patients will be prospectively evaluated in a standardized manner. The focus of the analysis will be on the performance of the 3 CPRs in different ethnic and gender groups using receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. Discussion: We expect this study to develop a CPR that can assist surgeons and surgical residents to early identify patients with AA in the busy clinical and low-resource settings, and to optimize the diagnostic value of the RIPASA and Alvarado scores in different ethnic and gender groups.
This is a randomized study of patients 2-17 years old who are diagnosed with perforated appendicitis and develop an abscess after laparoscopy that is subsequently drained. Patients will be randomized to either receive an 8-day or a 4-day course of antibiotics. The aim of this study is to determine whether duration of antibiotic treatment at discharge demonstrates significant differences in clinical outcomes.
The RIPASA score is a Clinical Prediction Rule (CPR) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Since its inception in 2009, the RIPASA score has been validated in various population in healthcare institutions around the world and reported significantly higher sensitivity and specificity when compared to Alvarado score. RIPASA score ranges from 3 to 16.5 with those having a score of less than 7 having a low probability of acute appendicitis and those with a score of 7.5 having a high probability of acute appendicitis. There has been a trend in the past decade on non-operative management of early-uncomplicated acute appendicitis (EuAA) with antibiotic therapy. This antibiotic non-operative management strategy (AMS) has been reported to work in children, thus avoiding unnecessary emergency operation. In adults presenting with early-uncomplicated acute appendicitis, this management pathway is still uncertain and most randomized controlled trials (RCT) and meta-analysis have not been able to show significant benefit of AMS over surgery management strategy (SMS), partly due to variable treatment efficacy, high recurrence rate within a year and a lack of agreement of whom would constitute a group of EuAA. The working hypothesis of this study is that RIPASA score as a Clinical Prediction Rule, can determine a group of patients with a diagnosis of EuAA, based on the range of scores (RIPASA score 7.5 - 11.5), who will benefit from an AMS rather than SMS, leading to improve patients' outcomes through a significant reduction in negative appendicectomy rate, shorter length of hospital stay, reduce post-operative complications and changing physician behavior in managing this group of patients to an AMS rather than SMS and ultimately financial cost savings. The primary specific aim of this study is to compare AMS with SMS in patients with EuAA in a prospective non-inferiority RCT. Secondary specific aims are to determine the range of RIPASA score that can define a group of patients with EuAA, step 3 validation of RIPASA score as a valid CPR and improve patient outcomes in terms of reducing unnecessary negative appendicectomy rate, hospital stay and complications arising from such surgery, and ultimately financial cost savings.
Acute appendicitis is the most common cause of abdominal pain requiring surgical intervention. The gold standard test for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis is the CT scan. Despite its effectiveness, the test involves exposure to a high dose of radiation. Using ultrasound to diagnose this condition has been described extensively in the medical literature, and this test has a very high specificity (over 95%), however sensitivity of the test is not as good and varies between 40% and 90%. Major limitations of the Ultrasound test include operator dependency as well as factors such as body habitus of the patient, presence of technical disturbances (artifacts) caused by gas in the large intestine and inadequate cooperation from the patient during the exam. All of these factors may affect the ability to detect sonographic signs of appendicitis. The investigators believe that it is possible to reduce the amount of artifacts caused by the presence of gas in the intestine by filling of the colon with liquid suspension that is routinely given in the investigators' hospital before performing an abdominal CT and performing an additional ultrasound scan to those patients in which the initial ultrasound examination (without any preparation) proved to be equivocal or not diagnostic. The target population for the study is any patient who arrives to the emergency room with complaints of right lower quadrant abdominal pain and it is decided by the referring physician in the ER to start diagnostic workup for suspected appendicitis by performing an ultrasound, if the ultrasound exam proves to be equivocal or not diagnostic and it is decided that the patient needs to continue investigation by performing a CT scan, the patient will receive contrast material orally for approximately 180 minutes and prior to the CT the investigators intend to repeat the ultrasound. The investigators hypothesize that the repeat ultrasound will allow a statistically significant improvement in the detection rate of the appendix.
To determine if non-operative management with antibiotics alone is a feasible treatment alternative for pediatric patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis with an appendicolith identified on imaging.
SUMMARY Rationale: A diagnostic laparoscopy is a frequently used method to confirm the diagnosis appendicitis. However until recently evidence-based laparoscopic criteria for determining appendicitis were not defined. If there is any doubt about the presence of appendicitis the appendix is usually removed. In a single centre prospective pilot study on 134 patients the investigators were able to define the Laparoscopic APPendicitis (LAPP) score. In the current study the investigators will validate the LAPP score in order to decrease the negative appendectomy rate by 50%. Eventually the score should lead to a decrease in morbidity. Objective: To decrease the negative appendectomy rate by 50%. Study design: A multicenter prospective validation study Study population: All patients, ≥18 years, operated with a diagnostic laparoscopy for the clinical suspicion appendicitis. Sample size calculation, performed by a statistician/ epidemiologist of the Trial Coordination Centre, showed the need to analyse 778 patients. Intervention (if applicable): Patients operated on appendicitis in 2008 and 2009 (n=843), were retrospectively analysed for negative appendectomies. This cohort will serve as the control group. In this control group no intervention was given, as the LAPP score was not yet defined. In the 778 prospective analysed patients, the LAPP score will be used during a diagnostic laparoscopy. With the LAPP score the investigators intend to halve the number of negative appendectomies. Main study parameters/endpoints: A decrease in the negative appendectomy rate from 9% to 5%. This decrease should not lead to an increase in missed appendicitis (occurring within 30 days), defined as requiring a surgical re-intervention or as an appendicitis or appendicular infiltrate on an ultrasound or CT-scan. Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness: The risk of implementation of the LAPP score is minimal. In theory, the use of the LAPP score might lead to an increase risk in missed appendicitis. This might lead to an increase in morbidity.
Appendicitis is one of the most common surgical problems in children, with 20-35% of patients having perforated by the time they present to a doctor. In these cases, the patient is often treated non-surgically with antibiotics. Once a patient has improved, it is not known whether it is better to perform an interval appendectomy (IA) or to continue a watchful waiting approach. The purpose of this trial is to determine if expectant nonoperative management (watchful waiting) is not inferior compared to IA management after successful conservative treatment of appendiceal mass at admission.
This study is a prospective, double-blinded, randomized comparison of 2 patient cohorts. One group of patients will receive a transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block. The second group will receive local anesthetic infiltration injected at the surgical site by the surgeon at the end of surgery for a laparoscopic appendectomy. The purpose of this study is to prospectively compare post-operative pain relief in pediatric patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy who have received either a transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block or local anesthetic infiltration by the surgeon for analgesia to compare the most appropriate delivery of effective analgesia. In an effort to improve postoperative analgesia while limiting opioid-related adverse effects, there continues to be an increased use of multimodal techniques in infants and children.
The purpose of the study is to evaluate the safety and tolerability of doripenem compared with meropenem in children hospitalized with complicated intra-abdominal infections.