Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

The Systematic Review of Diagnosis and Management of Acute Appendicitis in Adults Averina Sutoko; Venansius Alvent; Sean Gerry Santoso
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 24 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/s7tye075

Abstract

Introduction: Acute appendicitis remains one of the most common surgical emergencies worldwide, traditionally managed by appendectomy. In recent decades, the paradigm has shifted towards exploring non-operative management with antibiotics and refining diagnostic and surgical approaches. This systematic review synthesizes contemporary evidence on the diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in adults (Rushing et al., 2019). Methods: A systematic review was conducted by screening literature from multiple databases. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies involving adult patients (≥18 years) with suspected or confirmed acute appendicitis, evaluating diagnostic methods or management strategies, employing robust study designs (RCTs, cohort studies, systematic reviews, etc.), reporting clinically relevant outcomes, and representing unique publications. Data were extracted on study design, patient population, diagnostic and management approaches, outcomes, clinical context, and study quality from 80 included sources (Salminen et al., 2015; Coda Collaborative et al., 2020). Results: Computed Tomography (CT) is the most accurate diagnostic modality (sensitivity 92.7-97.2%, specificity 94.2-96.1%), significantly reducing negative appendectomy rates (Weston et al., 2005; van Randen et al., 2008). For uncomplicated appendicitis, antibiotic therapy is a viable but less effective alternative to surgery, with a one-year success rate of approximately 72.7% declining to 60.9% at five years (Salminen et al., 2018). The presence of an appendicolith is a critical predictor of antibiotic failure and higher complication rates (Coda Collaborative et al., 2020). Laparoscopic appendectomy is superior to open surgery, offering reduced infections and shorter hospital stays, especially in the elderly (Athanasiou et al., 2017; Southgate et al., 2012). Delayed appendectomy and outpatient management are safe and effective strategies (Patel et al., 2023; Jordi Elvira Lopez et al., 2022). Discussion: The evidence supports a tailored, patient-centered approach. Antibiotic therapy is a reasonable first-line option for uncomplicated appendicitis without an appendicolith, particularly when surgery is contraindicated or declined, offering cost savings and comparable long-term quality of life despite higher recurrence and readmission rates (Haijanen et al., 2019; Sippola et al., 2020). Appendectomy remains the definitive treatment, especially for those with an appendicolith or complicated disease. Advances in minimally invasive surgery and optimized perioperative care have improved outcomes. Conclusion: The management of acute appendicitis in adults has evolved from a purely surgical model to an individualized strategy incorporating accurate CT imaging, risk stratification (notably for appendicolith), and shared decision-making between antibiotics and surgery. Laparoscopic appendectomy is the preferred surgical approach. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes, optimization of outpatient antibiotic regimens, and protocols for low-resource settings.
How do Laparoscopic and Open Surgical Approaches Compare in Terms of Post-Operative Complications, Recovery Time, and Quality of Life For Colorectal Cancer Patients? : A Systematic Review Sean Gerry Santoso; Habel Ryan Annerico Sianipar; Freddy
The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research Vol. 27 No. 2 (2026): The International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research
Publisher : International Medical Journal Corp. Ltd

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.70070/vn0qh344

Abstract

Introduction: Surgical resection is the primary curative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC). While traditional open surgery has long been the standard, minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery has emerged as a widely used alternative. Its adoption is driven by potential short-term benefits, but a comprehensive understanding of its comparative impact on complications, recovery, and quality of life is essential for guiding clinical practice. This systematic review aims to synthesize and evaluate the evidence comparing laparoscopic and open surgical approaches for CRC. Methods: A systematic review was conducted adhering to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Five electronic databases, including PubMed and Google Scholar, were searched for studies published since 2015 comparing laparoscopic versus open resection for CRC. The primary outcomes of interest were postoperative complications, recovery time, and quality of life. After screening thousands of records, 39 eligible studies, including randomized controlled trials and large meta-analyses, were included in the final qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Results: The analysis revealed that laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly lower rates of overall postoperative complications in 23 of 26 reporting studies. Recovery was markedly faster with laparoscopy, with all 10 studies assessing hospital stay reporting shorter durations and a majority showing quicker return of bowel function. Long-term oncological outcomes, including survival and recurrence rates, were found to be equivalent between the two approaches in 12 of 16 studies. Data on quality of life were limited, with only one study reporting a short-term benefit for the laparoscopic group. Discussion: The consistent findings across multiple domains demonstrate a clear clinical advantage for the minimally invasive approach. The evidence strongly indicates that the short-term benefits of reduced patient morbidity and accelerated recovery do not compromise long-term oncological control, affirming the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic technique. Conclusion: Laparoscopic surgery provides a superior short-term recovery profile and fewer complications than open surgery while offering equivalent long-term oncological safety. It should be considered the standard of care for most patients with colorectal cancer. Future research should prioritize investigating long-term, patient-reported quality of life to provide a more holistic comparison.