Laparoscopic Drainage Versus Interventional Radiology In Management Of Appendicular Abscess :
NCT ID: NCT05419440
Last Updated: 2022-06-15
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
172 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2020-01-10
2022-02-02
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Laparoscopic Clipping Versus Extracorporeal Ligation in Complicated Appendicitis Upper Egypt Overview
NCT05637554
Laparoscopic Management of Periappendicular Abscess
NCT01283815
Efficacy of LigaSure Versus Harmonic Scalpel US in Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Management of Acute Appendicitis
NCT07091110
Irrigation Versus Suction in Complicated Acute Appendicitis
NCT02688244
Results of Laparoscopic Appendectomy With Application of Clips Versus Ligature for Stump Closure
NCT07115303
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Involved patients were simply randomized at a 1:1 ratio to "laparoscopic Group (LG)" or "Interventional Radiology Group (IG)" via the drawing of sealed envelopes containing computer-generated random numbers prepared by a third party before the start of the procedure.
The sample size was calculated by using open Epi program depending on the following data ; confidence interval 95%, power of the test 80%, ratio of unexposed/exposed 1, percent of patients with complications after management of appendicular abscess by interventional radiology 15 %, and those managed by laparoscopy 2 % , odds ratio 8.7 , and risk ratio 7.5, So the calculated sample size equal 172 patients divided into two equal group.
Primary and secondary outcomes were fecal fistula , recurrent collection and quality of life in each group after the procedures during the 3-months follow-up period, respectively.
Diagnosis After full history taking ( throbbing pain at right iliac fossa several days ago ) and complete physical examination ( fluctuant high grade fever especially at evening , severe pain \& tenderness at right iliac fossa , toxic manifestations), appendicular abscess was clinically suspected and then confirmed by laboratory investigations (complete blood picture (WBC count more than 16000), liver and kidney functions, coagulation profile), radiological imaging (abdominal US or CT abdomen with oral and I.V contrast confirms appendicular abscess) , in laparoscopic group we exclude patients with other pathology after laparoscopic exploration However, the radiology finding was consistent with appendicular abscess.
Intervention For laparoscopic group ( included 86 patients ) , the patients were subjected to the following steps after the diagnosis has been confirmed as appendicular abscess. The patients were taken rapidly to operative theater , general anesthesia was given , patients were put in supine position , sterilization of the abdomen from subcostal margin to pubic bone was done , ports insertion was done , one 10 mm port supra-umbilical , one 5mm port at left iliac fossa , one 5mm port at right iliac fossa , insertion of the 10 mm port was done first by open method or versus needle , insufflation of co2 up to 14 mm.hg was done after 10 mm port insertion , exploration of the abdomen first by 10 mm telescope , to exclude other pathology and confirm the diagnosis ( we exclude patients with other pathology after laparoscopic exploration ) , then insertion of other two ports under vision , removal of any adhesions first , irrigation \& suction whole the abdomen first with warm saline 0.9% , access to caecum by tilting the table head down and to left to pull all intestine away from caecum , access to caecum and remove any adhesions with surrounding by sharp \& blunt dissection , then access to appendicular abscess by sharp and blunt dissection , drain all the pus by suction , irrigation with warm saline , after complete separation of the appendix from surrounding \& complete drainage of pus \& removal of all necrotic tissue , removal of the remnant appendix , in cases with healthy base of appendix ,we closed the stump with endo-loop , in case with unhealthy base , we closed the stump by suturing by ethibond 2/0 in two layers in case with little edema \& inflammation of caecum ( sutures not cut through ) , in cases with marked edema and inflammation of caecum , we close the site of base by omental patch fixed by taking full thickness sutures in wall of caecum and pass through omental patch , we examine any leak by pressing on caecum and observe any fecal matter comes \& air leak test , in all cases we made irrigation \& suction with 2000cc warm saline and put large drain at pelvis to be removed later according to its discharge , deflation of the abdomen and close the port sites. Then patients were kept in hospital under observation till drain removal.
For interventional radiology group ( included 86 patients ) , patients were subjected for drain insertion or pig catheter insertion at right iliac fossa under a complete sterilized filed by radiologist , then daily wash from drain or pig catheter by gentamycin \& metronidazole till drain discharge comes clear fluid , then drain removed according the amount of discharge and doing us confirm there is no residual.
Statistical analysis Analysis of data was performed using SPSS (Statistical Package of Social Services) version 22. Quantitative variables were described as mean (±SD, standard deviation) and median (range) according to Shapiro test of normality. Qualitative variables were described as a number and a percent. Chi-square test was used to compare qualitative variables between the 2 groups. Fisher exact test was used when one expected cell or more are less than 5. Unpaired t-test was used to compare quantitative variables, in parametric data (SD \< 30% of the mean). Mann Whitney test was used instead of unpaired t-test in non-parametric data (SD \> 30% of the mean). The results were considered statistically significant when the significant probability was less than 0.05 (P \< 0.05). P-value \< 0.001 was considered highly statistically significant (HS), and P-value ≥ 0.05 was considered statistically insignificant (NS).
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
NONE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
laparoscopic drainage of appendicular abscess
laparoscopic drainage of appendicular abscess laparoscopy drainage of pus ,excision of appendix and putting a drain
laparoscopic drainage of appendicular abscess
access to caecum and remove any adhesions with surrounding by sharp \& blunt dissection , then access to appendicular abscess by sharp and blunt dissection after complete separation of the appendix from surrounding \& complete drainage of pus \& removal of all necrotic tissue , removal of the remnant appendix , in cases with healthy base of appendix ,we closed the stump with endo-loop , in case with unhealthy base , we closed the stump by suturing by ethibond 2/0 in two layers in case with little edema \& inflammation of caecum ( sutures not cut through ) , in cases with marked edema and inflammation of caecum , we close the site of base by omental patch fixed by taking full thickness sutures in wall of caecum and pass through omental patch , we examine any leak by pressing on caecum and observe any fecal matter comes \& air leak test , in all cases we put large drain at pelvis
interventional radiology for management of appendicular abscess
insertion of a drain or pig tail under sonar or ct guided
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
laparoscopic drainage of appendicular abscess
access to caecum and remove any adhesions with surrounding by sharp \& blunt dissection , then access to appendicular abscess by sharp and blunt dissection after complete separation of the appendix from surrounding \& complete drainage of pus \& removal of all necrotic tissue , removal of the remnant appendix , in cases with healthy base of appendix ,we closed the stump with endo-loop , in case with unhealthy base , we closed the stump by suturing by ethibond 2/0 in two layers in case with little edema \& inflammation of caecum ( sutures not cut through ) , in cases with marked edema and inflammation of caecum , we close the site of base by omental patch fixed by taking full thickness sutures in wall of caecum and pass through omental patch , we examine any leak by pressing on caecum and observe any fecal matter comes \& air leak test , in all cases we put large drain at pelvis
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* with early sepsis.
* no septic shock.
* ASA I \& II.
* no other pathology .
* candidate for laparoscopy .
Exclusion Criteria
* septic shock.
* appendicular mass.
\*, ASA III .
* previous abdominal operations.
* immune compromised patients .
* patients with immune suppressive therapy.
* pregnant patients not
* candidate for laparoscopy
16 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Zagazig University
OTHER_GOV
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Said Mohamed Said Abdou Negm
lecturer of general surgery
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Said Mohamed Negm, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Zagazig University Hospitals
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Zagazig University Hospitals
Zagazig, Sharquia, Egypt
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
General Surgery Departement
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.