Our evidence suggests that MWT is significantly better for wound healing and more cost-effective than CWT. An updated meta-analysis or large scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) is required to confirm this effect.

Background: The efficacy of antibiotics in appendicitis remains controversial, and physicians are not confident in prescribing antibiotics as the first line treatment. This network meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of individual antibiotics in uncomplicated appendicitis. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from MEDLINE and SCOPUS databases since inception to July 2017. Studies. Network meta-analysis was applied to estimate treatment effects and safety. Probability of being the best treatment was estimated using surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results: Among 9 RCTs meeting our inclusion criteria. A network meta-analysis indicated that those receiving antibiotics had about 12e32% lower chance of treatment success and lower risk of complication about 23e86%, especially Beta-lactamase than appendectomy. The overall appendicitis recurrence rate in the antibiotic group was about 18.2%. The SUCRA indicated that appendectomy was ranked first for treatment success and least complications, followed by Beta-lactamase. Conclusions: Appendectomy is still the most effective treatment in uncomplicated appendicitis but it carries complications. Beta-lactamase, might be an alternative treatment if there are any contraindications for operation.

BACKGROUND Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been popular for decades because of shorter hospitalization and return to routine activity. However, complications (e.g., surgical site infection [SSI] and intra-abdominal abscess [IAA]) relative to open appendectomy (OA) are still debated. We therefore conducted an umbrella review to systematically appraise meta-analyses (MAs) comparing SSI and IAA between LA and OA. METHODS Meta-analyses that included only randomized controlled trials were identified from MEDLINE and Scopus databases from inception until July 2018. Their findings were described, the number of overlapping studies was assessed using corrected covered area, and excess significant tests were also assessed. Finally, effect sizes of SSI and IAA were repooled. RESULTS Ten MAs were eligible; SSI was reported in all MAs and IAA in 8 MAs. Surgical site infection rate was 48% to 70% lower in LA than OA, but conversely, IAA rate was 1.34 to 2.20 higher in LA than OA. Overlapping included studies for SSI and IAA were 61% and 54%, respectively, indicating that less information was added across MAs. However, there was no evidence of bias from excess significant tests when pooling SSI or IAA estimates. The risk ratios (95% confidence interval) comparing LA versus OA were repooled in adults and children yielding risk ratios of 0.56 (0.47–0.67) and 0.40 (0.25–0.65) for SSI, and 1.20 (0.88–1.63) and 1.05 (0.61–1.80) for IAA. CONCLUSION Evidence from this umbrella review indicates that LA carries a significantly lower risk of SSI but likely a higher risk of IAA than OA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review/meta-analysis, level I.