Laparoscopic appendectomy, stump closure and endoloops: A meta-analysis

Table 1 Alvarado and appendicitis inflammatory response score

	Alvarado score	AIR score
Likely appendicitis	7-10	9-12
Probably appendicitis	5-6	5-8
Unlikely appendicitis	0-4	0-4

AIR: Appendicitis inflammatory response.

Table 2 Groups and categories of severity of Bologna patients

	EL (n = 821)	ES (n = 175)	P values
Age (yr)	35 (14-94) ± 18	36 (14-91) ± 17	0.50
Male:Female	425:396	111:64	< 0.05
BMI	23.85 (14-44) ± 4.4	24 (17-42) ± 4.5	0.68
CV comorbidities	7.6%	24%	< 0.05
Other comorbidities	13.9%	31.4%	< 0.05
Edematous AA	251	5	0.18
Phlegmonous AA	410	59	0.05
Gangrenous AA	160	111	0.05

EL: Endoloop; ES: Endostapler; BMI: Body mass index; CV: Cardiovascular; AA: Acute appendicitis.

Table 3 Post-operative complications in Bologna endoloop group

	EL (n = 821)
Wound infections	2 (0.3%)
Abdominal abscesses	12 (1.5%)
Post-op complications IIIa/IIIb Clavien-Dindo	17 (2%)
Total post-op complications	35 (4.3%)

EL: Endoloop.

Table 4 Post-operative complications in Bologna 996 laparoscopic appendectomy patients

Clavien-Dindo	Number of patients (% of total cohort)
I	3 (0.3)
II	24 (2.4)
IIIa	7 (0.7)
IIIb	16 (1.6)
IVa	0 (0)
IVb	0 (0)
V	0 (0)
Total	50 (5)

Table 5 Complete data to meta-analyse

Ref.	Number of patients (% of EL)	Wound infection	Abdominal abscesses	Post-op complications
Bologna experience	821 (78.5)	2 (0.3%)	12 (1.5%)	26 (3.2%)
Ortega et al[9], 1995	89	4 (4.5%)	4 (4.5%)	14 (15.7%)
Sadat-Safavi et al[19], 2016	38 (50)	1 (2.6%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Beldi et al[26], 2006	2565 (39.5)	12 (0.5%)	41 (1.6%)	37 (1.4%)
Sahm et al[29], 2011	1670 (97.3)	34 (2%)	27 (1.6%)	48 (2.9%)
Van Rossem et al[30], 2017	1050 (76.7)	16 (1.5%)	48 (4.5%)	20 (1.9%)
Swank et al[31], 2014	465 (44.9)	7 (1.5%)	20 (4.3%)	14 (3.1%)
Klima et al[47], 1998	100	3 (3%)	4 (4%)	4 (4%)

EL: Endoloop.

Table 6 Wound infection: Data standard deviation in the meta-analysis

Ref.	Standard deviation	Proportion (%)	95%CI
Our experience	821	0.244	0.0295-0.877
Van Rossem et al[30], 2017	1050	1.524	0.873-2.463
Sadat-Safavi et al[19], 2016	38	2.632	0.0666-13.810
Swank et al[31], 2014	465	1.505	0.607-3.077
Sahm et al[29], 2011	1670	2.036	1.414-2.833
Beldi et al[26], 2006	2565	0.468	0.242-0.816
Klima et al[47], 1998	100	3.000	0.623-8.518
Ortega et al[9], 1995	89	4.494	1.238-11.109
Total (fixed effects)	6798	1.064	0.834-1.337
Total (random effects)	6798	1.496	0.759-2.475

CI: Confidence interval.

Table 7 Abdominal abscess: Data standard deviation in the meta-analysis

Ref.	Standard deviation	Proportion (%)	95%CI
Our experience	821	1.462	0.757-2.539
Van Rossem et al[30], 2017	1050	4.571	3.390-6.016
Sadat-Safavi et al[19], 2016	38	0.000	0.000-9.251
Swank et al[31], 2014	465	4.301	2.647-6.565
Sahm et al[29], 2011	1670	1.617	1.068-2.344
Beldi et al[26], 2006	2565	1.598	1.149-2.162
Klima et al[47], 1998	100	4.000	1.100-9.926
Ortega et al[9], 1995	89	4.494	1.238-11.109
Total (fixed effects)	6798	2.206	1.870-2.583
Total (random effects)	6798	2.699	1.697-3.924

CI: Confidence interval.

Table 8 Post-operative complications: Data standard deviation in the meta-analysis

Ref.	Standard deviation	Proportion (%)	95%CI
Our experience	821	3.167	2.079-4.606
Van Rossem et al[30], 2017	1050	1.905	1.167-2.926
Sadat-Safavi et al[19], 2016	38	0.000	0.000-9.251
Swank et al[31], 2014	465	3.011	1.656-5.000
Sahm et al[29], 2011	1670	2.874	2.127-3.793
Beldi et al[26], 2006	2565	1.442	1.018-1.983
Klima et al[47], 1998	100	4.000	1.100-9.926
Ortega et al[9], 1995	89	15.730	8.875-24.982
Total (fixed effects)	6798	2.304	1.961-2.689
Total (random effects)	6798	3.089	1.979-4.437

CI: Confidence interval.