CONTEXT:

Nonoperative treatment (NOT) with antibiotics alone of acute uncomplicated appendicitis (AUA) in children has been proposed as an alternative to appendectomy.

OBJECTIVE:

To determine safety and efficacy of NOT based on current literature.

DATA SOURCES:

Three electronic databases.

STUDY SELECTION:

All articles reporting NOT for AUA in children.

DATA EXTRACTION:

Two reviewers independently verified study inclusion and extracted data.

RESULTS:

Ten articles reporting 413 children receiving NOT were included. Six, including 1 randomized controlled trial, compared NOT with appendectomy. The remaining 4 reported outcomes of children receiving NOT without a comparison group. NOT was effective as the initial treatment in 97% of children (95% confidence interval [CI] 96% to 99%). Initial length of hospital stay was shorter in children treated with appendectomy compared with NOT (mean difference 0.5 days [95% CI 0.2 to 0.8]; P = .002). At final reported follow-up (range 8 weeks to 4 years), NOT remained effective (no appendectomy performed) in 82% of children (95% CI 77% to 87%). Recurrent appendicitis occurred in 14% (95% CI 7% to 21%). Complications and total length of hospital stay during follow-up were similar for NOT and appendectomy. No serious adverse events related to NOT were reported.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of prospective randomized studies limits definitive conclusions to influence clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS:

Current data suggest that NOT is safe. It appears effective as initial treatment in 97% of children with AUA, and the rate of recurrent appendicitis is 14%. Longer-term clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of NOT compared with appendicectomy require further evaluation, preferably in large randomized trials, to reliably inform decision-making.

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common general surgical emergencies worldwide, with an estimated lifetime risk between 7% and 8%.1 The condition is of particular relevance to children because the peak in the incidence of appendicitis is in the second decade of life.1,2 Overall, acute appendicitis is diagnosed in 1% to 8% of children presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain.3,5 The financial burden of treating appendicitis is huge.

The mainstay of treatment of acute appendicitis has been surgical ever since Fitz’s report over 130 years ago6 before the discovery of antibiotics. Consequently tens of thousands of appendectomies are performed in children worldwide every year. However, in recent years, the dogma that surgery is required has been challenged, and there is growing literature to suggest that antibiotics without surgery may be an effective treatment of acute appendicitis in adults7,9 and more recently in children.10,12 This nonoperative treatment (NOT) of acute appendicitis in children remains controversial and unproven at present due to a lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).13 

NOT may be extremely appealing to some children and their families and may have benefits over appendectomy. Families of children with appendicitis frequently ask whether surgery is necessary or whether alternatives are available. Surgery requires general anesthesia, which, although a relatively safe intervention, clearly carries some risks. Appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis is generally considered a low-risk procedure, but complications after surgery occur in up to 7% of children.14,15 These risks of appendectomy should be balanced against the risk of recurrent appendicitis in a child who receives NOT. The aim of this review is to determine the efficacy and safety of NOT for acute uncomplicated appendicitis (AUA) in children in the reported literature.

This study was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews16 and was registered with the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (registration CRD42015026994) on October 12, 2015.

We performed a systematic review of the literature via an electronic search in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase in December 2015 to find relevant articles. We used the following search terms: “nonoperative,” “non-operative,” “conservative,” “appendicitis,” “child,” “children.” Full details of the search strategy for Medline are available in the Supplemental Information. The search was limited to articles published in English. Study selection was performed independently by 2 researchers with any disagreements resolved by a third. Studies that were unpublished or published in abstract form only were excluded at screening stage. The online systematic review management program Covidence (www.covidence.org) was used to coordinate the screening and data collection process. The reference lists of included articles were also scrutinized for additional articles meeting selection criteria that may have been missed in our initial search.

Studies were selected according to the following predefined criteria:

  1. types of studies: any study design reporting NOT of AUA in children;

  2. types of participants: children (<18 years of age); and

  3. exclusion criteria: studies that reported NOT as treatment of complicated appendicitis (such as perforated appendicitis, ruptured appendicitis, appendicitis with an abscess, or appendix mass), studies that included a mixed population of adults and children, or studies that reported NOT as treatment of acute appendicitis only in children with malignancy.

We therefore included all relevant articles that reported any NOT regimen for AUA in children with or without a comparative group of children undergoing surgical treatment.

RCTs

We used the Jadad Scale17 to assess the quality of the 1 RCT included in this review. This scale assesses risk of bias in RCTs and assigns a final score of 0 (highest risk of bias) to 5 (lowest).

Nonrandomized Studies

We used the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) criteria to assess the quality of all eligible non-RCTs.18 MINORS is a validated tool designed to assess the methodological quality of non-RCTs, whether comparative or noncomparative. It comprises 12 items, the first 8 being specifically for noncomparative studies, with all 12 items being relevant to comparative studies. The highest attainable score is 16 for noncomparative studies and 24 for comparative studies, with higher scores indicative of greater methodological quality.

Data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers and differences resolved by consensus if necessary. The primary outcome was the efficacy of NOT, defined as discharge from hospital without appendectomy during the initial hospital episode. Secondary outcomes were concern over the safety or adverse effects of NOT, complications (no further definition was applied other than as defined in the source article, but this outcome did not include recurrent appendicitis), long-term efficacy of NOT (defined as remaining without appendectomy at final reported follow-up), recurrent appendicitis (confirmed by histology or treated with a second course of NOT), and length of hospital stay (both during the initial admission and total hospital stay required during follow-up).

We used a 1-sided meta-analysis to estimate the overall efficacy of NOT for acute appendicitis across all studies using a random effects model in Meta-Analyst (Tufts University, Medford, MA). Two-sided meta-analysis was used to compare outcomes between NOT and appendectomy in comparative studies by using random-effects models in Review Manager (v5.3, Cochrane Collaboration). Estimates of weighted mean difference for continuous variables (inverse variance method) and risk difference for categorical variables (Mantel-Haenszel method) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated. Proportions with adjusted 95% CIs were generated for 1-sided meta-analyses.

Figure 1 summarizes the results of the search and selection of articles. Eleven studies met the selection criteria. One of these19 was excluded because it reported interim results of a study that were subsequently reported in greater detail, and the latter report was included.10 Therefore, 10 studies were included in the final quantitative analysis (Table 1).

FIGURE 1

Article selection flowchart.

FIGURE 1

Article selection flowchart.

TABLE 1

Characteristics of Included Studies

StudyCountryStudy IntervalPublication YearStudy DesignPatients nFollow-up for NOT Cases, moJadad ScoreMINORS Score
NOTSurgery
Abes20  Turkey 2003–2006 2007 Retrospective, noncomparative 16 — 12 in all — 7/16 
Armstrong12  Canada 2012–2013 2014 Retrospective, comparative 12 12 Mean 6.5 — 16/24 
Gorter21  Netherlands 2012–2014 2015 Prospective, noncomparative 25 — 2 in all — 12/16 
Hartwich22  United States 2012–2014 2015 Prospective, comparative 24 50 Mean 14 — 20/24 
Kaneko23  Japan 1999–2001 2015 Prospective, noncomparative 22 — Mean 36, range 24–45 — 9/16 
Koike24  Japan 2004–2010 2014 Retrospective, comparative 130 114 Mean 30.6, minimum 18 — 13/24 
Minneci10  United States 2012–2013 2015 Prospective, comparative 37 65 Median 21 — 22/24 
Steiner25  Israel 2013–2014 2015 Prospective, noncomparative 45 — Range 6–14 — 10/16 
Svensson26  Sweden 2012–2013 2015 RCT 24 26 12 in all 3/5 — 
Tanaka27  Japan 2007–2013 2015 Prospective, comparative 78 86 Mean 51 — 16/24 
StudyCountryStudy IntervalPublication YearStudy DesignPatients nFollow-up for NOT Cases, moJadad ScoreMINORS Score
NOTSurgery
Abes20  Turkey 2003–2006 2007 Retrospective, noncomparative 16 — 12 in all — 7/16 
Armstrong12  Canada 2012–2013 2014 Retrospective, comparative 12 12 Mean 6.5 — 16/24 
Gorter21  Netherlands 2012–2014 2015 Prospective, noncomparative 25 — 2 in all — 12/16 
Hartwich22  United States 2012–2014 2015 Prospective, comparative 24 50 Mean 14 — 20/24 
Kaneko23  Japan 1999–2001 2015 Prospective, noncomparative 22 — Mean 36, range 24–45 — 9/16 
Koike24  Japan 2004–2010 2014 Retrospective, comparative 130 114 Mean 30.6, minimum 18 — 13/24 
Minneci10  United States 2012–2013 2015 Prospective, comparative 37 65 Median 21 — 22/24 
Steiner25  Israel 2013–2014 2015 Prospective, noncomparative 45 — Range 6–14 — 10/16 
Svensson26  Sweden 2012–2013 2015 RCT 24 26 12 in all 3/5 — 
Tanaka27  Japan 2007–2013 2015 Prospective, comparative 78 86 Mean 51 — 16/24 

Among the 10 studies included, 7 were prospective and 3 were retrospective. Six studies compared children treated with either NOT or appendectomy, and the remaining 4 reported outcomes of children receiving NOT without a comparison group. Outcomes of 766 children, of whom 413 were initially treated with NOT, were included. There was just 1 RCT,11 which was a pilot RCT designed to inform a future larger efficacy study. As such it was not powered to provide definitive evidence of the efficacy of NOT versus appendectomy.

Study characteristics varied in terms of (1) the techniques used to diagnose AUA, (2) antibiotic regimen used as NOT (Table 2), and (3) the criteria used to select children for each treatment group. All studies used ultrasound in addition to clinical and laboratory parameters to confirm a diagnosis of AUA in most, if not all, children, with many also using either computed tomography or MRI. In terms of allocation to NOT, the RCT by Svensson et al11 was the only study to randomly allocate children to treatment group. Of the other studies, 4 used NOT routinely in all patients meeting inclusion criteria,12,20,23,25 whereas the remaining 5 studies all discussed both NOT and appendectomy and allowed parents to make a choice either as part of a prospective evaluation of NOT10,21,22,27 or as part of routine practice.24 

TABLE 2

Antibiotic Protocol for Each Study

StudyIntravenous Antibiotic RegimenOral Antibiotic Regimen
AntibioticDurationAntibioticDuration
Abes20  Sulbactam and ornidasole 48-h minimum Not specified  
Armstrong12  Ciprofloxacin and metronidazole or ampicillin, gentamicin, and metronidazole 24-h minimum Co-amoxiclav To complete 7-d total course 
Gorter21  Co-amoxiclav and gentamicin 48-h minimum Co-amoxiclav 5 d 
Hartwich22  Piperacillin-tazobactam 2 doses Co-amoxiclav 7 d 
Kaneko23  Flomoxef Until abdominal tenderness resolved Not specified  
Koike24  Cefoperazone 48-h minimum Cefcapene pivoxil 3 d 
Minneci10  Piperacillin-tazobactam or ciprofloxacin and metronidazole 24-h minimum Co-amoxiclav or ciprofloxacin and metronidaxole To complete 10-d total course 
Steiner25  Ceftriaxone and metronidazole 72–120 h Co-amoxiclav 5 d 
Svensson11  Meropenem and metronidazole 48-h minimum Ciprofloxacin and metronidazole 8 d 
Tanaka27  First line: cefmetazole; second line: sulbactam/ampicillin and ceftazidime; third line: meropenem or imipenem/cilastatin and gentamicin Until CRP <.5 mg/dL Not specified  
StudyIntravenous Antibiotic RegimenOral Antibiotic Regimen
AntibioticDurationAntibioticDuration
Abes20  Sulbactam and ornidasole 48-h minimum Not specified  
Armstrong12  Ciprofloxacin and metronidazole or ampicillin, gentamicin, and metronidazole 24-h minimum Co-amoxiclav To complete 7-d total course 
Gorter21  Co-amoxiclav and gentamicin 48-h minimum Co-amoxiclav 5 d 
Hartwich22  Piperacillin-tazobactam 2 doses Co-amoxiclav 7 d 
Kaneko23  Flomoxef Until abdominal tenderness resolved Not specified  
Koike24  Cefoperazone 48-h minimum Cefcapene pivoxil 3 d 
Minneci10  Piperacillin-tazobactam or ciprofloxacin and metronidazole 24-h minimum Co-amoxiclav or ciprofloxacin and metronidaxole To complete 10-d total course 
Steiner25  Ceftriaxone and metronidazole 72–120 h Co-amoxiclav 5 d 
Svensson11  Meropenem and metronidazole 48-h minimum Ciprofloxacin and metronidazole 8 d 
Tanaka27  First line: cefmetazole; second line: sulbactam/ampicillin and ceftazidime; third line: meropenem or imipenem/cilastatin and gentamicin Until CRP <.5 mg/dL Not specified  

CRP, C-reactive protein.

The methodological quality of the studies is summarized in Table 1. The single RCT had a Jadad score of 3 of 5 with 2 points deducted for a lack of blinding. The median MINORS score for comparative studies was 16 of 24 (range 13–22) and for noncomparative studies 10 of 16 (7–12).

Four hundred and thirteen children were either randomized to or selected for NOT. No study reported any adverse events related to NOT or concern over the safety of NOT in children who underwent this course of treatment. Overall, NOT was successful as initial treatment in 97% (95% CI 95.5% to 98.7%) of children during the initial hospital episode (Fig 2). Heterogeneity was low for this outcome measure (I2 = 0%, P = .7). NOT was unsuccessful as initial treatment in 17 of 413 children, all of whom underwent appendectomy during their initial hospital admission.

FIGURE 2

Proportion of children with AUA who were successfully treated with NOT during their initial hospital admission.

FIGURE 2

Proportion of children with AUA who were successfully treated with NOT during their initial hospital admission.

Duration of follow-up varied between included studies (Table 1). Sixty-eight children of the 396 who had initial successful NOT were diagnosed with recurrent appendicitis during the follow-up period. This includes 19 children from 2 studies that were offered a second course of NOT for recurrence.24,27 The remaining 49 of these 68 children underwent appendectomy for recurrent acute appendicitis, and all had histologically confirmed recurrence. The adjusted incidence of recurrent appendicitis is 14% (95% CI 7% to 21%; Fig 3); however, there was marked heterogeneity between these studies (I2 = 80%, P < .001).

FIGURE 3

Estimate of incidence of recurrent appendicitis during follow-up period in children with AUA that was initially successfully treated with NOT.

FIGURE 3

Estimate of incidence of recurrent appendicitis during follow-up period in children with AUA that was initially successfully treated with NOT.

During the reported follow-up period, an additional 11 who had successful initial NOT underwent appendectomy for a variety of reasons including recurrent acute appendicitis, ongoing abdominal pain, and parental choice. The long-term efficacy of NOT, defined as those children who have not had appendectomy at final reported follow-up, was 82% (95% CI 77% to 87%; Fig 4), with low heterogeneity between these studies (I2 = 34%, P = .14).

FIGURE 4

Estimate of long-term efficacy of NOT defined as no appendectomy (any cause) at last reported follow-up.

FIGURE 4

Estimate of long-term efficacy of NOT defined as no appendectomy (any cause) at last reported follow-up.

Six of the 10 included studies compared NOT with appendectomy. These studies report outcomes in 658 children of whom 305 (46%) received NOT and 353 (54%) primary appendectomy. Duration of initial hospital stay was reported in 4 studies (340 children)10,12,27 and was shorter by a mean of 0.5 days (95% CI 0.2 to 0.8) in children undergoing appendectomy than those treated with NOT (Fig 5). Total length of hospital stay at final reported follow-up, including for readmissions, was reported in just 2 studies.12,24 This outcome includes hospital admission for any complication related to disease or primary treatment including, for example, recurrence of appendicitis in children who had initially had NOT. Mean duration of follow-up in these 2 studies was 5.3 months12 and 54 months.24 Total duration of hospital stay including during follow-up was similar between children treated initially with NOT and appendectomy (weighted mean difference 1.1 days, 95% CI –1.2 to 3.5; P = .34; Fig 6) although heterogeneity between these 2 studies was high (I2 = 93%, P = .0002). Total complications were reported in 5 of the 6 comparative studies (Table 3 and Fig 7). Risk of complications was similar between children treated with either NOT or appendectomy (risk difference 2%, 95% CI 0% to 5%; P = .1) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = .47).

FIGURE 5

Forest plot comparing initial length of stay between NOT and appendectomy.

FIGURE 5

Forest plot comparing initial length of stay between NOT and appendectomy.

FIGURE 6

Forest plot comparing total length of stay (including readmissions) between NOT and appendectomy.

FIGURE 6

Forest plot comparing total length of stay (including readmissions) between NOT and appendectomy.

TABLE 3

Complications as Reported in Source Articles

NOT (n = 175)Appendectomy (n = 239)
Surgical site infection (1)a Surgical site infection (2) 
 Prolonged ileus (2) 
 Readmission (1) 
Reoperation (1) 
Other (not further specified, 3) 
NOT (n = 175)Appendectomy (n = 239)
Surgical site infection (1)a Surgical site infection (2) 
 Prolonged ileus (2) 
 Readmission (1) 
Reoperation (1) 
Other (not further specified, 3) 

Only data from articles reporting complications are included.

a

In a child who failed initial NOT and underwent appendectomy.

FIGURE 7

Forest plot comparing complications between NOT and appendectomy.

FIGURE 7

Forest plot comparing complications between NOT and appendectomy.

We have systematically reviewed the existing literature reporting NOT of AUA in children and included 10 studies reporting 413 children treated with NOT. Given the frequency of acute appendicitis in the pediatric population, this suggests that NOT as a treatment modality remains in its infancy and is yet to become “mainstream.” The included studies were all published in the past 10 years and are mainly cohort studies with or without a comparative group of children who were treated with appendectomy. Of note none originated from the United Kingdom. The lack of large high-quality RCTs and prospective evaluations confirms that NOT is a treatment yet to be formally evaluated in children.

Importantly, we have not identified any evidence to suggest that NOT is an unsafe treatment of children with AUA. No study reported any safety concern related to the use of NOT, and no study reported any specific adverse events related to NOT. No studies reported perforated appendicitis after NOT. Complications after appendectomy are rare, as are complications after NOT. To compare the risk of these rare events, it was decided a priori to use risk difference as an outcome measure, because this allows studies with no events in either arm to meaningfully contribute to the meta-analysis.26 The data also suggest that in children with AUA, NOT is highly effective; 97% of children were successfully discharged from their initial hospital admission after NOT. Together, these 2 facts support the further prospective evaluation of NOT compared with appendectomy in this population of children.

As may be anticipated, the long-term efficacy of NOT (as we have defined it) is lower than this initial 97%. During the follow-up reported, it is 82%. Although we have not formally analyzed it, we noted a tendency for long-term efficacy to be lower in studies with longer duration of follow-up. Although some surgeons may feel that this demonstrates inferiority of NOT to appendectomy, a long-term efficacy of 82% still equates to 4 of every 5 children not having had surgery (and general anesthesia).

When compared with the adult literature, the data synthesized here suggest that antibiotic treatment of acute appendicitis is at least as effective in children as in adults. The most recent systematic review of adult RCTs found that antibiotics were initially effective in 84%, and of these 79% had no further problem during 1 year of follow-up.28 It is possible that the higher efficacy we have identified in the pediatric population is in part due to study design and in particular to differing selection criteria between pediatric observational studies and adult RCTs. In a recent adult observational study, success rate of NOT was 88% at 7 days and 83% at 1 year.29 

Although it is tempting to draw conclusions regarding comparative efficacy from our comparative analysis of NOT and appendectomy, we consider that to do so would be misleading because of the nature of the underlying studies. We believe the best use of these data is to act as justification for the future investigation of NOT and to guide sample size calculations in such studies where appropriate. The lack of major differences in outcomes between NOT and appendectomy and apparent safety of NOT is consistent with there being equipoise between these treatment modalities, this being a prerequisite for any RCT. The only statistically significant difference in our comparative analysis was a shorter duration of initial hospital stay in children undergoing appendectomy compared with those treated with NOT. A similar finding is reported in adult RCTs.28 We note that the majority of these early-phase studies evaluating NOT prescribed a minimum duration of antibiotics and/or hospital stay before initial hospital discharge that may have influenced this outcome. This and other limitations (discussed next) of study design, heterogeneity between studies, and methodology prevent more robust conclusions.

There are limitations of this study and the source data that should be appreciated when considering how to apply the data synthesized here to clinical practice and research. These include the inclusion of data from retrospective studies, those from noncomparative studies, and those from nonrandomized studies. All these features increase the possibility that bias, from a number of possible sources, has influenced our results. We therefore caution against the use of these data as definitive comparative evidence and await future randomized studies. We also acknowledge differences in selection criteria, diagnostic techniques, and antibiotic regimes between studies in children treated with NOT. Accordingly, we have used a random effects model for all meta-analyses. Despite these differences between studies there was minimal heterogeneity between the outcomes of short- and long-term efficacy of NOT (Figs 2 and 4). However, for the outcome of recurrent appendicitis, there was significant heterogeneity between studies related, we suspect in part, to duration of follow-up (Fig 3). Future studies should ensure adequate duration and completeness of follow-up for the detection of recurrence. Although the time span during which recurrent appendicitis may occur is clearly much longer in children than in adults, a minimum of 1 year for all participants would seem appropriate and feasible in a research context.

A number of outcomes that are notably missing in the existing literature are important when considering the role of NOT and appendectomy in the treatment of acute appendicitis in children. These include cost, cost-effectiveness, and patient and family quality of life. Future prospective research should include a comparison of these outcomes to enable a wider comparison not just at the level of the individual patient but for the health care system and society as a whole.

Although we have used initial discharge from hospital as the primary outcome for our study, we acknowledge that the overall decision of which treatment strategy to use may be based on more than this alone. It is quite likely that treatment decisions will be based on a combination of several outcomes including initial efficacy of treatment, incidence of complications, rate of recurrent appendicitis, and possibly incidence of negative appendectomy. Future studies should ensure adequate reporting of all these outcomes. Further work is underway to determine which of these outcomes should be included in the development of a Core Outcome Set for appendicitis in children.30,31 

This study has provided a comprehensive review of the existing literature pertaining to NOT for AUA in children. As far as we are aware, it is the first such review to synthesize data specifically from children. The study highlights the lack of robust evidence comparing NOT with appendectomy in children but provides data that support and justify ongoing and future endeavors31,32 to assimilate such evidence so that we can best serve the huge number of children who develop appendicitis every year. This review also confirms a position of equipoise between treatment approaches in such trials. Until such studies are completed, we would recommend that NOT of children with AUA be reserved for those participating in carefully designed research studies.

     
  • AUA

    acute uncomplicated appendicitis

  •  
  • CI

    confidence interval

  •  
  • MINORS

    methodological index for nonrandomized studies

  •  
  • NOT

    nonoperative treatment

  •  
  • RCT

    randomized controlled trial

Dr Georgiou performed the systematic review and data extraction, performed the analysis, and wrote the draft of the manuscript; Dr Eaton designed the study, performed the systematic review and data extraction, performed the analysis, and revised the manuscript; Dr Stanton designed the study, performed the analysis, and revised the manuscript; Dr Pierro conceived and designed the study and revised the manuscript; Dr Hall conceived and designed the study, performed the systematic review and data extraction, performed the analysis, and wrote the draft of the manuscript; and all authors approved the final manuscript submitted.

This trial has been registered with the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (registration CRD42015026994).

FUNDING: No external funding.

Dr Hall is supported by the Southampton NIHR Biomedical Research Centre in nutrition. Dr Eaton is supported by Great Ormond Street Hospital NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and by Great Ormond Street Children’s Charity. Dr Pierro is supported by the Robert M. Filler Chair of Paediatric Surgery, University of Toronto, Canada.

1
Addiss
DG
,
Shaffer
N
,
Fowler
BS
,
Tauxe
RV
.
The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States.
Am J Epidemiol
.
1990
;
132
(
5
):
910
925
[PubMed]
2
Al-Omran
M
,
Mamdani
M
,
McLeod
RS
.
Epidemiologic features of acute appendicitis in Ontario, Canada.
Can J Surg
.
2003
;
46
(
4
):
263
268
[PubMed]
3
Reynolds
SL
,
Jaffe
DM
.
Children with abdominal pain: evaluation in the pediatric emergency department.
Pediatr Emerg Care
.
1990
;
6
(
1
):
8
12
[PubMed]
4
Reynolds
SL
,
Jaffe
DM
.
Diagnosing abdominal pain in a pediatric emergency department.
Pediatr Emerg Care
.
1992
;
8
(
3
):
126
128
[PubMed]
5
Scholer
SJ
,
Pituch
K
,
Orr
DP
,
Dittus
RS
.
Clinical outcomes of children with acute abdominal pain.
Pediatrics
.
1996
;
98
(
4 pt 1
):
680
685
[PubMed]
6
Fitz
RH
.
Perforating inflammation of the vermiform appendix with special reference to its early diagnosis and treatment.
Trans Assoc Am Physicians
.
1886
;
1
:
107
144
7
Styrud
J
,
Eriksson
S
,
Nilsson
I
, et al
.
Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment in acute appendicitis. a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial.
World J Surg
.
2006
;
30
(
6
):
1033
1037
[PubMed]
8
Svensson
JF
,
Hall
NJ
,
Eaton
S
,
Pierro
A
,
Wester
T
.
A review of conservative treatment of acute appendicitis.
Eur J Pediatr Surg
.
2012
;
22
(
3
):
185
194
[PubMed]
9
Hansson
J
,
Körner
U
,
Khorram-Manesh
A
,
Solberg
A
,
Lundholm
K
.
Randomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as primary treatment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients.
Br J Surg
.
2009
;
96
(
5
):
473
481
[PubMed]
10
Minneci
PC
,
Mahida
JB
,
Lodwick
DL
, et al
.
Effectiveness of patient choice in nonoperative vs surgical management of pediatric uncomplicated acute appendicitis.
JAMA Surg
.
2016
;
151
(
5
):
408
415
[PubMed]
11
Svensson
JF
,
Patkova
B
,
Almstrom
M
, et al
.
Nonoperative treatment with antibiotics versus surgery for acute nonperforated appendicitis in children: a pilot randomized controlled trial.
Ann Surg
.
2015
;
261
(
1
):
67
71
[PubMed]
12
Armstrong
J
,
Merritt
N
,
Jones
S
,
Scott
L
,
Bütter
A
.
Non-operative management of early, acute appendicitis in children: is it safe and effective?
J Pediatr Surg
.
2014
;
49
(
5
):
782
785
[PubMed]
13
Wilms
IM
,
de Hoog
DE
,
de Visser
DC
,
Janzing
HM
.
Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2011
;(
11
):
CD008359
[PubMed]
14
Go
DY
,
Boo
YJ
,
Lee
JS
,
Jung
CW
.
Transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy is a useful surgical option for pediatric uncomplicated appendicitis: a comparison with conventional 3-port laparoscopic appendectomy.
Ann Surg Treat Res
.
2016
;
91
(
2
):
80
84
[PubMed]
15
Cundy
TP
,
Sierakowski
K
,
Manna
A
,
Cooper
CM
,
Burgoyne
LL
,
Khurana
S
.
Fast-track surgery for uncomplicated appendicitis in children: a matched case-control study [published online ahead of print September 6, 2016].
ANZ J Surg
.
[PubMed]
16
Moher
D
,
Liberati
A
,
Tetzlaff
J
,
Altman
DG
.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
.
BMJ
.
2009
;
339
:
b2535
[PubMed]
17
Jadad
AR
,
Moore
RA
,
Carroll
D
, et al
.
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?
Control Clin Trials
.
1996
;
17
(
1
):
1
12
[PubMed]
18
Slim
K
,
Nini
E
,
Forestier
D
,
Kwiatkowski
F
,
Panis
Y
,
Chipponi
J
.
Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument.
ANZ J Surg
.
2003
;
73
(
9
):
712
716
[PubMed]
19
Minneci
PC
,
Sulkowski
JP
,
Nacion
KM
, et al
.
Feasibility of a nonoperative management strategy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children.
J Am Coll Surg
.
2014
;
219
(
2
):
272
279
[PubMed]
20
Abeş
M
,
Petik
B
,
Kazil
S
.
Nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis in children.
J Pediatr Surg
.
2007
;
42
(
8
):
1439
1442
[PubMed]
21
Gorter
RR
,
van der Lee
JH
,
Cense
HA
, et al;
APAC Study Group
.
Initial antibiotic treatment for acute simple appendicitis in children is safe: short-term results from a multicenter, prospective cohort study.
Surgery
.
2015
;
157
(
5
):
916
923
[PubMed]
22
Hartwich
J
,
Luks
FI
,
Watson-Smith
D
, et al
.
Nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis in children: a feasibility study.
J Pediatr Surg
.
2016
;
51
(
1
):
111
116
[PubMed]
23
Kaneko
K
,
Tsuda
M
.
Ultrasound-based decision making in the treatment of acute appendicitis in children.
J Pediatr Surg
.
2004
;
39
(
9
):
1316
1320
[PubMed]
24
Koike
Y
,
Uchida
K
,
Matsushita
K
, et al
.
Intraluminal appendiceal fluid is a predictive factor for recurrent appendicitis after initial successful non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis in pediatric patients.
J Pediatr Surg
.
2014
;
49
(
7
):
1116
1121
[PubMed]
25
Steiner
Z
,
Buklan
G
,
Stackievicz
R
,
Gutermacher
M
,
Erez
I
.
A role for conservative antibiotic treatment in early appendicitis in children.
J Pediatr Surg
.
2015
;
50
(
9
):
1566
1568
[PubMed]
26
Eaton
S
,
Hall
NJ
,
Pierro
A
.
Zero-total event trials and incomplete pyloromyotomy.
J Pediatr Surg
.
2009
;
44
(
12
):
2434
2435, author reply 2435–2436
[PubMed]
27
Tanaka
Y
,
Uchida
H
,
Kawashima
H
, et al
.
Long-term outcomes of operative versus nonoperative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis.
J Pediatr Surg
.
2015
;
50
(
11
):
1893
1897
[PubMed]
28
Rollins
KE
,
Varadhan
KK
,
Neal
KR
,
Lobo
DN
.
Antibiotics versus appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
World J Surg
.
2016
;
40
(
10
):
2305
2318
[PubMed]
29
Di Saverio
S
,
Sibilio
A
,
Giorgini
E
, et al
.
The NOTA Study (Non Operative Treatment for Acute Appendicitis): prospective study on the efficacy and safety of antibiotics (amoxicillin and clavulanic acid) for treating patients with right lower quadrant abdominal pain and long-term follow-up of conservatively treated suspected appendicitis.
Ann Surg
.
2014
;
260
(
1
):
109
117
[PubMed]
30
Hall
NJ
,
Kapadia
MZ
,
Eaton
S
, et al
.
Outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses of appendicitis treatments in children: a systematic review.
Trials
.
2015
;
16
:
275
[PubMed]
31
HTA 14/192/90: CONservative TReatment of Appendicitis in Children: a randomised controlled Trial CONTRACT (feasibility study).
2016
. Available at: www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/1419290. Accessed August 18, 2016
32
A collaborative multicenter open-label, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial comparing appendectomy versus non-operative treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children (APPY Trial).
2016
. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02687464. Accessed June 3, 2016

Competing Interests

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Supplementary data