Review question: Cochrane authors reviewed available evidence on the use of laparoscopy to manage acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis in women of childbearing age. We found 12 studies.
Background: Acute lower abdominal pain is a common occurrence among women of childbearing age and frequently results in referral to hospital because clarifying the cause of the pain is often difficult. Probable diagnoses include ovulation pain, ovarian cysts, pelvic infection, ectopic pregnancy and appendicitis. Many women end up having their appendices removed unnecessarily. It has been suggested that visualisation of the pelvic cavity through laparoscopy could be useful in the management of women such as these.
Study characteristics: Twelve studies were identified with 1020 women from 11 countries. Eight studies compared laparoscopy versus open appendicectomy, and four compared laparoscopy using a wait and see approach. The evidence is current to October 2013.
Key result: In this review of randomised controlled trials, laparoscopy was found to be superior to both open appendicectomy alone and a wait and see strategy, as more specific diagnoses were made before discharge, and shorter hospital stays and earlier return to work (when compared with open appendicectomy only) were reported. No evidence was found of an increase in adverse events when any of these strategies was applied. The rate of removal of normal appendices was reduced with the laparoscopic approach compared with open appendicectomy but was greater when a laparoscopic approach was compared with a wait and see strategy.
Quality of the evidence: The quality of the evidence was ranked as low to moderate for most outcomes, mainly because many of the studies had methodological limitations and imprecision was noted for some outcomes.
We found that laparoscopy in women with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis led to a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared with open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. No evidence showed an increase in adverse events when any of these strategies were used.
This is an updated version of the original review, published in Issue 1, 2011, of The Cochrane Library. Acute lower abdominal pain is common, and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal women, as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with symptoms of appendicitis, early pregnancy complications and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications.
To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age.
The Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINAHL were searched (October 2013). The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched. No new studies were included in this updated version.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included. Trials were included if they evaluated laparoscopy with open appendicectomy, or laparoscopy with a wait and see strategy. Study selection was carried out by two review authors independently.
Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two review authors and the risk of bias assessed. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. A summary of findings table was prepared using GRADE criteria.
A total of 12 studies including 1020 participants were incorporated into the review. These studies had low to moderate risk of bias, mainly because allocation concealment or methods of sequence generation were not adequately reported. In addition, it was not clear whether follow-up was similar for the treatment groups. The index test was incorporated as a reference standard in the laparoscopy group, and differential verification or partial verification bias may have occurred in most RCTs. Overall the quality of the evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach.
Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (seven RCTs, 561 participants; odds ratio (OR) 4.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.50 to 6.71; I2 = 18%), but no evidence was found of reduced rates for any adverse events (eight RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I2 = 0%). A meta-analysis of seven studies found a significant difference favouring the laparoscopic procedure in the rate of removal of normal appendix (seven RCTs, 475 participants; OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.24; I2 = 0%).
Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. A significant difference favoured laparoscopy in terms of rate of specific diagnoses (four RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I2 = 79%), but no evidence suggested a difference in rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I2 = 0%).