I didn’t read the studies myself,

And there we go.

Anyway. Obviously they do things. As long as it is living tissue it does stuff. Your earlobes do stuff. The question is whether the thing they do is so crucial that their removal due to other factors causes more damage than them remaining. A burst appendix means sepsis and infection of a bunch of stuff you don’t want infected. But even then, acute appendicitis may not respond to antibiotics, amd even when it does, it can reoccur. A third (i forget the exact number, but its thereabout) of people treated with antibiotics will later have to have the appendix removed anyway. This is weighed against the possibility that it may serve as a useful reservoir of gut bacteria (And, more crucially, the risks involved with surgery), and it is generally found that enormous pain and the possibility of death outweighs the necessity of the appendix.

No one thinks appendectomies are a net negative. The alternative involves possible death. Appendectomies, tonsilectomies and hernia repairs don’t belong in the same category as lobotomies. You frankly need to re-examine what led you to this comparison.

But there is indeed often a rush to use, and overuse, any newly discovered medical intervention. From lobotomies to antibiotics to painkillers to whatever else. And it is also true that a lot of medical intervention performed on women suffered from their inventors and performers being sexists who did not consider the impact on the women themselves. These two separate yet related phenomenon are worthy of criticism and exploration. Books have been written and will continue to be written about the many ways physicians failed their patients due to their own biases.