Risk of Appendiceal Neoplasm in Periappendicular Abscess in Patients Treated With Interval Appendectomy vs Follow-up With Magnetic Resonance Imaging: 1-Year Outcomes of the Peri-Appendicitis Acuta Randomized Clinical Trial

Modern Management of the Appendix: So Many Options

Nonoperative management (NOM) of acute appendicitis is becoming more popular, especially in resource-strapped locations, to minimize hospital system costs. In uncomplicated cases of appendicitis, NOM can effectively treat the patient. It does carry a 39.1% risk of recurrence in 5 years, and operative management (OM) does not increase morbidity or risk of complication, so the authors recommend laparoscopic OM for uncomplicated appendicitis. For complicated cases of appendicitis, the authors recommend initial NOM with interval appendectomy in all patients. All appendicitis patients should undergo surveillance endoscopy if older than 40 years to rule out a contributing neoplasm.

Burkitt-type lymphoma incidentally found as the cause of acute appendicitis: a case report and review of literature

Background

Appendectomy remains one of the most common emergency operations. Recent research supports the treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis with antibiotics alone. While nonoperative management of appendicitis may be safe in some patients, it may result in missed neoplasms. We present a case of acute appendicitis where the final pathology resulted in a diagnosis of a Burkitt-type lymphoma.

Case presentation

An 18-year-old male presented to the emergency department with 24 h of right lower quadrant pain with associated urinary retention, anorexia, and malaise. Past medical history was significant for intermittent diarrhea and anal fissure. He exhibited focal right lower quadrant tenderness. Workup revealed leukocytosis and CT uncovered acute appendicitis with periappendiceal abscess and no appendicolith. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed and found acute appendicitis with associated abscess abutting the rectum and bladder. Pathology of the resected appendix reported acute appendicitis with evidence of Burkitt-type lymphoma. A PET scan did not reveal any residual disease. Hematology/oncology was consulted and chemotherapy was initiated with an excellent response.

Conclusions

Appendiceal lymphomas constitute less than 0.1% of gastrointestinal lymphomas. Primary appendix neoplasms are found in 0.5–1.0% of appendectomy specimens following acute appendicitis. In this case, appendectomy allowed for prompt identification and treatment of an aggressive, rapidly fatal lymphoma resulting in complete remission.

Non-Operative Management of Appendicitis: Evolution, not Revolution

Background: The medical fascination with the appendix vermiformis dates from the clandestine prosectors of the fifteenth century. The surgical management of appendiceal inflammation dates from 1735, but acceptance that acute appendicitis (AA) should be treated primarily by resection with or without drainage would not follow for 150 years. Recent publication of several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of non-operative management (NOM) of AA affords the opportunity to review the historical record, describe the evolution of AA management toward NOM, and assess what is in the best interest of the patient. Methods: Review and synthesis of historical and contemporary English, French, German, and Italian literature with expert opinion. Results: Modern understanding of AA dates to the landmark 1886 clinico-pathologic correlative study by Reginald Fitz, which coined the term appendicitis and coincided with recognition by surgeons that AA could be diagnosed pre-operatively and managed surgically, with mortality rates of approximately 10%. Not until 1901 did Albert Ochsner advocate NOM, paradoxically for severe cases unlikely to survive operation. Markedly decreased mortality coincided with the introduction of sulfanilamide in 1935 and penicillin and curare in 1942. The first large series of patients with AA treated primarily with NOM was published in 1956 by Eric Coldrey. Modern management evolved rapidly in the late twentieth century, including effective anti-anaerobic antibiotic agents (1970s), laparoscopic appendectomy (LA; 1980), and pelvis computed tomography with rectal contrast (1998) all representing important contributions. Randomized controlled trials of NOM of AA date to 1995, with one large trial (2015) showing that open appendectomy was not non-inferior to NOM, and another (2020) demonstrating non-inferiority between (mostly) LA and NOM. However, one-year failure rates are high (∼30%) and appear to increase further with longer follow-up. Conclusions: Laparoscopic appendectomy is curative and cost-effective management for AA, with low morbidity. Results of recent RCTs of NOM of AA indicate that LA remains the treatment of choice, particularly if a fecalith is present. However, patient preferences must be taken into account; some may prefer NOM for the 60%-70% chance that surgery may be avoided, which should be considered when providing informed consent. Non-operative management should be undertaken in the outpatient setting if possible. Antibiotic management-whether or not for NOM-should adhere to the principles of stewardship.

Acute Appendicitis in the Elderly: A Literature Review on an Increasingly Frequent Surgical Problem

With increased life expectancy and the growing total population of elderly patients, there has been rise in the number of cases of acute appendicitis in elderly people. Although acute appendicitis is not the most typical pathological condition in the elderly, it is not uncommon. Most of these patients require surgical treatment, and as with any acute surgical pathology in advanced age, treatment possibilities are affected by comorbidities, overall health status, and an increased risk of complications. In this literature review we discuss differences in acute appendicitis in the elderly population, with a focus on clinical signs, diagnostics, pathogenesis, treatment, and results.

Incidentally found mucinous epithelial tumors of the appendix with or without pseudomyxoma peritonei: diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms based on current evidence

Mucinous appendiceal tumors with or without the pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) syndrome are rare, but often present as an incidental finding. The confusing histology and lack of large prospective trials result in a considerable diagnostic and therapeutic challenge in these patients. We propose treatment algorithms in patients with incidentally found mucinous epithelial appendiceal tumors, with or without PMP, based on the currently available evidence. The therapeutic approach should take into account the histology and grade of the primary appendix tumor, as well as those of the associated peritoneal disease.

Does the presence of an appendicolith or abscess predict failure of nonoperative management of patients with acute appendicitis?

PURPOSE

Nonoperative management (NOM) has been widely accepted as one of the standard treatments for patients with acute appendicitis. However, predictive factors for the failure of NOM have not been thoroughly investigated.

METHODS

A total of 196 patients with acute appendicitis underwent NOM between April 2014 and December 2020. Of these 196 patients, 24 patients failed NOM and required emergency surgery (failure group: n = 24), while the other 172 patients were successfully treated with NOM (success group: n = 172). These two groups were compared, and the predictive factors for the failure of NOM were investigated.

RESULTS

The number of patients who had a previous history of stroke was significantly increased in the failure group (12.5% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.026). Incarceration of an appendicolith on CT images was significantly associated with the failure group (20.8% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.001), while neither the presence of an appendicolith nor abscess was associated. The presence of periappendiceal fluid was significantly associated with the failure group (50.0% vs. 26.7%, p = 0.019). The incarceration of an appendicolith (p < 0.001, odds ratio = 19.85) and periappendiceal fluid (p = 0.009, odds ratio = 3.62) were found to be independent risk factors for failure of NOM. Neither the presence of an appendicolith nor abscess was associated with the recurrence of appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of an appendicolith or abscess was not a crucial factor for surgery. Incarceration of an appendicolith and periappendiceal fluid on CT images was predictive factors for the failure of NOM.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Tumors of the Appendix: a Critical Review

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the current paper was to critically collect, select and summarize the evidence regarding diagnosis, treatment and follow up of primary tumors of the appendix.

METHODS

A literature review was performed by search and review of the scientific studies pertaining to the subject of our inquiry.

RESULTS

Recommendations regarding pimary tumors of the appendix were formulated on the basis of the collected evidence. CONCLUSION : Primary tumors of the appendix are rare and a high index of suspicion is required not to miss a potentially life threatening medical condition.

Adult appendicitis: Clinical practice guidelines from the French Society of Digestive Surgery and the Society of Abdominal and Digestive Imaging

INTRODUCTION

The French Society of Digestive Surgery (SFCD) and the Society of Abdominal and Digestive Imaging (SIAD) have collaborated to propose recommendations for clinical practice in the management of adult appendicitis.

METHODS

An analysis of the literature was carried out according to the methodology of the French National Authority for Health (HAS). A selection was performed from collected references and then a manual review of the references listed in the selected articles was made in search of additional relevant articles. The research was limited to articles whose language of publication was English or French. Articles focusing on the pediatric population were excluded. Based on the literature review, the working group proposed recommendations whenever possible. These recommendations were reviewed and approved by a committee of experts.

RESULTS

Recommendations about appendicitis in adult patients were proposed with regard to clinical, laboratory and radiological diagnostic modalities, treatment strategy for uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, surgical technique, and specificities in the case of macroscopically healthy appendix, terminal ileitis and appendicitis in the elderly and in pregnant women.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations for clinical practice may be useful to the surgeon in optimizing the management of acute appendicitis in adults.

Clinical significance of pathologic abnormalities in biopsy samples from the appendiceal orifice

AIMS

Appendiceal orifice mucosa often appears inflamed endoscopically, even when other colonic segments appear normal. Histological findings in biopsy samples taken from endoscopically abnormal mucosa may simulate a variety of inflammatory colitides. We performed this study to evaluate the clinical implications of inflammatory changes isolated to the appendiceal orifice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this double cohort study, biopsy samples from 26 histologically abnormal appendiceal orifices were reviewed. Twenty-five control cases were culled from endoscopically normal (n = 11) and abnormal (n = 14) appendiceal orifices that were histologically normal. Histological findings were correlated with presentation, medication history, findings at other colonic sites and clinical outcomes. Study cases displayed active inflammation (n = 12), chronic active inflammation (n = 13) or features simulating collagenous colitis (n = 1). Eighteen patients had biopsies taken from other colonic sites; these revealed benign polyps (n = 10) or displayed active (n = 4) or chronic active (n = 4) inflammation. All patients with findings isolated to the appendiceal orifice were asymptomatic at most recent clinical follow-up. Four of eight (50%) of the patients with inflammation in other biopsy samples were ultimately diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, in keeping with the well-established role of the appendix as a 'skip lesion' in that disorder. Control patients presented for screening colonoscopy (n = 19), iron deficiency anaemia (n = 3) or change in bowel habits (n = 3) and none reported gastrointestinal symptoms upon follow-up, regardless of the endoscopic appearance of the appendiceal orifice.

CONCLUSION

Isolated inflammation of the appendiceal orifice mucosa should not be regarded as a feature of evolving inflammatory bowel disease or other types of chronic colitis.

Appendiceal adenocarcinoma found by surgery for acute appendicitis is associated with older age

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy for acute appendicitis is the most common procedure performed emergently by general surgeons in the United States. The current management of acute appendicitis is increasingly controversial as non-operative management gains favor. Although rare, appendiceal neoplasms are often found as an incidental finding in the setting of appendectomy. Criteria and screening for appendiceal neoplasms are not standardized among surgical societies.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried for all patients who underwent appendectomy over a 9-year period (2010-2018). Over the same time period, patients who underwent appendectomy in two municipal hospitals in The Bronx, New York City, USA were reviewed.

RESULTS

We found a 1.7% incidence of appendiceal neoplasms locally and a 0.53% incidence of appendiceal tumors in a national population sample. Both groups demonstrated an increased incidence of appendiceal carcinoma by age. This finding was most pronounced after the age of 40 in both local and national populations. In our study, the incidence of appendiceal tumors increased with each decade interval up to the age of 80 and peaked at 2.1% in patients between 70 and 79 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Appendiceal adenocarcinomas were identified in patients with acute appendicitis that seem to be associated with increasing age. The presence of an appendiceal malignancy should be considered in the management of older patients with acute appendicitis before a decision to embark on non-operative therapy.

Differentiation between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis: diagnostic model development and validation study

PURPOSE

Differentiating complicated appendicitis has become important, as multiple trials showed that non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis is feasible. We developed and validated a diagnostic model to differentiate complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 1153 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 30 ± 8 years) with appendicitis on CT (804 patients for development, and 349 for validation). Complicated appendicitis was confirmed in 300 and 121 patients in the development and validation datasets, respectively. The reference standard was surgical or pathological report except in 7 patients who underwent percutaneous abscess drainage. We developed a model using multivariable logistic regression and Bayesian information criterion. We assessed calibration and discriminatory performance of the model in the validation dataset via calibration plot and the area under the curve (AUC), respectively. We measured sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and proportion of false- and true-negatives of the model in the validation dataset, targeting 95% sensitivity.

RESULTS

Five CT features (contrast-enhancement defect of the appendiceal wall, abscess, moderate or severe periappendiceal fat stranding, appendiceal diameter, and extraluminal air) and percentage of segmented neutrophil were included in our model. The calibration slope was 1.03, and AUC was 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.85) in the validation dataset. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and proportion of false- and true-negatives were 93.4% (91.8-99.1), 28.1% (13.6-24.1), 40.8% (35.0-46.8), 88.9% (79.3-95.1), 2.3%, and 18.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our model may identify patients with unequivocally uncomplicated appendicitis, who may benefit from non-operative management with low risk of failure.

Managing acute uncomplicated appendicitis in frail geriatric patients: A second hit may be too much

INTRODUCTION

Studies have proposed the use of antibiotics only in cases of acute uncomplicated appendicitis (AUA). However, there remains a paucity of data evaluating this nonoperative approach in the vulnerable frail geriatric population. The aim of this study was to examine long-term outcomes of frail geriatric patients with AUA treated with appendectomy compared with initial nonoperative management (NOP).

METHODS

We conducted a 1-year (2017) analysis of the Nationwide Readmissions Database and included all frail geriatric patients(age, ≥65 years) with a diagnosis of AUA. Frailty was assessed using the five-factor modified frailty index. Patients were stratified into those undergoing appendectomy at index admission (operative management) versus those receiving antibiotics only without operative intervention (NOP). Propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio was performed adjusting for patient- and hospital-related factors.

RESULTS

A total of 5,562 frail geriatric patients with AUA were identified from which a matched cohort of 1,320 patients in each group was obtained. Patients in the NOP and operative management were comparable in terms of age (75.5 ± 7.7 vs. 75.5 ± 7.4 years; p = 0.882) and modified frailty index (0.4 [0.4-0.6] vs. 0.4 [0.4-0.6]; p = 0.526). Failure of NOP management was reported in 18% of patients, 95% of which eventually underwent appendectomy. Over the 6-month follow-up period, patients in the NOP group had significantly higher rates of Clostridium difficile enterocolitis (3% vs. 1%; p < 0.001), greater number of overall hospitalized days (5 [3-9] vs. 4 [2-7] days; p < 0.001), and higher overall costs (US $16,000 [12,000-25,000] vs. US $11,000 [8,000-19,000]; p < 0.001). Patients undergoing appendectomy after failed NOP had significantly higher rates of complications (20% vs. 11%; p < 0.001), mortality (4% vs. 2%; p = 0.019), and appendiceal neoplasm (3% vs. 1%; p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

One in six patients failed NOP within 6 months and required appendectomy with subsequent more complications and higher mortality. Appendectomy may offer better outcomes in managing AUA in the frail geriatric population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, level IV.

Retrospective case-control study to predict a potential underlying appendiceal tumor in an acute appendicitis context based on a CT-scoring system

OBJECTIVES

To assess CT signs to discriminate an appendiceal tumor versus a non-tumoral appendix in an acute appendicitis context.

METHODS

A 10-year bicentric retrospective case-control study was performed in adults. Patients with a histopathological appendiceal tumor and appendicitis were paired for age and sex with patients with non-tumorous appendicitis (1/3 ratio, respectively). Two senior radiologists blindly analyzed numerous CT findings with final consensus to perform univariate and multivariate statistical analyses. A diagnostic CT scan score was calculated with a bootstrap internal validation. Reproducibility was assessed based on the kappa statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 208 patients (51 +/- 21 years; 114 males) were included (52 patients in the tumor group and 156 in the non-tumor group). In the multivariate analysis, an appendicolith and fat stranding were protective factors with OR = 0.2 (p = 0.01) and OR = 0.3 (p = 0.02), respectively, while mural calcifications (OR = 47, p = 0.0001), an appendix mass (OR = 7.1, p = 0.008), a focal asymmetric wall abnormality (OR = 4.9, p = 0, 001), or a ≥ 15 mm diameter (OR = 3.5, p = 0.009) were positive predictive factors of an underlying tumor. Using a ≥1 cut-off, our diagnostic score had an AUC = 0.87 (95 % CI, 0.82-0.93) and a positive likelihood ratio = 13.5 (95 % CI, 6.7-27.1).

CONCLUSION

We developed a reliable scoring system based on CT findings, which is highly predictive of an underlying appendiceal neoplasm in an appendicitis context using a ≥1 cut-off.

National trends in the presentation of surgically resected appendiceal adenocarcinoma over a decade

BACKGROUND

Rates of nonoperative management of acute appendicitis and appendiceal adenocarcinoma have increased over a decade, but the presentation and outcomes of appendiceal adenocarcinoma over this period is not well-characterized.

METHODS

Patients with surgically resected Stage I-III appendiceal adenocarcinoma were identified from the 2006 to 2015 National Cancer Data Base and classified into two cohorts, 2006-2010 and 2011-2015, based on year of diagnosis. Three-year overall survival (OS) was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates.

RESULTS

Of 4233 patients, 1369 (32.3%) and 2864 (67.7%) were diagnosed in 2006-2010 and 2011-2015, respectively. Following multivariable analysis, patients in 2011-2015 were more likely to be <40 years of age (6.4% vs. 4.7%, odds ratio [OR] 1.53, p .015), present with pT4 tumors (40.2% vs. 34.4%, OR 1.46, p .004), and undergo hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (4.4% vs. 2.4%, OR 1.97, p .001). Comparing patients diagnosed in 2011-2015 to 2006-2010, adjusted 3-year OS was no different among all patients (81.1% vs. 79%, p .778).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been an increase in the proportion of patients with pT4 appendix tumors over time, primarily among older (≥60 years) patients. Even so, these shifts in presentation have not resulted in differences in survival outcomes.

Appendicular neoplasms and consequences in patients undergoing surgery for suspected acute appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

In patients treated with an appendectomy for acute appendicitis, the specimen is generally sent for histological evaluation. In an era of increasing non-operative treatment for acute appendicitis, it is important to know the incidence, the diagnostic accuracy, and treatment consequences of appendicular neoplasms that are found in acute appendicitis. We hypothesize that pre- and intra-operative parameters might predict an appendicular neoplasm.

METHODS

Data was used from our previous prospective observational cohort study. All patients undergoing surgery for suspected acute appendicitis were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of appendicular neoplasms in patients operated for acute appendicitis. Secondary outcomes were pre-operative diagnostics and imaging outcomes, intra-operative surgical judgment, and postoperative management and outcome. Possible predictors of an appendicular neoplasm were identified and used in multivariable logistic regression. Patients with an appendicular neoplasm were followed for 3 years after initial appendectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 1975 patients underwent surgery for suspected acute appendicitis and in 98.3% (1941/1975) the appendix was removed. In 1.5% (30/1941) of these patients, an appendicular neoplasm was found. Among the malignant neoplasms, the majority were grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors (NET) in 65% (13/20). On pre-operative imaging, there was no suspicion of malignancy. In three cases, there was an intra-operative suspicion of malignancy. Multivariable analysis showed only age as an independent predictor for appendicular neoplasms. No recurrent or new malignancy was found during follow-up.

DISCUSSION

The incidence of appendicular neoplasm in patients undergoing an acute appendectomy is very low and clinical risk factors could not be identified.

Increased risk of malignancy for patients older than 40 years with appendicitis and an appendix wider than 10 mm on computed tomography scan: A post hoc analysis of an EAST multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The incidence of underlying malignancy in appendicitis ranges between 0.5% and 1.7%. We sought to identify the subset of patients with appendicitis who are at increased risk of appendiceal malignancy.

METHODS

Using the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Study of the Treatment of Appendicitis in America: Acute, Perforated, and Gangrenous database, we included all patients from 28 centers undergoing immediate, delayed, or interval appendectomy between 2017 and 2018. Univariate then multivariable analyses were performed to compare patients with and without malignancy and to identify independent demographic, clinical, laboratory, and/or radiological predictors of malignancy. Akaike information criteria for regression models were used to evaluate goodness of fit.

RESULTS

A total of 3,293 patients were included. The median age was 38 (27-53) years, and 46.5% were female patients. On pathology, 48 (1.5%) had an underlying malignancy (adenocarcinoma [60.4%], neuroendocrine [37.5%], and lymphoma [2.1%]). Patients with malignancy were older (56 [34.5-67] vs 37 [27-52] years, P < .001), had longer duration of symptoms before presentation (36-41 vs 18-23 hours, P = .03), and were more likely to have a phlegmon on imaging (6.3% vs 1.3%, P = .03). Multivariable analyses showed that an enlarged appendiceal diameter was independently associated with malignancy (odds ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.12; P = .01). The incidence of malignancy in patients >40 years with an appendiceal diameter >10 mm on computed tomography was 2.95% compared with 0.97% in patients ≤40 years old with appendiceal diameter ≤10 mm. The corresponding risk ratio for that population was 3.03 (95% confidence interval: 1.24-7.42; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

The combination of age >40 and an appendiceal diameter >10 mm is associated with a greater than 3-fold increased risk of malignancy in patients presenting with appendicitis.

Is interval appendectomy really needed? A closer look at neoplasm rates in adult patients undergoing interval appendectomy after complicated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The treatment algorithm for appendicitis is evolving, with recent interest in non-operative management. However, the safety of non-operative management for patients with complicated appendicitis has been questioned due to concern for increased risk of occult appendiceal neoplasm in this patient population. Our study aims to determine the rate of neoplasms discovered during interval appendectomy for patients with complicated appendicitis and determine the necessity of interval appendectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on interval appendectomies performed in adult patients for complicated appendicitis at our institution over a 9-year period. Interval appendectomy was defined as appendectomy delayed from initial presentation with appendicitis. Complicated appendicitis was defined as perforation, phlegmon, and/or abscess as seen on computed tomography at time of presentation.

RESULTS

We identified 402 patients who underwent interval appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. A total of 36 appendiceal neoplasms were discovered on final pathology with an overall neoplasm rate of 9%. Patients with an appendiceal neoplasm were significantly older (56.6 years vs 45.1 years, p < 0.01). No patients under the age of 30 had a neoplasm. The rate of appendiceal neoplasms in patients 30 years and older was 11%. The rate for patients 50 years and older was 16%. For patients 80 years and older, the rate of appendiceal neoplasm was 43%.

CONCLUSION

The risk of occult appendiceal neoplasm is low in patients under the age of 30; however, there was an 11% rate of appendiceal neoplasm in patients 30 years and older. The risk increases with increased age, with a 16% risk in patients 50 years and older. Given these findings, we recommend consideration of interval appendectomy in all patients 30 years and older with complicated appendicitis.

Interval laparoscopic appendectomy after antibiotic therapy for appendiceal abscess in elderly patients

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of interval laparoscopic appendectomy after antibiotic therapy in elderly patients with appendiceal abscess.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data for 50 patients with appendiceal abscess aged ≥18 years who had initially planned to undergo interval laparoscopic appendectomy after antibiotic therapy and 50 patients with appendicitis aged ≥70 years who had undergone early laparoscopic appendectomy. All patients were treated at the National Hospital Organization Kumamoto Medical Center between 2012 and 2018. We compared perioperative outcomes after interval appendectomy between patients aged <70 years and ≥70 years.

RESULTS

Clinical progression of appendicitis during antibiotic therapy developed in one patient (2.0%), and recurrent appendicitis after antibiotic therapy for appendiceal abscess occurred in two patients (4.0%). Pathological findings confirmed appendiceal neoplasms in four patients (8.0%). Postoperative infectious complications occurred in 1 of 47 patients (2.1%) who had undergone successful interval laparoscopic appendectomy, and the median length of postoperative hospital stay was 4 days (interquartile range, 3-5 days). There were no significant differences in outcomes after interval appendectomy between patients aged <70 years and ≥70 years. In the secondary analysis, the median length of postoperative hospital stay after interval laparoscopic appendectomy for appendiceal abscess (4 days) was significantly shorter than that after early laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis (7 days; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Interval laparoscopic appendectomy for appendiceal abscess may be safe and effective in elderly patients without severe comorbidities. Interval appendectomy may be necessary for determining the underlying cause of appendiceal abscess in adults.

Parental preferences in treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis comparing surgery to conservative management with antibiotics and their views on research participation

Studies show that conservative management in acute uncomplicated appendicitis (AUA) is an alternative to surgery. This study aims to determine factors affecting parental preference in management of AUA and their decision for research participation. We conducted surveys on parents whose children were admitted with suspicion of appendicitis but later confirmed not to have appendicitis. Information on appendicectomy versus conservative treatment with antibiotics was provided using a fixed script and standard information leaflet. Questionnaires covered factors influencing decisions, opinions regarding research, treatment preference and demographic data. We excluded parents not fluent in English. Of 113 respondents, 71(62.8%) chose antibiotics, 39(34.5%) chose appendicectomy, and 3(2.7%) had no preference. Reasons given for choosing antibiotics were fear of surgical risks and preferring less invasive treatment. Those choosing appendicectomy expressed preference for definitive treatment and fear of recurrence. Majority were against randomisation (n = 89, 78.8%) and blinding (n = 90, 79.7%). Over half found difficulty involving their child in research (n = 65, 57.5%). Most thought that research is important (66.4%) and beneficial to others (59.3%). Parents who perceived their child as healthy found research riskier (p = 0.039). Educated parents were more likely to find research beneficial to others (p = 0.012) but less accepting of randomisation (p = 0.001).Conclusion: More parents appear to prefer conservative treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Researchers must consider parental concerns regarding randomisation and blinding.What is Known:• Conservative management of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in paediatric patients is safe and effective, sparing the child the need for an operation; however, neither conservative nor surgical management is proven to be superior.• Randomised controlled trials provide the highest level of evidence, but it is challenging to recruit paediatric patients as participants in such clinical trials.What is New:• More parents prefer conservative management of uncomplicated appendicitis over surgical management for their children due to fear of surgical risks and complications• Randomisation in trial design is significantly associated with a parent's decision to reject their child's participation in a clinical trial.

[Antibiotics alone as an alternative to appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults: Changes in treatment modalities related to the COVID-19 health crisis]

La saturation intrahospitalière liée à l’arrivée massive de patients atteints du COVID-19 nécessitant une prise en charge urgente conduit à reconsidérer la prise en charge des autres patients. Différer au maximum les hospitalisations et les opérations chirurgicales non urgentes est un des objectifs des chirurgiens afin de désengorger autant que possible le système de soins. Alors que la majorité des opérations programmées sont annulées, la réduction de la chirurgie d’urgence est évidemment compliquée à proposer sans altérer la qualité de la prise en charge et conduire à une perte de chance pour le patient. Cependant, l’appendicite aiguë constitue une situation spécifique bien particulière et la fréquence de cette pathologie conduit à considérer ce cas particulier. En effet, tandis que le traitement recommandé de l’appendicite aiguë non compliquée est chirurgical, l’alternative non chirurgicale par antibiothérapie seule a été largement évaluée dans la littérature au cours de travaux de qualité. Dans la mesure où la limite principale du traitement médical exclusif de l’appendicite aiguë non compliquée est le risque de récidive à distance, cette option thérapeutique représente une alternative de choix pour réduire la surcharge intrahospitalière dans ce contexte de crise sanitaire. L’objectif de ce travail est donc de mettre à disposition des médecins et des chirurgiens un guide pratique issu d’une analyse de la littérature sur le traitement médical de l’appendicite aiguë non compliquée de l’adulte afin de pouvoir proposer ce traitement alternatif aux bons patients et dans des bonnes conditions, notamment lorsque l’accès au bloc opératoire est impossible.

Antibiotics alone as an alternative to appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults: Changes in treatment modalities related to the COVID-19 health crisis

The massive inflow of patients with COVID-19 requiring urgent care has overloaded hospitals in France and impacts the management of other patients. Deferring hospitalization and non-urgent surgeries has become a priority for surgeons today in order to relieve the health care system. It is obviously not simple to reduce emergency surgery without altering the quality of care or leading to a loss of chance for the patient. Acute appendicitis is a very specific situation and the prevalence of this disease leads us to reconsider this particular disease in the context of the COVID-19 crisis. Indeed, while the currently recommended treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis is surgical appendectomy, the non-surgical alternative of medical management by antibiotic therapy alone has been widely evaluated by high-quality studies in the literature. Insofar as the main limitation of exclusively medical treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis is the risk of recurrent appendicitis, this treatment option represents an alternative of choice to reduce the intra-hospital overload in this context of health crisis. The aim of this work is therefore to provide physicians and surgeons with a practical guide based on a review of the literature on the medical treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults, to offer this alternative treatment to the right patients and under good conditions, especially when access to the operating room is limited or impossible.

Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is still challenging and some controversies on its management are still present among different settings and practice patterns worldwide. In July 2015, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) organized in Jerusalem the first consensus conference on the diagnosis and treatment of AA in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines. An updated consensus conference took place in Nijemegen in June 2019 and the guidelines have now been updated in order to provide evidence-based statements and recommendations in keeping with varying clinical practice: use of clinical scores and imaging in diagnosing AA, indications and timing for surgery, use of non-operative management and antibiotics, laparoscopy and surgical techniques, intra-operative scoring, and peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

METHODS

This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of AA. Literature search has been updated up to 2019 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. The statements were voted, eventually modified, and finally approved by the participants to the consensus conference and by the board of co-authors, using a Delphi methodology for voting whenever there was controversy on a statement or a recommendation. Several tables highlighting the research topics and questions, search syntaxes, and the statements and the WSES evidence-based recommendations are provided. Finally, two different practical clinical algorithms are provided in the form of a flow chart for both adults and pediatric (< 16 years old) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2020 WSES guidelines on AA aim to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) non-operative management for uncomplicated AA, (3) timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, (4) surgical treatment, (5) intra-operative grading of AA, (6) ,management of perforated AA with phlegmon or abscess, and (7) peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

Pathology findings following interval appendectomy: Should it stay or go?

PURPOSE

Interval appendectomy following nonoperative management of complicated appendicitis remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical pathology and clinical outcomes after pediatric interval appendectomy.

METHODS

Pathology results from children with complicated appendicitis who underwent interval appendectomy at a single children's hospital from 2010 to 2017 were reviewed. The primary outcome was pathology results. Secondary outcomes included complications and readmission following initial treatment and after interval appendectomy.

RESULTS

Among 149 patients (median age 11 years; range, 1-18), all had evidence of persistent inflammation on surgical pathology, 25 (17%) had an appendicolith, and no neoplasms were identified. Median duration of the initial admission was 8 days (range, 2-28) and 70% received a percutaneous drain prior to appendectomy. Interval appendectomy was performed at a median of 7.5 weeks (range, 2.9-29.1). Thirty-six (24%) returned to the hospital prior to their scheduled appendectomy and 6 (4%) required appendectomy earlier than planned. Nine patients (6%) experienced a complication following interval appendectomy, of which superficial surgical site infection was the most common (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

All children had evidence of ongoing inflammation on surgical pathology. While the clinical implications of persistent inflammation remain uncertain, these findings suggest that interval appendectomy is an appropriate treatment following medical management of complicated appendicitis in children.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE SECTION

IV, Case series with no comparison groups.

Increased Risk of Neoplasms in Adult Patients Undergoing Interval Appendectomy

PURPOSE

The low rate of recurrent appendicitis after initial nonsurgical management of complicated appendicitis supports the recently implemented strategy of omitting routine interval appendectomy. However, several reports have suggested an increased incidence rate of neoplasms in these patients. We aimed to identify the risk of neoplasms in the population undergoing interval appendectomy.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed consecutive cases of appendicitis that were treated surgically between January 2014 and December 2018 at a single tertiary referral center. Patients were divided into 2 groups depending on whether they underwent immediate or interval appendectomy. Demographics and perioperative clinical and pathologic parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

All 2,013 adults included in the study underwent surgical treatment because of an initial diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Of these, 5.5% (111 of 2,013) underwent interval appendectomy. Appendiceal neoplasm was identified on pathologic analysis in 36 cases (1.8%). The incidence of neoplasm in the interval group was 12.6% (14 of 111), which was significantly higher than that of the immediate group (1.2% [22 of 1,902], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The incidence rate of neoplasms was significantly higher in patients undergoing interval appendectomy. These findings should be considered when choosing treatment options after successful nonsurgical management of complicated appendicitis.

South Coast appendicular mass management (SCAM) survey

Background

Management of appendicular mass and interval appendicectomy remains a controversial issue. Recent publication of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) reported the incidence of around 20% neoplastic lesions in the age group of more than forty years among the interval appendicectomy group against magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance only which led to trial termination. The objective of this study is to evaluate the current practice of the management of appendicular mass in five major hospitals of South Coast of the England.

Methods

A proforma was designed and emailed to the general surgical department of five hospitals in the South Coast of England. The proforma completion rate and compliance were improved by direct telephone call to the on-call registrars and consultants to collect data.

Results

Fifty-three surgeons (22 consultants, 27 ST3-ST8 grade surgical trainees and 4 SAS grades) completed the proforma. The clinical, hematological and computerized tomography (CT) based diagnostic criteria, and in-patient intravenous antibiotics (IV ABTXs) in addition to the radiological drainage in amenable cases for appendicular mass/abscess were mostly agreed initial management plan among surgeons. Normalization of inflammatory markers and radiological resolution were agreed discharge indicators. Agreed follow up investigations were CT scan (by 23%), Colonoscopy (by 13%), and both CT and colonoscopy (by 57%) after discharging patients. Only 17% surgeons offered planned interval appendicectomy and 62% surgeons offered interval appendectomy in selective cases of appendicular mass within 6 weeks to 6 months after discharge.

Conclusions

South Coast appendicular mass management (SCAM) survey confirms diverse practice to manage appendicular mass/abscess among surgeons working in South Coast hospitals. A substantial percentage of surgeons do not offer interval appendectomy to patients potentially leaving neoplastic lesions in situ.

Operative Versus Nonoperative Management of Appendicitis: A Long-Term Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Background. Recent clinical trials suggest that nonoperative management (NOM) of patients with acute, uncomplicated appendicitis is an acceptable alternative to surgery. However, limited data exist comparing the long-term cost-effectiveness of nonoperative treatment strategies. Design. We constructed a Markov model comparing the cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies for uncomplicated appendicitis: 1) laparoscopic appendectomy, 2) inpatient NOM, and 3) outpatient NOM. The model assessed lifetime costs and outcomes from a third-party payer perspective. The preferred strategy was the one yielding the greatest utility without exceeding a $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Results. Outpatient NOM cost $233,700 over a lifetime; laparoscopic appendectomy cost $2500 more while inpatient NOM cost $7300 more. Outpatient NOM generated 24.9270 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), while laparoscopic appendectomy and inpatient NOM yielded 0.0709 and 0.0005 additional QALYs, respectively. Laparoscopic appendectomy was cost-effective compared with outpatient NOM (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $32,300 per QALY gained); inpatient NOM was dominated by laparoscopic appendectomy. In one-way sensitivity analyses, the preferred strategy changed when varying perioperative mortality, probability of appendiceal malignancy or recurrent appendicitis after NOM, probability of a complicated recurrence, and appendectomy cost. A two-way sensitivity analysis showed that the rates of NOM failure and appendicitis recurrence described in randomized trials exceeded the values required for NOM to be preferred. Limitations. There are limited NOM data to generate long-term model probabilities. Health state utilities were often drawn from single studies and may significantly influence model outcomes. Conclusion. Laparoscopic appendectomy is a cost-effective treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis over a lifetime time horizon. Inpatient NOM was never the preferred strategy in the scenarios considered here. These results emphasize the importance of considering long-term costs and outcomes when evaluating NOM.

Perforated appendicitis in the setting of a massive ventral hernia, morbid obesity, and multiple severe comorbidities: challenges in acute management

Case summary: A 57-year-old woman with morbid obesity (body mass index [BMI] of 43), systemic lupus on steroids, type 2 insulin-dependent diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, unprovoked pulmonary embolism on rivaroxaban, and hypertension presented with 3 days of worsening abdominal pain and nausea. She had an extensive surgical history including a cesarean section, multiple laparotomies for small bowel obstructions (one complicated by bowel perforation requiring resection), and a double-barrelled ileostomy, which had been since reversed. As a result, she had a massive incisional hernia (figure 1). On presentation she was afebrile but tachycardic at 110 beats per minute. Physical examination revealed tenderness to deep palpation in the right upper and lower quadrants. CT demonstrated an 11 mm appendix with an appendicolith outside the hernia sac abutting the right kidney, discontinuity of the appendix tip, free fluid, and associated stranding in the subhepatic region (figure 2A). She was admitted to the surgical floor for a trial of conservative management with ancef and flagyl. On day 3, her pain worsened, her white cell count remained stable at 12 x10⁹/L, her temperature was 37.8°C, she was not tachycardic, and a repeat CT showed a 15 mm perforated appendix with increased periappendiceal stranding and an associated small volume of free fluid. There was no phlegmon or organized abscess (figure 2B).Figure 1Patient's abdomen demonstrating midline laparotomy incisional scar, previous ileostomy scar, and massive ventral hernia.Figure 2Abdominal CT showing increased stranding centered around the appendix, with discontinuity of the wall of the appendix tip and free fluid within the abdomen and pelvis. (A) Admission CT. White arrow: appendix. (B) CT on postadmit day 3 as patient worsened clinically. Black arrow: fecalith.

What would you do?

Continue non-operative management with broadened intravenous antibiotic coverage and bowel rest.Laparoscopic ± open appendectomy without concomitant hernia repair.Laparoscopic ± open appendectomy with abdominal wall reconstruction.