Nonsurgical treatment of appendiceal abscess or phlegmon: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2007;246:741-748. [PMID: 17968164 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e31811f3f9f]

Meta-analysis of the therapeutic effects of antibiotic versus appendicectomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis

Appendicectomy has been the gold standard treatment of acute appendicitis for more than a century, while nonoperative therapies, including antibiotics, have acquired increased interest in recent years. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the therapeutic effects of antibiotics versus appendicectomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis. Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library databases were searched. Prospective randomized controlled trials that compared antibiotic treatment with surgery were included. The outcomes evaluated included the time of hospital stay, complications and time to work. There were no statistically significant differences between the antibiotic and appendicectomy groups with regard to the time of hospital stay and complications. However, the time to work was significantly longer in the appendicectomy group when compared with the antibiotic group. In addition, the therapeutic effects of antibiotics and appendicectomy were comparable for the treatment of acute appendicitis.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: State of the art. Tailored approach to the application of laparoscopic appendectomy?

Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in developed countries. The treatment of acute appendicitis is either open or laparoscopic appendectomy. The latter has gained wide acceptance in the past years, although the debate on the true merits of laparoscopic appendectomy is still on going. Some authors prefer this approach as the gold standard for all patients, but in our opinion a tailored approach is warranted for specific patient groups. In addition, a standardised guideline on the technical aspects is still lacking. In the current article, open versus laparoscopic appendectomy and several technical aspects, such as stump closure, appendix extraction and single incision are discussed laparoscopic appendectomy are being addressed. In the future perspectives we will briefly discuss the third 'newly' introduced antibiotic treatment.

[Modern treatment of an appendiceal mass]

BACKGROUND

The recommendations for the treatment of an appendiceal mass are still controversial. The need for staged appendectomy is still under discussion.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a retrospective study all patients with the diagnosis appendiceal mass (ICD 10 K35.32) treated in the surgical clinic of the University Clinic in Greifswald between June 1999 and June 2011 were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients were included in the study whereby 17 patients (9 male and 8 female) were treated with drainage and antibiotics (group A) and 21 (14 male and 7 female) were treated by immediate surgery (group B). Nonsurgical therapy with drainage of the abscess was found to be efficient. Immediate surgical treatment was also effective and should be performed when signs of peritonitis exist. Interval appendectomy is not indicated.

Delayed appendectomy versus early appendectomy in the treatment of acute appendicitis: a retrospective study

Background

The controversy still exists about the timing of operation for appendicitis. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between early appendectomy and delayed appendectomy and assess the feasibility of delayed operation.

Methods

The medical records of patients with acute appendicitis who received operation between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011, were retrospectively reviewed. Outcome measures were white blood cell (WBC) count at postoperative first day, time to soft diet, complication rate, surgical site infection (SSI) rate, length of hospital stay, and readmission within 30 days.

Results

During the study period, a total of 478 patients underwent appendectomies, and 145 patients were excluded, leaving 333 who met inclusion criteria. Based on the time from arrival at hospital to incision, they were divided into two groups: 177 (53.2%) in group A and 156 (46.8%) in group B. There were no significant differences in preoperative demographics and clinical data between two groups. The mean WBC count at postoperative first day of group B were lower than that of group A (p = 0.0039). There were no significant differences in time to soft diet, length of postoperative hospital stay, complication rate, and readmission rate between two groups. SSI including intra-abdominal abscess was also shown no significant difference (Group A, 1.7% and Group B, 3.9%; p = 0.3143).

Conclusions

This study revealed that delayed appendectomy was safe and feasible for adult patient although the clinical outcomes of delayed appendectomy were not superior to those of early appendectomy. We suggest that surgeons would decide the appropriate timing of appendectomy with consideration other situations such as available hospital resources.

Intra-abdominal abscess drainage: interval to surgery

Placement of percutaneous drainage catheters has become first-line therapy in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal abscesses. Catheters can be used to avoid surgical intervention or to improve surgical outcomes. This article discusses the current evidence describing the optimal interval between percutaneous drainage procedures and surgery, focusing on patients with Crohn's disease, appendicitis, and diverticulitis.

Uncovering malpractice in appendectomies: a review of 234 cases

BACKGROUND

General surgery is a "high-risk specialty" with respect to medical malpractice rates, and appendicitis is one of the most common diagnoses encountered by practitioners. Our objectives were to detail issues affecting malpractice litigation regarding appendicitis and appendectomies, including outcomes, awards, alleged causes of malpractice, and other factors instrumental in determining legal responsibility and increasing patient safety.

STUDY DESIGN

Publically available federal and state court records were examined for pertinent jury verdict and settlement reports. Information from 234 pertinent cases was collected, including alleged causes of malpractice and outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 234 cases included in this study, the most common factor noted was an alleged delay in diagnosis (67.1%), followed by intraoperative negligence (16.2%). Alleged deficits in informed consent, although only specifically cited as a cause of malpractice in 1.3% of cases, were found to be an important aspect of many cases. In total, 59.8% of cases were ruled in favor of the physician, 23.7% in favor of the plaintiff, and 5.5% reached a settlement. The average plaintiff award was US $794,152, and the average settlement award was US $1,434,286.

CONCLUSION

An important strategy to decrease liability in a physician's practice is prompt evaluation of an appendicitis patient. An integral part of this is efficient communication between physicians practicing a wide variety of specialties, especially including practitioners in emergency medicine and general surgery. Additionally, completing a thorough informed consent explaining all aspects of the procedure including the factors we outline will not only increase patient awareness of potential risks but also protect the physician in the face of litigation.

The use of pre- or postoperative antibiotics in surgery for appendicitis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The aim of this study was to review the literature regarding the use of pre- and/or postoperative antibiotics in the management of appendicitis, using data obtained from PubMed and the Cochrane Library.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the terms "appendicitis" combined with "antibiotics." Studies were selected based on relevance for the evidence on prophylactic and postoperative treatment with regard to the route and duration of drug administration and the findings of surgery.

RESULTS

Patients with acute appendicitis should receive preoperative, broad-spectrum antibiotics. The use of postoperative antibiotics is only recommended in cases of perforation, and treatment should then be given intravenously, for a minimum period of 3-5 days for adult patients, until clinical signs such as fever resolve and laboratory parameters such as C-reactive protein curve and white blood cell (WBC) start to decline.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended in all patients with acute appendicitis, whereas postoperative antibiotics only in cases of perforation.

Effective photodynamic therapy against microbial populations in human deep tissue abscess aspirates

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The primary therapy for deep tissue abscesses is drainage accompanied by systemic antimicrobial treatment. However, the long antibiotic course required increases the probability of acquired resistance, and the high incidence of polymicrobial infections in abscesses complicates treatment choices. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is effective against multiple classes of organisms, including those displaying drug resistance, and may serve as a useful adjunct to the standard of care by reduction of abscess microbial burden following drainage.

STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS

Aspirates were obtained from 32 patients who underwent image-guided percutaneous drainage of the abscess cavity. The majority of the specimens (24/32) were abdominal, with the remainder from liver and lung. Conventional microbiological techniques and nucleotide sequence analysis of rRNA gene fragments were used to characterize microbial populations from abscess aspirates. We evaluated the sensitivity of microorganisms to methylene blue-sensitized PDT in vitro both within the context of an abscess aspirate and as individual isolates.

RESULTS

Most isolates were bacterial, with the fungus Candida tropicalis also isolated from two specimens. We examined the sensitivity of these microorganisms to methylene blue-PDT. Complete elimination of culturable microorganisms was achieved in three different aspirates, and significant killing (P < 0.0001) was observed in all individual microbial isolates tested compared to controls.

CONCLUSIONS

These results and the technical feasibility of advancing optical fibers through catheters at the time of drainage motivate further work on including PDT as a therapeutic option during abscess treatment.

Treatment options of inflammatory appendiceal masses in adults

At present, the treatment of choice for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults continues to be surgical. The inflammation in acute appendicitis may sometimes be enclosed by the patient's own defense mechanisms, by the formation of an inflammatory phlegmon or a circumscribed abscess. The management of these patients is controversial. Immediate appendectomy may be technically demanding. The exploration often ends up in an ileocecal resection or a right-sided hemicolectomy. Recently, the conditions for conservative management of these patients have changed due to the development of computed tomography and ultrasound, which has improved the diagnosis of enclosed inflammation and made drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses easier. New efficient antibiotics have also given new opportunities for nonsurgical treatment of complicated appendicitis. The traditional management of these patients is nonsurgical treatment followed by interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence. The need for interval appendectomy after successful nonsurgical treatment has recently been questioned because the risk of recurrence is relatively small. After successful nonsurgical treatment of an appendiceal mass, the true diagnosis is uncertain in some cases and an underlying diagnosis of cancer or Crohn's disease may be delayed. This report aims at reviewing the treatment options of patients with enclosed appendiceal inflammation, with emphasis on the success rate of nonsurgical treatment, the need for drainage of abscesses, the risk of undetected serious disease, and the need for interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence.

Nonoperative management of appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with an appendicolith in children

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment of appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with an appendicolith is controversial. This study aimed to evaluate outcomes and prognosis of nonoperative management of appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with an appendicolith in children.

METHODS

From 2007 to 2011, 105 children with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess who were treated nonoperatively without interval appendectomy were reviewed. Average follow-up of subjects was 2.4 years. Data were compared between subjects with and without an appendicolith or persistent presence and disappearance of an appendicolith.

RESULTS

The success rate for nonoperative therapy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with appendicolith was 95.9 %. The risk of recurrent appendicitis in appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with appendicolith (19.1 %) was higher than that without appendicolith (8.9 %, P = 0.132). The rate of appendicolith disappearance during follow-up was 80.9 %. The persistent presence of an appendicolith was associated with a significantly higher recurrence rate (66.7 %) compared with appendicolith disappearance (7.9 %, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with an appendicolith can be managed nonoperatively, and most appendicoliths can be resolved. Persistent presence of an appendicolith is a significant risk factor for recurrent appendicitis. Interval appendectomy is recommended for persistent presence of appendicolith, but is not indicated in cases without appendicolith or appendicolith disappearance.

The role of antibiotic therapy in the management of acute appendicitis

Nonsurgical treatment with antibiotics has recently been proposed as the first line of treatment for noncomplicated appendicitis. This has met with considerable interest, illustrated by the number of reviews and meta-analyses, which exceed the number of original reports of the issue. The results in these studies are seriously biased due to inclusion of patients with resolving appendicitis. At a time when we need to reduce inappropriate use of antibiotics in the struggle against the increasing rate of antibiotics resistance, there must be strong requirements of a proven effect and an improved cost-benefit ratio before antibiotics treatment is introduced for a new group of patients. These requirements have not yet been met for nonsurgical treatment with antibiotics for assumed uncomplicated appendicitis. Due to the high rate of spontaneous resolution, a randomized placebo-controlled trial is needed that can compare the efficiency of antibiotics treatment and expectant management in this group of patients. Antibiotics treatment, however, remains indicated for treatment of perforated appendicitis with localized abscess or phlegmone and in selected surgical high-risk patients.

2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Despite advances in diagnosis, surgery, and antimicrobial therapy, mortality rates associated with complicated intra-abdominal infections remain exceedingly high.The 2013 update of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for the management of intra-abdominal infections contains evidence-based recommendations for management of patients with intra-abdominal infections.

Risk of perforation increases with delay in recognition and surgery for acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis remains a common indication for urgent surgical intervention in the United States, and early appendectomy has long been advocated to mitigate the risk of appendiceal perforation. To better quantify the risk of perforation associated with delayed operative timing, this study examines the impact of length of inpatient stay preceding surgery on rates of perforated appendicitis in both adults and children.

METHODS

This study was a cross-sectional analysis using the National Inpatient Sample and Kids' Inpatient Database from 1988-2008. We selected patients with a discharge diagnosis of acute appendicitis (perforated or nonperforated) and receiving appendectomy within 7 d after admission. Patients electively admitted or receiving drainage procedures before appendectomy were excluded. We analyzed perforation rates as a function of both age and length of inpatient hospitalization before appendectomy.

RESULTS

Of 683,590 patients with a discharge diagnosis of appendicitis, 30.3% were recorded as perforated. Over 80% of patients underwent appendectomy on the day of admission, approximately 18% of operations were performed on hospital days 2-4, and later operations accounted for <1% of cases. During appendectomy on the day of admission, the perforation rate was 28.8%; this increased to 33.3% for surgeries on hospital day 2 and 78.8% by hospital day 8 (P<0.001). Adjusted for patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics, odds of perforation increased from 1.20 for adults and 1.08 for children on hospital day 2 to 4.76 for adults and 15.42 for children by hospital day 8 (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater inpatient delay before appendectomy is associated with increased perforation rates for children and adults within this population-based study. These findings align with previous studies and with the conventional progressive pathophysiologic appendicitis model. Randomized prospective studies are needed to determine which patients benefit from nonoperative versus surgically aggressive management strategies for acute appendicitis.

Appendicitis: changing perspectives

Neoplasms are an uncommon finding after appendectomy, with malignant tumors occurring in less than 1% of the surgical specimens, and carcinoid being the most frequent malignancy. A negative or inconclusive ultrasound is not adequate to rule out appendicitis and should be followed by CT scan. For pregnant patients, MRI is a reasonable alternative to CT scan. Nonoperative treatment with antibiotics is safe as an initial treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis, with a significant decrease in complications but a high failure rate. Open and laparoscopic appendectomies for appendicitis provide similar results overall, although the laparoscopic technique may be advantageous for obese and elderly patients but may be associated with a higher incidence of intraabdominal abscess. Preoperative diagnostic accuracy is of utmost importance during pregnancy because a negative appendectomy is associated with a significant incidence of fetal loss. The increased morbidity associated with appendectomy delay suggests that prompt surgical intervention remains the safest approach. Routine incidental appendectomy should not be performed except in selected cases. Interval appendectomy is not indicated because of considerable risks of complications and lack of any clinical benefit. Patients older than 40 years with an appendiceal mass or abscess treated nonoperatively should routinely have a colonoscopy as part of their follow-up to rule out cancer or alternative diagnosis.

Risk of perforation increases with delay in recognition and surgery for acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis remains a common indication for urgent surgical intervention in the United States, and early appendectomy has long been advocated to mitigate the risk of appendiceal perforation. To better quantify the risk of perforation associated with delayed operative timing, this study examines the impact of length of inpatient stay preceding surgery on rates of perforated appendicitis in both adults and children.

METHODS

This study was a cross-sectional analysis using the National Inpatient Sample and Kids' Inpatient Database from 1988-2008. We selected patients with a discharge diagnosis of acute appendicitis (perforated or nonperforated) and receiving appendectomy within 7 d after admission. Patients electively admitted or receiving drainage procedures before appendectomy were excluded. We analyzed perforation rates as a function of both age and length of inpatient hospitalization before appendectomy.

RESULTS

Of 683,590 patients with a discharge diagnosis of appendicitis, 30.3% were recorded as perforated. Over 80% of patients underwent appendectomy on the day of admission, approximately 18% of operations were performed on hospital days 2-4, and later operations accounted for <1% of cases. During appendectomy on the day of admission, the perforation rate was 28.8%; this increased to 33.3% for surgeries on hospital day 2 and 78.8% by hospital day 8 (P<0.001). Adjusted for patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics, odds of perforation increased from 1.20 for adults and 1.08 for children on hospital day 2 to 4.76 for adults and 15.42 for children by hospital day 8 (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Greater inpatient delay before appendectomy is associated with increased perforation rates for children and adults within this population-based study. These findings align with previous studies and with the conventional progressive pathophysiologic appendicitis model. Randomized prospective studies are needed to determine which patients benefit from nonoperative versus surgically aggressive management strategies for acute appendicitis.

Antibiotics as first-line therapy for acute appendicitis: evidence for a change in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Randomized studies have indicated that acute appendicitis may be treated by antibiotics without the need of surgery. However, concerns have been raised about selection bias of patients in such studies. Therefore, the present study was aimed to validate previous findings in randomized studies by a full-scale population-based application.

METHODS

All patients with acute appendicitis at Sahlgrenska University Hospital (May 2009 and February 2010) were offered intravenous piperacillin plus tazobactam according to our previous experience, followed by 9 days out-hospital oral ciprofloxacin plus metronidazole. Endpoints were treatment efficacy and complications. Efficient antibiotic treatment was defined as recovery without the need of surgery beyond 1 year of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 558 consecutive patients were hospitalized and treated due to acute appendicitis. Seventy-nine percent (n = 442) received antibiotics as first-line therapy and 20 % (n = 111) had primary surgery as the second-line therapy. Seventy-seven percent of patients on primary antibiotics recovered while 23 % (n = 100) had subsequent appendectomy due to failed initial treatment on antibiotics. Thirty-eight patients (11 %) of the 342 had experienced recurrent appendicitis at 1-year follow-up. Primary antibiotic treatment had fewer complications compared to primary surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based study confirms previous results of randomized studies. Antibiotic treatment can be offered as the first-line therapy to a majority of unselected patients with acute appendicitis without medical drawbacks other than the unknown risk for long-term relapse, which must be weighed against the unpredicted but well-known risk for serious major complications following surgical intervention.

Negative appendicectomy rate as a quality metric in the management of appendicitis: impact of computed tomography, Alvarado score and the definition of negative appendicectomy

INTRODUCTION

The negative appendicectomy rate (NAR) is a quality metric in the management of appendicitis. While computed tomography (CT) has been associated with a low NAR, Alvarado scoring produces an acceptable NAR. The definition of negative appendicectomy may affect the NAR. This study examined the impact of CT, Alvarado score and definition on the NAR.

METHODS

The charts of 1,306 emergency appendicectomy patients from 1996 to 2010 were reviewed. Three five-year cohorts were created (Cohort A: 1996-2000, Cohort B: 2001-2005, Cohort C: 2006-2010) and the NAR was calculated for each cohort using two definitions of negative appendicectomy: absence of inflammation (NAR-STD) and absence of intramural neutrophils (NAR-STR). NAR-STD was correlated to the CT rate for Cohorts B and C and also to Alvarado score for Cohort C.

RESULTS

When the definition of negative appendicectomy was changed, the NAR rose from 9.2% to 15.8% (p=0.0097) for Cohort A, from 2.8% to 8.6% (p=0.0180) for Cohort B (CT rate: 80.6%) and from 3.0% to 6.7% (p=0.0255) for Cohort C (CT rate: 92.4%). The introduction of CT lowered NAR-STD from 1996-2000 (9.2%) to 2001-2010 (2.9%) but increasing the CT rate from 2001-2010 had no impact on the NAR. The positive predictive value for Alvarado score (98.60%) and CT (99.03%) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The definition of a negative appendicectomy determines the NAR. CT reduces the NAR regardless of definition but routine CT is unnecessary for male patients with positive Alvarado scores. Early/mild appendicitis may resolve without surgery and CT may contribute to unnecessary surgery. Alvarado scoring allows selective use of CT in suspected appendicitis.

Evaluating conservative treatment for acute appendicitis with lump formation

Background:

Interval appendectomy after acute appendicitis with lump formation (phlegmon) remains controversial. We conducted this study to determine the risk of recurrent appendicitis following initial non-operative treatment for appendicitis, and evaluate factors associated with recurrence. Secondarily, we evaluate the efficacy of interval appendectomy versus no appendectomy.

Materials and Methods:

Patients who received conservative treatment for appendicitis with lump formation were prospectively studied from June 2006 to June 2008. These patients were followed for recurrence of appendicitis.

Results:

Of 763 patients with acute appendicitis some 220 patients had lump formation (28.8%). Median age was 28 years. Conservative treatment was successful in 213 (96.8%) patients. The rate of recurrence was 13.1%, all occurring within six months after the index admission. Mean follow-up was 26±18 months.

Conclusion:

Conservative treatment of appendicitis with lump formation is efficient and the recurrence rate is low. Routine interval appendectomy after initial conservative treatment for lump formation is not a cost-effective intervention and not recommended.

Delaying an Appendectomy: Is it Safe?

Appendicitis has always been an indication for an urgent operation, as delay is thought to lead to disease progression and therefore worse outcomes. Recent studies suggest that appendectomy can be delayed slightly without worse outcomes, however the literature is contradictory. The goal of our study was to examine the relationship between this delay to surgery and patient outcomes. We reviewed all patients that underwent an appendectomy in our institution from January 2009 to December 2010. We recorded the time of surgical diagnosis from when both the surgical consult and the CT scan (if done) were completed. The delay from surgical diagnosis to incision was measured, and patients were divided into two groups: early (≤6 hours delay) and late (>6 hours delay). Outcome measures were 30-day complication rate, length of stay, perforation rate, and laparoscopic to open conversion rate. Three hundred and seventy-seven patients had appendectomies in the study period, and 35 patients were excluded as per the exclusion criteria leaving 342 in the study: 269 (78.7%) in the early group and 73 (21.3%) in the late group. Complications occurred in 21 patients (6.1%) with no difference between the groups: 16/253 (5.9%) in the early group and 5/73 (6.8%) in the late group ( P = 0.93, χ2). The mean (± standard deviation) length of stay was 86.1 ± 67.1 hours in the early group, and 95.9 ± 73.0 hours in the late group. This difference was not significant ( P = 0.22). Delaying an appendectomy more than 6 hours, but less than 24 hours from diagnosis is safe and does not lead to worse outcomes. This can help limit the disruption to the schedules of both the surgeon and the operating room.

Interval appendectomy in adults: A necessary evil?

The management of appendiceal mass remains a matter of major controversy in the current literature. Currently, initial nonoperative management followed by interval appendectomy is favored over immediate appendicectomy. However, the necessity of doing an interval appendectomy has been questioned - is it a necessary evil? The present review revisits the above controversy, evaluates the current literature, assesses the need for interval appendectomy in adults, and provides recommendations.

Percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal abscess in children with perforated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Because the surgical management of perforated appendicitis remains controversial, percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) has gained favor for managing periappendiceal abscess in hemodynamically stable children.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and effectiveness of PCD in children with perforated appendicitis and to identify any variables of prognostic value.

MATERIALS & METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated clinical data and imaging features for 33 children undergoing PCD for periappendiceal abscess from October 2006 to February 2010. Those with preprocedural CT studies were assigned to one of three risk categories based on imaging features.

RESULTS

Appendectomy was successfully postponed for all patients. Our technical success rate was 87.9%, with three recurrences (two requiring repeat drainage, one managed conservatively) and one possible complication (enterocutaneous fistula formation). Children with large and diffuse abscesses had a 50% rate of technical failure, which was significantly increased when compared to children with large but localized abscesses (P < 0.028). Extraluminal appendicolith, extraluminal gas, leukocytosis, ileus/obstruction and procedural variables were not reliable predictors of outcome.

CONCLUSION

PCD can be effective for managing perforated appendicitis in children. Children with large and ill-defined abscess might be at increased risk for complication or recurrence.

Interval routine appendectomy following conservative treatment of acute appendicitis: Is it really needed

Conservative management of acute appendicitis (AA) is gradually being adopted as a valuable therapeutic choice in the treatment of selected patients with AA. This approach is based on the results of many recent studies indicating that it is a valuable and effective alternative to routine emergency appendectomy. Existing data do not support routine interval appendectomy following successful conservative management of AA; indeed, the risk of recurrence is low. Moreover, recurrences usually exhibit a milder clinical course compared to the first episode of AA. The role of routine interval appendectomy is also questioned recently, even in patients with AA complicated by plastron or localized abscess formation. Surgical judgment is required to avoid misdiagnosis when selecting a conservative approach in patients with a presumed “appendiceal” mass.

Increased Risk of Neoplasm in Appendicitis Treated with Interval Appendectomy: Single-Institution Experience and Literature Review

Appendicitis is a common diagnosis encountered by the acute care surgeon. Management of complicated appendicitis is controversial and often involves initial nonoperative therapy with interval appendectomy. This study reviews single-institutional experience with management of complicated appendicitis with interval appendectomy and addresses an unusually high occurrence of incidental appendiceal malignancies observed with a review of relevant literature. A retrospective review of all diagnoses of appendicitis was performed over 5 years at a tertiary care center. Patient demographics, time to surgery, operative technique, pathologic diagnosis, and clinical outcomes were examined. Three hundred fifteen patients were diagnosed with acute appendicitis. Of these, 24 (7.6%) were deemed complicated and did not undergo immediate appendectomy, and 18 ultimately underwent appendectomy at our institution and were included in analysis. There were no statistical demographic or symptomatic differences between the immediate and interval appendectomy patients. Ninety-nine per cent of the immediate appendectomy patients were treated laparoscopically; 78 per cent of the interval group underwent attempted laparoscopic treatment with 56 per cent completed without conversion to open ( P < 0.01). Neoplasms were discovered in 1 per cent of the acute appendectomy group and 28 per cent of the interval appendectomy group ( P < 0.0001). Two of the three neoplasms in the acute group were carcinoid, whereas three of the five neoplasms in the interval group were adenocarcinoma. Surgeons should consider appendiceal or colonic neoplasms in cases of complicated appendicitis when nonoperative management is considered. This is most important in patients older than 40 years, in those who forego interval appendectomy, or in those who could be lost to follow-up.

A rare complication of acute appendicitis: Superior mesenteric vein thrombosis

INTRODUCTION

Very few cases of superior mesenteric vein thrombosis have been reported as a complication of appendicitis. In these handful of cases, the thrombosis was identified early with computerised tomography scan and patients have been managed conservatively with antibiotics and anticoagulation.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 45-year-old gentleman presented to the emergency department with a 13-day history of right lower quadrant abdominal pain and rigors. CT scan of the abdomen revealed an appendicular mass and superior mesenteric vein thrombosis. The patient was initially managed by anticoagulation and antibiotics for two weeks and was discharged after satisfactory clinical improvement. He represented after discharge for increased severity of his abdominal pain and abnormal inflammatory markers. Emergency open appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis was performed and his postoperative course was unremarkable. He was discharged on the 7th postoperative day with anticoagulation. Outpatient review at two months was unremarkable.

DISCUSSION

Acute appendicitis is a common surgical presentation where history and examination is key in clinching the diagnosis. Inflammatory markers and imaging modalities such as a CT scan can be helpful. Although surgical intervention is the mainstay of treatment, conservative management with antibiotics is an option if the diagnosis of appendicitis is equivocal. Recent evidence has revealed that elective appendicectomy is not necessary upon successful conservative management. Acute appendicitis can lead to local perforations and abscesses. Complications such as thrombosis in the superior mesenteric vein are rare and can be managed successfully with anticoagulants.

CONCLUSION

Although this is a rare complication of appendicitis, the case was managed successfully with a conservative approach. This is inline with the general consensus which is to treat superior mesenteric vein thrombosis secondary to appendicitis conservatively unless the patient deteriorates.

Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Present day treatment of choice for acute appendicitis is appendectomy, however complications are inherent to operative treatment. Though surgical appendectomy remains the standard treatment, several investigators have investigated conservative antibiotic treatment of acute appendicitis and reported good results.

OBJECTIVES

Is antibiotic treatment as effective as surgical appendectomy (laparoscopic or open) in patients with acute appendicitis on recovery within two weeks, without major complications (including recurrence) within one year?

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 6, 2011); MEDLINE (until June 2011); EMBASE (until June 2011); Prospective Trial Registers (June 2011) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials (RCT and qRCT) comparing antibiotic treatment with appendectomy in patients with suspected appendicitis were included. Excluded were studies which primarily focused on the complications of acute appendicitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. The review authors contacted the trial authors for additional information if required. Statistical analysis was carried out using Review Manager and MetaAnalyst. A non-inferiority analysis was performed, comparing antibiotic treatment (ABT) to the gold standard (appendectomy). By consensus, a 20% margin of non-inferiority was considered clinically relevant.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCT's (901 patients) were assessed. In total 73.4% (95% CI 62.7 to 81.9) of patients who were treated with antibiotics and 97.4 (95% CI 94.4 to 98.8) patients who directly got an appendectomy were cured within two weeks without major complications (including recurrence) within one year. The lower 95% CI was 15.2% below the 20% margin for the primary outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The upper bound of the 95% CI of ABT for cure within two weeks without major complications crosses the 20% margin of appendectomy, so the outcome is inconclusive. Also the quality of the studies was low to moderate, for that reason the results should be interpret with caution and definite conclusions cannot be made. Therefore we conclude that appendectomy remains the standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Antibiotic treatment might be used as an alternative treatment in a good quality RCT or in specific patients or conditions were surgery is contraindicated.

Antibiotics versus appendectomy in the management of acute appendicitis: a review of the current evidence

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis remains the most common cause of the acute abdomen in young adults, and the mainstay of treatment in most centres is an appendectomy. However, treatment for other intra-abdominal inflammatory processes, such as diverticulitis, consists initially of conservative management with antibiotics. The aim of this study was to determine the role of antibiotics in the management of acute appendicitis and to assess if appendectomy remains the gold standard of care.

METHODS

A literature search using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library identified studies published between 1999 and 2009, and we reviewed all relevant articles. The articles were critiqued using the Public Health Resource Unit (2006) appraisal tools.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 41 papers, and we identified a total of 13 papers within the criteria specified. All of these papers, while posing pertinent questions and demonstrating the role of antibiotics as a bridge to surgery, failed to adequately justify their findings that antibiotics could be used as a definitive treatment of acute appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

Appendectomy remains the gold standard of treatment for acute appendicitis based on the current evidence.

Is interval appendicectomy justified after successful nonoperative treatment of an appendix mass in children? A systematic review

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Interval appendicectomy (IA) is commonly performed after successful nonoperative treatment of appendix mass (AM); although, this approach has recently been challenged. We systematically reviewed the pediatric literature with regard to the justification for this practice.

METHODS

Using a defined search strategy, studies were identified and data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Incidences of recurrent appendicitis, complications after IA, and carcinoid tumor were estimated accounting for interstudy heterogeneity. Cost and length of stay of IA were analyzed.

RESULTS

Three studies (127 cases) reporting routine nonsurgical treatment were identified; all were retrospective. There was marked interstudy heterogeneity and variable follow-up. After successful nonoperative treatment of AM, the risk of recurrent appendicitis is 20.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.3%-28.4%). The incidence of complications after IA (23 studies, n = 1247) is 3.4% (95% CI, 2.2-5.1), and the incidence of carcinoid tumor found at IA (15 studies, n = 955) is 0.9% (95% CI, 0.5-1.8). No reports compared costs. Mean length of stay for IA was 3 days (range, 1-30 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective studies comparing routine IA with nonoperative treatment without IA in children are lacking. Available data suggest that 80% of children with AM may not need IA. A prospective study to evaluate the natural history of this condition compared with the morbidity and costs of IA is warranted.

The Microbiology of Community-acquired Peritonitis in Children

BACKGROUND

microbiologic data are lacking regarding pediatric community-acquired peritonitis (CAP).

METHODS

we conducted a 2-year retrospective single center study. Consecutive children undergoing CAP surgery were included. Microbiology and antimicrobial susceptibility of peritoneal isolates were analyzed.

RESULTS

a total of 70 children from 3 months to 14 years of age were included. A total of 123 bacterial isolates were analyzed. Escherichia coli was the predominant aerobic organism (51% of isolates); 54.8% were susceptible to amoxicillin whereas 90.3% were susceptible to amoxicillin-clavulanate. Anaerobes accounted for 29% of isolates, and 94.3% of strains were susceptible to amoxicillin-clavulanate and 68.5% were susceptible to clindamycin. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was present in 6% of isolates and in 10% of children. The presence of E. coli resistant to amoxicillin or to amoxicillin-clavulanate was the only independent risk factor associated with postoperative peritonitis.

CONCLUSION

microbiology of pediatric CAP is similar to adult CAP with a predominancy of E. coli and anaerobes. P. aeruginosa in peritoneal samples had no apparent influence on the outcome.

WSES consensus conference: Guidelines for first-line management of intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections are still associated with high rate of morbidity and mortality.A multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with intra-abdominal infections may be an important factor in the quality of care. The presence of a team of health professionals from various disciplines, working in concert, may improve efficiency, outcome, and the cost of care.A World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) Consensus Conference was held in Bologna on July 2010, during the 1st congress of the WSES, involving surgeons, infectious disease specialists, pharmacologists, radiologists and intensivists with the goal of defining recommendations for the early management of intra-abdominal infections.This document represents the executive summary of the final guidelines approved by the consensus conference.

Does Use of Intraoperative Irrigation with Open or Laparoscopic Appendectomy Reduce Post-Operative Intra-abdominal Abscess?

To date, no study shows a decrease in postoperative abscess with the use of irrigation during appendectomy. Postoperative abscess rate for laparoscopic and open appendectomy is 3.3 and 2.6 per cent. The purpose of this study is to determine if irrigation at appendectomy decreases the postoperative intra-abdominal abscess rate. Retrospective chart review of 176 consecutive appendectomies, open (39%) and laparoscopic (61%), at a university affiliated tertiary care facility from July 2007 to November 2008 for use of intraoperative irrigation was performed. Patients under age 18 were excluded. There were no differences between the irrigation groups in regards to age, sex, or weight. Perforation was observed in 28 per cent (50/176), of which 86 per cent (43/50) of patients received intraoperative irrigation. Eleven patients (9.6%) with irrigation developed postoperative abscess compared with two (3.3%) patients without irrigation ( P = 0.22). Our results do not show decrease in postoperative intra-abdominal abscess with use of intraoperative irrigation. Thirteen patients developed postoperative abscess: 11 with irrigation, two without irrigation. Ten of 13 patients who developed abscess were perforated; nine with irrigation and one without. These results suggest routine use of intraoperative irrigation for appendectomies does not prevent intra-abdominal abscess formation, adds extra costs, and may be avoided.

Management of appendicitis presenting with abscess or mass

Purpose

Management strategy in acute appendicitis patients initially presenting with abscess or mass is surrounded with controversy. This study was performed to identify the outcomes of management for this condition.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed prospectively registered 76 patients (male:female = 39:37; mean age, 50.8 years) with appendicitis presenting with abscess or mass over a 9-year period at the Seoul National University Hospital. Patients were divided into three groups (emergency operation group, delayed operation group, and follow-up group), and clinical characteristics and outcomes of treatment were investigated.

Results

Twenty-eight patients (36.8%) underwent an emergency operation. Of the remaining 48 patients, 20 (41.7%) were initially treated with conservative management through the use of antibiotics only; the other 28 (58.3%) with and additional ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage of the abscess. Twenty-six (54.2%) patients underwent planned operations after conservative management, and 22 (45.8%) were followed without surgery (median duration, 37.8 month), of which 3 (13%) underwent an appendectomy due to recurrent appendicitis (mean of 56.7 days after initial attack). There were no statistical differences in types of operation performed (appendectomy or ileocecectomy), postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay among the patients who underwent emergency operations, delayed operations and operations for recurrence during follow-up.

Conclusion

Although the recurrence rate was relatively low after conservative management for appendicitis patients presenting with abscess or mass, there was no difference in surgical outcome between the emergent, elective, or recurrent groups. Our results indicate that proper management of appendicitis with abscess or mass can be selected according to surgeon's preference.

Comparators (medicinal and non medicinal) for marketing authorization, for public health, for payers and at the European level

Drug evaluation is based on comparison. Thus, the choice of the comparator for any new treatment becomes a key issue, especially when there are great differences in medical practice and of use conditions of the comparators depending on the geographical zones and their evolution with time. The choice of the comparators must satisfy sometimes different expectations from the registration authorities and for insurance coverage. The universal comparator that allows answering all the clinical assessment questions does not exist. Placebo, when it can be used, remains a reference for the MA (marketing authorisation) application, but does not exclude the use of the reference drug available on the market and prescribed under optimal efficacy conditions. The reference treatment is sometimes a difficult choice due to the absence of validated therapeutic recommendations or if the recommendations vary depending on the countries. The expansion and international harmonization of prescription guidelines (clinical practice guidelines) would reinforce the robustness and efficiency of clinical research efforts with respect to the relevance of the comparison to reference treatments. This principle also applies to the use of a non-drug comparator when it has been recognized as the reference comparator in the treatment of the pathology in question. In as much as possible, the search for a consensus must also aim at defining in the clinical development recommendations significant thresholds for the size of evaluated effects. Optimization of the information made available after clinical trials could also be helped by the development of use of methodologies that allow assessing superiority on secondary criteria during a non-inferiority study on the main criterion. Finally, the development of early scientific consultations by the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS, French Health Authority) would contribute to adapt phase III clinical trials better to questions concerning the assessment of the clinical added value of the medicinal products evaluated.

Dollars and sense of interval appendectomy in children: a cost analysis

PURPOSE

Although initial nonoperative management of focal, perforated appendicitis in children is increasingly practiced, the need for subsequent interval appendectomy remains debated. We hypothesized that cost comparison would favor continued nonoperative management over routine interval appendectomy.

METHODS

Decision tree analysis was used to compare continued nonoperative management with routine interval appendectomy after initial success with nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis. Outcome probabilities were obtained from literature review and cost estimates from the Kid's Inpatient Database. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the 2 most influential variables in the model, the probability of successful nonoperative management and the costs associated with successful observation. Monte Carlo simulation was performed using the range of cost estimates.

RESULTS

Costs for continued nonoperative observation were estimated at $3080.78 as compared to $5034.58 for the interval appendectomy. Sensitivity analysis confirms a cost savings for nonoperative management as long as the likelihood of successful observation exceeds 60%. As the cost of nonoperative management increased, the required probability for its success also increased. Using wide distributions for both probability estimates as well as costs, Monte Carlo simulation favored continued observation in 75% of scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Continued nonoperative management has a cost advantage over routine interval appendectomy after initial success with conservative management in children with focal, perforated appendicitis.

C-reactive protein is superior to bilirubin for anticipation of perforation in acute appendicitis

OBJECTIVE

Very recently it has been shown that hyperbilirubinemia is a specific predictor of perforation in acute appendicitis. We compared the diagnostic importance of bilirubin, C-reactive protein (CRP), leukocyte count and age as markers of perforation in acute appendicitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A two-center retrospective cohort study was completed. Patients with acute appendicitis (n = 725) were divided into two groups, group A with perforation (n = 155) and group B without (n = 570).

RESULTS

In group A an elevated CRP (> 5 mg/l) was measured in 98% of cases versus 72.5% in group B. Hyperbilirubinemia (> 20 micromol/l) was measured in 38% of cases in group A versus 22.3% in group B. Leukocytosis (> 10 x 10(9)/l) was measured in 85% of cases in group A versus 79.3% in group B. Analysis of qualitative and quantitative data showed every marker to be significantly correlated with perforation except elevated white cell blood count. However CRP showed the strongest correlation. The logistic regression model showed CRP to be by far the most significant marker of perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm hyperbilirubinemia to be a statistically significant marker of perforation in acute appendicitis. However, CRP is superior to bilirubin for anticipation of perforation in acute appendicitis.

Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Evidence-based guidelines for managing patients with intra-abdominal infection were prepared by an Expert Panel of the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. These updated guidelines replace those previously published in 2002 and 2003. The guidelines are intended for treating patients who either have these infections or may be at risk for them. New information, based on publications from the period 2003-2008, is incorporated into this guideline document. The panel has also added recommendations for managing intra-abdominal infection in children, particularly where such management differs from that of adults; for appendicitis in patients of all ages; and for necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates.

The laparoscopic approach for perforated appendicitis, including cases complicated by abscess formation

BACKGROUND

Although the laparoscopic approach for perforated appendicitis is commonly performed, there is some controversy over its use because of postoperative complications. These may be associated with various types of disease entities, from gangrenous change to diffuse peritonitis with abscess formation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and benefits of the laparoscopic approach for perforated appendicitis, including cases complicated by abscess, compared to open.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1747 patients underwent treatment for appendicitis over a period of 3 years. The diagnosis of perforated appendicitis was made by radiology, operative finding, and pathology. Of our five attending surgeons, three performed open surgery for perforated appendicitis, while two performed laparoscopy.

RESULTS

There were 474 patients (27%) with perforated appendicitis without abscess (156 underwent laparoscopy, 318 underwent open) and 113 patients (6.4%) with perforated appendicitis and abscess (44 underwent laparoscopy, 69 underwent open). The duration for resumption of diet and hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopy group than in the open group. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between patients who had no abscess with laparoscopy and those with open: 5 intra-abdominal abscesses and 10 wound infections versus 11 intra-abdominal abscesses and 25 wound infections (P = 0.88, 0.12), and between patients who had abscesses with laparoscopy and those with open: 4 intra-abdominal abscesses and 3 wound infections versus 6 intra-abdominal abscesses and 6 wound infections (P = 0.94, 0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic approach may be a safe, effective treatment for perforated appendicitis, even in the presence of an abscess.

Retroperitoneal abscess cured by percutaneous drainage with ultrasonography

This report presents an unusual case of an extensive retroperitoneal abscess caused by appendicitis in a child. A 3-year-old boy who presented with right lower abdominal pain and a high fever was found, by abdominal ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT), to have a retroperitoneal abscess. Percutaneous drainage of the abscess under US guidance was successfully performed. There was no sign of recurrence of appendicitis or the abscess 12 months after the drainage.

A focus on intra-abdominal infections

Complicated intra-abdominal infections are an important cause of morbidity and are frequently associated with poor prognosis, particularly in higher risk patients.

Well defined evidence-based recommendations for intra-abdominal infections treatment are partially lacking because of the limited number of randomized-controlled trials.

Factors consistently associated with poor outcomes in patients with intra-abdominal infections include increased illness severity, failed source control, inadequate empiric antimicrobial therapy and healthcare-acquired infection.

Early prognostic evaluation of complicated intra-abdominal infections is important to select high-risk patients for more aggressive therapeutic procedures.

The cornerstones in the management of complicated intra-abdominal infections are both source control and antibiotic therapy.

The timing and the adequacy of source control are the most important issues in the management of intra-abdominal infections, because inadequate and late control of septic source may have a negative effect on the outcomes.

Recent advances in interventional and more aggressive techniques could significantly decrease the morbidity and mortality of physiologically severe complicated intra-abdominal infections, even if these are still being debated and are yet not validated by limited prospective trials.

Empiric antimicrobial therapy is nevertheless important in the overall management of intra-abdominal infections. Inappropriate antibiotic therapy may result in poor patient outcomes and in the appearance of bacterial resistance.

Antimicrobial management is generally standardised and many regimens, either with monotherapy or combination therapy, have proven their efficacy. Routine coverage especially against Enterococci and candida spp is not always recommended, but can be useful in particular clinical conditions. A de escalation approach may be recommended in patients with specific risk factors for multidrug resistant infections such as immunodeficiency and prolonged antibacterial exposure.

Therapy should focus on the obtainment of adequate source control and adequate use of antimicrobial therapy dictated by individual patient risk factors. Other critical issues remain debated and more controversies are still open mainly because of the limited number of randomized controlled trials.

Postpartum appendicitis manifesting as umbilical purulence

The diagnosis of abdominal pain is often difficult in the intrapartum and postpartum states. We describe an unusual case of postpartum appendicitis complicated by appendiceal rupture, abscess formation, and enterocutaneous umbilical drainage.