Risk of emergency surgery for complicated appendicitis: Japanese nationwide study

A case of acute appendicitis caused by obstruction due to caecal cancer

Acute appendicitis supposedly results from appendix obstruction caused by various conditions, including caecal cancer. Here, we report an adenocarcinoma found in the specimen of a 65-year-old man diagnosed with acute appendicitis. The adenocarcinoma was detected in the appendix stump after emergency laparoscopic appendectomy. The patient was diagnosed with caecal cancer based on post-operative lower endoscopy findings, and an additional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy was performed. Acute appendicitis can occur at any age and may require emergency surgery. It is a benign disease that can be cured entirely by appendectomy in most cases but may result from an underlying malignant disease in some cases, especially in patients >40 years of age. Thus, clinicians should consider the possibility of a malignancy while diagnosing and treating acute appendicitis.

The benefits of interval appendectomy and risk factors for nonoperative management failure in the therapeutic strategy for complicated appendicitis

PURPOSE

Emergency surgery (ES) for complicated appendicitis (CA) is associated with high morbidity. Interval appendectomy (IA) decreases this rate; however, nonoperative management (NOM) is not always successful. Some patients require unplanned ES due to NOM failure (IA failure: IA-F). This study aimed to verify the benefits of IA and to evaluate the risk factors for NOM failure.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with CA who underwent surgery between January 2012 and December 2021 were included in this study. We compared the surgical outcomes of the ES group with those of the IA success (IA-S) and IA-F groups. We also analyzed 14 factors that predicted NOM failure.

RESULTS

Among 302 patients, the rate of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III) was significantly higher in the ES group (N = 165) than in the IA-S group (N = 102). The rates were equal between the ES (N = 165) and IA-F (N = 35) groups. NOM was successful in 110 patients and failed in 27. Lack of abscesses, comorbidities, high WBC count, and free air were independent risk factors for NOM failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the benefits of IA and the non-inferior surgical outcomes of IA-F compared to ES, IA is a good therapeutic strategy for CA. However, in patients exhibiting four independent risk factors for NOM failure, careful monitoring of unplanned ES is necessary.

Usefulness of Preoperative Predictors of Pathological Complicated Appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

Complicated appendicitis (CA) is often indicated for emergency surgery; however, preoperative predictors of pathological CA (pCA) remain unclear. Furthermore, characteristics of CA that can be treated conservatively have not yet been established.

METHODS

305 consecutive patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: an emergency surgery and a conservative treatment group. The emergency surgery group was pathologically classified as having uncomplicated appendicitis (pUA) and pCA, and the preoperative predictors of pCA were retrospectively assessed. Based on the preoperative pCA predictors, a predictive nomogram whether conservative treatment would be successful or not was created. The predictors were applied to the conservative treatment group, and the outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

In the multiple logistic regression analysis of the factors contributing to pCA, C-reactive protein ≥3.5 mg/dL, ascites, appendiceal wall defect, and periappendiceal fluid collection were independent risk factors. Over 90% of cases without any of the above four preoperative pCA predictors were pUA. The accuracy of the nomogram was 0.938.

CONCLUSION

Our preoperative predictors and nomogram are useful to aid in distinguishing pCA and pUA and to predict whether or not conservative treatment will be successful. Some CA can be treated with conservative treatment.

The Value of Complete Blood Count Parameters in Predicting Complicated Acute Appendicitis; a Prognostic Accuracy Study

Introduction

Low accuracy of clinical variables can result in delayed diagnosis and increase the incidence of complicated appendicitis in some cases. This study aimed to determine the value of simple complete blood count (CBC) biomarkers in predicting complicated appendicitis.

Methods

This is a single-center retrospective cross-sectional study, which was conducted on cases referred to emergency department following acute appendicitis who underwent appendectomy, to evaluate the accuracy of some cell blood count variables (white blood cell count (WBC), neutrophil percent, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), mean platelet volume (MPV)) in predicting complicated cases (gangrenous and ruptured appendicitis).

Results

There were 252 (68.3%) patients in the uncomplicated appendicitis group and 117 (31.7%) patients in the complicated appendicitis group. The mean age of patients was 34.1 ± 1.09 (Range: 18 -79) years (55.3% male). There were no differences between groups regarding the mean age (p = 0.053), gender distribution (p=0.07), Alvarado score (p = 0.055), platelet count (p =0.204), PLR (p = 0.115), and MPV (p = 0.205). The complicated appendicitis cases had longer onset of symptoms (p <0.001), higher WBC count (p = 0.011), higher neutrophil count (p < 0.001), and higher NLR (p < 0.001). Neutrophil count (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.56-0.66; p = 0.001) and NLR (AUC = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.60-0.69; p = 0.001) had higher level of accuracy in this regard. In contrast, the area under the curve of WBC count (AUC = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.52-0.63; p = 0.22), platelet count (AUC = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.38-0.49; p = 0.049), PLR (AUC = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.52-0.62; p = 0.026), and MPV (AUC = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.49-0.60; p = 0.193) showed low accuracy in predicting complicated acute appendicitis.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of present study it seems that WBC, neutrophil percent, NLR, PLR, and MPV have failed to poor accuracy in predicting cases with complicated appendicitis in emergency department.

Evaluation of Drain Insertion After Appendicectomy for Complicated Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the comparative outcomes of drain insertion versus no drain after appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis. A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus was conducted, and all studies comparing drain versus no drain after appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis were included. Abdominal collection, surgical site infection (SSI), bowel obstruction, faecal fistula, paralytic ileus, length of hospital stay (LOS) and mortality were the evaluated outcome parameters for the meta-analysis. Seventeen studies reporting a total number of 4,255 patients who underwent appendicectomy for complicated appendicitis with (n=1,580) or without (n=2,657) drain were included. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding abdominal collection (odds ratio (OR)=1.41, P=0.13). No-drain group was superior to the drain group regarding SSI (OR=1.93, P=0.0001), faecal fistula (OR=4.76, P=0.03), intestinal obstruction (OR=2.40, P=0.04) and paralytic ileus (OR=2.07, P=0.01). There was a difference regarding mortality rate between the two groups (3.4% in the drain group vs 0.5% in the no-drain group, risk difference (RD)=0.01, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.04), P=0.36). In conclusion, this meta-analysis has shown that drains have no effect on the development of intra-abdominal collections in complicated appendicitis, but it can significantly increase the risk of postoperative complications such as fistula, surgical site infection (SSI), bowel obstruction, ileus and length of hospital stay.

Emergency appendectomy versus elective appendectomy following conservative treatment for acute appendicitis: a multicenter retrospective clinical study by the Japanese Society for Abdominal Emergency Medicine

PURPOSE

To establish the best treatment strategy for acute appendicitis.

METHODS

We collected data on 2142 appendectomies performed in 2017 and compared the backgrounds and surgical outcomes of patients who underwent early surgery (ES) (< 48 h) with those managed with non-ES (> 48 h). We performed a risk factor analysis to predict postoperative complications and subgroup analysis to propose a standard treatment strategy.

RESULTS

The incidence of postoperative complications was significantly higher in the ES group than in the non-ES group, and significantly lower in the laparoscopic surgery group than in the laparotomy group. Surgical outcomes, including the incidence of postoperative complications, were comparable after acute surgery (< 12 h) and subacute surgery (12-48 h), following antibiotic treatment. The risk factors for postoperative complications in the ES group were a higher age, history of abdominal surgery, perforation, high C-reactive protein level, histological evidence of gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, a long operation time, and intraoperative complications. The risk factors for postoperative complications in the non-ES group were perforation and unsuccessful conservative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-early appendectomy is feasible for acute appendicitis but should be applied with care in patients with risk factors for postoperative complications or failure of pretreatment, including diabetes mellitus, abscess formation, and perforation.

[Mortality in acute appendicitis in Russia]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the causes of mortality in patients with acute appendicitis in Russia.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied mortality in patients with acute appendicitis in the Russian Federation in 2020. We surveyed the hospitals with mortality reported in the electronic database of annual reports to the chief surgeon of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation.

RESULTS

There were 259 deaths among 150.393 patients with acute appendicitis aged ≥18 years (in-hospital mortality 0.17%). We obtained data about 95.8% (n=248) of lethal cases including 86.3% (n=214) complicated and 13.7% (n=34) uncomplicated forms of disease. Two patients died without surgery (0.8%). Among the deceased, 58.2% (n=145) were men and 41.8% (n=103) were women. Mean patient age was 66.2 years [0.95% CI 64.2-68.1]. The main cause of death in complicated appendicitis was late presentation (after 4.9 days [0.95% CI 4.3-5.4]) that resulted peritonitis and sepsis in 71.5% (n=153) of patients. Cardiovascular diseases were noted in 23.4% (n=50) of cases. A new coronavirus infection was detected in 7.0% (n=15) of patients. However, COVID-19 as a direct cause of death was recognized in 2.8% (n=6) of cases. Other reasons accounted for 2.3% (n=5). In uncomplicated appendicitis, cardiovascular diseases were the main cause of mortality (73.5%, n=25). Peritonitis and sepsis were found in 11.8% (n=4) of cases, COVID-19 - in 5.9% (n=2). Other causes accounted for 8.8% (n=3). Diagnostic, tactical, technical problems and their combination were revealed in 54.4% of lethal outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Mortality from acute appendicitis in the Russian Federation is low, comparable with international data, and mainly associated with delayed treatment and complicated course of disease. However, the impact of diagnostic, tactical and technical errors on the outcome of acute appendicitis is significant.

Patient backgrounds and short‐term outcomes of complicated appendicitis differ from those of uncomplicated appendicitis

Background

Appendicitis is classified as either complicated (CA) or uncomplicated (UA). Some authors have shown that the epidemiologic trends of CA and UA may differ. The aim of this study was to clarify differences in backgrounds and surgical outcomes between CA and UA patients.

Methods

This study was a cohort study. We extracted case data from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database from January 2014 to December 2017. Patients were classified into three groups, depending on whether they underwent emergency appendectomy for CA (CA group), emergency appendectomy for UA (UA group), or elective appendectomy (EA group). We evaluated patient characteristics and surgical outcomes for each group.

Results

We included 89,355 adult patients in the study, comprising 29,331 CA, 48,691 UA, and 11,333 EA patients. Old age, larger body mass index, smoking, and medication with antidiabetic drugs, oral corticosteroids, oral antiplatelet drugs, and oral anticoagulant drugs were independent risk factors for CA. The percentage of CA increased with age. In‐hospital mortality (0.15%, 0.02%, and 0.00%) and 30‐d mortality (0.09%, 0.01%, and 0.00%), respectively, of CA patients were significantly higher than those of the UA and EA groups. The duration of postoperative antibiotic administration, duration of fasting, and time before removal of a prophylactic drain were significantly longer in the CA group than in the UA and EA groups.

Conclusion

Backgrounds and treatment outcomes of CA and UA patients after emergency surgery are entirely different. Thus, the treatment strategy of CA and UA patients should differ accordingly.