Management of appendiceal masses in a peripheral hospital in Nigeria: review of thirty cases

A Retrospective Analysis of Conservative Management Versus Early Surgical Intervention in Appendicular Lump

Introduction

Acute appendicitis happens to be increasingly common in school-going children and early part of adult life, peak incidence reaching in the teens and early twenties. Luminal obstruction of the vermiform appendix is thought to be essential for the development of appendicular ischemia, gangrene, and perforation. The treatment of choice in acute appendicitis is emergency appendectomy. Appendicitis particularly puts the surgeon in a dilemma whenever the patient presents late by around four to seven days. In case of delay in presentation, complications like appendicular lump formation occur. The factors that make the clinical presentation inconsistent which in turn makes the diagnosis challenging in the case of acute appendicitis are the variable position of the appendix, the degree/grade of inflammation, and the age of the patient.

At present, the standard treatment is the Ochsner-Sherren regimen universalized by Oschner and has been mostly practised over many decades as the standard care for the appendicular lump. Conservative regimen does not work in a few cases where urgent surgical exploration is necessary. This study was conducted to compare early appendectomy versus conservative management followed by interval appendectomy in case of appendicular mass and to make a better strategy for effective management of patients with complicated appendicitis.

Methods

A total of 112 patients were diagnosed as having an appendicular lump as per the available records between June 2018 and June 2021. The total study population was divided into two comparative groups depending upon the treatment they received. The patients in group-1 received medical treatment and those in group-2 had undergone surgical management. The patients in group-1 were treated according to the Ochsner-Sherren regimen. The patients in group-2 were the patients in whom emergency appendectomy was done. If the general condition of the patient did not improve, pain and tenderness didn’t subside, the size of phlegmon or abscess was increasing and other features of the acute abdomen were persistent, then it was regarded as a failure of medical treatment and the patient was prepared for surgery on an emergency basis.

Results

Out of 1192 cases of acute appendicitis admitted between June 2018 and June 2021, a total of 112 patients were diagnosed with an appendicular lump. As per the record, 64 patients were managed conventionally as per the Ochsner-Sherren regimen followed by elective interval appendectomy (group-1) and 48 cases were managed with an emergency surgical procedure (group-2).

In group-1, out of 64 patients, non-operative treatment was successful in 58 patients (90.62%). Among the remaining patients, there was a failure of non-operative treatment in six patients and they were subjected to emergency surgical exploration (9.37%). So a total of 58 patients underwent interval appendectomy after six weeks. Out of 54 patients who had undergone emergency appendectomy in both groups, the per-operative finding was an appendicular lump in 55.5% of patients while a total of 44 patients in group-2, were discharged from the hospital within six days (91.66%). But in group-1, only 16 patients were discharged from the hospital within six days (25%), rest were discharged from the hospital after more than seven days of stay.

Conclusion

Early appendectomy in appendicular mass is safe due to the improvements in surgical techniques and better postoperative care.

Minimally Invasive Treatment for Appendiceal Mass Formed After Acute Perforated Appendicitis

The optimal treatment for appendiceal mass formed after appendiceal rupture due to acute appendicitis is surrounded with controversy. The treatment strategy ranges from open surgery (emergency or interval appendectomy), laparoscopic appendectomy, and image-guided drainage, to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics. Nonsurgical treatment (including conservative and drainage treatment), followed by interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence, is the traditional management of these patients. The need for interval appendectomy after a successful conservative or/and image-guided drainage treatment, has recently been questioned as the risk of recurrence is relatively small. Several authors consider that even in cases involving only ambulatory follow-up observation, without interval surgery after conservative management, the recurrence rate and risks of missing underlying pathologies were not high. This article evaluates the minimally invasive treatment modalities in the management of appendiceal mass, risk of undetected serious disease, and the need for interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence.

Variability in mortality following caesarean delivery, appendectomy, and groin hernia repair in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and analysis of published data

BACKGROUND

Surgical interventions occur at lower rates in resource-poor settings, and complication and death rates following surgery are probably substantial but have not been well quantified. A deeper understanding of outcomes is a crucial step to ensure that high quality accompanies increased global access to surgical care. We aimed to assess surgical mortality following three common surgical procedures--caesarean delivery, appendectomy, and groin (inguinal and femoral) hernia repair--to quantify the potential risks of expanding access without simultaneously addressing issues of quality and safety.

METHODS

We collected demographic, health, and economic data for 113 countries classified as low income or lower-middle income by the World Bank in 2005. We did a systematic review of Ovid, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Scopus from Jan 1, 2000, to Jan 15, 2015, to identify studies in these countries reporting all-cause mortality following the three commonly undertaken operations. Reports from governmental and other agencies were also identified and included. We modelled surgical mortality rates for countries without reported data using a two-step multiple imputation method. We first used a fully conditional specification (FCS) multiple imputation method to establish complete datasets for all missing variables that we considered potentially predictive of surgical mortality. We then used regression-based predictive mean matching imputation methods, specified within the multiple imputation FCS method, for selected predictors for each operation using the completed dataset to predict mortality rates along with confidence intervals for countries without reported mortality data. To account for variability in data availability, we aggregated results by subregion and estimated surgical mortality rates.

FINDINGS

From an initial 1302 articles and reports identified, 247 full-text articles met our inclusion criteria, and 124 provided data for surgical mortality for at least one of the three selected operations. We identified 42 countries with mortality data for at least one of the three procedures. Median reported mortality was 7·9 per 1000 operations for caesarean delivery (IQR 2·8-19·9), 2·2 per 1000 operations for appendectomy (0·0-17·2), and 4·9 per 1000 operations for groin hernia (0·0-11·7). Perioperative mortality estimates by subregion ranged from 2·8 (South Asia) to 50·2 (East Asia) per 1000 caesarean deliveries, 2·4 (South Asia) to 54·0 (Central sub-Saharan Africa) per 1000 appendectomies, and 0·3 (Andean Latin America) to 25·5 (Southern sub-Saharan Africa) per 1000 hernia repairs.

INTERPRETATION

All-cause postoperative mortality rates are exceedingly variable within resource-constrained environments. Efforts to expand surgical access and provision of services must include a strong commitment to improve the safety and quality of care.

FUNDING

None.

Appendectomy and resection of the terminal ileum with secondary severe necrotic changes in acute perforated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Resectional procedures for advanced and complicated appendicitis are performed infrequently. Their extent can vary: cecal resection, ileocecectomy, and even right hemicolectomy. We present a very rare case of appendectomy that was combined with partial ileal resection for severe necrotic changes and small perforation of the ileum.

CASE REPORT

A 19-year-old female patient was hospitalized with right iliac fossa pain and fever 10 days after the onset of symptoms. On laparoscopy, a large mass in a right iliac fossa was found. The ultrasound-guided drainage of the suspected appendiceal abscess was unavailable. After conversion using McBurney's incision, acute perforated appendicitis was diagnosed. It was characterized by extension of severe necrotic changes onto the ileal wall and complicated by right iliac fossa abscess. A mass was bluntly divided, and a large amount of pus with fecaliths was discharged and evacuated. Removal of necrotic tissues from the ileal wall led to the appearance of a small defect in the bowel. A standard closure of this defect was considered as very unsafe due to a high risk of suture leakage or bowel stenosis. We perform a resection of the involved ileum combined with appendectomy and drainage/tamponade of an abscess cavity. Postoperative recovery was uneventful. The patient was discharged on the 15th day.

CONCLUSIONS

In advanced appendicitis, the involved bowel resection can prevent possible complications (e.g., ileus, intestinal fistula, peritonitis, and intra-abdominal abscess). Our case may be the first report of an appendectomy combined with an ileal resection for advanced and complicated appendicitis.

Emergency right hemicolectomy for inflammatory cecal masses mimicking acute appendicitis

Background

Unexpected inflammatory cecal masses of uncertain etiology, encountered in the emergency surgical departments can be indistinguishable, and appropriate operative management of these cases is a dilemma for the surgeons.

Methods

Over a 30-months period between January 2009 and June 2011, a series of 3032 patients who live in sub-urban underwent emergency surgery for clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis and ileocecal resection or right hemicolectomy for inflammatory cecal mass were performed in 48 patients.

Results

28 men and 20 women from suburban between ages 16–73 presented with right iliac fossa pain. The major presenting symptom was pain in the right iliac fossa (100%). On physical examination; tenderness at or near the McBurney point was detected in 44 (91,6%) patients. The range of the leucocyte level was between 8.000 to 24.000 and mean level is 16.000. After initial laparoscopic exploration, ileocecal resection or right hemicolectomy was performed conservatively because of the uncertainty of the diagnosis. Overall 32 patients underwent ileocecal resection and 16 patients underwent right hemicolectomy. Pathology revealed appendicular phlegmon in 18 patients, perforated cecal diverticulitis in 12 patients, tuberculosis in 6 patients, appendiceal and cecal rupture in 4 patients, malign mesenquimal neoplasm in 4 patients, non-spesific granulomatous in 2 patients and appendecular endometriosis in 2 patients.

Conclusion

Most inflammatory cecal masses are due to benign pathologies and can be managed safely and sufficiently with ileocecal resection or right hemicolectomy. The choice of the surgical procedure depends on the experience of the surgical team.

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.

Laparoscopic appendectomy in a Nigerian teaching hospital

Laparoscopic appendectomy reduced the rate of unnecessary appendectomies and postoperative length of stay.

Objective:

Laparoscopic appendectomy in a setting where resources are poor is still controversial. This study evaluates the impact of laparoscopy on the early outcome of acute appendicitis in a developing country.

Methods:

All patients who underwent appendectomy from January 2010 through June 2011 at the Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, Ile-Ife, Nigeria were recruited for this study.

Results:

Of the 139 patients with acute appendicitis within the study period, 83 (59.7%) had open appendectomy (OA), 19 (13.7%) whose clinical and radiological findings suggested complicated appendicitis at presentation had laparotomy, while 37 (26.6%) had laparoscopic procedures. In the laparoscopy group, initial diagnostic laparoscopy in 4 (10.8%) patients revealed a normal appendix along with other findings that precluded appendectomy. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) was then performed in 33 (23.7%) patients with 2 of these (6.1%) requiring conversion to open laparotomy. Mean time for the LA procedure was higher than that observed for OA (56.2 vs 38.9 min). Patients in the LA group had a shorter mean postoperative stay (1.8 vs 3.0). Wound infection occurred in 2 (6.5%) patients from the LA group and 8 (9.6%) from OA.

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic appendectomy reduced the rate of unnecessary appendectomy and postoperative hospital stay in our patients, potentially reducing crowding in our surgical wards. We advocate increased use of laparoscopy especially in young women.

Acute Appendicitis Following Appendectomy

<b><i>Summary</i></b><b><i>Background: </i></b>Stump appendicitis is a rare delayed complication of appendectomy. Several diseases present with right lower abdominal pain, and therefore it is occasionally difficult to make a differential diagnosis, especially in patients with a history of appendectomy. In this paper we present our experiences with acute appendicitis following an appendectomy. <b><i>Patients and Method: </i></b>We selected five cases from January 2002 to December 2010. The clinical characteristics, imaging studies, treatment, and outcome were recorded. <b><i>Results: </i></b>All patients presented with abdominal pain (4 patients with fever). The mean duration of onset was 2 days. All patients had a history of ruptured appendicitis (2 patients showed a combination with generalized peritonitis). The mean duration since the previous appendectomy was 7.54 years. 4 patients underwent an abdominal ultrasound, and all patients underwent abdominal computed tomography, showing again a ruptured appendicitis. 4 of 5 patients had a stump appendicitis. All of the patients showed a good prognosis following surgery. <b><i>Conclusions: </i></b>The stump following an appendectomy should be shortened as much as possible. However, sometimes recurrent appendicitis with perforation will develop in patients with complete resection of the appendix. Stump appendicitis is associated with a history of ruptured appendicitis.

Management of appendiceal mass

BACKGROUND

The management of appendiceal mass is surrounded with controversy. Traditional management has been conservative, with interval appendicectomy performed weeks after the mass had resolved. This remains the most common approach at many centers in the world. Recently, an increasing number of studies have challenged this approach. This article reviews some of the controversial issues in the management of appendix mass, assesses current practice and suggests an appropriate approach for the management of appendix mass.

METHODS

A Medline, Pubmed and Cochrane database search were used to find such key words and combinations of: appendix, appendiceal, appendicular, interval, appendectomy, appendicectomy, mass, abscess, phlegmon, and appendicitis. Results were saved and managed by Reference manager 11. All articles were cross-referenced by the authors.

RESULTS

A conservative management is still a highly acceptable approach for appendix mass. This should be followed with interval appendicectomy especially in patients with persistent right iliac fossa pain.

CONCLUSION

We recommend initially conservative approach to the management of appendiceal mass especially in our environment.

Gangrenous retrocolic appendix masquerading as incarcerated umbilical hernia in a 13-month-old boy

The diagnosis of appendicitis is challenging in neonates and infants due to the unspecific clinical signs and symptoms, presence of many differentials and inability to elicit history from a preverbal child. Gangrenous retrocolic appendix mimicking incarcerated umbilical hernia is rare. Consequently, the correct diagnosis of a gangrenous retrocolic appendix in a 13-month-old boy who presented with features highly suggestive of incarceration of proboscoid congenital umbilical hernia was very challenging. This case is presented to highlight the diagnostic challenge and increase the suspicion of appendicitis in infants with non-classical clinical features.

Nonsurgical treatment of appendiceal abscess or phlegmon: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review of the nonsurgical treatment of patients with appendiceal abscess or phlegmon, with emphasis on the success rate, need for drainage of abscesses, risk of undetected serious disease, and need for interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Patients with appendiceal abscess or phlegmon are traditionally managed by nonsurgical treatment and interval appendectomy. This practice is controversial with proponents of immediate surgery and others questioning the need for interval appendectomy.

METHODS

A Medline search identified 61 studies published between January 1964 and December 2005 reporting on the results of nonsurgical treatment of appendiceal abscess or phlegmon. The results were pooled taking the potential clustering on the study-level into account. A meta-analysis of the morbidity after immediate surgery compared with that after nonsurgical treatment was performed.

RESULTS

Appendiceal abscess or phlegmon is found in 3.8% (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.6-4.9) of patients with appendicitis. Nonsurgical treatment fails in 7.2% (CI: 4.0-10.5). The need for drainage of an abscess is 19.7% (CI: 11.0-28.3). Immediate surgery is associated with a higher morbidity compared with nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio, 3.3; CI: 1.9-5.6; P < 0.001). After successful nonsurgical treatment, a malignant disease is detected in 1.2% (CI: 0.6-1.7) and an important benign disease in 0.7% (CI: 0.2-11.9) during follow-up. The risk of recurrence is 7.4% (CI: 3.7-11.1).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review of mainly retrospective studies support the practice of nonsurgical treatment without interval appendectomy in patients with appendiceal abscess or phlegmon.