Interval appendectomy in children clinical outcomes, financial costs and patient benefits

Pelvic Health Assessment in Adult Females Following Pediatric Appendicitis: A Monocentric Retrospective Case-Control Study

Background: The anatomical location of the appendix in females determines its close contact with the internal genitalia, involving the latter in case of acute appendicitis (AA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of pelvic health impairment in adult women who underwent appendicectomy during childhood. Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted including all female patients who underwent appendicectomy for acute appendicitis at our Center between January 1985 and December 1995. The patients were divided into two groups, i.e., complicated AA (Group A) and not complicated AA (Group B), and were asked to respond to a questionnaire investigating their general health status, fertility impairment, ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, endometriosis, and chronic pelvic pain. The same questionnaire was administered to female volunteers with past medical history (PMH) negative for AA. The data were compared using chi-square test and Fisher exact test (a p value < 0.05 was considered for statistical significance). Results: In total, 75 patients operated for AA during childhood (22 in Group A and 53 in group B) and 44 female volunteers with PMH negative for AA (group C) were enrolled in the study. Seventeen patients (77.3%) in group A, 40 (75.4%) in group B, and 29 (65.9%) in group C (p > 0.05) had pregnancies. The number of miscarriages among women who became pregnant in their life was 5 in group A, 13 in group B, and 12 in group C (p > 0.05). Chronic pelvic pain was reported by 7 out of 22 (31.8%) patients in group A, 7 out of 53 (13.2%) in group B, and 5 out of 44 (11.4%) in group C (A vs. C: p = 0.04, OR = 3.64; A vs. B: p = 0.06 and B vs. C: p = 0.52). Conclusions: In our series, AA, complicated or not, neither determined repercussions on fertility, risk of miscarriages, and ectopic pregnancies nor increased the risk of developing endometriosis. However, women who experienced complicated AA showed a higher prevalence of chronic pelvic pain onset in adulthood compared to healthy women.

The Histopathology of the Appendix in Children at Interval Appendectomy

Whilst most surgeons agree that conservative treatment of appendiceal abscess in children is an adequate treatment, the need for subsequent interval appendectomy is still controversial. We analyzed the histopathology in interval appendectomy in search of signs of inflammation. All patients admitted between 2010 and 2017 with appendiceal abscess and scheduled for interval appendectomy were reviewed. The specimens were evaluated for grade of inflammation, type and distribution of cellular infiltrate, presence of necrosis or hemorrhage and infiltrate in the serosa. Forty-two patients had appendiceal abscess and were treated conservatively. Seven underwent emergent appendectomy. Thirty-three out of 35 patients underwent elective interval appendectomy. Thirty-two specimens were revised. Carcinoid tumor or other malignant lesions were not found. All of them presented some amount of inflammation, grade 1 to 2 in 53%, grade 3 to 4 in 47%. Twenty-five percent of the specimens had signs of necrosis accompanied by hemorrhage and in more than the half (53%) the infiltrate extended to the serosa. Conclusions: Although the appendix was mostly found not macroscopically inflamed intraoperatively, histology confirmed a certain grade of inflammation even months after the conservative treatment. No correlation was found between histopathologic findings and lapse of time between abscess treatment and interval appendectomy.

Defining treatment strategy for uncomplicated appendicitis based on patient satisfaction feedback: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Two surgical strategies are available for appendicitis: emergency laparoscopic appendectomy and interval laparoscopic appendectomy. However, timing of surgical intervention remains debatable. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of emergency laparoscopic appendectomy and interval laparoscopic appendectomy and conduct a questionnaire survey to investigate the use of emergency laparoscopic appendectomy and patient satisfaction with regard to treatment.

METHODS

We included 162 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at our hospital. Outcomes were assessed by operation time, blood loss, postoperative fasting time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate. Patient satisfaction was measured by questionnaire addressing degree of satisfaction, presurgery anxiety, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Of 162 patients, 74 (46%) and 88 (54%) received emergency and interval laparoscopic appendectomy, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, or complication rate. Among 66 patients who responded to the questionnaire (28 emergency, 38 interval), a significant difference was observed only in the degree of satisfaction regarding the timing of the surgical intervention (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Surgical outcomes of emergency and interval appendectomy were equivalent; however, patient satisfaction favored emergency appendectomy, suggesting it is a preferable approach for the treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis.

Perforation risk in pediatric appendicitis: assessment and management

Perforated appendicitis, as defined by a visible hole in the appendix or an appendicolith free within the abdomen, carries significant morbidity in the pediatric population. Accurate diagnosis is challenging as there is no single symptom or sign that accurately predicts perforated appendicitis. Younger patients and those with increased duration of symptoms are at higher risk of perforated appendicitis. Elevated leukocytosis, bandemia, high C-reactive protein, hyponatremia, ultrasound, and CT are all useful tools in diagnosis. Distinguishing patients with perforation from those without is important given the influence of a perforation diagnosis on the management of the patient. Treatment for perforated appendicitis remains controversial as several options exist, each with its indications and merits, illustrating the complexity of this disease process. Patients may be managed non-operatively with antibiotics, with or without interval appendectomy. Patients may also undergo appendectomy early in the course of their index hospitalization. Factors known to predict failure of non-operative management include appendicolith, leukocytosis greater than 15,000 white blood cells per microliter, increased bands, and CT evidence of disease beyond the right lower quadrant. In this review, the indications and benefits of each treatment strategy will be discussed and an algorithm to guide treatment decisions will be proposed.

Therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage and factors for performing an interval appendectomy in pediatric appendiceal abscess

Background

In this study, we studied the therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage with antibiotics and the need for an interval appendectomy for treating appendiceal abscess in children with a research-oriented dataset released by the Bureau of National Health Insurance in Taiwan through the Collaboration Center for Health Information Application (CCHIA).

Methods

We identified 1225 patients under 18 years of age who had non-surgical treatment for an appendiceal abscess between 2007 and 2012 in a Taiwan CCHIA dataset. The treatment included percutaneous drainage with antibiotics or antibiotics alone. We also analyzed data of patient’s baseline characteristics, outcomes of percutaneous drainage, and indicating factors for performing an interval appendectomy.

Results

Totally, 6190 children had an appendiceal abscess, an 1225 patients received non-operative treatment. Of 1225 patients, 150 patients received treatment with percutaneous drainage and antibiotics, 78 had recurrent appendicitis, 185 went on to receive an interval appendectomy, and 10 had postoperative complications after the interval appendectomy. We found that patients treated with percutaneous drainage and antibiotics had a significantly lower rate of recurrent appendicitis (p < 0.05), a significantly smaller chance of receiving an interval appendectomy (p < 0.05), and significantly fewer postoperative complications after the interval appendectomy (p < 0.05) than those without percutaneous drainage treatment. Older children (13 ~ 18 years) patients were found to have a significantly smaller need to receive an interval appendectomy than those who were ≤ 6 years of age (odd ratio (OR) = 2.071, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.34–3.19, p < 0.01), and those who were 7 ~ 12 years old (OR = 1.662, 95 % CI = 1.15–2.41, p < 0.01). In addition, those treated with percutaneous drainage were significantly less indicated to receive an interval appendectomy later (OR = 2.249, 95 % CI = 1.19 ~ 4.26, p < 0.05). In addition, those with recurrent appendicitis had a significantly increased incidence of receiving an interval appendectomy later (OR = 3.231, 95 % CI = 1.95 ~ 5.35, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

In this study, we used nationwide data to demonstrate therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage and antibiotics was more beneficial than only antibiotics in treating patients with an appendiceal abscess. We also found three factors that were significantly associated with receiving an interval appendectomy: recurrent appendicitis, being aged ≤ 13 years, and treatment with antibiotics only.