Appendix orifice polyps: a study of 691 lesions at a single institution

Expanding endoscopic boundaries: Endoscopic resection of large appendiceal orifice polyps with endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Large appendiceal orifice polyps are traditionally treated surgically. Recently, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been utilized as alternative resection techniques.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection techniques for the management of large appendiceal orifice polyps.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study conducted to assess the feasibility and safety of EMR and ESD for large appendiceal orifice polyps. This project was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board. Patients who underwent endoscopic resection of appendiceal orifice polyps ≥ 1 cm from 2015 to 2022 at a tertiary referral endoscopy center in the United States were enrolled. The main outcomes of this study included en bloc resection, R0 resection, post resection adverse events, and polyp recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients were identified. Most patients were female (53%) and Caucasian (95%). The mean age was 63.3 ± 10.8 years, and the average body mass index was 28.8 ± 6.4. The mean polyp size was 25.5 ± 14.2 mm. 74% of polyps were localized to the appendix (at or inside the appendiceal orifice) and the remaining extended into the cecum. 68% of polyps occupied ≥ 50% of the appendiceal orifice circumference. The mean procedure duration was 61.6 ± 37.9 minutes. Polyps were resected via endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and hybrid procedures in 5, 6, and 8 patients, respectively. Final pathology was remarkable for tubular adenoma (n = 10) [one with high grade dysplasia], sessile serrated adenoma (n = 7), and tubulovillous adenoma (n = 2) [two with high grade dysplasia]. En bloc resection was achieved in 84% with an 88% R0 resection rate. Despite the large polyp sizes and challenging procedures, 89% (n = 17) of patients were discharged on the same day as their procedure. Two patients were admitted for post-procedure observation for conservative pain management. Eight patients underwent repeat colonoscopy without evidence of residual or recurrent adenomatous polyps.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights how endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and hybrid procedures are all appropriate techniques with minimal adverse effects, further validating the utility of endoscopic procedures in the management of large appendiceal polyps.

Colorectal cold snare polypectomy: Current standard technique and future perspectives

It has been shown that resection of adenomatous colorectal polyps can reduce mortality due to colorectal cancer. In daily clinical practice, simpler and safer methods of colorectal polypectomy have been sought to enable endoscopists to resect all detected lesions. Among these, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is widely used in clinical practice because of its advantages in shortening procedure time, reducing delayed bleeding risk, and lowering treatment costs, while maintaining a similar complete resection rate for lesions smaller than 10 mm when compared to conventional hot snare polypectomy. This review introduces the findings of previous studies that investigated the efficacy and safety of the CSP procedure for nonpedunculated polyps smaller than 10 mm, and describes technical points to remember when practicing CSP based on the latest evidence, including using a thin wire snare specifically designed for CSP, and observing the surrounding mucosa of the resection site with chromoendoscopy or image-enhanced endoscopy to ensure that there is no residual lesion. This review also describes the potential of expanding the indication of CSP as a treatment for lesions larger than 10 mm, those with pedunculated morphology, those located near the appendiceal orifice, and for patients under continuous antithrombotic agent therapy. Finally, the perspective on optimal treatments for recurrent lesions after CSP is also discussed, despite the limited related evidence and data.

Primary adenocarcinoma of the appendix presenting with fresh bleeding per rectum: A case report

Introduction

Primary adenocarcinoma of appendix is a rarely diagnosed malignancy accounting for less than 6% of appendiceal neoplastic lesions and less than 0.5% of all gastrointestinal malignancies. It is mostly diagnosed as an incidental finding after appendicectomy.

Case summary

An 81 year old male patient presented with bleeding per rectum in a background of previous rectal polyp, hypertension, diabetes and hypothyroidism. CECT of whole abdomen findings revealed thickening at the appendix and base of the caecum. Colonoscopy showed a sessile polypoid growth at appendicular orifice, at the base of the caecum. Laparoscopy confirmed the clinical suspicion of appendicular carcinoma and laparoscopy assisted radical right hemicolectomy was performed. Final histopathology revealed well differentiated adenocarcinoma of the appendix with no lymph node involvement (pT3N0M0).

Discussion

Patients with primary adenocarcinoma of the appendix present with features similar to acute appendicitis whereas anaemia or fresh bleeding per rectum is a rare presentation. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment, the extent of which will depend upon the stage. Tumours staged as T1 may be managed by appendicectomy alone provided the base is free and there are no lymphadenopathies. T2 or above require right hemicolectomy as chances of lymph node metastasis are high. Nodal involvement warrants the need for adjuvant chemotherapy. Distant metastasis to the peritoneum or liver and lungs is very rare.

Conclusion

While investigating unexplained anaemia or bleeding per rectum, full colonoscopic examination up to the appendicular orifice is important and if required, should be combined with CT scan of abdomen, to clinch the rare but possible and potentially curable diagnosis of appendicular carcinoma.

•

Primary adenocarcinoma of the appendix is a rare malignancy. Presentation as bleeding per rectum is extremely rare.

•

While investigating unexplained anaemia or bleeding per rectum, full colonoscopic examination up to the appendicular orifice and if required CECT scan of whole abdomen are to be done to clinch the diagnosis.

•

Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for appendicular adenocarcinoma, the extent of which will depend upon the stage. Adjuvant chemotherapy may be required based on the histopathology report and nodal involvement.

Ileocecal Valve Sparing Resection for the Treatment of Benign Cecal Polyps Unsuitable for Polypectomy

Background:

Not all benign-appearance polyps are amenable to endoscopic removal and colectomy is required in some cases. This study aims to compare the early outcomes of cecal wedge resection with ileocecal valve sparring versus standard right colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable cecal polyps referred for surgery.

Methods:

From Apr 2010 to Aug 2019, all consecutive patients who underwent cecal wedge resection or right colectomy in ten European centers for a presumed endoscopically benign polyp unsuitable for endoscopic resection were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was morbidity. Secondary endpoints were operative time and length of hospital stay.

Results:

One hundred and ten patients were included: 25 patients underwent cecal wedge resection and 85 a right colectomy. There were 56 men (51%) and 90% of the procedures were performed laparoscopically. 29 lesions were located at the appendix orifice (26.4%). Mortality was nil. There were no significant differences between both procedures for morbidity rate (20% versus 24.7%) or reoperation (4% versus 4.7%). Cecal wedge was related to shorter operative time (63 min versus 150 min, P = .008) and shorter hospital stay (5 days versus 6 days, P = .049). Only 1 patient had a salvage right colectomy after cecal wedge for a pTis adenoma.

Conclusions:

For benign-appearance cecal polyps unsuitable for endoscopic ablation, cecal wedge resection is safe and should be considered as an attractive alternative to right colectomy.

"Obscure" Appendiceal Orifice Polyps Can Be Challenging to Identify by Colonoscopy

The primary purpose of screening colonoscopy is the detection and subsequent removal of precancerous polyps. However, effective recognition of appendiceal lesions with a standard endoscope is often challenging and is limited to the base of the cecum and appendiceal orifice. The majority of appendiceal polyps are found incidentally following an appendectomy, though rarely they may be discovered during a colonoscopy. Despite being visualized by colonoscopy, most of these polyps are generally referred for surgical resection. The risk of developing carcinoma in patients with appendiceal polyps is likely similar to that of other colonic polyps, so it is essential for the endoscopist to examine and visualize the appendiceal orifice thoroughly. Various techniques are available to the endoscopist that can increase the accuracy of colonoscopic evaluation. These include luminal inflation and deflation, looking behind and pressing haustral folds, and repetitive passage of the scope over poorly visualized areas. To our knowledge, only 3 cases have been reported in the literature describing the discovery of obscure appendiceal polyps using colonoscopic techniques. Here we describe three cases of appendiceal orifice polyps missed on initial visualization but subsequently protruded into the cecum following prolonged examination and gentle deflation in the cecum. The endoscopist should consider the possibility of an appendiceal neoplasm, especially if other colonic polyps have been found. Endoscopists should spend adequate time examining the cecum during a screening colonoscopy to expose and thoroughly examine the appendiceal region.