Predictors for interval appendectomy in non-operatively treated complicated appendicitis

Clinical outcomes and optimal indications for nonoperative management of acute appendicitis in adult patients: a comprehensive literature review

Appendectomy as the standard treatment for acute appendicitis has been challenged by accumulating evidence supporting nonoperative management with antibiotics as a potential primary treatment. This review aimed to summarize the clinical outcomes and the optimal indications for nonoperative management of acute appendicitis in adults. Current evidence suggests that uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis have different pathophysiologies and should be treated differently. Nonoperative management for uncomplicated appendicitis was not inferior to appendectomy in terms of complications and length of stay, with less than a 30% failure rate at 1 year. The risk of perforation and postoperative complications did not increase even if nonoperative management failed. Complicated appendicitis with localized abscess or phlegmon could also be treated conservatively, with a success rate of more than 80%. An interval appendectomy following successful nonoperative management is recommended only for patients over the age of 40 years to exclude appendiceal malignancy. The presence of appendicoliths increased the risk of treatment failure and complications; thus, it may be an indication for appendectomy. Nonoperative management is a safe and feasible option for both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Patients should be informed that nonoperative management may be a safe alternative to surgery, with the possibility of treatment failure.

Swedish national guidelines for diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Differences in the management of this large group of patients has important consequences for the patients and the healthcare system. Controversies regarding the understanding of the natural course of the disease, the utility of new diagnostic methods, and alternative treatments have lead to large variations in practice patterns between centres. These national guidelines present evidence-based recommendations aiming at a uniform, safe and cost-efficient management of this large group of patients.

METHOD

A working group of six experts with broad clinical and research experience was formed. Additional expertise from outside was consulted during the process. A national survey revealed significant variations in the management of patients with suspicion of appendicitis. The evidence provided in published guidelines and reviews were extracted and systematically graded, according to the GRADE methodology. This was supplemented by additional more recent and more directed search of the literature. Patients treated for appendicitis were involved through interviews. The guidelines were reviewed by external experts before the final version was determined.

RESULTS

The guidelines cover an extensive number of issues: pathology, epidemiology, aetiology, natural history, clinical and laboratory diagnosis, diagnostic scoring systems, diagnostic imaging, treatment, nursing care, follow-up, quality registers and quality indicators, among others. Special considerations related to children and pregnant women are covered.

CONCLUSION

These national guidelines present an extensive and thorough review of the current knowledge base related to appendicitis, and provide up-to-date evidence-based recommendations for the management of this large group of patients.

Acute Appendicitis Management in Patients Aged Above 40 Years During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Retrospective Study With Four Years of Follow-Up

Background The COVID-19 pandemic led many units to increase their utilization of nonoperative management (NOM) of acute appendicitis, with the literature showing its non-inferiority when compared to operative management (OM). Therefore, we compared NOM to OM against standard guidelines in order to ascertain the effectiveness of NOM. Primary outcomes were rates of admission, complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), and the incidence of colonic malignancy following NOM upon subsequent bowel evaluation using colonoscopy and/or computed tomography (CT) scan. Methods This was a retrospective observational study done on patients who were admitted with acute appendicitis from January 2020 to January 2022 at Wirral University Teaching Hospital, UK. Data was electronically collected from medical records. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 40 years and above, admitted with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis using a CT scan, and who underwent either OM or NOM. Exclusion criteria were patients below 40 years old or not diagnosed with acute appendicitis. Results This study included 211 cases of acute appendicitis (female to male: 110:101), with a median age of 60. One hundred and twenty-five (60%) patients were managed operatively, while 86 cases (40%) were managed by NOM. All of the cases were diagnosed using a CT scan. The mean LOS for operative and non-operative cases were 4.77 and 4.89 days, respectively. When readmission days were added over the following three years, adjusted LOS was 5.35 days for operative cases, in comparison to 10.86 days for NOM. Forty-five percent of NOM cases had at least one episode of readmission, with 37% of them being in the first year. We found six cases of malignancy in the NOM cohort, none of which were detected on colonoscopy following discharge. Conclusion NOM is associated with increased LOS and increased readmission rates, and 44% of cases eventually required appendicectomy.

Retrospective analysis of the incidence of appendiceal neoplasm and malignancy in patients treated for suspected acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis is currently being promoted as treatment option, albeit 0.7-2.5% of appendectomies performed due to suspected acute appendicitis show histologically malignant findings. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of neoplasm and malignancy of the appendix in patients presenting with suspected acute appendicitis in real world setting.

METHODS

This is a retrospective single-centre investigation of 457 patients undergoing appendectomy between the years 2017-2020. The patients' demographics, symptoms and diagnosis, intraoperative findings, and histopathological results were analysed.

RESULTS

In 3.7% (n = 17) histological analysis revealed neoplasms or malignancies. Median age was 48 years (20-90 years), without sex predominance. Leukocytes (11.3 ± 3.7 G/l) and C-reactive protein (54.2 ± 69.0 mg/l) were elevated. Histological analysis revealed low-grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasia (n = 3), sessile serrated adenoma of the appendix (n = 3), neuroendocrine tumours (n = 7), appendiceal adenocarcinoma of intestinal type (n = 3), and goblet cell carcinoma (n = 1). Additional treatment varied between no treatment or follow-up due to early tumour stage (n = 4), follow-up care (n = 3), additional surgical treatment (n = 8), or best supportive care (n = 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative diagnosis of appendiceal tumours is difficult. Nonoperative management of patients with acute, uncomplicated appendicitis potentially prevents the correct diagnosis of malignant appendiceal pathologies. Therefore, close follow-up or surgical removal of the appendix is mandatory.

[Acute appendicitis in adults]

Acute appendicitis in adults. Clinical guidelines.

Interval appendectomy as a safe and feasible treatment approach after conservative treatment for appendicitis with abscess: a retrospective, single-center cohort study

Emergency appendectomy (EA) is the gold standard management for acute appendicitis (AA). However, whether EA or interval appendectomy (IA) after conservative treatment is the optimal approach in AA with abscess remains controversial. This study compared IA and EA in patients presenting with AA accompanied by abscess. This was a retrospective single-center study including 446 consecutive patients undergoing appendectomy between April 2009 and March 2023. AA with abscess was defined as a pericecal abscess observed by computed tomography or abdominal ultrasonography, and patients with signs of peritoneal irritation were excluded. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the patients who directly underwent EA and those who underwent IA after conservative treatment. Among 42 patients (9.4%) with AA and abscess, 34 and 8 patients underwent IA and EA, respectively. The rates of ileocecal resection and postoperative complications were lower in the IA group than in the EA group (3% vs. 50%, P < 0.001 and 9% vs. 75%, P < 0.001, respectively). Colonoscopy before IA was performed in 16 of the 17 patients aged ≥ 40 years in the IA group, and one patient underwent ileocecal resection because of suspicious neoplasm in the root of the appendix. IA after conservative treatment might be considered as the useful therapeutic option for AA with abscess. Colonoscopy during the waiting period between the initial diagnosis and IA should be considered in patients aged ≥ 40 years who may have malignant changes. Implementing IA as a first-line treatment will be beneficial to both patients and healthcare providers.

Diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains controversial. This systematic review details the evidence and current best practices for the evaluation and management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in adults and children.

METHODS

Eight questions regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis were formulated. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov/NLM were queried for articles published from 2010 to 2022 with key words related to at least one question. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Two reviewers screened each publication for eligibility and then extracted data from eligible studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on all quantitative data. The quality of randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 or Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively.

RESULTS

2792 studies were screened and 261 were included. Most had a high risk of bias. Computerized tomography scan yielded the highest sensitivity (> 80%) and specificity (> 93%) in the adult population, although high variability existed. In adults with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management resulted in higher odds of readmission (OR 6.10) and need for operation (OR 20.09), but less time to return to work/school (SMD - 1.78). In pediatric patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management also resulted in higher odds of need for operation (OR 38.31). In adult patients with complicated appendicitis, there were higher odds of need for operation following antibiotic treatment only (OR 29.00), while pediatric patients had higher odds of abscess formation (OR 2.23). In pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, higher risk of reoperation at any time point was observed in patients who had drains placed at the time of operation (RR 2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains nuanced. A personalized approach and appropriate patient selection remain key to treatment success. Further research on controversies in treatment would be useful for optimal management.

Preoperative scoring system for prediction of extended resection during emergency surgery for acute appendicitis

PURPOSE

Appendicectomy is the primary treatment for acute appendicitis. However, extended resection (ER) may be required in difficult cases. Preoperative prediction of ER may identify challenging cases but remains difficult. We aimed to establish a preoperative scoring system for ER prediction during emergency surgery for acute appendicitis.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study. Patients who underwent emergency surgery for acute appendicitis between January 2014 and December 2022 were included and divided into ER and appendicectomy groups. Independent variables associated with ER were identified using multivariate logistic regression analysis. A new scoring system was established based on these independent variables. The discrimination of the new scoring system was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). The risk categorization of the scoring system was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 179 patients in this study, 12 (6.7%) underwent ER. The time interval from symptom onset to surgery ≥ 4 days, a retrocecal or retrocolic appendix, and the presence of an abscess were identified as independent preoperative predictive factors for ER. The new scoring system was established based on these three variables, and the scores ranged from 0 to 6. The AUC of the scoring system was 0.877, and the rates of ER among patients in the low- (score, 0-2), medium- (score, 4), and high- (score, 6) risk groups were estimated to be 2.5%, 28.6%, and 80%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our scoring system may help surgeons identify patients with acute appendicitis requiring ER and facilitate decision-making regarding treatment options.

Discussion on the benefits of different treatment strategies in elderly and non-elderly patients with appendix MiNEN: a retrospective study based on SEER database

PURPOSE

To investigate the benefits of surgery alone and postoperative chemotherapy in elderly and non-elderly patients with appendiceal mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine neoplasms (MiNENs) and analyze the factors affecting the prognosis of patients with MiNEN of the appendix.

METHODS

Based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (SEER) of the National Cancer Institute of the USA, 389 patients with appendiceal MiNENs from 2000 to 2016 were collected. All patients were distributed in the elderly group (≥ 60 years old) and the non-elderly group (< 60 years old) according to their age. The prognosis of the two groups of patients who received simple surgery and postoperative chemotherapy was analyzed and compared. The two treatment methods of the two tranches were matched by propensity score matching method. The effect of different treatment ways on the prognosis of sick persons was compared. The survivorship curves were painted by the Kaplan Meier method, log rank test was used to analyze the subsistence discrepancy of each group, and COX proportional risk model was used to analyze the factors affecting the prognosis of patients with appendiceal MiNENs.

RESULTS

No matter the overall survival rate (OS) or cancer-specific mortality (CSM) of the two treatment schemes, the prognosis of patients in the only surgery group was meaningfully higher than that in the postoperative chemotherapy group, with statistically significant difference in component comparison (χ² = 16.496, χ² = 16.860, P < 0.001). After propensity score matching of patients in each group, there was no striking discrepancy in the OS of patients in the only surgery group compared with those in the postoperative chemotherapy group, regardless of whether they were elderly patients or non-elderly patients (χ² = 3.205, χ² = 1.521, all P > 0.05), the CSM consequences are fitting in with the OS. The consequences of the multivariate COX regression model showed that age (≥ 60 years old), sex (female), high histological grade, and lymph node positive were all the influencing factors for the poor OS of patients with MiNEN; the CSM results are consistent with the OS.

CONCLUSION

For patients with appendix MiNEN, whether elderly or non-elderly patients (especially for non-elderly patients), surgical treatment may be a better choice.

Factors associated with recurrent appendicitis after nonoperative management

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to identify predictors for recurrent appendicitis in patients with appendicitis previously treated nonoperatively.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of all adult patients with appendicitis treated at a tertiary care hospital. Patient demographics, radiographic information, management, and clinical outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was recurrent appendicitis within 6 months after discharge from the index admission. Given the competing risk of interval appendectomy, a time-to-event competing-risk analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 699 patients presenting with appendicitis, 74 were treated nonoperatively (35 [47%] were women; median [IQR] age, 48 [33,64] years), and 21 patients (29%) had recurrent appendicitis. On univariate and multivariate analysis, presence of an appendicolith on imaging was the only factor associated with a higher risk of recurrent appendicitis (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of appendicolith was associated with an increased risk of developing recurrent appendicitis within 6 months.

Interval laparoscopic appendectomy after laparotomy drainage for acute appendicitis with abscess: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Immediate appendectomy for acute appendicitis with abscess has a high frequency of ileocecal resection and postoperative complications compared with interval appendectomy after conservative treatment. The optimal approach to acute appendicitis with abscess remains controversial.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 69-year-old woman was referred to our hospital for abdominal pain. A computed tomography scan revealed an enlarged abscess around the cecum. The diagnosis was perforated appendicitis with abscess, and conservative treatment was performed. Percutaneous drainage was difficult because the abscess was near the intestinal tract. Because of the persistence of symptoms on the fourth day of hospitalization, laparotomy drainage was performed, and the patient's condition improved afterwards. Colonoscopy was performed on an outpatient follow-up to rule out malignant tumors of the colon. Interval laparoscopic appendectomy was performed 3 months after discharge to prevent appendicitis. The postoperative course was uneventful.

DISCUSSION

For this case of acute appendicitis with abscess, conservative treatment such as antibiotic therapy and laparotomy drainage was performed. Laparotomy drainage enabled us to approach the abscess directly and minimized the risk of its spread into the abdominal cavity compared to the laparoscopic approach. Interval laparoscopic appendectomy was more effective and easier for this case of appendectomy, wherein adhesions to the abdominal wall were expected compared to laparotomy.

CONCLUSION

Conservative treatment approaches, such as drainage and antibiotic therapy, can be first-line for appendicitis with abscesses. Interval laparoscopic appendectomy can be useful to resect the appendix and observe the abdominal cavity.

Risk of appendiceal neoplasm after interval appendectomy for complicated appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-operative management is often the treatment of choice in cases of complicated appendicitis and routine interval appendectomy is not usually recommended. Actually, recent studies show an alarming number of appendiceal neoplasms following interval appendectomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of appendiceal neoplasms and their histological types after interval appendectomy for complicated appendicitis in adults.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. Studies reporting appendiceal neoplasm rates after interval appendectomy and histopathological characteristics were included. The most recent World Health Organization (WHO) classification of malignant tumours was considered. A pooled prevalence analysis for both prevalence and pathology was performed.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies was included: seven retrospective series and one randomized controlled trial. The pooled prevalence of neoplasms after interval appendectomy was 11% (95% CI 7-15; I2 = 37.5%, p = 0.13). Appendiceal mucinous neoplasms occurred in 43% (95% CI 19-68), adenocarcinoma in 29% (95% CI 6-51), appendiceal neuroendocrine neoplasm in 21% (95% CI 6-36), globet cell carcinoma in 13% (95% CI -2-28), adenoma or serrated lesions in 20% (95% CI -0-41) of cases.

CONCLUSION

The risk of appendiceal neoplasm in patients treated with interval appendectomy for complicated appendicitis is 11%; mucinous neoplasm is the most common histopathological type. Further studies should investigate this association in order to clarify the biological pathway and clinical implications.

Preoperative predictors of extended resection in patients with complicated acute appendicitis undergoing surgery

Background : Appendectomy can be challenging and occasionally converted to extensive resection for complicated appendicitis. However, optimal treatment strategies can be developed using preoperative risk assessment. Thus, we aimed to investigate the preoperative predictors of extensive resection in complicated appendicitis patients undergoing surgery. Materials and methods : In total, 173 complicated appendicitis patients undergoing surgery between 2014 and 2019 were classified into the appendectomy (n = 153) or extensive resection (n = 20) groups. Clinicopathological factors and surgical outcomes were compared between groups. Results : Extensive resection was performed in 20 of 173 complicated appendicitis patients (11.5%). The rates of having defects in the wall structure at the appendix root on computed tomography images were significantly higher, and the duration from onset to surgery was significantly longer in the extensive resection group. Significant differences were found in operative duration, blood loss and postoperative hospitalization, but none in the incidence of postoperative complications between groups. Multivariate analyses showed that defects in the wall structure at the appendix root and five days or longer from onset were identified as independent predictors of extensive resection. Conclusions : Defects in the wall structure at the appendix root and five days or longer from onset predict extensive resection performance in complicated appendicitis patients. J. Med. Invest. 68 : 334-341, August, 2021.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Tumors of the Appendix: a Critical Review

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the current paper was to critically collect, select and summarize the evidence regarding diagnosis, treatment and follow up of primary tumors of the appendix.

METHODS

A literature review was performed by search and review of the scientific studies pertaining to the subject of our inquiry.

RESULTS

Recommendations regarding pimary tumors of the appendix were formulated on the basis of the collected evidence. CONCLUSION : Primary tumors of the appendix are rare and a high index of suspicion is required not to miss a potentially life threatening medical condition.

Appendicitis with submucosal fecalith mimicking a submucosal tumor: a case report

Background

Submucosal fecalith(s) mimicking submucosal tumors of the gastrointestinal lumen are rare. Moreover, accurate preoperative diagnosis of these entities is exceedingly difficult, and the mechanism(s) of their formation remains unclear.

Case presentation

A 40-year-old woman visited the authors’ hospital due to lower abdominal pain and diarrhea. She had previously been treated for endometriosis. Laboratory investigation revealed increased C-reactive protein levels. Abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed thickening of the appendix wall and dilation of the small intestine. The patient was diagnosed with paralytic ileus caused by appendicitis, and interval appendectomy was scheduled. She underwent laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy after conservative treatment. Partial cecal resection was selected due to the presence of an elastic mass in the cecum. The final pathological diagnosis was submucosal fecalith, not submucosal tumor. On day 5, the patient was discharged without any postoperative complications.

Conclusions

In cases of appendicitis with fecalith(s) that appear as submucosal tumor(s) on colonoscopy, submucosal fecalith mimicking submucosal tumor should be considered in the differential diagnosis.

Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is still challenging and some controversies on its management are still present among different settings and practice patterns worldwide. In July 2015, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) organized in Jerusalem the first consensus conference on the diagnosis and treatment of AA in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines. An updated consensus conference took place in Nijemegen in June 2019 and the guidelines have now been updated in order to provide evidence-based statements and recommendations in keeping with varying clinical practice: use of clinical scores and imaging in diagnosing AA, indications and timing for surgery, use of non-operative management and antibiotics, laparoscopy and surgical techniques, intra-operative scoring, and peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

METHODS

This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of AA. Literature search has been updated up to 2019 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. The statements were voted, eventually modified, and finally approved by the participants to the consensus conference and by the board of co-authors, using a Delphi methodology for voting whenever there was controversy on a statement or a recommendation. Several tables highlighting the research topics and questions, search syntaxes, and the statements and the WSES evidence-based recommendations are provided. Finally, two different practical clinical algorithms are provided in the form of a flow chart for both adults and pediatric (< 16 years old) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2020 WSES guidelines on AA aim to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) non-operative management for uncomplicated AA, (3) timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, (4) surgical treatment, (5) intra-operative grading of AA, (6) ,management of perforated AA with phlegmon or abscess, and (7) peri-operative antibiotic therapy.