Appendix mass: conservative management without interval appendectomy

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.

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.

The feasibility of interval laparoscopic appendectomy and appropriate patient selection: A retrospective study of adult appendiceal masses

INTRODUCTION

We examined the safety and effectiveness of interval laparoscopic appendectomy (ILA) for adult appendiceal mass (AAM) and then used a novel white blood cell (WBC) parameter to identify the types of AAM cases for which nonsurgical treatment followed by ILA is effective.

METHODS

We reviewed the cases of 956 patients who had undergone appendectomy between April 2012 and March 2018 at our facility. Of these patients, 49 had AAM, including 34 who underwent ILA. We examined the safety and effectiveness of ILA by comparing it with laparoscopic appendectomy (LA); specifically, the 34 cases treated with ILA were compared with 477 cases of adult uncomplicated appendicitis treated with LA from the same patient cohort. We then examined the factors associated with not successfully completing the planned nonsurgical treatment and interval before ILA. Patient demographics and clinical variables were reviewed.

RESULTS

Patients who had undergone ILA had longer operative times than those who had undergone LA (P = .0059), but they also had shorter postoperative hospital stays (P < .001). There were no significant differences in other perioperative variables. Multivariate analysis showed that a ratio of WBC count on day 3 and day 0 from the start of nonsurgical treatment (WBC day3/day0) of 0.906 or higher was significantly associated with not completing the nonsurgical treatment and interval before ILA (P = .045).

CONCLUSION

A comparison of the procedures found that ILA for AAM was almost as safe and effective as LA for adult uncomplicated appendicitis. The WBC day3/day0 ratio can be an objective parameter to assess the effectiveness of the nonsurgical treatment before ILA earlier in the course of treatment.

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.

Appendiceal phlegmon in adults: Do we know how to manage it yet?

A Best Evidence Topic in general surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'Appendiceal phlegmon in adults: Do we know how to manage it yet?'. Altogether 217 papers were found on Ovid Embase and Medline, 334 on PubMed and 13 on the Cochrane database using the reported search. From the screened articles, 5 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. We conclude that the best management method is conservative only treatment without interval appendicectomy. These patients must be followed up, including colonoscopy and/or CT imaging as indicated, to investigate for conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease or malignancy masquerading as appendicitis.

Validating the efficacy of interval appendectomy for acute appendicitis: representative three cases with different etiologies

Background

Appendectomy for acute appendicitis (AA) is considered one of the most common emergency surgeries. However, emergency appendectomy accompanied with complex lesions such as extensive abscess formation is not recommended in most cases. Therefore, non-operative management followed by interval appendectomy (IA) for AA has been tried. Herein, we present three AA cases with specific etiology that underwent interval appendectomy.

Case presentation

Case 1: A 68-year-old man was diagnosed AA with intestinal malrotation and intra-abdominal abscesses. He initially treated with conservative therapy and underwent laparoscopic IA after detailed preoperative examination.

Case 2: A 22-year-old man had been under treatment for pancolitis-type ulcerative colitis (UC), also bothered by right-lower abdominal pain several times a year. The appendix always appeared swollen on every CT taken during symptoms. He underwent laparoscopic IA; pathological finding revealed typical UC histological features in the resected appendix. After the surgery, he never suffered from terrible right lower abdominal pain.

Case 3: A 69-year-old woman complaining a right lower abdominal pain had undergone CT examination, which revealed AA with appendiceal mass, irregular wall thickness of the cecum, and mediastinal and para-aortic lymph node swelling. The operation was carried out after conservative therapy. The pathological diagnosis revealed BRAF mutated colorectal carcinoma. She had received systematic chemotherapy after the surgery, and all metastatic lesions have completely disappeared.

Conclusion

Interval appendectomy provided us with much clearer anatomical information and precise therapeutic strategies, avoiding technical and general operative complications, and also induced fast recovery and short length of hospital stay. Interval appendectomy is a reasonable procedure and could be recommended in case of AA with some different etiology.

Increased risk of malignancy for patients older than 40 years with appendicitis and an appendix wider than 10 mm on computed tomography scan: A post hoc analysis of an EAST multicenter study

BACKGROUND

The incidence of underlying malignancy in appendicitis ranges between 0.5% and 1.7%. We sought to identify the subset of patients with appendicitis who are at increased risk of appendiceal malignancy.

METHODS

Using the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Study of the Treatment of Appendicitis in America: Acute, Perforated, and Gangrenous database, we included all patients from 28 centers undergoing immediate, delayed, or interval appendectomy between 2017 and 2018. Univariate then multivariable analyses were performed to compare patients with and without malignancy and to identify independent demographic, clinical, laboratory, and/or radiological predictors of malignancy. Akaike information criteria for regression models were used to evaluate goodness of fit.

RESULTS

A total of 3,293 patients were included. The median age was 38 (27-53) years, and 46.5% were female patients. On pathology, 48 (1.5%) had an underlying malignancy (adenocarcinoma [60.4%], neuroendocrine [37.5%], and lymphoma [2.1%]). Patients with malignancy were older (56 [34.5-67] vs 37 [27-52] years, P < .001), had longer duration of symptoms before presentation (36-41 vs 18-23 hours, P = .03), and were more likely to have a phlegmon on imaging (6.3% vs 1.3%, P = .03). Multivariable analyses showed that an enlarged appendiceal diameter was independently associated with malignancy (odds ratio = 1.06, 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.12; P = .01). The incidence of malignancy in patients >40 years with an appendiceal diameter >10 mm on computed tomography was 2.95% compared with 0.97% in patients ≤40 years old with appendiceal diameter ≤10 mm. The corresponding risk ratio for that population was 3.03 (95% confidence interval: 1.24-7.42; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

The combination of age >40 and an appendiceal diameter >10 mm is associated with a greater than 3-fold increased risk of malignancy in patients presenting with appendicitis.

Medical Treatment: An Emerging Standard in Acute Appendicitis?

Appendicectomy has been accepted as the gold standard for the management of appendicitis over the years, but there has been an increasing evidence and trend toward the conservative approach to the management of appendicitis. The aim of this review is to search existing literature and to evaluate and compare the conservative and operative approaches to the management of appendicitis. An electronic search of published literature was conducted through Pubmed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Medline using a variety of search items to find relevant observational studies, randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Bibliographies of selected articles were also analyzed for publications of interest relevant to the scope of the topic. The articles that reported primary outcomes after the management of appendicitis, complications, economic implications, and duration of follow-up were reviewed in detail. The major primary outcomes show a high recurrence rate and failed treatment associated with the conservative management of appendicitis. The other outcomes obtained show that there is an increased incidence of complications associated with operative management. Economic implications and cost-effectiveness analysis show that conservative treatment may be preferred. The length of hospital stay was significantly higher in conservative approach to management; however, shorter time off activities was observed. In general, the conservative management of appendicitis is still regarded as safe, effective, and efficacious, and further research with well-constructed study design, and larger sample size is required.

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.

Impact of high-grade obstruction on outcomes in patients with appendiceal inflammatory masses managed by nonoperative treatment

Purpose

To retrospectively assess the impact of high-grade obstructions identified on initial CT on outcomes of patients with appendiceal inflammatory masses managed by nonoperative treatment.

Methods

Institutional Review Boards approved this retrospective study and informed consent was waived. Included were 52 consecutive patients diagnosed with appendiceal inflammatory masses by CT scan and managed by nonoperative treatment. The main outcome measure was treatment failure and secondary outcomes were complications and initial and total hospital stay. Patient demographics, inflammatory markers, and CT findings for presence of an appendiceal inflammatory mass and high-grade obstruction were assessed. Patients with and without high-grade obstruction were compared for patient characteristics and outcomes using Fisher exact test and Student t-test.

Results

Among 52 patients, 14 (27%) had high-grade obstruction on CT examination at presentation. No significant differences were observed in patient characteristics (P > 0.05), treatment failure (P = 0.33), complications (P = 0.29), or initial (P = 0.73) or total (P = 0.72) hospitalization between patients with and without high-grade obstruction.

Conclusion

For patients who were managed by nonoperative treatment for appendiceal inflammatory masses, the presence of high-grade obstruction identified on initial CT scan did not significantly affect outcomes of treatment failure, complications, and initial and total hospitalization.

Pre-operative CT predictors associated with 30-day adverse events in patients with appendiceal inflammatory masses who underwent immediate appendectomies

PURPOSE

To retrospectively evaluate pre-operative CT predictors that are associated with 30-day adverse events in patients who underwent immediate appendectomies for appendiceal inflammatory masses.

METHODS

This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board, and the requirement for informed consent was waived. One hundred forty-four consecutive patients who underwent immediate appendectomies and were diagnosed with appendiceal inflammatory masses by pre-operative CT from January 2005 to December 2013 at a tertiary hospital were included. The main outcome measure was 30-day adverse events. Patient demographics and data for inflammatory markers including leukocyte counts, segmented neutrophils, and C-reactive protein levels were collected by a single radiologist. Pre- and post-operative CT findings were evaluated for features of appendiceal inflammatory masses, associated findings, and post-operative adverse events by two radiologists in a blinded fashion with consensus to assess surgical and pathologic results, post-operative outcomes, and original CT interpretations. Appendiceal inflammatory masses were defined as complicated appendicitis with a phlegmon or an abscess that was identified on pre-operative CT exam. Factors associated with 30-day adverse events were assessed using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 22 (15%) of the 144 patients (mean age [±SD] 44.6 ± 22.0 years, range 3-97 years) experienced 30-day adverse events: ten intra-abdominal abscesses, three wound infections, two cases of peritonitis, two small bowel obstructions, two intra-abdominal abscesses with peritonitis, one intra-abdominal abscess with wound infection, one intra-abdominal abscess with small bowel obstruction, and one case of peritonitis with small bowel obstruction. In univariate analysis, the presence of appendicolith (odds ratio [OR] 2.49, p = 0.048) and high-grade obstruction (OR 3.79; p = 0.01) were associated with adverse events. High-grade obstruction (adjusted OR 3.05; p = 0.04) was the only independent pre-operative predictor associated with 30-day adverse events in patients with appendiceal inflammatory masses.

CONCLUSIONS

High-grade obstruction was an independent pre-operative CT predictor associated with 30-day adverse events in patients who underwent immediate appendectomies for appendiceal inflammatory masses.

A Systematic Review of Perforated Appendicitis and Phlegmon: Interval Appendectomy or Wait-and-See?

Patients with appendiceal abscess or phlegmon have been traditionally managed with antibiotics and radiologically guided drainage of the abscess. Many studies have questioned the need for interval appendectomy. A systematic review of the nonsurgical treatment of patients with an appendiceal abscess or phlegmon was undertaken. The rate of recurrence after nonsurgical management, morbidity and length of hospital stay was measured. PubMed and Cochrane databases were queried to identify 21 studies reporting the morbidity of nonsurgical treatment of appendiceal phlegmon or abscess, and five studies reporting the morbidity of performing interval appendectomy. Repeat nonsurgical management was compared with that of performing interval appendectomy. The studies included a total of 1943 patients, of which 1400 patients were managed nonsurgically and 543 patients underwent interval appendectomy. Nonoperative treatment had a mean recurrence of 12.4 per cent, a morbidity of 13.3 per cent, and the length of hospital stay was 9.6 days. The mean morbidity rate and length of hospital stay for patients who underwent interval appendectomy was 10.4 per cent and 5.0 days, respectively. Interval appendectomy and repeat nonoperative management in case of recurrence are associated with similar morbidity; however, elective interval appendectomy implies additional operative costs to prevent recurrence in one of eight patients.

Is Interval Appendectomy Indicated after Non-Operative Management of Acute Appendicitis in Patients with Cancer? A Retrospective Review from a Single Institution

Interval appendectomy (IA) is a controversial subject, with little consensus on its use in patients undergoing treatment for malignancy. We sought to determine the frequency of recurrent appendicitis in cancer patients managed nonoperatively (NOM) during index hospitalization (IHA) for acute appendicitis (AA). Clinical presentation, cancer treatment, and follow-up were collected from electronic medical records of patients with CT scan-confirmed AA treated at a single institution between August 1999 and August 2009. Seventy-two of 109 AA patients underwent appendectomy during IHA;34ofthese 109 wereNOM during IHA.Medianindex lengthofNOM patients'staywas six days (0–55), median age was 59 (18–80) years. Indications for NOM were presence of abscess or phlegmon (14), mild symptoms (13), high surgical risk (3), end-stage cancer (3), and patient declining surgery (1). Eight NOM patients underwent percutaneous drainage of abdominal abscess (median total duration of intravenous + oral antibiotics = 12 days [0–55]). There were six deaths (1 IHA, 5 NOM): four sepsis and two cancer progression. At a median of 19-month follow-up (range 1–103), four NOM patients surviving IHA had recurrent AA (11.7%) at two (n = 2) and three months (n = 2) after the first episode. Overall, six had IA (17.6%) one to seven months post AA; 25 remained asymptomatic, without IA. In conclusion, among NOM patients at a cancer center at IHA for AA, recurrent AA was early (< 4 months) but uncommon. IA should be offered to those with recurrent symptoms, but appears to have a very limited role after several months of asymptomatic follow-up.

Drainage of periappendiceal abscess and removal of free fecalith--extraperitoneal approach

Treatment of complicated acute appendicitis is controversial. The dilemma is further complicated by presence of free fecalith in a well-circumscribed abscess, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a major predicting factor of treatment failure of nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis complicated with appendiceal abscess. If left behind after drainage of the abscess, further operations for removal of retained fecalith or recurrence of abscess might be required. However, little had been stressed over the significance of removal of the free fecalith when it was first encountered. We report our experience of drainage of appendiceal abscess and removal of free fecalith by taking an extraperitoneal approach. Both of our cases made a smooth recovery without any complication or recurrence after a 2-year follow-up. Treatment with this approach avoids many of the complications associated with formal laparotomy. Unlike image-guided drainage or laparoscopic drainage, this procedure is relatively simple and straightforward and can be performed in any level of hospital, including private practitioners and in less well-developed areas and countries. With proper case selection, we recommend this approach as one of the alternatives in the treatment of late-presenting appendiceal abscess with free fecalith.

Histological analysis of appendices removed during interval appendectomy after conservative management of pediatric patients with acute appendicitis with an inflammatory mass or abscess

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

To clarify the role of interval appendectomy (IA) in pediatric patients with acute appendicitis with an appendiceal inflammatory mass or abscess, we histologically analyzed the appendices removed during IA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We treated 355 consecutive pediatric patients with acute appendicitis and reviewed the admission charts of patients who started conservative management (CM). The histology of the appendix removed during IA was also examined. The relationships among the clinical features, appendicolith formation at the time of IA and histological findings were analyzed by stepwise regression analyses.

RESULTS

(1) CM was started in 48 patients (13.5 %). Recurrence or a remaining abscess was observed in nine patients (18.8 %). (2) Histopathological changes, particularly foreign body reaction with fibrosis and infiltration of inflammatory cells, were observed in about half of the specimens. (3) In a stepwise regression analysis, the presence of an appendicolith at IA was correlated with an appendicolith at diagnosis, foreign body reaction in the appendix and a decrease in the inflammatory reaction at diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

More than half the patients had strong histopathological changes in the appendix, suggesting a high possibility of recurrence. The presence of appendicolith formation at IA, which is a risk factor for recurrence, was influenced by the presence of an appendicolith at diagnosis, foreign body reaction in the appendix and the inflammatory status of patients at diagnosis. These clinical findings are indications for IA.

Feasibility of a nonoperative management strategy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children

BACKGROUND

For decades, urgent operation has been considered the only appropriate management of acute appendicitis in children. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective nonrandomized clinical trial of children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis comparing nonoperative management with urgent appendectomy was performed. The primary result was 30-day success rate of nonoperative management. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of disability days, missed school days, hospital length of stay, and measures of quality of life and health care satisfaction.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients were enrolled during October 2012 to October 2013; 30 chose nonoperative management and 47 chose surgery. There were no significant differences in demographic or clinical characteristics. The immediate and 30-day success rates of nonoperative management were 93% (28 of 30) and 90% (27 of 30). There was no evidence of progression of appendicitis to rupture at the time of surgery in the 3 patients for whom nonoperative management failed. Compared with the surgery group, the nonoperative group had fewer disability days (3 vs 17 days; p < 0.0001), returned to school more quickly (3 vs 5 days; p = 0.008), and exhibited higher quality of life scores in both the child (93 vs 88; p = 0.01) and the parent (96 vs 90; p = 0.03), but incurred a longer length of stay (38 vs 20 hours; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonoperative management of uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children is feasible, with a high 30-day success rate and short-term benefits that include quicker recovery and improved quality of life scores. Additional follow-up will allow for determination of longer-term success rate, safety, and cost effectiveness.

Evaluating conservative treatment for acute appendicitis with lump formation

Background:

Interval appendectomy after acute appendicitis with lump formation (phlegmon) remains controversial. We conducted this study to determine the risk of recurrent appendicitis following initial non-operative treatment for appendicitis, and evaluate factors associated with recurrence. Secondarily, we evaluate the efficacy of interval appendectomy versus no appendectomy.

Materials and Methods:

Patients who received conservative treatment for appendicitis with lump formation were prospectively studied from June 2006 to June 2008. These patients were followed for recurrence of appendicitis.

Results:

Of 763 patients with acute appendicitis some 220 patients had lump formation (28.8%). Median age was 28 years. Conservative treatment was successful in 213 (96.8%) patients. The rate of recurrence was 13.1%, all occurring within six months after the index admission. Mean follow-up was 26±18 months.

Conclusion:

Conservative treatment of appendicitis with lump formation is efficient and the recurrence rate is low. Routine interval appendectomy after initial conservative treatment for lump formation is not a cost-effective intervention and not recommended.

Interval appendectomy in adults: A necessary evil?

The management of appendiceal mass remains a matter of major controversy in the current literature. Currently, initial nonoperative management followed by interval appendectomy is favored over immediate appendicectomy. However, the necessity of doing an interval appendectomy has been questioned - is it a necessary evil? The present review revisits the above controversy, evaluates the current literature, assesses the need for interval appendectomy in adults, and provides recommendations.

Caecal tumour masquerading as an appendicular mass

Appropriate management of appendix mass is based on an accurate diagnosis of the underlying pathology. This is a report of a complex patient presenting with an appendix mass, whose surgery was deferred due to severe co-morbidities and who later died from severe metastatic disease. A 65-year-old lady presented with right iliac fossa pain and a mass. She was treated for an appendix mass initially and when the mass failed to resolve after four weeks, she was thoroughly investigated for the possibility of a tumour. Severe co-morbities had a significant impact on her management as definitive surgery was delayed. She represented 10 months after the initial admission with small bowel obstruction and died of metastatic caecal cancer. Management of appendix mass must entail a careful approach to investigating and treatment with emphasis on early intervention if the mass does not resolve promptly. This will avoid delayed diagnosis, treatment and a detrimental impact on prognosis.

Appendiceal mass: Is interval appendicectomy “something of the past”?

The need for interval appendicectomy (I.A) after successful conservative management of appendiceal mass has recently been questioned. Furthermore, emergency appendicectomy for appendiceal mass is increasingly performed with equal success and safety to that performed in non-mass forming acute appendicitis. There is an increasing volume of evidence -although mostly retrospective- that if traditional conservative management is adopted, there is no need for routine I.A except for a small number of patients who continue to develop recurrent symptoms. On the other hand, the routine adoption of emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) in patients presenting with appendiceal mass obviates the need for a second admission and an operation for I.A with a considerable complication rate. It also abolishes misdiagnoses and deals promptly with any unexpected ileo-cecal pathology. Moreover, it may prove to be more cost-effective than conservative treatment even without I.A due to a much shorter hospital stay and a shorter period of intravenous antibiotic administration. If emergency LA is to become the standard of care for appendiceal mass, I.A will certainly become ‘something’ of the past.

Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Evidence-based guidelines for managing patients with intra-abdominal infection were prepared by an Expert Panel of the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. These updated guidelines replace those previously published in 2002 and 2003. The guidelines are intended for treating patients who either have these infections or may be at risk for them. New information, based on publications from the period 2003-2008, is incorporated into this guideline document. The panel has also added recommendations for managing intra-abdominal infection in children, particularly where such management differs from that of adults; for appendicitis in patients of all ages; and for necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates.

Diagnosis and Management of Complicated Intra-abdominal Infection in Adults and Children: Guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Evidence-based guidelines for managing patients with intra-abdominal infection were prepared by an Expert Panel of the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. These updated guidelines replace those previously published in 2002 and 2003. The guidelines are intended for treating patients who either have these infections or may be at risk for them. New information, based on publications from the period 2003–2008, is incorporated into this guideline document. The panel has also added recommendations for managing intra-abdominal infection in children, particularly where such management differs from that of adults; for appendicitis in patients of all ages; and for necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates.

Surgery for appendicitis: is it necessary?

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy for acute appendicitis is an effective, universally accepted procedure performed more than 300,000 times annually in the United States. It is generally believed that appendicitis progresses invariably from early inflammation to later gangrene and perforation, and that appendectomy is required for surgical source control. Although non-operative management with antibiotics of uncomplicated diverticulitis, salpingitis, and neonatal enterocolitis is now established, the non-operative management of appendicitis remains largely unexplored.

METHODS

Systematic review of published literature and derived expert opinion.

RESULTS

Clinical, epidemiologic, radiologic, and pathologic evidence is presented for spontaneous resolution of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The pathogenesis of appendicitis is reviewed with specific consideration of the role of bacterial infection in the pathogenesis. Evidence is also provided documenting the clinical success of non-operative management.

CONCLUSIONS

Appendectomy may not be necessary for the majority of patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, as many patients resolve spontaneously and others may be treatable with antibiotics alone. However, the supporting documentation is scant and of poor quality. A randomized, prospective trial of non-operative management versus early appendectomy of acute uncomplicated appendicitis corroborated by radiologic imaging is called for.

Routine interval appendectomy is unnecessary after conservative treatment of appendiceal mass

OBJECTIVE

The traditional management of appendiceal mass is initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy. Recently interval appendicectomy has been questioned by a growing amount of evidence. The purpose of this study was to clarify the role of interval appendicectomy after successful initial conservative treatment.

METHOD

The study included 98 patients with a mass in the right iliac fossa. Four (4%) patients were excluded wing to another diagnosis of appendiceal mass including caecal cancer (two), diverticulitis (one), and Crohn's disease (one). The remaining 94 patients were treated conservatively. Routine interval appendicectomy was not performed after successful conservative treatment.

RESULTS

Ultrasound (US)-guided drainage was performed in seven (7.4%) patients. Two were drained surgically because of a persistent abscess despite a previous US-guided drainage. In five (5.3%) patients, a delayed operation was necessary because of complications. One patient developed small bowel obstruction, and in three patients, conservative treatment was unsuccessful with the abscess remaining unresolved. Within 3 months, seven out of the 89 patients were readmitted to hospital with a recurrent mass in two patients and acute appendicitis without a mass in five patients. Six (6.7%) patients were readmitted with recurrent appendicitis after 3 months. The recurrence rate after successful conservative treatment was 14.6%. The majority (nine patients; 10.1%) of the recurrences occurred within the first 6 months, and after 1 year the recurrence rate was very low (two patients; 2.2%).

CONCLUSION

Routine interval appendicectomy after initial successful conservative treatment is not justified and should be abandoned. At present, there is no consensus for the management of appendiceal mass. There is, therefore, a need to develop a protocol for the management of this common problem.

Atypical appendicitis: the impact of CT and its management

Acute appendicitis is a diagnosis that can be made on clinical symptoms and signs but can often be extremely challenging. Difficulties arise particularly when the presentation is atypical, and this can lead to untoward sequelae. In this review, we present the range of presentations of atypical appendicitis, the variety of management options and the potential value of CT.

Management of appendiceal mass: controversial issues revisited

PURPOSE

Although appendix mass occurs in 10% of patients with acute appendicitis, its surgical management is surrounded with controversy. This article reviews some of the controversial issues in the management of appendix mass.

METHODS

A search of the English literature was conducted for "appendiceal mass," "interval appendicectomy," and "laparoscopic appendicectomy" and manual cross-referencing.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The majority of the studies were small and retrospective. Emergency appendicectomy for appendix mass is emerging as an alternative to conventional conservative treatment. It is feasible, safe, and cost-effective, allowing early diagnosis and treatment of unexpected pathology. However, the appropriate timing for emergency surgery is not clear. After successful conservative management, interval appendicectomy is not necessary and can safely be omitted, except in patients with recurrent symptoms. In patients over 40 years of age, other pathological causes of right iliac mass must be excluded by further investigations (colonoscopy and computerized tomography scan), and a close follow-up is needed. Laparoscopic appendicectomy whether in emergency or interval settings is feasible and safe and should replace the conventional open method. Large prospective, randomized controlled trials are lacking, and therefore, such trials are needed to scientifically compare emergency surgery vs conservative management without interval appendicectomy.

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.

Routine interval appendectomy in children is not indicated

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates outcomes for children treated without interval appendectomy (IA) after successful nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

A retrospective study of pediatric patients with appendicitis was performed from 12 regional acute-care hospitals from 1992 to 2004 with mean length of follow-up of 7.5 years. Main outcomes were recurrent appendicitis and cumulative length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The study included 6439 patients, of which 6367 (99%) underwent initial appendectomy. Seventy-two (1%) patients were initially managed nonoperatively and 11 patients had IA. Of the remaining 61 patients without IA, 5 (8%) developed recurrent appendicitis. Age, sex, type of appendicitis, and abscess drainage had no influence on recurrent appendicitis. Cumulative length of hospital stay was 6.6 days in patients without IA, 8.5 days in patients with IA, and 9.6 days in patients with recurrent appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

Recurrent appendicitis is rare in pediatric patients after successful nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis. Routine IA is not necessarily indicated for these children.

Interval appendicectomy after appendiceal mass or abscess in adults: what is "best practice"?

There is still much controversy surrounding whether interval appendicectomy is appropriate for adults with an appendiceal mass or abscess. The main debate centres on the recurrence rate, the complication rate of interval appendicectomy, and the potential for underlying malignancy. This review aims to assess current practice and to determine whether it is possible to define "best practice" for the asymptomatic patient who has had an appendiceal mass or abscess treated conservatively. I sent a postal questionnaire to 90 consultant general surgeons requesting information about their practice of interval appendicectomy. I also conducted a literature search confined to studies involving only adult patients. The 77.8% of questionnaires returned revealed that 53% of the surgeons perform routine interval appendicectomy, mainly because of concerns about recurrence. The preference was for open appendicectomy at 6 weeks to 3 months. The literature search revealed a recurrence rate of 10%-25%, with a complication rate of 23%. It was evident that the chances of missing malignancy are low and thorough investigation is better than interval appendicectomy in detecting colonic cancer. The practice of performing interval appendicectomy varies, with just over half of the surgeons surveyed performing this procedure routinely. The literature provides little evidence that interval appendicectomy is routinely indicated and would support the view that it is unnecessary in 75%-90% of cases. However, there is scope for further consideration of the use of laparoscopic interval appendicectomy and a randomised trial is needed to fully evaluate this issue.

Interval laparoscopic appendectomy in children

BACKGROUND

Conservative management of advanced complicated appendicitis in children is becoming more common. Formation of an appendiceal mass or abscess may mitigate against urgent appendectomy during the acute stage, and conservative treatment followed by interval appendectomy has been advocated. We present our experience of interval laparoscopic appendectomy in our institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All children who were offered interval laparoscopic appendectomy between January 2000 and December 2004 were included. Retrospective case note analysis was performed and data collected included demographics, duration of symptoms, method of diagnosis, days of antibiotics, length of interval, operative time, length of hospital stay (conservative treatment and interval laparoscopic appendectomy), analgesia requirements, complications, and histology.

RESULTS

Thirty-six children, median age 8 years (range, 1-15 years) diagnosed with appendiceal mass or abscess were offered interval laparoscopic appendectomy by two surgeons in our institution: one patient declined interval laparoscopic appendectomy. Median antibiotic treatment was 10 days (range, 3-23 days). Median length of stay for conservative treatment was 6 days (range, 1-27 days). Five children required percutaneous drainage. For the 35 children who had interval laparoscopic appendectomy, the median interval was 93 days (range, 34-156 days) and median operative time was 55 minutes (range, 25-120 minutes). Median length of stay for interval laparoscopic appendectomy was 1 day (range, 1-3 days). There were no complications following interval laparoscopic appendectomy.

CONCLUSION

Interval laparoscopic appendectomy can be safely performed in children, is associated with a short hospital stay and minimal morbidity, analgesia, and scarring following conservative management of appendiceal mass or abscess. Interval laparoscopic appendectomy eliminates the risk of recurrent appendicitis and serves to excise undiagnosed carcinoid tumors. In future it may be possible to perform interval laparoscopic appendectomy as a day-case procedure in selected patients.

Clinical analysis of the predictive factors for recurrent appendicitis after initial nonoperative treatment of perforated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to study the clinical symptoms, laboratory data, and the characteristics of computed tomography (CT) imaging of nonoperated perforated appendicitis for predicting the recurrence of appendicitis.

METHODS

Thirty-five patients with nonoperated perforated appendicitis were retrospectively reviewed for this study. During a median follow-up period of 1155 days, 7 patients had to receive an appendectomy owing to recurrent appendicitis. Accordingly, the patients were divided into 2 groups: the recurrence and the nonrecurrence group. The clinical characteristics between these 2 groups were compared.

RESULTS

Both of the 2 patients who had a past history of appendicitis suffered recurrent appendicitis (the recurrence versus the nonrecurrence group, P<.05). The only CT imaging relating to the recurrence of appendicitis is the presence of calcified appendicolith (the recurrence versus the nonrecurrence group, P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

It is most likely that appendicitis will recur if a calcified appendicolith on CT imaging or a past history of appendicitis is presented. Interval appendectomy may be reserved only for those patients who possess one of these risk factors of recurrent appendicitis.

Interval appendectomy after conservative treatment of an appendiceal mass

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to clarify the role of interval appendectomy after conservative treatment of an appendiceal mass.

METHODS

From January 1998 to December 2003, patients with an appendiceal mass who received conservative treatment at the Taipei Veterans General Hospital were studied retrospectively. Data on demographics, rate of appendicitis recurrence, duration of hospital stay, and complication rate were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 165 patients were included (89 males, 76 females). The mean age was 53.6 years (range 7-89 years). The rate of appendicitis recurrence after conservative treatment was 25.5%; most recurred within 6 months after discharge (83.3%). The benefit of preventing recurrence is less than 16% if interval appendectomy is performed 6 weeks after discharge and less than 10% if it is done 12 weeks later. The complication rate of appendectomy performed before or after recurrence was 10% in both groups. The duration of the second hospital stay for patients who underwent interval appendectomy before or after recurrence was 4.43 +/- 3.32 vs. 6.75 +/- 5.73 days (P = 0.023). Of the 165 patients, 17 (10.3%) had their diagnosis changed after survey or surgery, and 5 (3.03%) were found to have colon cancer upon follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who recovered from conservative treatment of an appendiceal mass should undergo colonoscopy or barium enema to detect any underlying diseases and to rule out coexistent colorectal cancer. Routine interval appendectomy benefits less than 20% of patients.

Watchful waiting versus interval appendectomy for patients who recovered from acute appendicitis with tumor formation: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Interval appendectomy after conservative treatment of appendicitis with tumor formation remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of interval appendectomy based on a cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study including appendicitis patients with tumor formation who received conservative treatment at first admission to Taipei Veterans General Hospital between January 1998 and December 2003. Demographic data, rate of recurrent appendicitis, and medical costs were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 165 patients, 1 died after an acute myocardial infarction. The rate of recurrence of appendicitis after conservative treatment was 25.5%. The median cost of follow-up after conservative treatment was NT24,344 dollars. The median cost of interval appendectomy was NT47,746 dollars. The median cost of appendectomy after recurrent appendicitis was NT62,135 dollars. Routine interval appendectomy in all 164 patients would have cost NT7,830,344 dollars. The follow-up protocol with appendectomy after recurrence cost NT5,655,220 dollars. An additional NT2,175,124 dollars (38%) would have been needed for routine interval appendectomy compared with the follow-up policy, an extra NT13,263 dollars per person.

CONCLUSION

Routine interval appendectomy would increase the cost per patient by 38% compared with follow-up and appendectomy after recurrence. Routine interval appendectomy is not a cost-effective intervention.

Is early laparoscopic appendectomy feasible in children with acute appendicitis presenting with an appendiceal mass? A prospective study

BACKGROUND

The management of an appendiceal mass remains controversial with 2 schools of thought; early surgical intervention vs nonoperative management with or without interval appendectomy. The aim is to determine the role and safety of early laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in children with acute appendicitis presenting with an appendiceal mass.

METHODS

This is a prospective study of 88 consecutive pediatric patients who underwent attempted LA for suspected acute appendicitis at KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, between May and October 2003.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients with a mean age of 10 +/- 3 years (range, 3-16 years) underwent LA for an appendiceal mass (n = 22), simple appendicitis (n = 36), other complicated (gangrenous or perforated) appendicitis (n = 23), and a normal appendix (n = 7). There were 7 conversions to open appendicectomy, 3 of which occurred in patients with an appendiceal mass. There were no perioperative or postoperative mortalities. Morbidity occurred in only one patient who underwent LA for perforated appendicitis. He had prolonged sepsis that resolved after 2 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. None of the patients with an appendiceal mass developed complications. Patients who underwent early LA for an appendiceal mass had a statistically significant (P < .05) longer operating time (median, 103 minutes; interquartile range, 90-151 minutes, vs median, 87 minutes; interquartile range, 71-112 minutes), prolonged time to ambulation (median, 2.0 days; interquartile range, 2-2.5 days, vs median, 1.0 days; interquartile, 1-2 days), increased time to resumption of diet (median, 4 days; interquartile, 3-5 days, vs median, 2 days; interquartile, 2-3 days), and longer postoperative stay (median, 6.0 days; interquartile, 5.5-6.5 days, vs median, 4.0 days; interquartile, 3-5.5 days) compared with patients presenting with appendicitis without mass formation. However, there was no statistical difference in these parameters when LA for an appendiceal mass was compared with LA for other complicated appendicitis (perforated and gangrenous).

CONCLUSION

Although early LA for an appendiceal mass is a technically demanding procedure, it can be performed safely in children with minimal morbidity and mortality. In an era where patients' demand for "key-hole" surgery is rising, early LA is a safe and viable option in the management of children with an appendiceal mass. It also offers the advantage of avoiding misdiagnoses and the need for a second hospitalization.

Is delayed operative treatment worth the trouble with perforated appendicitis is children?

BACKGROUND

Approximately 30% to 50% of appendicitis in children is already perforated at presentation. The optimal management of these children remains controversial.

METHODS

Ninety-six children (aged 2 to 16 years) were treated for perforated appendicitis. Seventy-one underwent immediate appendectomy and drainage of abscess, if present (group I). In the other 25 an attempt was made to treat with intravenous antibiotics, combined with transrectal (4) or percutaneous (2) drainage of abscess. This treatment was successful in 16 patients (group II), who underwent appendectomy 6 to 8 weeks later, and unsuccessful in 9 patients (group III), who underwent appendectomy 3 to 12 days later.

RESULTS

The mean length of stay was as follows: group I, 6.7 days; group II, 8.9 days; and group III, 10.9 days (not significant). The white blood cell count (WBC) at presentation was group I, 18.6 K; group II, 17.9 K; group III, 18.8 K. The percent fall of WBC on day 4 was group I, 55%; group II, 25.5%; group III, 17% (P >0.05 versus groups I and II). Twenty of 71 patients in group I (28%) developed wound infection (5), pelvic abscess (14), and pancreatitis (1), while 2 of 16 (12.5%) of group II and 1 of 9 (11%) of group III patients required readmission (both P <0.05 versus group I).

CONCLUSIONS

These data show that initial antibiotic treatment of perforated appendicitis in children, followed by interval appendectomy, is useful for a select group who present with little or no peritonitis, slightly elevated temperature, and WBC that falls at least 25% within 3 to 4 days.

Appendiceal Abscess: Immediate Operation or Percutaneous Drainage?

Conflicting evidence exists regarding the optimal treatment for abscess complicating acute appendicitis. The objective of this study is to compare immediate appendectomy (IMM APP) versus expectant management (EXP MAN) including percutaneous drainage with or without interval appendectomy to treat periappendiceal abscess. One hundred four patients with acute appendicitis complicated by periappendiceal abscess were identified. We compared 36 patients who underwent IMM APP with 68 patients who underwent EXP MAN. Outcome measures included morbidity and length of hospital stay. The groups were similar with regard to age (30.6 ± 12.3 vs. 34.8 ± 13.5 years), gender (61% vs. 62% males), admission WBC count (17.5 ± 5.1 x 103 vs. 17.0 ± 4.8 x 103 cells/dL), and admission temperature (37.9 ± 1.2 vs. 37.8 ± 0.9°F). IMM APP patients had a higher rate of complications than EXP MAN patients at initial hospitalization (58% vs. 15%, P < 0.001) and for all hospitalizations (67% vs. 24%, P < 0.001). The IMM APP group also had a longer initial (14.8 ± 16.1 vs. 9.0 ± 4.8 days, P = 0.01) and overall hospital stay (15.3 ± 16.2 vs. 10.7 ± 5.4 days, P = 0.04). We conclude that percutaneous drainage and interval appendectomy is preferable to immediate appendectomy for treatment of appendiceal abscess because it leads to a lower complication rate and a shorter hospital stay.

Management of appendiceal masses

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcome of patients treated for appendiceal abscess, and managed either conservatively or surgically, and to describe the short and long-term outcome as well as incidence of interval appendicectomy in those treated conservatively.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

University hospital, Sweden.

PATIENTS

Ninety-three patients with the diagnosis of appendiceal abscess, 50 treated conservatively and 43 who were operated on, with a mean age of 46 (14-93) years. Mean (range) follow-up for patients operated on was 65 (11-135) and for those treated conservatively 66 (6-136) months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Course of acute disease, recorded complications, recurrence of appendicitis and incidence of interval appendicectomy during follow-up.

RESULTS

The duration of pain before admission was 4 (0.5-82) days for those operated on and 7 (2-60) days for those treated conservatively. A palpable mass was more common in the conservatively managed group. Complications were common among patients who were operated on. No interval appendicectomies were done during the second half of the study period. 4 of the patients treated conservatively (8%) had an underlying tumour diagnosed at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Operative management of patients with appendiceal masses seems to be associated with a high risk of postoperative complications and the risk of a more extensive surgical procedure. If possible, a conservative approach should be advocated. Because of inaccurate radiological imaging during the acute phase and the risk of an underlying malignancy, routine follow-up is necessary. Routine interval appendicectomy cannot be recommended.

Late-presenting appendicitis: a laparoscopic approach to a complicated problem

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is the most common abdominal condition necessitating urgent surgical intervention in the United States. The objective of this study was to determine if interval laparoscopic appendectomy after initial nonoperative treatment for late appendicitis presenting as an appendiceal mass is a safe alternative to immediate appendectomy.

METHODS

Thirty two consecutive patients (aged 16-74 years) during a 5-year period presented with appendiceal mass. Seventeen received initial nonsurgical treatment followed by interval laparoscopic appendectomy (aged 16-60 years; group 1). Fifteen underwent immediate appendectomy (aged 16-74 years; group 2).

RESULTS

All patients in the interval laparoscopic appendectomy group improved with initial therapy and underwent surgery an average of 4.9 months later. Although the operative time and the complication rate were similar between groups 1 and 2, the time to return to baseline activities was significantly less in group 1 after adjusting for age (p = 0.02 or less).

CONCLUSIONS

Interval laparoscopic appendectomy is safe in patients with chronic appendicitis and allows for judicious diagnostic evaluation of the appendiceal mass and planned surgery under controlled conditions.

Prospective evaluation of nonsurgical versus surgical management of appendiceal mass

PURPOSE

Prospective evaluation was undertaken of surgical findings, complications, morbidity, and hospital stay between initial nonsurgical management versus early surgical intervention of an appendicular mass.

METHODS

A prospective, nonrandomized study was conducted of 82 consecutive patients (mean age, 6.9 +/- 3.3 years) presenting with an appendicular mass over a 5-year period. They were categorized as group 1, 58.5% (48 of 82) nonsurgically managed and an interval appendectomy performed at a mean period of 8.6 +/- 4.6 weeks and group 2, 41.5% (34 of 82) appendectomy at presentation.

RESULTS

An appendix was identified in all 82 patients in both groups at operation. In-group 1, recurrent episodes of abdominal pain necessitated interval appendectomy in 39.6% (19 of 48) patients at a mean 4.3 +/- 0.8 versus 11.5 +/- 3.7 weeks in 60.4% (29 of 48) who underwent scheduled interval appendectomy. Periappendiceal abscesses present at interval appendectomy in group 1 was (38 of 48) 79.2% versus 100% (34 of 34) at appendectomy in group 2. Adhesions at interval appendectomy in group 1 was 81.3% (39 of 48) versus 100% (34 of 34) at appendectomy in group 2. In-group 1, superficial wound infection was observed in 0 versus 4 wound infections in group 2. Overall morbidity rate between group 1 and group 2 was statistically significant (P <.05). Total mean hospital stay in group 1 was 13.2 +/- 1.5 versus 4.8 +/- 0.4 days in group 2. Of the 48-interval appendectomy specimens, 37 of 48 (77%) appendices had a patent lumen, and 11 of 48 (23%) showed fibrosis and obliteration of appendicular lumen. There was no correlation (r = 0.22) between the histopathologic findings and the interval between abscess treatment and interval appendectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Early surgical intervention was beneficial over nonoperative management in this cohort of patients. Interval appendectomy is recommended after nonsurgical management of an appendicular mass.

Initial nonoperative management for periappendiceal abscess

PURPOSE

Our goal was to compare initial operative and nonoperative management for periappendiceal abscess complicating appendicitis.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of 155 consecutive patients with appendicitis complicated by periappendiceal abscess treated between 1992 and 1998. Eighty-eight patients were treated initially nonoperatively, and 67 patients were treated operatively. All patients had localized abdominal tenderness and either computed tomography or intraoperative documentation of an abscess.

RESULTS

Our patient population consisted of 107 males and 48 females, with an average age of 33 (range, 16-75) years. Age, gender, comorbidity, white blood cell count, temperature, and heart rate did not differ significantly between groups. For the initial nonoperative management group, the failure rate was 5.8 percent and the appendicitis recurrence rate was 8 percent after a mean follow-up of 36 weeks. The response to treatment of the initial nonoperative group and the initial operative group was compared by length of stay (9 +/- 5 days vs. 9 +/- 3 days; P = not significant), days until white blood cell count normalized (3.8 +/- 4 days vs. 3.1 +/- 3 days; P = not significant), days until temperature normalized (3.2 +/- 3 days vs. 3.1 +/- 2 days; P = not significant), and days until a regular diet was tolerated (4.7 +/- 4 days vs. 4.6 +/- 3 days; P = not significant). Complication rate was significantly lower in the nonoperative group (17 vs. 36 percent; P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Initial nonoperative management of appendicitis complicated by periappendiceal abscess is safe and effective. Patients undergoing initial nonoperative management have a lower rate of complications, but they are at risk for recurrent appendicitis.

Is There a Role for Interval Appendectomy in the Management of Acute Appendicitis?

Interval appendectomy (IA) remains a controversial subject in surgery. To determine its effectiveness we reviewed our results with this approach. From January 1990 through December 1998 a total of 73 patients underwent appendectomy, five (7%) of which were interval in nature. These IA patients had a palpable abdominal mass or delayed presentation that led to CT scan. The decision to delay surgery was determined by two factors: 1) a CT scan that showed advanced inflammatory changes (phlegmon or abscess) associated with acute appendicitis and 2) a rapid response to conservative management. All patients received antibiotics—first intravenous and then oral. Repeat CT scans were performed before surgery and showed a virtual resolution of the inflammatory process. Appendectomy was delayed from 35 to 66 days from the time of diagnosis (average 51 days). There were no preoperative complications, the operations were uneventful, and there were no significant postoperative sequelae. IA appears to convert an unfavorable surgical situation potentially fraught with complications (fistula, abscess, wound infection) to one that is essentially elective in nature. It should be considered for the patient who is found to have an extensive periappendiceal inflammatory process, is clinically stable, and responds favorably to initial nonoperative management.

Nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis without periappendiceal mass

BACKGROUND

Initial nonoperative treatment for patients with periappendiceal mass has been shown to be safe and effective. Our goal was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of initial nonoperative management for perforated appendicitis not accompanied by a palpable mass.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 77 patients with appendicitis treated initially nonoperatively between 1992 and 1998. All had localized abdominal tenderness and computed tomography findings of abscess or phlegmon. None had a palpable abdominal mass. Outcome parameters evaluated were rate of failure, complication, and recurrence.

RESULTS

There were 49 males and 28 females with a mean age of 35 years (range 16 to 75). Initial nonoperative management was successful in 95% of patients. Complications occurred in 12% of patients. Recurrent appendicitis developed in 6.5% of patients after an average follow-up of 30 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Perforated appendicitis patients with localized abdominal tenderness and abscess or phlegmon can safely and effectively be treated in an initial nonoperative fashion.

Computed Tomography Scanning for the Diagnosis of Perforated Appendicitis

The optimal initial treatment for perforated appendicitis may be nonoperative. For this reason it is important to be able to reliably distinguish between acute and perforated appendicitis. CT scanning has been shown to be highly accurate for the diagnosis of appendicitis, but it has not been specifically evaluated for perforated appendicitis. Our objective was to evaluate CT for the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. Our study population comprised 84 patients who underwent appendectomy between 1993 and 1997 and who had CT scanning performed preoperatively. Medical records were reviewed retrospectively. CT scans were reviewed in a blinded fashion. CT findings were correlated with pathologic and clinical factors. Sixteen patients with acute appendicitis, 59 patients with gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, and 9 patients with normal appendices or other diagnoses were evaluated. For patients with pathologic documentation of appendicitis, CT findings that independently predict perforation or gangrene included abscess (P < 0.001), phlegmon (P < 0.001), extraluminal gas (P = 0.01), and terminal ileal wall thickening (P = 0.03). CT findings of an abscess, extraluminal gas, or phlegmon have a sensitivity of 92 per cent, specificity of 88 per cent, positive predictive value of 96 per cent, and negative predictive value of 74 per cent for perforated or gangrenous appendicitis. We conclude that CT can reliably distinguish between acute and perforated appendicitis.