Comparison of treatment methods of appendiceal mass and abscess: A prospective Cohort Study

Early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2017. Acute appendicitis (inflammation of the appendix) can be simple or complicated. Appendiceal phlegmon and appendiceal abscess are examples of complicated appendicitis. Appendiceal phlegmon is a diffuse inflammation in the bottom right of the appendix, while appendiceal abscess is a discrete inflamed mass in the abdomen that contains pus. Appendiceal phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms (e.g. abdominal pain, loss of appetite, nausea, and vomiting) and avoid complications (e.g. peritonitis (infection of abdominal lining)). Surgery for people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess may be early (immediately after hospital admission or within a few days of admission), or delayed (several weeks later in a subsequent hospital admission). The optimal timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess is debated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of early appendicectomy compared to delayed appendicectomy on overall morbidity and mortality in people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and five trials registers on 11 June 2023, together with reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs that randomised 828 participants to early or delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon (7 trials) or appendiceal abscess (1 trial). The studies were conducted in the USA, India, Nepal, and Pakistan. All RCTs were at high risk of bias because of lack of blinding and lack of published protocols. They were also unclear about methods of randomisation and length of follow-up. 1. Early versus delayed open or laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon We included seven trials involving 788 paediatric and adult participants with appendiceal phlegmon: 394 of the participants were randomised to the early appendicectomy group (open or laparoscopic appendicectomy as soon as the appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission), and 394 were randomised to the delayed appendicectomy group (initial conservative treatment followed by delayed open or laparoscopic appendicectomy several weeks later). There was no mortality in either group. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of early appendicectomy on overall morbidity (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 2.86; 3 trials, 146 participants; very low-certainty evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infections (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.02; 7 trials, 788 participants), and the proportion of participants who developed faecal fistulas (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 8.49; 5 trials, 388 participants). Early appendicectomy may reduce the abdominal abscess rate (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.80; 4 trials, 626 participants; very low-certainty evidence), reduce the total length of hospital stay by about two days (mean difference (MD) -2.02 days, 95% CI -3.13 to -0.91; 5 trials, 680 participants), and increase the time away from normal activities by about five days (MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48; 1 trial, 40 participants), but the evidence is very uncertain. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscess We included one trial involving 40 paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess: 20 were randomised to the early appendicectomy group (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy), and 20 were randomised to the delayed appendicectomy group (initial conservative treatment followed by delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later). There was no mortality in either group. The trial did not report on overall morbidity, various complications, or time away from normal activities. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of early appendicectomy on the total length of hospital stay (MD -0.20 days, 95% CI -3.54 to 3.14; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the comparison of early versus delayed open or laparoscopic appendicectomy for paediatric and adult participants with appendiceal phlegmon, very low-certainty evidence suggests that early appendicectomy may reduce the abdominal abscess rate. The evidence is very uncertain whether early appendicectomy prevents overall morbidity or other complications. Early appendicectomy may reduce the total length of hospital stay and increase the time away from normal activities, but the evidence is very uncertain. For the comparison of early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy. Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery, and resolution of the appendiceal phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities and length of hospital stay.

Effects of rhubarb peony decoction combined with antibiotics in treating pediatric periappendiceal abscess

Background/purpose

Rhubarb peony decoction (RPD) is a formula of traditional Chinese medicine that has been widely used to treat intra-abdominal inflammatory diseases. To investigate the therapeutic efficacy of RPD in pediatric periappendiceal abscess, patients who received intravenous antibiotics alone were compared with those treated with intravenous antibiotics combined with RPD.

Methods

A retrospective review of children with periappendiceal abscess who received conservative treatment in our hospital between January 2013 and April 2022 was performed. The patients were divided into an intravenous antibiotic group (the control group) and an intravenous antibiotic combined with RPD group (the intervention group). Interval appendectomy (IA) was generally performed 10-12 weeks after conservative treatment. The primary outcome was the cure rate of conservative treatment, while the secondary outcomes included the recurrence rate, days of total intravenous antibiotic use, length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and liver injury caused by RPD.

Results

A total of 142 patients (77 girls and 65 boys) were included, 52 in the control group and 90 in the intervention group. The two groups were similar in demographic data and clinical characteristics (P > 0.05). The mean total course of RPD in the intervention group was 11.82 days. The intervention group had a significantly higher cure rate than the control group (93.33% vs. 80.77%, P = 0.029), and the length of total intravenous antibiotic use (P = 0.150), LOS (P = 0.077), recurrence rate (9.52% vs. 4.76%, P = 0.439), as well as the operation time (P = 0.101), LOS (P = 0.572), and postoperative complications (P = 0.549) were not significantly different between the two groups when the patients received IA. No patient had a liver injury caused by RPD during the treatment.

Conclusion

Intravenous antibiotics combined with RPD demonstrated high effectiveness and safety for treating pediatric periappendiceal abscess.

Recurrent appendicitis following successful drainage of appendicular abscess in adult without interval appendectomy during COVID-19. Prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 infection is a global pandemic that affected routine health services and made patients fear to consult for medical health problems, even acute abdominal pain. Subsequently, the incidence of complicated appendicitis increased during the Covid-19 pandemic. This study aimed to evaluate recurrent appendicitis after successful drainage of appendicular abscess during COVID-19.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study conducted in the surgical emergency units of our Universities' Hospitals between March 15, 2020 to August 15, 2020 including patients who were admitted with the diagnosis of an appendicular abscess and who underwent open or radiological drainage. Main outcomes included incidence, severity, and risk factors of recurrent appendicitis in patients without interval appendectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 316 patients were included for analysis. The mean age of the patients was 37 years (SD ± 13). About two-thirds of patients were males (60.1%). More than one-third (39.6%) had co-morbidities; type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (22.5%) and hypertension (17.1%) were the most frequent. Approximately one quarter (25.6%) had confirmed COVID 19 infection. About one-third of the patients (30.4%) had recurrent appendicitis. More than half of them (56.3%) showed recurrence after three months, and 43.8% of patients showed recurrence in the first three months. The most frequent grade was grade I (63.5%). Most patients (77.1%) underwent open surgery. Age, T2DM, hypertension, COVID-19 infection and abscess size >3 cm were significantly risking predictors for recurrent appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Interval appendectomy is suggested to prevent 56.3% of recurrent appendicitis that occurs after 3 months. We recommend performing interval appendectomy in older age, people with diabetes, COVID-19 infected, and abscesses more than 3 cm in diameter.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is interval appendectomy preventing a high incidence of recurrent appendicitis after successful drainage of appendicular abscess during COVID-19 pandemic?

The management of appendicular abscesses in a Tunisian Tertiary Care Hospital

BACKGROUND

This study aims to describe the epidemiological, clinical, and radiological features of appendicular abscesses, compare the different approaches, and assess the safety and utility of laparoscopy in its management.

METHODS

This descriptive retrospective study was carried out over 3 years extending from January 2017 to December 2019, reporting 150 appendicular abscesses cases. Data were collected from the register of the general surgery department B of the Rabta hospital. Cases with appendicular abscess were included. Files concerning patients with early appendicitis, non-appendicular abscesses or generalized appendicular peritonitis were excluded. Data were analysed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. In univariate analysis, we used the chi2 test, the Fischer test, the Student t test. The factors retained by the univariate analysis were introduced into a logistic regression model. The significance level was set to 0.05.

RESULTS

The mean age was 40.51 years. The gender ratio in patients with appendicular abscesses was M:F 1.94:1. Pain in the right iliac fossa associated with fever was the most common symptom (78% of cases). Clinical examination showed tenderness in the right iliac fossa in 38% of cases, rebound and guarding were found in 77 patients (51.3%), and a palpable mass was noted in 4 cases (4.2%). Imaging was done to confirm diagnosis; 46 patients underwent ultrasonogram and this confirmed the diagnosis in 26 patients (56%), while among the 71 patients who underwent CT abdomen confirmatory diagnosis was made in 65 patients (91.55%). An appendectomy was performed in 148 patients (98.6%) via laparoscopic approach in 94 patients, open Mac burney procedure in 32 cases (21.3%) and midline incision in 24 cases (16%). Two patients had an ileocecal resection. The appendix was most commonly located retrocecally (55.3%) in our cohort. The laparoscopic approach was performed in 94 patients (62.6%), and we had to convert in 44 patients due to dissection difficulties (46.8%). Among patients who underwent laparascopic approach 7 had developed peritonitis.. There were only 2 deaths. The mortality rate was 0,013%. The median duration of outpatient followup was 6 months (4-24 weeks) and was uneventful.

CONCLUSION

Appendicular abscess is a disease of young adults more common in men. Location of the appendix in our case series was mostly retroceacal. Laparoscopy was associated with good outcomes; peritonitis was uncommon and mortality was rare. The laparoscopic approach is a safe surgical technique for treating appendicular abscess and it can be considered as the routine approach for this condition In developing countries with limited technical resources, laparoscopy guarantees the absence of recurrence, reduces healthcare costs and decreases the risk of treating a severe disease conservatively.

Early versus delayed (interval) appendicectomy for the management of appendicular abscess and phlegmon: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The safety and role of emergency (EA) versus interval appendicectomy (IA) for appendicular abscess and phlegmon remains debatable with no optimal strategy identified. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate outcomes of managing appendicular abscesses and phlegmon with emergency or interval appendicectomy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases using key terms including 'appendicular abscess', 'appendicular phlegmon' and 'interval appendicectomy'. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing the two management approaches were included. Operative time, post-operation complication, unplanned bowel resection, rate of surgical site infection, post-operative length of stay and overall mortality rate were evaluated.

RESULTS

We identified six studies (2 RCTs and 4 observational studies) with a total of 9264 patients of whom (n = 1352) underwent IA, and (n 7912) underwent EA. The EA group was associated with statistically significant unplanned bowel resection (OR 0.55, 95% CI [0.33-0.90], P = 0.02) and longer total operating time (MD - 14.11, 95% CI [- 18.26-- 9.96] P = 0.00001). However, the following parameters were compared for both EA and IA groups; there were no significant statistical differences: surgical site infection (OR 0.49, 95% CI [0.17-1.38], P = 0.18), post-operative intra-abdominal collection (RD - 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.04-0.01], P = 0.29), total length of hospital stay (MD 1.83, 95% CI [- 0.19-3.85], P = 0.08), post-operative length of hospital stay (MD - 0.27, 95% CI [- 3.66-3.13], P = 0.88) and mortality rate (MD - 0.27, 95% CI [- 3.66-3.13], P = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

Emergency operation for appendicular abscess and phlegmon may lead to a higher rate of reported morbidity when compared with interval appendicectomy. Although emergency appendicectomy performed for appendicular abscess and phlegmon is a feasible and safe operative approach, it is associated with significantly increased operative time and unplanned bowel resection (ileocolic and right hemicolectomies) compared to interval appendicectomy.

Secondary Peritonitis and Intra-Abdominal Sepsis: An Increasingly Global Disease in Search of Better Systemic Therapies

Secondary peritonitis and intra-abdominal sepsis are a global health problem. The life-threatening systemic insult that results from intra-abdominal sepsis has been extensively studied and remains somewhat poorly understood. While local surgical therapy for perforation of the abdominal viscera is an age-old therapy, systemic therapies to control the subsequent systemic inflammatory response are scarce. Advancements in critical care have led to improved outcomes in secondary peritonitis. The understanding of the effect of secondary peritonitis on the human microbiome is an evolving field and has yielded potential therapeutic targets. This review of secondary peritonitis discusses the history, classification, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and future directions of the management of secondary peritonitis. Ongoing clinical studies in the treatment of secondary peritonitis and the open abdomen are discussed.

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.

Stump appendicitis occurred two and half years after first laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with abscess: A report of a case

•

Emergent surgery for perforated appendicitis with abscess is should be carefully judged.

•

It may lead to insufficient anatomical recognition or postoperative complications.

•

The benefits of laparoscopic drainage for appendiceal abscess should be known.

•

It is very important to understand the correct management for perforated appendicitis with abscess.

Introduction

The management of appendiceal abscess or phlegmon is a clinical important issue. Immediate appendectomy in these cases may be technically demanding because of the distorted anatomy and difficult to close the appendiceal stump because of the inflammation.

Presentation of case

A 32-year-old female was referred to our hospital with abdominal pain. Enlarged appendix and abscess were recognized on CT scan. Preoperative diagnosis was perforated appendicitis with abscess and laparoscopic surgery was performed. The appendix was perforated and cut by stapler, but complete resection was impossible. Endoscopic transrectal drainage was performed for a pelvic abscess on the 10th POD and the patient’s condition improved. Thirty months after the surgery, however, the patient was again referred to our hospital for abdominal pain. CT scan revealed an enlarged remnant appendix. Preoperative diagnosis was stump appendicitis after the incomplete first appendectomy. Emergent second appendectomy and partial resection of the cecum were performed. The postoperative course was uneventful.

Discussion

In the first operation, we mistakenly thought that the base of the appendix was cut. It was not cut, however and it remained, which was lead to stump appendicitis. Furthermore, postoperative abdominal abscess was also occurred. Immediate appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with abscess is associated with a higher morbidity. Nonsurgical treatment with drainage and/or antibiotics should be selected. Laparoscopic drainage is the useful options when CT-guided drainage is impossible.

Conclusion

It is crucial to understand the correct management of perforated appendicitis with abscess to avoid serious complications.