Interval Appendectomy: Finding the Breaking Point for Cost-Effectiveness

Higher Rates of New Colon Neoplasm in Interval vs. Primary Appendectomies-A Coarsened Exact Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

While there is low risk of emergent appendectomy patients becoming diagnosed with a neoplasm, the rates are much higher in patients undergoing interval appendectomies. This study compares the incidence rates of new primary right colon neoplasms and postoperative complications between interval and primary appendectomies.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study from 2001 to 2020 involving patients from 92 healthcare organizations within TriNetX. Patients' diagnosis and procedure were extracted from ICD and CPT codes. Primary and interval appendectomy (IA) cohorts were defined as having an appendectomy procedure 0-14 and 15-90 days from the initial diagnosis, respectively. Patients in each cohort were matched 1:1 on demographics via Coarsened Exact Matching (CEM). Postoperative complications and oncological outcomes were defined by specific ICD and/or CPT codes.

RESULTS

Post-matching, there were 2803 patients included in each cohort. IA patients were associated with 3.07 times greater incidence rates of malignant neoplasm of the right colon and appendix (p < 0.001). However, IA patients were associated with 2.63 times lower postoperative complication rates (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

IA patients are more likely to be diagnosed with new right-sided neoplasms postoperatively. Future studies are necessary to determine appropriate cancer screening methods for IA candidates.

Modern Management of the Appendix: So Many Options

Nonoperative management (NOM) of acute appendicitis is becoming more popular, especially in resource-strapped locations, to minimize hospital system costs. In uncomplicated cases of appendicitis, NOM can effectively treat the patient. It does carry a 39.1% risk of recurrence in 5 years, and operative management (OM) does not increase morbidity or risk of complication, so the authors recommend laparoscopic OM for uncomplicated appendicitis. For complicated cases of appendicitis, the authors recommend initial NOM with interval appendectomy in all patients. All appendicitis patients should undergo surveillance endoscopy if older than 40 years to rule out a contributing neoplasm.

Non-Operative Management of Appendicitis: Evolution, not Revolution

Background: The medical fascination with the appendix vermiformis dates from the clandestine prosectors of the fifteenth century. The surgical management of appendiceal inflammation dates from 1735, but acceptance that acute appendicitis (AA) should be treated primarily by resection with or without drainage would not follow for 150 years. Recent publication of several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of non-operative management (NOM) of AA affords the opportunity to review the historical record, describe the evolution of AA management toward NOM, and assess what is in the best interest of the patient. Methods: Review and synthesis of historical and contemporary English, French, German, and Italian literature with expert opinion. Results: Modern understanding of AA dates to the landmark 1886 clinico-pathologic correlative study by Reginald Fitz, which coined the term appendicitis and coincided with recognition by surgeons that AA could be diagnosed pre-operatively and managed surgically, with mortality rates of approximately 10%. Not until 1901 did Albert Ochsner advocate NOM, paradoxically for severe cases unlikely to survive operation. Markedly decreased mortality coincided with the introduction of sulfanilamide in 1935 and penicillin and curare in 1942. The first large series of patients with AA treated primarily with NOM was published in 1956 by Eric Coldrey. Modern management evolved rapidly in the late twentieth century, including effective anti-anaerobic antibiotic agents (1970s), laparoscopic appendectomy (LA; 1980), and pelvis computed tomography with rectal contrast (1998) all representing important contributions. Randomized controlled trials of NOM of AA date to 1995, with one large trial (2015) showing that open appendectomy was not non-inferior to NOM, and another (2020) demonstrating non-inferiority between (mostly) LA and NOM. However, one-year failure rates are high (∼30%) and appear to increase further with longer follow-up. Conclusions: Laparoscopic appendectomy is curative and cost-effective management for AA, with low morbidity. Results of recent RCTs of NOM of AA indicate that LA remains the treatment of choice, particularly if a fecalith is present. However, patient preferences must be taken into account; some may prefer NOM for the 60%-70% chance that surgery may be avoided, which should be considered when providing informed consent. Non-operative management should be undertaken in the outpatient setting if possible. Antibiotic management-whether or not for NOM-should adhere to the principles of stewardship.

Fecalith in the Proximal Area of the Appendix is a Predictor of Failure of Nonoperative Treatment for Complicated Appendicitis in Adults

BACKGROUND

The management of complicated appendicitis remains controversial, since this disease has various clinical presentations and is associated with high rates of adverse events. Although initial nonoperative treatment is generally employed for complicated appendicitis, its clinical presentation and the predictors of nonoperative treatment failure are unclear.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with complicated appendicitis in our hospital between April 2015 and March 2020 were enrolled. In total, 113 patients were classified into three categories: emergency appendectomy, failure of nonoperative treatment and successful nonoperative treatment. The primary outcome was the rate of failure of nonoperative treatment, as assessed by logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcomes were the operative procedures and postoperative courses of the three groups.

RESULTS

Of 113 patients, 45 (40%) underwent emergency appendectomy, 25 (22%) failed nonoperative treatment, and 43 (38%) had successful nonoperative treatment. Among these successful cases, 38 patients (88%) underwent interval appendectomy. In multivariate analyses, the presence of a fecalith in the proximal area of the appendix was an independent risk factor for failure of nonoperative treatment (odds ratio, 20.5; 95% confidence interval, 4.37-95.7, P < 0.001). Postoperative outcomes were more unfavorable in cases of failed nonoperative treatment than in cases of emergency and interval appendectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of a fecalith in the proximal area of the appendix is an independent predictor for failure of nonoperative treatment for complicated appendicitis in adults. Patients with this risk factor should be considered candidates for surgical treatment.

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.

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.

Transumbilical Single-Incision Laparoscopic-Assisted Appendectomy (TULAA) Is Useful in Adults and Young Adolescents: Comparison with Multi-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Background and objectives: Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SLA) in most previous studies has used intracorporeal excision of the appendix and needed a longer operative time than multi-port laparoscopic appendectomy (MLA), although SLA does have the potential benefit of an almost invisible scar within the umbilicus. Some studies have reported that extracorporeal transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) in children took a considerably reduced operative time compared to MLA. We adopted TULAA in adults, adding routine dissection of the peritoneal attachment of the appendix. The aim was to compare the operative outcomes between TULAA and MLA. Materials and Methods: Between March 2013 and January 2016, 770 patients with acute uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis from 15 to 75 years of age were enrolled retrospectively. The operation was performed as early (EA) and interval appendectomy (IA). Results: Operative time was shorter in the TULAA group than in the MLA group, except for IA. No open conversion occurred in the TULAA group, except one case of ileocecal resection for IA. No intra-abdominal fluid collection was found in the TULAA group. Extended resection (especially partial cecectomy) was performed less frequently in the TULAA group than in the MLA group for IA. Mean postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the TULAA group for uncomplicated appendicitis. When the data of the EA group and the IA group were compared, operative time was significantly shorter in the IA group for both MLA and TULAA. The open conversion rate and the complication rate tended to be lower in the IA group. Confined to IA, the TULAA group tended to have shorter mean initial, postoperative, and total hospital stays. Conclusions: TULAA can be a useful surgical alternative to MLA in adults and young adolescents, because it lacks open conversion and provides both a shorter operative time and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. TULAA is feasible for IA in that it showed a lower rate of extended resection and complications.

What is the Long-Term Follow-Up of Nonoperatively Treated Patients with Appendicitis?

In this study, we determine outcomes after nonoperative treatment of appendicitis. First, we abstracted data for patients discharged with a diagnosis of appendicitis from a tertiary care facility from August 1, 2007, through June 30, 2017. For patients treated nonoperatively, we collected additional medical treatment for appendicitis, future surgical treatment, and date of last follow-up. In our study, we identified 487 patients treated for appendicitis. From this group, 66 patients were successfully treated nonoperatively. Eight patients (12%) had an interval appendectomy at a mean follow-up time of two months. Of the 58 remaining patients, 20 (34%) did not have any further appendicitis-related issues over a mean follow-up period of 25 months. A total of 38 (66%) had recurring or additional concerns requiring further treatment or emergent surgery within a mean time of four months. A large proportion, 76 per cent (n = 29), required unscheduled or emergent appendectomy. There were more patients diagnosed with an abscess (55%) in the group that had further appendicitis issues. In conclusion, nonoperative treatment of appendicitis is associated with significant likelihood of future appendicitis-related treatment or emergency surgery (66%). In addition, patients diagnosed with an abscess are at particularly high risk of future appendicitis-related issues.

Complicated appendicitis and considerations for interval appendectomy

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies. Of the 300,000 appendectomies performed each year, 25% are due to complicated appendicitis. This article reviews the incidence and pathophysiology of acute appendicitis, the nonoperative management of complicated appendicitis, and the rationales for and against interval appendectomy.