Drain Failure in Intra-Abdominal Abscesses Associated with Appendicitis

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

[Acute appendicitis in adults]

Acute appendicitis in adults. Clinical guidelines.

Perforated appendicitis treated with laparoscopic appendicectomy or open appendicectomy: A meta-analysis

Aim

This analysis compared the impact of laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) and open appendicectomy (OA) on treating adult perforated appendicitis (PA).

Methods

Articles relating to LA and OA in treating PA were retrieved from databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase since their founding to January 2022. These articles were independently filtered based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two investigators. The quality of these articles was assessed and article data were extracted. Dichotomous data were presented in the form of odd's ratio (OR), whereas continuous data were in the form of weighted mean difference (WMD). The included articles reported at least one of the following outcomes: intra-abdominal abscess (IAA), wound infection, operative time, hospital stay and complications.

Results

Three randomised control trials (198 LA cases vs. 205 OA cases) and 12 case - control trials (914 LA cases vs. 2192 OA cases) were included. This analysis revealed that although the IAA formation rate was similar in the LA and OA groups (OR: 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.87-1.88), the wound infection rate was lower in the LA group (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.28-0.51). Furthermore, LA was associated with shorter hospital stay (WMD: -1.43 days, 95% CI: -2.33--0.52) and fewer complications than OA (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.57).

Conclusion

LA has significant benefits in treating PA and is associated with better post-operative outcomes such as shorter hospital stay, lower incidence of wound infection and other complications. However, more studies with randomised and large-sample populations are still required to determine the clinical benefit of LA in treating PA.

The Application of Dual-Pathway Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Treatment of Periappendiceal Abscesses

OBJECTIVES

To explore the value of an ultrasound contrast agent (Sonovue) as an interventional treatment for periappendiceal abscesses.

METHODS

From January 2019 to December 2020, 30 patients were recruited who were admitted to Jinan Central Hospital due to periappendiceal abscesses. Before the operation, 2.5 ml of SonoVue® contrast agent was injected intravenously to determine the non-enhanced area of liquefaction and necrosis in the abscess cavity. The puncture sites were selected. Percutaneous catheterization and drainage (PCD) were performed under contrast-enhanced ultrasound guidance. After the operation, 1 ml of diluted SonoVue® suspension was injected through the drainage tube to observe the position of the drainage tube, the degree of drainage and the development of the abscess.

RESULTS

An ultrasound contrast agent was used preoperatively to assess the extent of the abscess. Liquefaction and necrosis were observed in the abscess cavity. CEUS showed hyperenhancement in the wall of the abscess in the arterial phase and the liquefied necrotic area in the abscess cavity was not enhanced before PCD. CEUS allowed operators to confidently identify the puncture site. Amongst the 30 cases of PCD, 27 cases showed the clear positioning of the drainage tube. The head of the drainage tube was placed in the ideal position and development could be seen in the abscess cavity. The diffusion effect of the contrast agent was good with no spillover and the drainage was unobstructed. Abscess development was observed in 3 patients after puncture injection of the contrast agent but the head of the drainage tube was not in the predetermined position. After adjusting the position of the drainage tube, CEUS was repeated and showed a strong diffusion effect of the contrast agent.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous injection of Sonovue before PCD of periappendiceal abscesses can evaluate the extent of the abscess, liquefaction and necrosis in the abscess cavity. The approach can also provide guidance for the placement of the drainage tube. After the operation, a diluted contrast agent was injected through the drainage tube. The position of the drainage tube and the flow direction of the contrast agent could be seen. This approach has good value for clinical applications to accurately judge the position of the drainage tube.

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.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiologic Management of Infected Fluid Collections

Infected fluid collections are common and occur in a variety of clinical scenarios throughout the body. Minimally invasive image-guided management strategies for infected fluid collections are often preferred over more invasive options, given their low rate of complications and high rates of success. However, specific clinical scenarios, anatomic considerations, and prior or ongoing treatments must be considered when determining the optimal management strategy. As such, several common scenarios relating to infected fluid collections were developed using evidence-based guidelines for management. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

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.

The SIFIPAC/WSES/SICG/SIMEU guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis in the elderly (2019 edition)

The epidemiology and the outcomes of acute appendicitis in elderly patients are very different from the younger population. Elderly patients with acute appendicitis showed higher mortality, higher perforation rate, lower diagnostic accuracy, longer delay from symptoms onset and admission, higher postoperative complication rate and higher risk of colonic and appendiceal cancer. The aim of the present work was to investigate age-related factors that could influence a different approach, compared to the 2016 WSES Jerusalem guidelines on general population, in terms of diagnosis and management of elderly patient with acute appendicitis. During the XXIX National Congress of the Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology (SIFIPAC) held in Cesena (Italy) in May 2019, in collaboration with the Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery (SICG), the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (SIMEU), a panel of experts participated to a Consensus Conference where eight panelists presented a number of statements, which were developed for each of the four topics about diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in elderly patients, formulated according to the GRADE system. The statements were then voted, eventually modified and finally approved by the participants to the Consensus Conference. The current paper is reporting the definitive guidelines statements on each of the following topics: diagnosis, non-operative management, operative management and antibiotic therapy.