Prospective evaluation of the Sunshine Appendicitis Grading System score

Role of Preoperative Antibiotic Treatment While Awaiting Appendectomy: The PERFECT-Antibiotics Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Antibiotics are thought to decelerate inflammation progression and reduce complications in acute uncomplicated appendicitis. The evidence of their effectiveness is insufficient, and treatment practices vary widely.

Objective

To investigate the effect of preoperatively started antibiotic treatment on the rate of appendiceal perforation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted in 2 hospitals in Finland and 1 hospital in Norway between May 18, 2020, and January 22, 2023. Data analysis was performed from March 2023 to March 2024. Eligible patients were adults (aged >18 years) diagnosed with presumed uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Patients with allergies or other contraindications to study antibiotics, previously started antibiotic treatment, pregnancy, a suspicion of perforated appendicitis, or other reasons to perform prompt surgery were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1 with a web-based service simultaneously as the laparoscopic appendectomy was scheduled.

Interventions

Antibiotic treatment started while waiting for surgery (cefuroxime, 1500 mg, and metronidazole, 500 mg, every 8 hours until the surgery) or waiting without antibiotic treatment. Patients in both groups received a single prophylactic dose of antibiotics in the induction of anesthesia.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was perforated appendicitis diagnosed during surgery. The absolute difference in perforation rates was compared between the groups by an intention-to-treat analysis, and the predefined noninferiority margin was 5 percentage points. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infections within 30 days.

Results

A total of 1797 patients were randomly assigned to either the antibiotic group (n = 901) or no-antibiotic group (n = 896). Median (IQR) patient age was 35 (28-46) years, and 793 patients (45%) were female. After randomization, 23 patients (1.3%) were excluded, leaving 1774 patients for the intention-to-treat analyses. The difference between the appendiceal perforation rates met the noninferiority threshold: 74 of 888 patients in the antibiotic group (8.3%) vs 79 of 886 patients in the no-antibiotic group (8.9%; absolute difference, 0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.0 to 3.2 percentage points; P = .66; risk ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.45). For secondary outcome, the surgical site infection rate was slightly lower in the antibiotic group (14 of 887 [1.6%]) vs the no-antibiotic group (28 of 886 [3.2%]; absolute difference, 1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2 to 3.0 percentage points; P = .03).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial, preoperatively started antibiotic treatment did not decrease the risk of appendiceal perforation when appendectomy was performed within 24 hours in adult patients with presumed uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

Trial Registration

EudraCT Identifier: 2019-002348-26.

Mesoappendix position variations in laparoscopic appendicectomy; a new anatomical classification to guide surgical strategy

Dissection of the mesoappendix from the appendix is a crucial step in laparoscopic appendicectomies. Variation in the position of the mesoappendix during this common operation has not been previously described. We propose a classification system for the mesoappendix position seen laparoscopically and evaluate the impact each position has on operative difficulty and surgical approach. The mesoappendix positions in laparoscopic appendicectomies between January 2023 and January 2024 were classified into four categories from M1 to M4. Patients were grouped according to their mesoappendix positions. Outcomes evaluated included operative time, need for additional ports, use of energy devices, deviations from standard operative approach. Various mesoappendix positions were correlated with the intra-operative appendix position and histopathological findings. 104 laparoscopic appendicectomy cases were reviewed. 30 were classified as M1, 31 as M2, 27 as M3, and 16 as M4. Mean operative time was significantly longer for cases where the mesoappendix was in the M3 position (p > 0.001). This position was also more likely to require an additional port and deviate from the standard operative approach including need for retrograde dissection and staple cecectomy. We introduce a potentially surgical important classification system of the mesoappendix in laparoscopic appendicectomies. In this study, we attempt to validate the differences each position has on operative approaches and outcomes. We found that the M3 position is of greater difficulty to approach when dissecting the mesoappendix. This classification may serve as a valuable tool in guiding intra-operative surgical decision-making.

Clinical study of enhanced recovery after surgery in laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a comprehensive management modality that promotes patient recovery, especially in the patients undergoing digestive tumor surgeries. However, it is less commonly used in the appendectomy.

AIM

To study the application value of ERAS in laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A total of 120 patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy due to acute appendicitis were divided into experimental group and control group by random number table method, including 63 patients in the experimental group and 57 patients in the control group. Patients in the experimental group were managed with the ERAS protocol, and those in the control group were received the traditional treatment. The exhaust time, the hospitalization duration, the hospitalization expense and the pain score between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in age, gender, body mass index and Sunshine Appendicitis Grading System score between the experimental group and the control group (P > 0.05). Compared to the control group, the patients in the experimental group had earlier exhaust time, shorter hospitalization time, less hospitalization cost and lower degree of pain sensation. The differences were statistically significant (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

ERAS could significantly accelerate the recovery of patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis, shorten the hospitalization time and reduce hospitalization costs. It is a safe and effective approach.

Role of preoperative in-hospital delay on appendiceal perforation while awaiting appendicectomy (PERFECT): a Nordic, pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Appendicectomy remains the standard treatment for appendicitis. No international consensus exists on the surgical urgency for acute uncomplicated appendicitis, and recommendations vary from surgery without delay to surgery within 24 h. Longer in-hospital delay has been thought to increase the risk of perforation and further morbidity. Therefore, we aimed to compare the rate of appendiceal perforation in patients undergoing appendicectomy scheduled to two different urgencies (<8 h vs <24 h).

METHODS

In this pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, parallel, randomised controlled trial in two hospitals in Finland and one in Norway, patients (aged ≥18 years) with presumed uncomplicated acute appendicitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to an appendicectomy scheduled within 8 h or within 24 h to determine whether longer in-hospital delay (time between randomisation and surgical incision) is not inferior to shorter delay. Patients were excluded in cases of pregnancy, suspicion of perforated appendicitis (C-reactive protein level of ≥100 mg/L, fever >38·5°C, signs of complicated appendicitis on imaging studies, or clinical generalised peritonitis), or other reasons requiring prompt surgery. The recruiters were on-duty surgeons who decided to proceed with the appendicectomy. The randomisation sequence was generated using block randomisation with randomly varying block sizes and stratified by hospital districts; neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was perforated appendicitis diagnosed during surgery analysed in all patients who received an appendicectomy by intention to treat. The absolute difference in rates of perforated appendicitis was compared between the groups. Complications and other safety outcomes were analysed in all patients who received an appendicectomy. A margin of 5 percentage points was used to establish non-inferiority. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04378868) and is closed to accrual.

FINDINGS

Between May 18, 2020, and Dec 31, 2022, 2095 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1822 were randomly assigned to appendicectomy scheduled within 8 h (n=914) or 24 h (n=908). After randomisation, 19 (1%) of 1822 patients were excluded due to protocol violation. 1803 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analyses, 985 (55%) of whom were male and 818 (45%) female. Appendiceal perforation rate was similar between groups (77 [8%] of 907 patients assigned to the <8 h group and 81 [9%] of 896 patients assigned to the <24 h group; absolute risk difference 0·6% [95% CI -2·1 to 3·2], p=0·68; risk ratio 1·065, 95% CI 0·790 to 1·435). No significant difference was found between the complication rates within 30 days (66 [7%] of 907 patients in the <8 h group vs 56 [6%] of 896 patients in the <24 h group; difference -1·0% [-3·3 to 1·3]; p=0·39), and no deaths occurred during this follow-up period.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with presumed uncomplicated acute appendicitis, scheduling appendicectomy within 24 h does not increase the risk of appendiceal perforation compared with scheduling appendicectomy within 8 h. The results can be used to allocate operating room resources, for example postponing night-time appendicectomy to daytime.

FUNDING

The Finnish Medical Foundation, Mary and Georg Ehrnrooth's Foundation, Biomedicum Helsinki Foundation, and the Finnish Government.

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic retrograde appendicectomy, base-to-tip approach

Background

Laparoscopic appendicectomy is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide. There is limited evidence evaluating the role and safety of laparoscopic retrograde appendicectomy (LRA), base to tip approach, compared to standard laparoscopic antegrade appendicectomy (LAA), tip to base approach. This study aims to assess the safety of LRA compared to LAA in terms of intra-abdominal collection (IAC) rate and using Sunshine Appendicitis Grading System (SAGS).

Methods

Records of two-hundred and seventy-three patients undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy by LAA and LRA approaches were analysed. The severity of appendicitis was rated using a standardised Sunshine Appendicitis Grading System (SAGS) score intra-operatively. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of an intra-abdominal collection, and secondary measures were procedure time, post-operative length of stay and other complications.

Results

Of the two-hundred and seventy-three patients, there were two patients who developed an intra-abdominal collection. Both patients were in the LAA group with SAGS IV scores. Between SAGS IV patients, Chi-squared p value of 0.6691. Therefore, there was no statically significant difference in the intra-abdominal collection (IAC) rate between LAA and LRA groups from this study.

Conclusions

The current study has shown that laparoscopic retrograde appendicectomy (LRA) does not increase risk of intra-abdominal collection compared to laparoscopic antegrade appendicectomy (LAA) within the limit of this study.

Use of oral contrast for CT scanning and time to diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a delay in treatment for patients having pre-operative CT imaging with both intravenous and oral contrast (CTIVO) compared to intravenous contrast alone (CTIV).

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent emergency appendicectomy at a single hospital during a two-year period (1/1/2019-31/12/2020) was performed. Demographic details, imaging timing/modality; biochemical markers; American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification, anaesthetic induction time; operative report findings; histopathology, peri-operative complications, admission/discharge times were recorded. The Sunshine Appendicitis Grading System (SAGS) score was used for severity of appendicitis.

RESULTS

Pre-operative CT was performed in 294 patients; CTIVO: 159 (54%), CTIV: 135 (46%). Both groups were comparable for age, sex, ASA status and inflammatory markers. The median time from CT request to scanning was longer with CTIVO (CTIVO: 170 min, CTIV: 65 min, P < 0.0001). The median time from CT request to induction of anaesthesia was also longer with CTIVO (CTIVO: 780 minutes, CTIV: 406 min, P < 0.0001). A delay to theatre was not significantly associated with severity of appendicitis (SAGS score). The diagnostic accuracy was not reduced in the CTIV group compared to the CTIVO group.

CONCLUSION

CTIVO scans significantly delay CT diagnosis and surgical treatment of appendicitis compared to CTIV. Omitting oral contrast does not result in a reduction in diagnostic accuracy for appendicitis.

Effect of the Movement Control Order on the Incidence of Complicated Appendicitis During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Appendicitis is common and delayed presentation results in complicated appendicitis with increased morbidity. This study investigates the effect of the Movement Control Order (MCO) during the COVID-19 pandemic on the presentation and severity of appendicitis.

Methods

A cross-sectional study including 193 patients diagnosed with appendicitis was conducted at four hospitals in Pahang, Malaysia. Those who presented between 1 February 2020 and 17 March 2020 were included in the pre-MCO group and those between 18 March 2020 and 30 April 2020 in the MCO group. The definitions of simple and complicated appendicitis were based on the Sunshine Appendicitis Grading Score. The primary outcome was the incidence of complicated appendicitis, and the secondary outcomes were length of stay, a composite of surgical morbidities and a composite of organ failure.

Results

A total of 105 patients in the pre-MCO group and 88 in the MCO group were analysed. The incidence of complicated appendicitis was 33% and it was higher in the MCO than in the pre-MCO group (44% versus 23%, P = 0.002). The MCO period was independently associated with complicated appendicitis in the logistic regression (P = 0.001). It was also associated with prolonged length of stay (3.5 days versus 2.4 days, P < 0.001) and higher overall surgical morbidity (19% versus 5%, P = 0.002).

Conclusion

The MCO imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a higher incidence of complicated appendicitis and surgical morbidity.

Role of delay and antibiotics on PERForation rate while waiting appendicECTomy (PERFECT): a protocol for a randomized non-inferiority trial

Background

Longer duration from symptom onset is associated with increased risk of perforation in appendicitis. In previous studies, in-hospital delay to surgery has had conflicting effects on perforation rates. Although preoperative antibiotics have been shown to reduce postoperative infections, there are no data showing that administration of antibiotics while waiting for surgery has any benefits. The aims of this study are to evaluate the role of both in-hospital delay to surgery and antibiotic treatment while waiting for surgery on the rate of appendiceal perforation.

Methods

This prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled non-inferiority trial compares the in-hospital delay to surgery of less than 8 hours versus less than 24 hours in adult patients with predicted uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Additionally, participants are randomized either to receive or not to receive antibiotics while waiting for surgery. The primary study endpoint is the rate of perforated appendicitis discovered during appendicectomy. The aim is to randomize 1800 patients, that is estimated to give a power of 90 per cent (χ²) for the non-inferiority margin of 5 percentage points for both layers (urgency and preoperative antibiotic). Secondary endpoints include length of hospital stay, 30-day complications graded using Clavien–Dindo classification, preoperative pain, conversion rate, histopathological diagnosis and Sunshine Appendicitis Grading System classification.

Discussion

There are no previous randomized controlled studies for either in-hospital delay or preoperative antibiotic treatment. The trial will yield new level 1 evidence.

EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT Number: 2019–002348-26; registration number: NCT04378868 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)

Risk factors for intra-abdominal abscess following laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a retrospective cohort study on 2076 patients

BACKGROUND

Intra-abdominal abscesses (IAA) may develop after laparoscopic appendectomies (LA) for acute appendicitis. The identification of risk factors for postoperative IAA could lead to a decrease in the readmission rate and surgery redoes after LA for acute appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study retrospectively analyzed patients undergone LA for acute appendicitis during the period 2001-2017. Clinical, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were described. Comparison between groups was made via univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The charts of 2076 patients undergone LA were reviewed. Thirty-seven patients (1.8%) developed a postoperative IAA. Male gender (p < 0.05), ASA score ≥ 2 (p < 0.05), a gangrenous or perforated appendicitis (p < 0.0001), abscess or pelvic peritonitis (p < 0.0001), clipping the mesoappendix (p < 0.0001), appendix division by mechanical stapler (p < 0.05), prolonged antibiotic therapy (p < 0.05), and piperacillin/tazocin regimen (p < 0.0001) were significantly more frequent in the group of patients with IAA. In terms of multivariate analysis, only pelvic peritonitis (p = 0.010), perforated appendicitis (p = 0.0002), and clipping the mesoappendix (p = 0.0002) were independent predictive factors for postoperative IAA.

CONCLUSION

Patients with peritonitis or a perforated appendicitis, and those who had their mesoappendix clipped showed a higher likelihood of developing an IAA. At risk patients should be provided with careful follow-up for the early detection and management of this complication.

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.

Postoperative Outcomes of Patients With Nonperforated Gangrenous Appendicitis: A National Multicenter Prospective Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists regarding the use of postoperative antibiotics for nonperforated gangrenous appendicitis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the rate of postoperative infectious complications and the effect of postoperative antibiotic use among patients with nonperforated gangrenous appendicitis.

DESIGN

This was a prospective cohort study conducted during 2 months.

SETTINGS

A national multicenter observational study was conducted in 62 Dutch hospitals.

PATIENTS

All of the consecutive patients who had surgery for suspected acute appendicitis were included. Patients were excluded if no appendectomy was performed or appendectomy was performed for pathology other than acute appendicitis.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Type of appendicitis was categorized as phlegmonous, gangrenous, or perforated. The primary end point was the rate of infectious complications (intra-abdominal abscess and surgical site infection) within 30 days after appendectomy. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of infectious complications.

RESULTS

A total of 1863 patients were included: 1321 (70.9%) with phlegmonous appendicitis, 181 (9.7%) with gangrenous appendicitis, and 361 (19.4%) with perforated appendicitis. Infectious complications were more frequent in patients with gangrenous versus phlegmonous appendicitis (7.2% vs 3.8%; p = 0.03). This association was no longer statistically significant in multivariable analysis (OR = 1.09 (95% CI, 0.49-2.44)). There was no significant difference in infectious complications between ≤24 hours (n = 57) of postoperative antibiotics compared with >24 hours (n = 124; 3.6% vs 8.9%; p = 0.35) in patients with gangrenous appendicitis.

LIMITATIONS

Possible interobserver variability in the intraoperative classification of appendicitis was a study limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with nonperforated gangrenous appendicitis are at higher risk of infectious complications than patients with phlegmonous appendicitis, yet gangrenous disease is not an independent risk factor. Postoperative antibiotic use over 24 hours was not associated with decreased infectious complications. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A1000. RESULTADOS POSTOPERATORIOS DE PACIENTES CON APENDICITIS GANGRENOSA NO PERFORADA: UN ANÁLISIS DE COHORTE PROSPECTIVO MULTICÉNTRICO NACIONAL:: Existe controversia sobre el uso de antibióticos postoperatorios para la apendicitis gangrenosa no perforada.El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la tasa de complicaciones infecciosas postoperatorias y el efecto del uso de antibióticos postoperatorios en pacientes con apendicitis gangrenosa no perforada.Estudio de cohorte prospectivo realizado durante dos meses.Estudio observacional multicéntrico nacional en 62 hospitales holandeses.Todos los pacientes consecutivos sometidos a cirugía por sospecha de apendicitis aguda. Los pacientes fueron excluidos si no se realizó una apendicectomía o si se realizó una apendicectomía para otra patología que no fuera la apendicitis aguda.El tipo de apendicitis se clasificó como flegmonosa, gangrenosa o perforada. El criterio de valoración primario fue la tasa de complicaciones infecciosas (absceso intraabdominal e infección en el sitio quirúrgico) dentro de los 30 días posteriores a la apendicectomía. Se realizaron análisis de regresión logística univariables y multivariables para identificar predictores de complicaciones infecciosas.Se incluyeron un total de 1863 pacientes: 1321 (70,9%) con apendicitis flegmonosa, 181 (9,7%) con apendicitis gangrenosa y 361 (19,4%) con apendicitis perforada. Las complicaciones infecciosas fueron más frecuentes en pacientes con apendicitis gangrenosa frente a flegmonosa (7,2% frente a 3,8%, p = 0,03). Esta asociación ya no fue estadísticamente significativa en el análisis multivariable (OR 1,09; IC del 95%: 0,49 a 2,44). No hubo diferencias significativas en las complicaciones infecciosas entre ≤ 24 h (n = 57) de los antibióticos postoperatorios en comparación con> 24 h (n = 124) (3,6% vs. 8,9%, p = 0,35) en pacientes con apendicitis gangrenosa.Posible variabilidad interobservador en la clasificación intraoperatoria de la apendicitis.Los pacientes con apendicitis gangrenosa no perforada tienen un mayor riesgo de complicaciones infecciosas que los pacientes con apendicitis flegmonosa, aunque la enfermedad gangrenosa no es un factor de riesgo independiente. El uso de antibióticos postoperatorios durante 24 horas no se asoció con una disminución de las complicaciones infecciosas. Vea el Resumen del Video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A1000.

Variation in Classification and Postoperative Management of Complex Appendicitis: A European Survey

Background

Data on common practice in the management of patients with complex appendicitis are scarce, especially for the adult population. Variation in the definition of complex appendicitis, indications for and the type of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis have not been well studied yet. The aim of this study was to document current practice of the classification and postoperative management of complex appendicitis on an international level.

Methods

An online survey was dispersed among practicing surgeons and surgical residents. Survey questions pertained to the definition of a complex appendicitis, indications for antibiotic prophylaxis after appendectomy, the duration, route of administration and antibiotic agents used.

Results

A total of 137 survey responses were eligible for analysis. Most respondents were from Northern or Western Europe and were specialized in gastrointestinal surgery. Opinion varied substantially regarding the management of appendicitis, in particular for phlegmonous appendicitis with localized pus, gangrenous appendicitis and iatrogenic rupture of appendicitis. The most common duration of postoperative antibiotics was evenly spread over <3, 3, 5 and 7 days. Whereas most respondents indicated a combined intravenous and oral route of administration was common practice, 28% answered a completely intravenous route of administration was standard practice.

Conclusion

Current practice patterns in the classification and postoperative management of complex appendicitis are highly variable.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00268-018-4806-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical and Imaging Correlates of Pediatric Mucosal Appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Mucosal appendicitis is a controversial entity that is histologically distinct from transmural appendicitis. There is mixed opinion regarding mucosal inflammation as a spectrum of appendicitis versus a negative appendectomy. The ability to distinguish these diagnoses preoperatively is of importance to prevent unnecessary surgery. We hypothesize that patients with mucosal appendicitis can be discriminated from those with transmural disease based on specific preoperative clinical and imaging findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After IRB approval, all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at our institution during 2015 were reviewed in the electronic medical record. Patients with mucosal appendicitis were identified and matched 2:1 to a random cohort of nonperforated transmural appendicitis cases. Demographic and clinical data were collected, including history, examination, laboratory, and imaging findings. Preoperative factors associated with mucosal appendicitis were modeled using binomial logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1153 appendectomies performed during 2015, 103 patients had pathologic diagnosis of mucosal appendicitis. When compared with patients with mucosal infection, leukocytosis >10,000 per microliter led to 5.9 times higher likelihood of transmural pathology (P = 0.000). Noncompressibility on ultrasound was associated with 7.3 times higher likelihood of transmural disease (P = 0.015). Echogenic changes were predictive of transmural appendicitis, conferring 3.9 times the risk (P = 0.007). Presence of free fluid led to 2.3 times the rate of transmural pathology (P = 0.007). Finally, for every millimeter decrease in appendiceal diameter, patients were half as likely to exhibit transmural disease (P = 0.000). Together, these variables can successfully predict presence of mucosal appendicitis on final pathology report at a rate of 82.1%, and explain 60% of the variance in diagnosis of mucosal versus transmural appendicitis (P = 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Mucosal appendicitis remains a controversial pathologic entity, but is not associated with greater complications compared with transmural appendicitis when treated with laparoscopic appendectomy. Transmural disease can be predicted by leukocytosis, noncompressible appendix, presence of free fluid, larger appendiceal diameter and echogenicity.

The appropriateness of ceftriaxone and metronidazole as empirical therapy in managing complicated intra-abdominal infection-experience from Western Health, Australia

Purpose

This study aims to assess the microbiological profile, antimicrobial susceptibility and adequacy of intravenous ceftriaxone and metronidazole as empirical therapy for surgical patients presenting with complicated intra-abdominal infection.

Methods

This retrospective audit reviews the microbiological profile and sensitivity of intra-abdominal cultures from adult patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection who presented to the emergency department at Western Health (Melbourne, Australia) between November 2013 and June 2017. Using the hospital’s database, an audit was completed using diagnosis related group (DRG) coded data. Ethics approval has been granted by the Western Health Human Research Ethics Committee. Results are stratified according to surgical conditions (appendicitis, cholecystitis, sigmoid diverticulitis and bowel perforation). The antimicrobial coverage of ceftriaxone and metronidazole is evaluated against these microbial profiles.

Results

A total of 1,412 patients were identified using DRG codes for intra-abdominal infection. All patients with microscopy and sensitivity results were included in the study. Patients without these results were excluded. 162 patients were evaluable. 180 microbiological cultures were performed through surgical intervention or radiologically guided aspiration of the intra-abdominal infection. Single or multiple pathogens were identified in 137 cultures. The most commonly identified pathogens were mixed anaerobes (12.6%), Escherichia coli (E. coli) (12.1%), mixed coliforms (11.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (7%). Other common pathogens (6% each) included Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus anginosus, Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) and Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamases (ESBL) producing E. coli. Organisms isolated in our study are consistent with existing literature. However, a significant proportion of antibiotic resistant organisms was identified in cases of perforated bowel and sigmoid diverticulitis. Broader spectrum antimicrobial therapy should therefore be considered in lieu of ceftriaxone and metronidazole in these cases. Ceftriaxone and metronidazole remain as appropriate empirical therapy for patients who presented with perforated appendicitis and cholecystitis.

Discussion

The empirical regime of ceftriaxone and metronidazole remains appropriate for intra-abdominal infection secondary to appendicitis and cholecystitis. In cases involving perforated small and large bowel, including complicated sigmoid diverticulitis, the judicious use of ceftriaxone and metronidazole is recommended.