The Introduction of Adult Appendicitis Score Reduced Negative Appendectomy Rate

Clinical decision rules for appendicitis are not used by surgeons in training: A survey

BACKGROUNDS

We aimed to investigate surgeons in training knowledge of clinical decision rules (CDR) for diagnosing appendicitis and their attitudes toward implementing them.

METHODS

We included surgeons in training practicing in East Denmark who independently could decide to perform a diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis. The survey was developed in Research Electronic Data Capture and face-validated before use. It consisted of three parts: (1) the characteristics of the surgeons, (2) their diagnostic approach, and (3) their knowledge and attitude toward introducing CDR in the clinic. Data were collected in January 2023.

RESULTS

We achieved 83 (90%) responses, and 52% of surgeons in training believed that appendicitis was difficult to diagnose. Their diagnostic approach mostly included symptoms and physical examinations for abdominal pain, and C-reactive protein. A total of 48% knew of at least one clinical decision rule, and 72% had never used a clinical decision rule. Regarding the necessity of CDR in clinical practice, surgeons in training options were divided into thirds: not needed, neither needed nor not needed, and needed. Surgeons in training indicated that CDR needed to be validated and easily applied before they would implement them.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 3/4 of surgeons in training had never utilized a clinical decision rule to diagnose appendicitis, and only half knew of their existence. The symptoms and findings incorporated in most CDR aligned with their diagnostic approach. They were conflicted if CDR needed to be implemented in clinical practice.

Pre-hospital management and patient-related factors affecting access to the surgical care of appendicitis - a survey study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Long pre-hospital delay substantially increases the likelihood of perforated appendicitis. This study aimed to find patient-related factors affecting this delay.

METHODS

A survey was conducted for patients with acute appendicitis after appendectomy. The participants were asked about their path to the surgical center and socioeconomic status. Variables affecting delays and the rate of complicated appendicitis were analyzed.

RESULTS

The study included 510 patients; 157 (31%) had complicated appendicitis with a median prehospital delay of 42 h. In patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, the delay was 21 h, p < .001. Forty-six (29%) patients with complicated appendicitis were not referred to the hospital after the first doctor's visit. The multivariate analysis discovered factors associated with long pre-hospital delay: age 40-64 years (OR 1.63 (95% CI 1.06-2.52); compared to age 18-39), age more than 64 years (OR 2.84 (95% CI 1.18-6.80); compared to age 18-39), loss of appetite (OR 2.86 (95% CI 1.64-4.98)), fever (OR 1.66 (95% CI 1.08-2.57)), non-referral by helpline nurse (OR 2.02 (95% CI 1.15-3.53)) and non-referral at first doctors visit (OR 2.16 (95% CI 1.32-3.53)). Age 40-64 years (OR 2.41 (95% CI 1.50-3.88)), age more than 64 years (OR 8.79 (95% CI 2.19-35.36)), fever (OR 1.83 (95% CI 1.15-2.89)) and non-referral at first doctors visit (OR 1.90 (95% CI 1.14-3.14)) were also risk factors for complicated appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced age, fever and failure to suspect acute appendicitis in primary care are associated with prolonged pre-hospital delay and complicated appendicitis.

Misdiagnosis of Acute Appendicitis Cases in the Emergency Room

Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most frequent surgical emergencies, especially in pediatric populations, with its misdiagnosis in emergency settings presenting significant health risks. This misdiagnosis leads to various complications, such as delayed treatment or unnecessary surgeries. Factors such as age, gender, and comorbidities contribute to diagnostic errors, leading to complications such as peritonitis and increased negative appendectomy rates. This underscores the importance of accurate clinical assessment and awareness of common pitfalls, such as cognitive biases and over-reliance on laboratory tests. This review delves into the prevalence of AA misdiagnosis, its health burden, and the challenges inherent in the diagnostic process. It scrutinizes the effectiveness of different diagnostic approaches, including clinical assessment and imaging techniques. The treatment paradigms for AA are also explored, focusing on surgical interventions and the potential of conservative treatments using antibiotics. The review underscores the criticality of precise diagnosis in preventing adverse outcomes and ensuring effective treatment.

Performance and diagnostic accuracy of scoring systems in adult patients with suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to determine the most accurate appendicitis scoring system and optimal cut-off points for each scoring system.

METHODS

This single-centred prospective cohort study was conducted from January-to-June 2021, involving all patients admitted on suspicion of appendicitis. All patients were scored according to the Alvarado score, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha (RIPASA) score and Adult Appendicitis score (AAS). The final diagnosis for each patient was recorded. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each system. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed for each scoring system, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. Optimal cut-off scores were calculated using Youden's Index.

RESULTS

A total of 245 patients were recruited with 198 (80.8%) patients underwent surgery. RIPASA score had higher sensitivity and specificity than other scoring systems without being statistically significant (sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 62.3%, optimal score 8.5, AUC 0.724), followed by the AAS (sensitivity 60.2%, specificity 75.4%, optimal score 14, AUC 0.719), AIR score (sensitivity 76.7%, specificity 52.2%, optimal score 5, AUC 0.688) and Alvarado score (sensitivity 69.9%, specificity 62.3%, optimal score 5, AUC 0.681). Multiple logistic regression revealed anorexia (p-value 0.018), right iliac fossa tenderness (p-value 0.005) and guarding (p-value 0.047) as significant clinical factors independently associated with appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

Appendicitis scoring systems have shown moderate sensitivity and specificity in our population. The RIPASA scoring system has shown to be the most sensitive, specific and easy-to-use scoring system in the Malaysian population whereas the AAS is most accurate in excluding low-risk patients.

Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: A Cross-sectional Study on Alvarado's Score from a Low Income Country

Background

Alvarado score is the most widely used scoring system for diagnosing acute appendicitis, globally. There have been concerns regarding the diagnostic accuracy of this score as it was shown to have lower sensitivity in certain populations like Blacks and Asians. Despite its wide clinical use in the Ethiopian set up, the diagnostic accuracy of this score remained largely unexamined in this population.

Methodology

A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted and all adult patients who presented with right lower quadrant abdominal pain and evaluated with a clinical impression of acute appendicitis were enrolled in the study. Data was collected by trained surgical residents over a period of six months (August 2019- January 2020) and analysed using SPSS version 25.

Results

A total of 235 patients were enrolled in this study among whom two thirds were males. The majority of the study participants (61.7%) had an Alvarado score of ≥7 while almost a quarter of them had a score of <4. The mean Alvarado score in this study was 7 ± 1.8 whereas the median and the mode were 7 and 9 respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Alvarado score were 99.1%, 55.6%, 98.2% and 62.5% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of this score was superior in males compared to females (99.3% vs 97.6% and 80% vs 25%). A score of ≥5 was found to have a sensitivity of 98.4%.

Conclusion

Alvarado score was found to have good sensitivity and positive predictive value in this study. A score of ≥5 can be used to "rule in" the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Hence, the use of Alvarado score's in the Ethiopian setup is to be encouraged.

Usefulness of Preoperative Predictors of Pathological Complicated Appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

Complicated appendicitis (CA) is often indicated for emergency surgery; however, preoperative predictors of pathological CA (pCA) remain unclear. Furthermore, characteristics of CA that can be treated conservatively have not yet been established.

METHODS

305 consecutive patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: an emergency surgery and a conservative treatment group. The emergency surgery group was pathologically classified as having uncomplicated appendicitis (pUA) and pCA, and the preoperative predictors of pCA were retrospectively assessed. Based on the preoperative pCA predictors, a predictive nomogram whether conservative treatment would be successful or not was created. The predictors were applied to the conservative treatment group, and the outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

In the multiple logistic regression analysis of the factors contributing to pCA, C-reactive protein ≥3.5 mg/dL, ascites, appendiceal wall defect, and periappendiceal fluid collection were independent risk factors. Over 90% of cases without any of the above four preoperative pCA predictors were pUA. The accuracy of the nomogram was 0.938.

CONCLUSION

Our preoperative predictors and nomogram are useful to aid in distinguishing pCA and pUA and to predict whether or not conservative treatment will be successful. Some CA can be treated with conservative treatment.

DIAgnostic iMaging or Observation in early equivocal appeNDicitis (DIAMOND): open-label, randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Mild appendicitis may resolve spontaneously. The use of CT may lead to an overdiagnosis of uncomplicated appendicitis. The aims of this study were to examine whether early imaging results in more patients being diagnosed with acute appendicitis than initial observation, and to study the safety and feasibility of score-based observation compared with imaging in patients with equivocal signs of appendicitis.

METHODS

Patients with suspected appendicitis with symptoms for fewer than 24 h and an Adult Appendicitis Score of 11-15 were eligible for this trial. After exclusions, patients were randomized openly into two equal-sized groups: imaging and observation. Patients in the imaging group had ultrasound imaging followed by CT when necessary, whereas those in the observation group were reassessed after 6-8 h with repeated scoring and managed accordingly. The primary outcome was the number of patients requiring treatment for acute appendicitis within 30 days.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients were randomized to imaging and 92 to observation; after exclusions, 93 and 88 patients respectively were analysed. In the imaging group, more patients underwent treatment for acute appendicitis than in the observation group: 72 versus 57 per cent (difference 15 (95 per cent c.i. 1 to 29) per cent). This suggests that patients with spontaneously resolving appendicitis were not diagnosed or treated in the observation group. Some 55 per cent of patients in the observation group did not need diagnostic imaging within 30 days after randomization. There was no difference in the number of patients diagnosed with complicated appendicitis (4 versus 2 per cent) or negative appendicectomies (1 versus 1 per cent) in the imaging and observation groups.

CONCLUSION

Score-based observation of patients with early equivocal appendicitis results in fewer patients requiring treatment for appendicitis. Registration number: NCT02742402 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Temporal Trends in the Investigation, Management and Outcomes of Acute Appendicitis over 15 Years in the North of England: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is a common surgical emergency with an estimated lifetime prevalence of 8.6% for males and 6.7% for females. Despite the frequency of presentation, considerable variation in clinical practice exists. Our study aimed to explore temporal trends in the investigation, treatment and outcomes for patients with appendicitis between 2002 and 2016.

METHODS

Data collected included all patients aged ≥16 years across the NHS trusts in Northern England between 01/01/2002 and 31/12/2016 diagnosed with appendicitis. Patient demographics, co-morbidity and management strategies were included. Outcomes of interest were length of stay and inpatient mortality.

RESULTS

Over a 15 years period, 22,137 patients were admitted with acute appendicitis. A consistent male preponderance (n = 11,952, 54%) was observed, and median age increased over time (2002-2006: 36.4 vs. 2012-2016: 39.5, p < 0.001). Comorbidity of patients also increased (p < 0.001) in recent years. Computed tomography (CT) use increased from 0.8 to 21.9% (p < 0.001) over the study period. Following CT scanning, there was a longer time to theatre (1.22 vs. 0.70 days, p < 0.001), and patients were more frequently managed non-operatively (23.8% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.001). The utilisation of laparoscopic approaches significantly increased from 4.1 to 70.4% (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic patients had a shorter median length of stay (2.97 days) when compared with open surgery (4.44 days) or non-operative (6.19 days) patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 0.33% overall and decreased with time (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

CT and laparoscopic surgery are increasingly utilised in the management of appendicitis. Along with other advances in clinical practice, they have led to reduced lengths of stay and mortality.

Diagnostic accuracy of a pragmatic, ultrasound-based approach to adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis in the ED

BACKGROUND

Systematic imaging reduces the rate of missed appendicitis and negative appendectomies in patients with suspected acute appendicitis (AA). Little is known about the utility of ultrasound as a first diagnostic measure in patients with suspected AA. The aim of this retrospective study is to determine whether ultrasound, performed by emergency physicians or radiologists, can be used as first diagnostic measure in suspected cases to rule out AA and to avoid unnecessary CT.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis at the ED of the University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, from 2012 to 2014. Our standard protocol is that all adult patients suspected of appendicitis receive an ultrasound as their first imaging test, either by an emergency physician or a radiologist. The test characteristics of conclusive and inconclusive ultrasound exams were compared with a pragmatic gold standard.

RESULTS

The study included 508 patients with suspected AA. 308 patients (60.4%) had a conclusive ultrasound. Among these, sensitivity for appendicitis was 89.6% (95% CI 82.1% to 94.3%), specificity 93.8% (89.1% to 96.6%), the positive predictive value was 87.98 (80.84 to 92.71) and the negative predictive value was 94.65 (91.18 to 96.80). The remaining 200 (39.4%) patients had an inconclusive ultrasound exam. 29% (59/200) of these patients ultimately had appendicitis. Less experienced emergency physician sonographers came to a definitive conclusion in 48.1% (95% CI 36.9% to 59.5%), experienced emergency physician sonographers in 76.0% (68.4% to 82.5%) and radiologists in 52.4% (44.5% to 60.2%).

CONCLUSION

A conclusive ultrasound of the appendix performed by either emergency physicians or radiologists is a sensitive and specific exam to diagnose or exclude AA in patients with suspected AA. Because of 6% false negative exams, clinical follow-up is mandatory for patients with negative ultrasound. An inconclusive ultrasound warrants further imaging or a follow-up visit, since 29% of patients with inconclusive ultrasound had an AA.

THE APPENDICITIS INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE SCORE FOR ACUTE APPENDICITIS: IS IT IMPORTANT FOR EARLY DIAGNOSIS?

ABSTRACT - BACKGROUND: The use of Appendicitis Inflammatory Response clinical score in patients with suspected acute appendicitis makes the diagnosis more objective and accurate. AIMS: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare two groups with suspected acute appendicitis, analyzing the number of imaging tests requested, waiting time in the emergency department, until definition of conduct, as well as the sensitivity and specificity of this diagnostic method. METHODS: This is a prospective randomized study comparing 55 patients submitted to clinical-radiological diagnosis according to the routine of the service (control group), with another 55 patients submitted to the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score flowchart (intervention group). RESULTS: Waiting time for defining the intervention group’s conduct was 1.5 h shorter than the control group (p=0.02). Computed tomography was performed in 42 patients in the control group, compared with 25 in the intervention group (p=0.001). The impact of the flowchart based on the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score of the cases compared to the control group was the reduction of appendectomies with a normal-appearing appendix from 5 to 1 and an increase in the exclusion of appendicitis diagnoses. The use of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score resulted in a diagnostic specificity of 92%, compared to 29% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score reduced the waiting time for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, decreased the number of imaging tests, and increased diagnostic specificity of the disease.

OUP accepted manuscript

Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most common cause of acute abdomen worldwide and untreated it can lead to abscess formation, purulent or faeculent peritonitis, sepsis and death. This paper presents a rare case of an AA herniated in a retro-psoas muscle defect, which has not previously been reported in the literature. Our patient’s diagnosis and management was delayed due to the unusual presentation. This case emphasizes the importance to utilize AA scoring algorithms to aid decision-making as they have shown to reduce admissions, optimize the use of diagnostic imaging and reduce negative surgical explorations.

The Dynamics of Inflammatory Markers in Patients with Suspected Acute Appendicitis

Background: Laboratory tests of inflammatory mediators are routinely used in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences of dynamics of inflammatory markers of the blood in patients with suspected acute appendicitis between complicated AA (CAA), non-complicated AA (NAA), and when AA was excluded (No-AA). Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients presented to the Emergency Department (ER) of a tertiary hospital center during a three-year period. All patients suspected of acute appendicitis were prospectively registered from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018. The dynamics of inflammatory markers of the blood between different types of AA (No-AA, NAA or CAA) during different periods of time are presented. Results: A total of 453 patients were included in the study, with 297 patients in the No-AA group, 99 in the NAA group, and 57 in the CAA group. White blood cell (WBC) count in the No-AA decreased with time, with a statistically significant difference between the <8 h and 25–72 h group. The neutrophils (NEU) percentage decreased in the No-AA group and was statistically significantly different between the <8 h and 25–72 h and <8 h and >72 h groups. C-reactive protein (CRP) increased significantly in the No-AA group throughout all time intervals, and from the first 24 h to the 25–72 h in the NAA and CAA groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the WBC count between No-AA, NAA, and No-AA and CAA groups during the first 24 and 24–48 h. There was a statistically significant difference between NEU percentage and LYMP percentage and in the NEU/LYMP ratio between No-AA and CAA groups through all time periods. CRP was significantly higher in the first 24 h in the CAA than in the No-AA group, and in the 24–48 h in the CAA group than in the No-AA and NAA groups. The linear logistic regression model, involving inflammatory mediators and clinical characteristics, showed mediocre diagnostic accuracy for diagnosing AA with an AUC of 0.737 (0.671–0.802). Conclusions: Increasing concentrations of inflammatory markers are more characteristic in CAA patients than in No-AA during the first 48 h after onset of the disease. A combination of laboratory tests with clinical signs and symptoms has a mediocre diagnostic accuracy in suspecting AA.

Clinical Decision Rules in the Evaluation and Management of Adult Gastrointestinal Emergencies

Although abdominal pain is a common chief complaint in the emergency department, only 1 in 6 patients with abdominal pain are diagnosed with a gastrointestinal (GI) emergency. These patients often undergo extensive testing as well as hospitalizations to rule out an acute GI emergency and there is evidence that not all patients benefit from such management. Several clinical decision rules (CDRs) have been developed for the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis and upper GI bleeding to identify those patients who may safely forgo further testing or hospital admission. Further validation studies demonstrating the superiority of these CDRs over contemporary practice are needed.

WSES/GAIS/SIS-E/WSIS/AAST global clinical pathways for patients with intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in hospitals worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs include early recognition, adequate source control, appropriate antimicrobial therapy, and prompt physiologic stabilization using a critical care environment, combined with an optimal surgical approach. Together, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery (GAIS), the Surgical Infection Society-Europe (SIS-E), the World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) have jointly completed an international multi-society document in order to facilitate clinical management of patients with IAIs worldwide building evidence-based clinical pathways for the most common IAIs. An extensive non-systematic review was conducted using the PubMed and MEDLINE databases, limited to the English language. The resulting information was shared by an international task force from 46 countries with different clinical backgrounds. The aim of the document is to promote global standards of care in IAIs providing guidance to clinicians by describing reasonable approaches to the management of IAIs.

Usefulness of several factors and clinical scoring models in preoperative diagnosis of complicated appendicitis

Background

The preoperative distinction between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis is important to determine the appropriate treatments, such as antibiotics, surgery, or interval appendectomy. Computed tomography (CT) plays an important role; however, combining clinical and imaging factors may make preoperative evaluation more reliable. This study evaluated and analyzed cases and the usefulness of several preoperative factors and clinical scoring models to detect complicated appendicitis.

Methods

A total of 203 patients preoperatively diagnosed with acute appendicitis at our facility were included. Complicated appendicitis was defined as appendicitis with gangrene, perforated appendix, and/or abscess formation. Preoperative factors were collected from published clinical scoring models; patient information, symptoms, signs, results of laboratory tests, and findings of CT. Factors were analyzed using a chi-squared test and the Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

The preoperative factors were compared between 151 uncomplicated and 52 complicated appendicitis patients. The significant factors were age ≥40, duration of symptoms >24 hours, body temperature ≥37.3°C, high levels of CRP, findings in CT scan (appendix diameter ≥10 mm, stranding of the adjacent fat, presence of fluid collection, and suspicion of abscess or perforation). We also evaluated the usefulness of clinical scoring models for the detection of complicated appendicitis and found the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score and two prediction models (Atema score and Imaoka score) showed significance (p < 0.05). High serum CRP level was significantly associated with complicated appendicitis (p < 0.001), and the predicted existence rates of complicated appendicitis were 52.7% for serum CRP level ≥50mg/L, 74.4% for ≥100mg/L, and 82.6% for ≥150mg/L.

Conclusion

The results demonstrated several preoperative factors and clinical scoring models to increase suspicion of complicated appendicitis. Specifically, high serum levels of CRP may be a useful factor in predicting complicated appendicitis prior to surgery when supported by clinical findings and imaging; however, further research is needed.

Diagnosis of Uncomplicated and Complicated Appendicitis in Adults

Background:

Diagnostic work-up of acute appendicitis remains challenging. While some guidelines advise to use a risk stratification based on clinical parameters, others use standard imaging in all patients. As non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis has been identified as feasible and safe, differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis is of paramount importance. We reviewed the literature to describe the optimal strategy for diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Methods:

A narrative review about the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adult patients was conducted. Both diagnostic strategies and goals were analyzed.

Results:

For diagnosing acute appendicitis, both ruling in and ruling out the disease are important. Clinical and laboratory findings individually do not suffice, but when combined in a diagnostic score, a better risk prediction can be made for having acute appendicitis. However, for accurate diagnosis imaging seems obligatory in patients suspected for acute appendicitis. Scoring systems combining clinical and imaging features may differentiate between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and may enable ruling out complicated appendicitis. Within conservatively treated patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, predictive factors for non-responsiveness to antibiotics and recurrence of appendicitis need to be defined in order to optimize treatment outcomes.

Conclusion:

Standard imaging increases the diagnostic power for both ruling in and ruling out acute appendicitis. Incorporating imaging features in clinical scoring models may provide better differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Optimizing patient selection for antibiotic treatment of appendicitis may minimize recurrence rates, resulting in better treatment outcomes.

Perforation rate after a diagnosis of uncomplicated appendicitis on CT

Background

Appendicectomy is a common emergency operation. The aim of this analysis was to study the effect of preoperative delay on disease progression, and whether a novel scoring system (Atema score) could be useful in predicting complicated appendicitis.

Methods

Patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis on CT and who underwent appendicectomy in 2014–2015 were analysed for patient characteristics, preoperative delay and outcomes.

Results

Of 837 patients with uncomplicated appendicitis on CT, 187 (22.3 per cent) were found to have complicated appendicitis at surgery. The median time estimate for perforation was 25.4 h after CT, with an hourly rate of perforation of 2 per cent. Patients with an Atema score of 6 or less and those with no appendicolith on CT and a C-reactive protein level below 51 mg/l were the slowest to develop perforation, reaching a perforation rate of 5 per cent in 7.1 and 7.6 h respectively.

Conclusion

A substantial proportion of patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis on CT have complicated appendicitis at surgery. However, in patients with no risk factors, surgery can be postponed safely for up to 7 h.

Differences between inflamed and non inflamed appendices diagnosed as acute appendicitis

Background

Despite the great advances in diagnostic methods, the incidence of the surgical removal of a morphologically normal appendix in patients with clinical and complementary signs of acute appendicitis continues to exceed 20%. This study aimed to compare the clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound findings of inflammatory and noninflammatory appendiceal disorders diagnosed as acute appendicitis.

Methods

The medical records of 208 patients with clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound findings indicative of acute appendicitis were studied. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 comprising 94 patients whose appendicular histological results suggested a normal appendix and group 2 comprising 114 patients with histopathological tests confirming acute appendicitis. The variables analyzed were age at the time of surgery, sex, nausea and vomiting, inappetence, fever, pain migrating to the right iliac fossa, pain on palpation of the right iliac fossa, Blumberg's sign, blood counts, ultrasound findings, and Alvarado score.

Results

An inflamed appendix was associated with inappetence, pain on palpation of the right iliac fossa, appendiceal diameter >6 mm, and Alvarado score >6 (p < 0.001). In contrast, fever was more frequently found in noninflammatory appendiceal disorders (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Inappetence, pain on palpation of the right iliac fossa, appendiceal diameter > 6 mm, and Alvarado score > 6 indicate an inflammatory appendiceal disease, whereas fever is more often present in noninflammatory appendiceal diseases.

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.

Appendicitis risk prediction models in children presenting with right iliac fossa pain (RIFT study): a prospective, multicentre validation study

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in children. Differentiation of acute appendicitis from conditions that do not require operative management can be challenging in children. This study aimed to identify the optimum risk prediction model to stratify acute appendicitis risk in children.

METHODS

We did a rapid review to identify acute appendicitis risk prediction models. A prospective, multicentre cohort study was then done to evaluate performance of these models. Children (aged 5-15 years) presenting with acute right iliac fossa pain in the UK and Ireland were included. For each model, score cutoff thresholds were systematically varied to identify the best achievable specificity while maintaining a failure rate (ie, proportion of patients identified as low risk who had acute appendicitis) less than 5%. The normal appendicectomy rate was the proportion of resected appendixes found to be normal on histopathological examination.

FINDINGS

15 risk prediction models were identified that could be assessed. The cohort study enrolled 1827 children from 139 centres, of whom 630 (34·5%) underwent appendicectomy. The normal appendicectomy rate was 15·9% (100 of 630 patients). The Shera score was the best performing model, with an area under the curve of 0·84 (95% CI 0·82-0·86). Applying score cutoffs of 3 points or lower for children aged 5-10 years and girls aged 11-15 years, and 2 points or lower for boys aged 11-15 years, the failure rate was 3·3% (95% CI 2·0-5·2; 18 of 539 patients), specificity was 44·3% (95% CI 41·4-47·2; 521 of 1176), and positive predictive value was 41·4% (38·5-44·4; 463 of 1118). Positive predictive value for the Shera score with a cutoff of 6 points or lower (72·6%, 67·4-77·4) was similar to that of ultrasound scan (75·0%, 65·3-83·1).

INTERPRETATION

The Shera score has the potential to identify a large group of children at low risk of acute appendicitis who could be considered for early discharge. Risk scoring does not identify children who should proceed directly to surgery. Medium-risk and high-risk children should undergo routine preoperative ultrasound imaging by operators trained to assess for acute appendicitis, and MRI or low-dose CT if uncertainty remains.

FUNDING

None.

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis.

METHODS

A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16-45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis).

RESULTS

Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two-thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut-off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut-off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent).

CONCLUSION

Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision-making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified.

Reliability of standardized reporting system of acute appendicitis in adults at low-dose 320-rows CT

Aim

To assess the reliability of a standardized reporting system of acute appendicitis at low-dose 320-rows CT.

Subjects and Methods

Retrospective analysis CT of 78 patients with pathologically proven acute appendicitis. The study was performed at a low-dose 320-rows CT. The image analysis was performed by 2 radiologists according to a standardized reporting system of acute appendicitis.

Results

There was an excellent overall of the inter-observer agreement of both observers for the standardized reporting system of acute appendicitis (K = 0.89, 95 % CI = 0.87-0.92, P = 0.001). There was good inter-observer agreement for visualization of the appendix (K = 0.78, P = 0.001), the tip diameter (K = 0.75, P = 0.001), and a single wall thickness of appendix (K = 0.77, P = 0.001). There was excellent inter-observer agreement for outer to outer wall diameter (K = 0.82, P = 0.001), mucosal hyper-enhancement (K = 0.80, P = 0.001), appendicolith (K = 0.86, P = 0.001), gas in the appendix (K = 0.82, P = 0.001), surrounding fat stranding (K = 0.81, P = 0.001), focal cecal thickening (K = 0.85, P = 0.001), peri-appendiceal air (K = 0.87, P = 0.001), peri-appendicular fluid collection, phlegmon, or abscess (K = 0.82, P = 0.001), and right ovary cyst (K = 0.83, P = 0.001).

Conclusion

we concluded that excellent reliability of a standardized reporting system of acute appendicitis in the adults using low-dose 320-rows CT.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy in the Setting of Clinical Prediction Rules

PURPOSE

Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most frequent surgical entity in the emergency department, but its correct diagnosis remains challenging. To improve diagnosis, clinical prediction rules (CPRs) have been created to establish objective scores for the probability of suffering AA. In this study, we establish scores indicating whether laparoscopy would be superior to clinical observation or repeat diagnostic test.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted with 433 patients submitted to surgery for suspected AA using a laparoscopic approach. The Alvarado, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis, appendicitis inflammatory response, and adult appendicitis score scales were applied in each case to establish a high, medium, or low probability of suffering AA.

RESULTS

Of the 433 patients analyzed, 381 (88.0%) had AA. Twelve (2.8%) were converted to open surgery, and complications were observed in 54 (12.5%) cases. The CPRs studied showed statistically significant differences between AA and negative appendectomies. However, in patients with intermediate probability scores, the diagnostic accuracy of the CPRs evaluated was not adequate.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery can serve as a diagnostic tool for patients with intermediate AA probability scores because of its low associated morbidity and mortality and because it affords a direct diagnosis of the problem, allowing determination of the appropriate treatment.

Performance of imaging studies in patients with suspected appendicitis after stratification with adult appendicitis score

Background

Diagnostic scoring is used to stratify patients with suspected appendicitis into three groups: high, intermediate, and low probability of appendicitis. The stratification can be used for selective imaging to avoid the harms of radiation without compromising diagnostic accuracy.

The aim was to study how stratification by Adult Appendicitis Score affects diagnostic performance of imaging studies.

Methods

Analysis of 822 patients who underwent diagnostic imaging for suspected appendicitis was made. Adult Appendicitis Score was used to stratify patients into groups of high, intermediate, and low probability of appendicitis. Diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) was compared between these patient groups.

Results

After scoring, pre-test probability of appendicitis ranged from 9-16% in low probability group to 75-79% in high probability group in patients who underwent US or CT. Post-test probability of appendicitis after positive CT was 99, 91, and 75% in high probability, intermediate probability and low probability groups, respectively, p < 0.001. After positive US the respective probabilities were 95, 91 and 42%, p < 0.001.

Conclusion

Diagnostic imaging has limited value in patients with low probability of appendicitis according to Adult Appendicitis Score.