Evaluating conservative treatment for acute appendicitis with lump formation

Clinical outcomes and optimal indications for nonoperative management of acute appendicitis in adult patients: a comprehensive literature review

Appendectomy as the standard treatment for acute appendicitis has been challenged by accumulating evidence supporting nonoperative management with antibiotics as a potential primary treatment. This review aimed to summarize the clinical outcomes and the optimal indications for nonoperative management of acute appendicitis in adults. Current evidence suggests that uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis have different pathophysiologies and should be treated differently. Nonoperative management for uncomplicated appendicitis was not inferior to appendectomy in terms of complications and length of stay, with less than a 30% failure rate at 1 year. The risk of perforation and postoperative complications did not increase even if nonoperative management failed. Complicated appendicitis with localized abscess or phlegmon could also be treated conservatively, with a success rate of more than 80%. An interval appendectomy following successful nonoperative management is recommended only for patients over the age of 40 years to exclude appendiceal malignancy. The presence of appendicoliths increased the risk of treatment failure and complications; thus, it may be an indication for appendectomy. Nonoperative management is a safe and feasible option for both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Patients should be informed that nonoperative management may be a safe alternative to surgery, with the possibility of treatment failure.

Effectiveness of nonsurgical antibiotic treatment in the experimental appendicitis model in rats

Background

In this study, we aimed to demonstrate efficacy and laboratory follow-up criteria of nonsurgical antibiotic treatment in uncomplicated acute appendicitis. We established an experimental appendicitis model in rats, and antibiotic treatment was evaluated by biochemical and immunohistochemical changes.

Materials and method

In the study, 28 rats were divided into 4 groups. Group 1 constituted the group of sham; group 2 was the control group that appendicitis model was created and did not receive any treatment. Group 3 was created as an appendicitis model and was given regular antibiotic treatment. In group 4, appendicitis model was created, and appendectomy was performed on the 2nd day. Blood samples were taken from the rats on the 0, 2nd, and 7th days in all groups. Rats in groups 1, 2, and 3 underwent appendectomy with laparotomy under anesthesia on the 7th day. Serum C-reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin, and leukocyte levels were measured for biochemical analysis. In immunohistochemical evaluation, inflammation severity of the tissue samples taken from appendices was evaluated. Also, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels of tissue samples were evaluated.

Results

A statistically significant difference in CRP values was observed between groups 1 and 2 on the 7th day (p = 0.046), between groups 1 and 4 on 0 and 2nd days (p = 0.004, p = 0.004), between groups 2 and 3 on 0, 2nd, and 7th days (p = 0.018, 0.013, 0.025), between groups 2 and 4 on 0, 2nd, and 7th days (p = 0.002, p = 0.002, p = 0.009), and between groups 3 and 4 on 0 and 2nd days (p = 0.013, p = 0.025). There was a significant difference in procalcitonin values between groups 1 and 3 on the 7th day (p = 0.032) and between groups 1 and 4 on day 0 (p = 0.019). A significant difference was also observed in TNF-α and IL-6 inflammation between groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.031, p = 0.018) and between groups 2 and 4 (p = 0.031, p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Acute uncomplicated and early appendicitis may be treated with antibiotics. According to our results, CRP levels are useful as follow-up criterion in experimental appendicitis model. Clinical studies on the assessment of CRP levels in the course of nonsurgical treatment in the patients with acute appendicitis will reveal out the effectiveness of this marker.

The evolving management of the appendix mass in the era of laparoscopy and interventional radiology

AIM

An appendix mass is the result of a walled-off perforation of the appendix which localises, resulting in a mass and it is encountered in up to 7% of patients presenting with acute appendicitis. However, its management is controversial due to the lack of high level evidence. This review article sets out a rationale diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for the appendix mass based upon up-to-date available evidence.

METHODS

A literature review of the investigation and management of appendix mass/complicated appendicitis was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

No prospective studies were identified. The great majority of recent evidence supports a conservative management approach avoiding urgent appendicectomy because of the high risk of major complications and bowel resection. Appendix abscesses over 5 cm in diameter and persistent abscesses should be drained percutaneously along with antibiotics. Appendix phlegmon should be treated with antibiotics alone. Surgery is reserved for patients who fail conservative treatment. Routine interval appendicectomy is not recommended, but should be considered in the context of persistent faecolith, ongoing right iliac fossa pain, recurrent appendicitis and appendix mass persistent beyond 2 weeks. Clinicians should be particularly wary of patients with appendix mass aged over 40 and those with features suggesting malignancy.

A Systematic Review of Perforated Appendicitis and Phlegmon: Interval Appendectomy or Wait-and-See?

Patients with appendiceal abscess or phlegmon have been traditionally managed with antibiotics and radiologically guided drainage of the abscess. Many studies have questioned the need for interval appendectomy. A systematic review of the nonsurgical treatment of patients with an appendiceal abscess or phlegmon was undertaken. The rate of recurrence after nonsurgical management, morbidity and length of hospital stay was measured. PubMed and Cochrane databases were queried to identify 21 studies reporting the morbidity of nonsurgical treatment of appendiceal phlegmon or abscess, and five studies reporting the morbidity of performing interval appendectomy. Repeat nonsurgical management was compared with that of performing interval appendectomy. The studies included a total of 1943 patients, of which 1400 patients were managed nonsurgically and 543 patients underwent interval appendectomy. Nonoperative treatment had a mean recurrence of 12.4 per cent, a morbidity of 13.3 per cent, and the length of hospital stay was 9.6 days. The mean morbidity rate and length of hospital stay for patients who underwent interval appendectomy was 10.4 per cent and 5.0 days, respectively. Interval appendectomy and repeat nonoperative management in case of recurrence are associated with similar morbidity; however, elective interval appendectomy implies additional operative costs to prevent recurrence in one of eight patients.

Inflammatory appendix mass in patients with acute appendicitis: CT diagnosis and clinical relevance

The purpose of our study was to analyze the clinical relevance of computerized tomography (CT) in providing the diagnosis of inflammatory appendix mass (IAM) in patients with acute appendicitis. The CT images of 134 patients were reviewed. Two groups of patients were made according to the presence (group 1; n = 21) or the absence (group 2; n = 113) of IAM. Clinical signs of patients, CT features, complications at surgery, and histological examinations were noted. Inter-observer agreement was assessed by using kappa statistics. Twenty-one patients presenting with CT features of IAM were diagnosed. An excellent inter-observer agreement (κ = 0.94) was assessed for the diagnosis of IAM. No significant statistical difference in the age distribution was observed between patients with IAM (mean age 55) and patients without (mean age 45) (p = 0.2232). No clinical sign showed a statistically significant association with the presence of IAM (p = 0.707) or with complication encountered at surgery (p = 0.180). Delay to CT examination was 5.4 days in patients presenting with CT features of IAM and of 1.7 days for patients presenting without (p = 0.0001). Conversely to acute appendicitis complicated by simple perforation (p = 0.153) or peri-appendicular abscess (p = 0.501), acute appendicitis presenting with IAM showed a statistically significant association with complications encountered at surgery (p = 0.0003) and the need for conversion to open surgery (p = 0.001). Performing CT in complicated acute appendicitis provides the diagnosis of IAM. Distinction of IAM appeared to be of clinical relevance, since immediate surgery in IAM was statistically associated with surgical complications and conversion to open surgery in our study.