Interval appendectomy in adults: A necessary evil?

Cost-effectiveness analysis of nonoperative management versus open and laparoscopic surgery for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, uncomplicated acute appendicitis (AA) has been treated with appendectomy. However, the surgical alternatives might carry out significant complications, impaired quality of life, and higher costs than nonoperative treatment. Consequently, it is necessary to evaluate the different therapeutic alternatives' cost-effectiveness in patients diagnosed with uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHODS

We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer´s perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was 5 years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.

METHODS

We performed a model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing nonoperative management (NOM) with open appendectomy (OA) and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients otherwise healthy adults aged 18-60 years with a diagnosis of uncomplicated AA from the payer's perspective at the secondary and tertiary health care level. The time horizon was five years. A discount rate of 5% was applied to both costs and outcomes. The health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were identified, quantified, and valorized from a payer perspective; therefore, only direct health costs were included. An incremental analysis was estimated to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In addition, the net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated for each alternative using a willingness to pay lower than one gross domestic product. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

LA presents a lower cost ($363 ± 35) than OA ($384 ± 41) and NOM ($392 ± 44). NOM exhibited higher QALYs (3.3332 ± 0.0276) in contrast with LA (3.3310 ± 0.057) and OA (3.3261 ± 0.0707). LA dominated the OA. The ICER between LA and NOM was $24,000/QALY. LA has a 52% probability of generating the highest NMB versus its counterparts, followed by NOM (30%) and OA (18%). There is a probability of 0.69 that laparoscopy generates more significant benefit than medical management. The mean value of that incremental NMB would be $93.7 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

LA is a cost-effectiveness alternative in the management of patients with uncomplicated AA. Besides, LA has a high probability of producing more significant monetary benefits than NOM and OA from the payer's perspective in the Colombian health system.

Validating the efficacy of interval appendectomy for acute appendicitis: representative three cases with different etiologies

Background

Appendectomy for acute appendicitis (AA) is considered one of the most common emergency surgeries. However, emergency appendectomy accompanied with complex lesions such as extensive abscess formation is not recommended in most cases. Therefore, non-operative management followed by interval appendectomy (IA) for AA has been tried. Herein, we present three AA cases with specific etiology that underwent interval appendectomy.

Case presentation

Case 1: A 68-year-old man was diagnosed AA with intestinal malrotation and intra-abdominal abscesses. He initially treated with conservative therapy and underwent laparoscopic IA after detailed preoperative examination.

Case 2: A 22-year-old man had been under treatment for pancolitis-type ulcerative colitis (UC), also bothered by right-lower abdominal pain several times a year. The appendix always appeared swollen on every CT taken during symptoms. He underwent laparoscopic IA; pathological finding revealed typical UC histological features in the resected appendix. After the surgery, he never suffered from terrible right lower abdominal pain.

Case 3: A 69-year-old woman complaining a right lower abdominal pain had undergone CT examination, which revealed AA with appendiceal mass, irregular wall thickness of the cecum, and mediastinal and para-aortic lymph node swelling. The operation was carried out after conservative therapy. The pathological diagnosis revealed BRAF mutated colorectal carcinoma. She had received systematic chemotherapy after the surgery, and all metastatic lesions have completely disappeared.

Conclusion

Interval appendectomy provided us with much clearer anatomical information and precise therapeutic strategies, avoiding technical and general operative complications, and also induced fast recovery and short length of hospital stay. Interval appendectomy is a reasonable procedure and could be recommended in case of AA with some different etiology.

Comparison of treatment methods of appendiceal mass and abscess: A prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The aim of our prospective study is to compare and analyze the results of two treatment methods of appendiceal mass and abscess: emergency surgery and conservative treatment with and without interval surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

74 Patients with the diagnosis of appendiceal mass or abscess were enrolled in this study. The patients were assigned into two groups: the emergency surgery group and the conservative management group. The conservative management group was subdivided into two groups: interval surgery group and the ambulatory follow-up observation group without interval surgery. Several clinical characteristics were determined and compared between the groups. Among patients who underwent surgery, the surgical methods, operation time, postoperative hospitalization period, and post-surgical complications were analyzed. In the ambulatory follow-up observation group, recurrence of appendicitis was assessed.

RESULTS

Comparison of the emergency surgery group and interval surgery group revealed that the interval surgery group was characterized by shorter operation time (P = 0.008), a smallernumber of postoperative complications (P = 0.02) and also shorter postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.009). In the ambulatory follow-up observation group, recurrence of appendicitis developed in 3 (13%) patients. US or CT-guided PCD was performed in all 3 patients on the conservative treatment stage. Comparing the interval surgery and recurrent appendicitis groups revealed statistically significant difference: operation time (P = 0.04) as well as postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.04) were shorter in recurrent appendicitis group. In 3 (4.1%) patients, the cause of the appendiceal mass was caecal cancer (2 cases) and Crohn's disease.

CONCLUSION

Conservative treatment without interval surgery seems to be the preferred method for treatment of appendiceal mass and abscess. Patients can be operated on only in case of recurrence of appendicitis. US or CT PCD of appendiceal abscess presents the risk-factor for the development of recurrence of appendicitis. CT and colonoscopy within 4-6 weeks after completing the conservative treatment is recommended to be performed in all patients.

Early versus late surgical management for complicated appendicitis in adults: a multicenter propensity score matching study

Purpose

Surgeons may be uncertain about the optimal timing of appendectomy to decrease complications, especially for complicated appendicitis. The aim of the study was to compare clinical outcomes between early and late surgery for complicated appendicitis.

Methods

A prospectively maintained database of complicated appendicitis was queried. Elective interval surgery (EIS) group and early surgery (ES) were matched with propensity score and marked with a prefix ‘p.’ Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared.

Results

The propensity score-matched EIS group had a lower chance to underwent ileo-cecectomy or right hemicolectomy (1.5% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.031), a tendency of lower rate of postoperative complication (6.9% vs. 13.7%, P = 0.067), a lower rate of wound infection (1.5% vs. 8.4%, P = 0.010), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (3.72 days vs. 5.82 days, P < 0.001) than the propensity score-matched ES group. Multivariate analysis showed that delayed surgery for more than 48 hours or urgent surgery due to failure of EIS and open conversion were independent risk factors for postoperative complications (P = 0.001 and P = 0.025, respectively). In subgroup analysis, high American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification and distant abscess or generalized ascites in initial CT increased the risk of failure of EIS.

Conclusion

EIS can be a useful option for selected adult patients with complicated appendicitis.

Complicated appendicitis and considerations for interval appendectomy

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

Malignant Tumours Mimicking Complicated Appendicitis and Discovered upon Follow-Up after Percutaneous Drainage: A Case of Two Patients

The conservative management of periappendiceal abscesses is gaining favour due to decreased morbidity and improved clinical outcomes for patients. Occasionally however an abscess can mask underlying sinister pathology. In this article, we highlight two cases of appendiceal adenocarcinoma that were initially diagnosed as periappendiceal abscesses and managed conservatively with percutaneous drainage. We also discuss clinical and imaging features that may assist with identifying a hidden malignancy when presented in these situations.

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: How to discourage surgeons using inadequate therapy

Acute appendicitis (AA) develops in a progressive and irreversible manner, even if the clinical course of AA can be temporarily modified by intentional medications. Reliable and real-time diagnosis of AA can be made based on findings of the white blood cell count and enhanced computed tomography. Emergent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is considered as the first therapeutic choice for AA. Interval/delayed appendectomy at 6-12 wk after disease onset is considered as unsafe with a high recurrent rate during the waiting time. However, this technique may have some advantages for avoiding unnecessary extended resection in patients with an appendiceal mass. Non-operative management of AA may be tolerated only in children. Postoperative complications increase according to the patient's factors, and temporal avoidance of emergent general anesthesia may be beneficial for high-risk patients. The surgeon's skill and cooperation of the hospital are important for successful LA. Delaying appendectomy for less than 24 h from diagnosis is safe. Additionally, a semi-elective manner (i.e., LA within 24 h after onset of symptoms) may be paradoxically acceptable, according to the factors of the patient, physician, and institution. Prompt LA is mandatory for AA. Fortunately, the Japanese government uses a universal health insurance system, which covers LA.

Management of Appendiceal Mass and Abscess. An 11-Year Experience

The aim of our study is to compare the results of emergency surgery versus conservative treatment with interval surgery in patients diagnosed with appendiceal mass and abscess. A retrospective review of 48 patients with appendiceal mass and abscess treated from January 2002 to January 2013 at General Surgery Department of Kipshidze Central University Hospital was performed. Patients with emergency surgery were compared to patients treated by nonoperative management with interval surgery. Demographics, clinical profile, and operative outcomes were studied. The emergency surgery group included 25 patients, and the interval surgery group included 23 patients. The clinical characteristics of the emergency surgery and interval surgery groups were not statistically different. In the emergency surgery group, an open appendectomy was performed on 17 patients, and colonic resections (ileocecectomy or right hemicolectomy) were performed on 8 patients. In the interval surgery group, an open appendectomy was performed on 21 patients, and colonic resections were performed on 2 patients. There were no statistical differences in types of surgery, postoperative complications, operation time without colonic resections, and postoperative hospitalization period among these 2 groups. Operation time with colonic resections was of greater duration in the emergency surgery group than in the interval surgery group (P = 0.04). Both treatment methods for appendiceal mass and abscess have the same results. The surgeon must consider clinical symptoms and results of investigations in each particular case when choosing an appropriate treatment method. Prospective randomized controlled trials are required for comparing the results of all 3 treatment methods of appendiceal mass.

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.