Search

Background The incidence of underlying malignancy in appendicitis ranges between 0.5% and 1.7%. We sought to identify the subset of patients with appendicitis who are at increased risk of appendiceal malignancy. Methods Using the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Study of the Treatment of Appendicitis in America: Acute, Perforated, and Gangrenous database, we included all patients from 28 centers undergoing immediate, delayed, or interval appendectomy between 2017 and 2018. Univariate then multivariable analyses were performed to compare patients with and without malignancy and to identify independent demographic, clinical, laboratory, and/or radiological predictors of malignancy. Akaike information criteria for regression models were used to evaluate goodness of fit. Results A total of 3,293 patients were included. The median age was 38 (27–53) years, and 46.5% were female patients. On pathology, 48 (1.5%) had an underlying malignancy (adenocarcinoma [60.4%], neuroendocrine [37.5%], and lymphoma [2.1%]). Patients with malignancy were older (56 [34.5–67] vs 37 [27–52] years, P 40 years with an appendiceal diameter >10 mm on computed tomography was 2.95% compared with 0.97% in patients ≤40 years old with appendiceal diameter ≤10 mm. The corresponding risk ratio for that population was 3.03 (95% confidence interval: 1.24–7.42; P = .02). Conclusion The combination of age >40 and an appendiceal diameter >10 mm is associated with a greater than 3-fold increased risk of malignancy in patients presenting with appendicitis.

Hospital discharge instructions provide critical information necessary for patients to manage their own care; however, often they are written at a substantially higher readability level than recommended (ie, 6th-grade level) by the American Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health. We hypothesize that improving the reading level of discharge instructions will decrease the number of patient telephone calls and readmissions in the posthospital setting.We conducted a prospective observational study. Patient discharge instructions were edited and incorporated to enhance the readability level in August 2015. Return telephone call and readmissions of patients admitted before the intervention from August 1, 2014, to January 31, 2015, were compared with the prospective cohort studied from September 1, 2015, to September 30, 2016.A total of 1,072 patients were included (preintervention: n = 493, postintervention: n = 579). Patient demographics, injury characteristics, and education level were similar among both groups. The median discharge instruction readability level in the postintervention group was significantly lower (10.0, 95% CI 10.0-10.2 vs 8.6, 95% CI 8.8-8.9; P.0001). The proportion of patients calling after hospital discharge was significantly reduced after the intervention (21.9% vs 9.0%; P.0001). Monthly hospital readmissions were decreased by 50% for every 100 patients discharged after the intervention (1.9% vs 0.9%; P = .002). The proportion of patients calling and readmissions for poor pain control significantly decreased after the intervention (7.1% vs 2.59%; P = .0005 and 2.8% vs 1.0%; P = .029, respectively).Enhanced readability of discharge instructions was associated with a decrease in the number of telephone calls and readmissions in the posthospital setting, enhancing health literacy and simultaneously reducing the burden on providers. Improved patient instructions written to an appropriate level may also allow for better pain control in the posthospital setting.