Search

Purpose: To determine the incidence rate and identify predictive factors for interval appendectomy after non-operatively treated complicated appendicitis., Methods: Single-center retrospective cohort study conducted between January 2008 and June 2017. Adult patients with acute appendicitis were identified. Patients with complicated appendicitis initially treated non-operatively were included. Outcomes included abscess rate on imaging, results of additional imaging during follow-up, incidence rate of and surgical indications for interval appendectomy, and outcomes of histological reports., Results: Of all adult patients with acute appendicitis (n = 1839), 9% (170/1839) was initially treated non-operatively. Median age of these patients was 55 years (IQR 42-65) and 48.8% (83/170) were men. In 36.4% (62/170) of the patients, an appendicular abscess was diagnosed. 62.4% (106/170) did not require subsequent surgery (no interval appendectomy group) and in 37.6% (64/170), an interval appendectomy was performed (interval appendectomy group). Median follow-up was 80 weeks (17-192) and 113 weeks (34-246), respectively. Most frequent reason to perform subsequent surgery was recurrent appendicitis (45% (29/64)). Increasing age was significantly associated with a lower risk of undergoing interval appendectomy (OR 0.7; CI 0.6-0.89); p = 0.002). In the interval appendectomy group, appendicular neoplasm was found in 11% (7/64) of the patients, in contrast to 1.5% (25/1669) of the patients that had acute surgery (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: One out of three patients non-operatively treated for complicated appendicitis required an interval appendectomy. The incidence of appendicular neoplasms was high in these patients compared with those that had acute surgery. Therefore, additional radiological imaging following non-operatively treated complicated appendicitis is recommended.

Aim: Investigation of suspected appendicitis varies widely across different countries, which creates variation in outcome for patients. Use of imaging drives much of this variation, with concerns over delay of imaging and radiation exposure of computed tomography being balanced against the risks of unnecessary surgery., Method: Two national, prospective snapshot audits (UK n = 3326 and Netherlands n = 1934) reported investigation, management and outcome of appendicectomy and can be compared to generate treatment recommendations., Results: Preoperative imaging was conducted in 32.8% of UK patients in contrast to 99.5% of patients in the Netherlands. A large difference in the normal appendicectomy rate was observed (20.6% in the UK vs 3.2% in the Netherlands) and the connection between these two outcome differences cannot be neglected., Conclusion: This article discusses the role of imaging in the diagnostic work-up of patients who are suspected of acute appendicitis, comparing national snapshot studies as a model to do so., (Colorectal Disease © 2016 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: Studies comparing laparoscopic and open appendicectomy are difficult to interpret owing to several types of bias, and the results often seem of limited clinical importance. National audits can be valuable to provide insight into outcomes following appendicectomy at a population level., Methods: A prospective, observational, resident-led, nationwide audit was carried out over a period of 2 months, including all consecutive adult patients who had surgery for suspected acute appendicitis. Complications after laparoscopic and open appendicectomy were compared by means of logistic regression analysis; subgroup analyses were performed for patients with complicated appendicitis., Results: A total of 1975 patients were included from 62 participating Dutch hospitals. A normal appendix was seen in 3·3 per cent of patients. Appendicectomy was performed for acute appendicitis in 1378 patients, who were analysed. All but three patients underwent preoperative imaging. Laparoscopy was used in 79·5 per cent of patients; the conversion rate was 3·4 per cent. A histologically normal appendix was found in 2·2 per cent. Superficial surgical-site infection was less common in the laparoscopic group (odds ratio 0·25, 95 per cent c.i. 0·14 to 0·44; P < 0·001). The rate of intra-abdominal abscess formation was not significantly different following laparoscopic or open surgery (odds ratio 1·71, 0·80 to 3·63; P = 0·166). Similar findings were observed in patients with complicated appendicitis., Conclusion: Management of acute appendicitis in the Netherlands is preferably performed laparoscopically, characterized by a low conversion rate. Fewer superficial surgical-site infections occurred with laparoscopy, although the rate of abscess formation was no different from that following open surgery. A low normal appendix rate is the presumed effect of a mandatory preoperative imaging strategy., (© 2015 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: To determine the accuracy of final judgements of doctors at the emergency department (ED) and radiologists to differentiate between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis, because these have different treatment options. Methods: This prospective, multicenter study included adult patients with imaging-confirmed acute appendicitis, operated with intention to appendectomy. Both doctors at ED and radiologists assessed appendicitis severity as a final judgement of "uncomplicated" or "complicated" appendicitis. Doctors at ED integrated clinical, laboratory, and imaging findings. Radiologists relied solely on imaging findings. Outcomes were accuracy of these judgements for diagnosis of complicated appendicitis compared to the reference standard by an adjudication committee. Results: After imaging, 1070 patients with confirmed acute appendicitis were included. Doctors at ED accurately labelled 656 of 701 (93.6%) patients with true uncomplicated appendicitis as uncomplicated, and 163 of 369 (44.2%) patients with true complicated appendicitis were labelled as complicated. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV) for complicated appendicitis were 44.2%, 93.6%, and 78.4% and 76.1%, respectively. Comparable accuracy was found for the radiologist's assessment in 941 patients, with true positive rates of 92.2% (581 of 630 patients) for uncomplicated appendicitis and 46.6% (145 of 311 patients) for complicated appendicitis. Conclusion: More than half of all patients with true complicated appendicitis is incorrectly classified as uncomplicated appendicitis according to the judgements of doctors at ED, integrating clinical, laboratory, and imaging results, and of radiologists assessing diagnostic imaging. These judgements are thereby not sufficiently reliable in ruling out complicated appendicitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]