Search

Importance: When considering nonoperative treatment in a patient with acute appendicitis, it is crucial to accurately rule out complicated appendicitis. The Atema score, also referred to as the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity (SAS), has been designed to differentiate between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis but has not been prospectively externally validated., Objective: To externally validate the SAS and, in case of failure, to develop an improved SAS (2.0) for estimating the probability of complicated appendicitis., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective study included adult patients who underwent operations for suspected acute appendicitis at 11 hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2020 and August 2021., Main Outcomes and Measures: Appendicitis severity was predicted according to the SAS in 795 patients and its sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for complicated appendicitis were calculated. Since the predefined targets of 95% for both were not met, the SAS 2.0 was developed using the same cohort. This clinical prediction model was developed with multivariable regression using clinical, biochemical, and imaging findings. The SAS 2.0 was externally validated in a temporal validation cohort consisting of 565 patients., Results: In total, 1360 patients were included, 463 of whom (34.5%) had complicated appendicitis. Validation of the SAS resulted in a sensitivity of 83.6% (95% CI, 78.8-87.6) and an NPV of 85.0% (95% CI, 80.6-88.8), meaning that the predefined targets were not achieved. Therefore, the SAS 2.0 was developed, internally validated (C statistic, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.89), and subsequently externally validated (C statistic, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.89). The SAS 2.0 was designed to calculate a patient's individual probability of having complicated appendicitis along with a 95% CI., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, external validation of the SAS fell short in accurately distinguishing complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. The newly developed and externally validated SAS 2.0 was able to assess an individual patient's probability of having complicated appendicitis with high accuracy in patients with acute appendicitis. Use of this patient-specific risk assessment tool can be helpful when considering and discussing nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis with patients.

Objective: To investigate the oncological safety and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination after appendectomy., Background: The necessity of routine histopathological examination after appendectomy has been questioned, but prospective studies investigating the safety of a selective policy are lacking., Methods: In this multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study, inspection and palpation of the (meso)appendix was performed by the surgeon in patients with suspected appendicitis. The surgeon's opinion on additional value of histopathological examination was reported before sending all specimens to the pathologist. Main outcomes were the number of hypothetically missed appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences benefiting the patient (upper limit two-sided 95% confidence interval below 3:1000 considered oncologically safe) and potential cost savings after selective histopathological examination., Results: Seven thousand three hundred thirty-nine patients were included. After a selective policy, 4966/7339 (67.7%) specimens would have been refrained from histopathological examination. Appendiceal neoplasms with clinical consequences would have been missed in 22/4966 patients. In 5/22, residual disease was completely resected during additional surgery. Hence, an appendiceal neoplasm with clinical consequences benefiting the patient would have been missed in 1.01:1000 patients (upper limit 95% confidence interval 1.61:1000). In contrast, twice as many patients (10/22) would not have been exposed to potential harm due to re-resections without clear benefit, whereas consequences were neither beneficial nor harmful in the remaining seven. Estimated cost savings established by replacing routine for selective histopathological examination were €725,400 per 10,000 patients., Conclusions: Selective histopathological examination after appendectomy for suspected appendicitis is oncologically safe and will likely result in a reduction of pathologists' workload, less costs, and fewer re-resections without clear benefit., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Introduction: Growing evidence is showing that complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis are two different entities that may be treated differently. A correct diagnosis of the type of appendicitis is therefore essential. The Scoring system of Appendicitis Severity (SAS) combines clinical, laboratory and imaging findings. The SAS rules out complicated appendicitis in 95% (negative predictive value, NPV) and detects 95% (sensitivity) of patients with complicated appendicitis in adults suspected of acute appendicitis. However, this scoring system has not yet been validated externally. In this study, we aim to provide a prospective external validation of the SAS in a new cohort of patients with clinical suspicion of appendicitis. We will optimise the score when necessary., Methods and Analysis: The SAS will be validated in 795 consecutive adult patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis confirmed by imaging. Data will be collected prospectively in multiple centres. The predicted diagnosis based on the SAS score will be compared with the combined surgical and histological diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy for ruling out complicated appendicitis will be calculated. If the SAS does not reach a sensitivity and NPV of 95% in its present form, the score will be optimised. After optimisation, a second external validation will be performed in a new group of 328 patients. Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical perspective of the treating physician for differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and the patient's preferences for different treatment options will be assessed., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was granted by the Amsterdam UMC Medical Ethics Committee (reference W19_416 # 19.483). Because of the observational nature of this study, the study does not fall under the scope of the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals. This protocol is submitted for publication before analysis of the results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Owing to substantial costs and increasing interest in the nonoperative management of appendicitis, the necessity of routine histopathologic examination of appendectomy specimens is being questioned. The aim of this study was to determine whether routine histopathologic examination after appendectomy for suspected appendicitis should still be performed., Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies listing the histopathologic diagnoses after appendectomy for suspected appendicitis. Main outcomes were the incidence of histopathologically proven aberrant findings, the ability of surgeons to recognize unexpected appendiceal pathology intraoperatively, and the percentage of aberrant findings resulting in a change of postoperative management. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model., Results: Twenty-five studies with 57,357 patients were included. The pooled percentage of aberrant findings was 2.52% (95% confidence interval 1.81-3.51). Neoplasms were found in 0.71% (95% confidence interval 0.54-0.94). Findings of the intraoperative assessment by the surgeon were reported for 82 of the 2,718 (3.0%) unexpected diagnoses, with great variation between studies. The impact on postoperative management was described for 237 of 2,718 (8.7%) aberrant findings. Of these, 166 (70.0%) resulted in a change of postoperative management., Conclusion: Based on current evidence, it remains unclear how many of the unexpected appendiceal pathologies with clinical consequences can be identified intraoperatively by the surgeon. Until reliable data on the safety and potential cost savings of a selective policy becomes available, we advise sending appendectomy specimens routinely for histopathologic examination., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)