Search

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Present theory is that uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis are different entities. Recent studies suggest it is safe to delay surgery in patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. We hypothesize that patients with complicated appendicitis are at higher risk for postoperative complications when surgery is delayed. METHODS: Data was used from the multicenter, prospective SNAPSHOT appendicitis study of 1975 patients undergoing surgery for suspected appendicitis. Adult patients (≥ 18 years) who underwent appendectomy for appendicitis were included in this study. The primary outcome was the difference in postoperative complications between patients with complicated appendicitis who were operated within and after 8 h after hospital presentation. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in relationship to delay of appendectomy. Follow-up was 30 days. A multivariable analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 1341 adult patients with appendicitis, 34.3% had complicated appendicitis. In patients with complicated appendicitis, 22.8% developed a postoperative complication compared to 8.2% for uncomplicated appendicitis (P < 0.001). Delay in surgery (> 8 h) increased the complication rate in patients with complicated appendicitis (28.1%) compared to surgery within 8 h (18.3%; P = 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed a delay in surgery as an independent predictor for a postoperative complication in patients with complicated appendicitis (OR 1.71; 95%CI 1.01-2.68, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In-hospital delay of surgery (> 8 h) in patients with complicated appendicitis is associated with a higher risk of a postoperative complication. It is important that we recognize and treat these patients early.

Contains fulltext : 251504.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Radiologic imaging can accurately diagnose acute appendicitis, but little is known about its discriminatory capacity between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the accuracy of imaging in discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. METHODS: Data was used from the prospective, nationwide, observational SNAPSHOT appendicitis database, including patients with suspected acute appendicitis who were planned for an appendectomy. Usage of ultrasound (US), CT, MRI or a combination was recorded. Radiological reports were used to group for complicated or uncomplicated appendicitis. The reference standard was based on operative and pathological findings. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity in discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy results per imaging modality and for the subgroups age, BMI, and sex. RESULTS: Preoperative imaging was performed in 1964 patients. In 1434 patients (73%), only US was used; in 109 (6%) patients, only CT was used; and 421 (21%) patients underwent US followed by CT or MRI. Overall, imaging workup as practiced, following the national guideline, had a poor sensitivity for complicated appendicitis of only 35%, although specificity was as high as 93%. For US, accuracy for complicated appendicitis was higher in children than in adults; sensitivity 41.2% vs. 26.4% and specificity 94.6% vs. 93.4%, respectively, p = 0.003. For relevant subgroups such as age, sex and BMI, no other differences in the discriminatory performance were found. CONCLUSION: A diagnostic workup with stepwise imaging, using a conditional CT or MRI strategy, poorly discriminates between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis in daily practice.

Item does not contain fulltext, Background: The effect of diagnosing appendicitis at re-assessment on post-operative outcomes is not clear. This study aims to compare patients diagnosed with appendicitis at initial presentation versus patients who were diagnosed at re-assessment. Patients and Methods: Data from the Dutch SNAPSHOT appendicitis collaborative was used. Patients with appendicitis who underwent appendectomy were included. Effects of diagnosis at re-assessment were compared with diagnosis at initial presentation. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis and the post-operative complication rate. Results: Of 1,832 patients, 245 (13.4%) were diagnosed at re-assessment. Re-assessed patients had a post-operative complication rate comparable to those diagnosed with appendicitis at initial presentation (15.1% vs. 12.7%; p = 0.29) and no substantial difference was found in the proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis (27.9% vs. 33.5%; p = 0.07). For patients with complicated appendicitis, more post-operative complications were seen if diagnosed at re-assessment than if diagnosed initially (38.2% vs. 22.9%; p = 0.006). Conclusions: For patients in whom appendicitis was not diagnosed at first presentation, but at re-assessment, both the proportion of complicated appendicitis and the post-operative complication rate were comparable to those who were diagnosed with appendicitis at initial presentation. However, re-assessed patients with complicated appendicitis encountered more post-operative complications.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: For the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, the combination of clinical and laboratory variables achieves high diagnostic accuracy. Nevertheless, appendicitis can present with normal laboratory tests of inflammation. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of normal inflammatory markers in patients operated for acute appendicitis. METHODS: This is an analysis of data from a prospective, multicentre SNAPSHOT cohort study of patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Only patients with histopathologically proven acute appendicitis were included. Adult patients with acute appendicitis and normal preoperative inflammatory markers were explored further in terms of abdominal complaints, preoperative imaging results and intraoperative assessment of the degree of inflammation and compared to those with elevated inflammatory markers. RESULTS: Between June and July 2014, 1303 adult patients with histopathologically proven acute appendicitis were included. In only 23 of 1303 patients (1.8%) with proven appendicitis, both preoperative white blood cell count and C-reactive protein levels were normal. Migration of pain was reported less frequently in patients with normal inflammatory markers compared to those with elevated inflammatory marker levels (17.4% versus 43.0%, p = 0.01). Characteristics like fever, duration of symptoms and localized peritonitis were comparable. Only 4 patients with normal inflammatory markers (0.3% overall) had complicated appendicitis at histopathological evaluation. CONCLUSION: Combined normal WBC and CRP levels are seen in about 2 per 100 patients with confirmed acute appendicitis and can, although rarely, be found in patients with complicated appendicitis.

Contains fulltext : 229842.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), INTRODUCTION: In patients treated with an appendectomy for acute appendicitis, the specimen is generally sent for histological evaluation. In an era of increasing non-operative treatment for acute appendicitis, it is important to know the incidence, the diagnostic accuracy, and treatment consequences of appendicular neoplasms that are found in acute appendicitis. We hypothesize that pre- and intra-operative parameters might predict an appendicular neoplasm. METHODS: Data was used from our previous prospective observational cohort study. All patients undergoing surgery for suspected acute appendicitis were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of appendicular neoplasms in patients operated for acute appendicitis. Secondary outcomes were pre-operative diagnostics and imaging outcomes, intra-operative surgical judgment, and postoperative management and outcome. Possible predictors of an appendicular neoplasm were identified and used in multivariable logistic regression. Patients with an appendicular neoplasm were followed for 3 years after initial appendectomy. RESULTS: A total of 1975 patients underwent surgery for suspected acute appendicitis and in 98.3% (1941/1975) the appendix was removed. In 1.5% (30/1941) of these patients, an appendicular neoplasm was found. Among the malignant neoplasms, the majority were grade 1 neuroendocrine tumors (NET) in 65% (13/20). On pre-operative imaging, there was no suspicion of malignancy. In three cases, there was an intra-operative suspicion of malignancy. Multivariable analysis showed only age as an independent predictor for appendicular neoplasms. No recurrent or new malignancy was found during follow-up. DISCUSSION: The incidence of appendicular neoplasm in patients undergoing an acute appendectomy is very low and clinical risk factors could not be identified.

Contains fulltext : 226478.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), PURPOSE: To identify discrepancies between intraoperative and histological evaluations of the appendix in acute appendicitis and to evaluate the effect on surgical outcome. METHODS: Data was used from our previous multicentre, prospective, cohort study of patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Appendices were scored during intraoperative and histological evaluation as uncomplicated or complicated appendicitis. Primary outcome was percentage of concordance between intraoperative and histological evaluation. Secondary outcomes were (infectious) postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, hospital re-admission and re-intervention rate, all within 30 days of surgery. RESULTS: A total of 1850 patients were included. In 65.7% (1215/1850) of the appendices, the intraoperative evaluation was uncomplicated and in 34.3% (635/1850), complicated appendicitis. Patients with uncomplicated appendicitis had a postoperative course with significantly less postoperative complications (7.2% vs 24.3%), a shorter length of hospital stay (2 vs 5 days) and a lower re-admission (4.2% vs 9.6%) and re-intervention rate (1.1% vs 4.3%) than intraoperative complicated appendicitis (p < 0.001). In 93.5% (1136/1215) of the intraoperative uncomplicated patients and in 46.6% (296/635) of the intraoperative complicated patients, there was an agreement with pathology (Kappa 0.45). In 23.9% (81/339) of patients with intraoperative complicated and histological uncomplicated appendicitis, a postoperative complication was observed, which was similar to the postoperative complication rate of complicated appendicitis both on intraoperative and histological evaluation (24.7% (73/296)). CONCLUSIONS: There is a moderate agreement between a surgeon and pathologist in diagnosing patients with complicated appendicitis. However, the intraoperative diagnosis of complicated appendicitis was significantly associated with postoperative complications. Routine histological evaluation should be preserved f

Contains fulltext : 226245.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 215707.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), INTRODUCTION: Routine histopathological examination following appendicectomy and cholecystectomy has significant financial implications and comprises a substantial portion of the pathologists' workload, while the incidence of unexpected pathology is low. The aim of the selective histopathological examination Following AppeNdicectomy and CholecystectomY (FANCY) study is to investigate the oncological safety and potential cost savings of selective histopathological examination based on macroscopic assessment performed by the surgeon. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a Dutch multicentre prospective observational study, in which removed appendices and gallbladders will be systematically assessed by the operating surgeon for macroscopic abnormalities suspicious for malignant neoplasms. After visual inspection and digital palpation of the removed specimen, the operating surgeon will report whether macroscopic abnormalities suspicious for a malignant neoplasm are present, and if he or she believes additional microscopic examination by the pathologist is indicated. Regardless of the surgeon's assessment, all specimens will be sent for histopathological examination. In this way, routine histopathological examination can be compared with a hypothetical situation in which specimens are routinely examined by surgeons and only sent to the pathologist on indication. The two main outcomes are oncological safety and potential cost savings of a selective policy. Oncological safety of selective histopathological examination will be assessed by calculating the number of patients in whom a histopathological diagnosis of an appendiceal neoplasm or gallbladder cancer with clinical consequences benefitting the patient would have been missed. A cost analysis will be performed to quantify the potential cost savings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of the Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, which decided that the Dutch Medical Research Involv