WSES Jerusalem guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common cause of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is challenging; a variable combination of clinical signs and symptoms has been used together with laboratory findings in several scoring systems proposed for suggesting the probability of AA and the possible subsequent management pathway. The role of imaging in the diagnosis of AA is still debated, with variable use of US, CT and MRI in different settings worldwide. Up to date, comprehensive clinical guidelines for diagnosis and management of AA have never been issued. In July 2015, during the 3rd World Congress of the WSES, held in Jerusalem (Israel), a panel of experts including an Organizational Committee and Scientific Committee and Scientific Secretariat, participated to a Consensus Conference where eight panelists presented a number of statements developed for each of the eight main questions about diagnosis and management of AA. The statements were then voted, eventually modified and finally approved by the participants to The Consensus Conference and lately by the board of co-authors. The current paper is reporting the definitive Guidelines Statements on each of the following topics: 1) Diagnostic efficiency of clinical scoring systems, 2) Role of Imaging, 3) Non-operative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis, 4) Timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, 5) Surgical treatment 6) Scoring systems for intra-operative grading of appendicitis and their clinical usefulness 7) Non-surgical treatment for complicated appendicitis: abscess or phlegmon 8) Pre-operative and post-operative antibiotics.

Acute appendicitis with a neuroendocrine tumor G1 (carcinoid): pitfalls of conservative treatment

A man in his early thirties presented to our clinic with right lower abdominal pain. Computed tomography (CT) and ultrasonography (US) revealed a swollen appendix and an appendicolith. Abscess formation was not observed but ongoing appendiceal rupture was not ruled out. Three months after successful conservative therapy, the lumen of the apical portion was kept dilated and laparoscopic interval appendectomy was performed. No tumorous findings were observed macroscopically. However, histology revealed many tiny nests infiltrating the submucosa, muscular layer, and subserosa at the root of the appendix. An appendiceal neuroendocrine tumor G1 (NET G1; carcinoid) was diagnosed immunohistologically. Neither CT nor US visualized the tumor because of its non-tumor-forming but infiltrative growth. In conclusion, after successful conservative treatment, interval appendectomy should be considered to uncover a possible appendiceal NET G1 (carcinoid), particularly when dilatation of the distal lumen is kept under observation.

Appendiceal neuroendocrine neoplasms: diagnosis and management

Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine neoplasms (GI-NENs) are increasingly being recognised, while appendiceal NENs (aNENs) currently constitute the third most common GI-NEN. Appendiceal NENs are generally considered to follow an indolent course with the majority being localised at diagnosis. Thus, the initial surgical approach is not that of a planned oncological resection. Due to the localised nature of the disease in the majority of cases, subsequent biochemical and radiological assessment are not routinely recommended. Histopathological criteria (size, mesoappendiceal invasion, Ki-67 proliferation index, neuro- and angio-invasion) are mainly used to identify those patients who are also candidates for a right hemicolectomy. Goblet cell carcinoids are a distinct entity and should be treated as adenocarcinomas. Despite the absence of any substantial prospective data regarding optimal management and follow-up, recent consensus statements and guidelines have been published. The purpose of this review is to overview the published studies on the diagnosis and management of appendiceal NENs and to suggest a possible management protocol.

Laparoscopic Surgery or Conservative Treatment for Appendiceal Abscess in Adults? A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that immediate laparoscopic surgery for appendiceal abscess would result in faster recovery than conservative treatment.

BACKGROUND

On the basis of the retrospective studies, conservative management of appendiceal abscess is recommended as a first line treatment, but some controversy exists.

METHODS

Sixty adult patients diagnosed with appendiceal abscess were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic surgery (n = 30) or conservative treatment (n = 30). Hospital stay, recurrences, additional interventions, and complications within 60 days from randomization were recorded.

RESULTS

There was no difference in hospital stay: 4 days (interquartile range: 3-5 days) in the laparoscopy group versus 5 days (3-8) in the conservative group, P = 0.105. Patients in the laparoscopy group had 10% risk for bowel resection and 13% risk for incomplete appendectomy. There were significantly fewer patients with unplanned readmissions in the laparoscopy group: 1 (3%) versus 8 (27%), P = 0.026. Additional interventions were required in 2 (7%) patients in the laparoscopy group (percutaneous drainage) and in 9 (30%) patients in the conservative group (surgery), P = 0.042. Recurrent abscesses and failure to respond to conservative treatment were the main reasons for additional interventions. Open surgery was required in 3 (10%) patients in the laparoscopy group and in 4 (13%) patients in the conservative group. Postoperative complications occurred in 3 patients in laparoscopic group versus 2 patients in the conservative group. The rate of uneventful recovery was 90% in the laparoscopy group versus 50% in the conservative group, P = 0.002.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery in experienced hands is safe and feasible first-line treatment for appendiceal abscess. It is associated with fewer readmissions and fewer additional interventions than conservative treatment with comparable hospital stay.

Pathologic Findings Suggest Long-term Abnormality after Conservative Management of Complex Acute Appendicitis

Perforated or phlegmonous appendicitis is often treated with antibiotics and drainage as needed. The rationale, risk of recurrence, timing, or even the necessity of subsequent elective interval appendectomy (IA) is debated. We retrospectively reviewed all appendectomies performed at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center between 1997 and 2011. We determined if the appendix was removed emergently or as IA. Demographic characteristics, hospital length of stay, computed tomography (CT) results, and operation type (open or laparoscopic) were determined. In IA specimens, narrative pathology reports were assessed for evidence of anatomic, acute, or chronic abnormality. A total of 3562 patients had their appendix removed during this time period. Thirty-four patients were identified as having IA. Of these, only three (8.8%) had a pathologically normal appendix. All three patients were female and all had initially abnormal CTscans. Eight specimens (23.5%) had evidence of chronic and 10 (29.4%) had evidence of acute appendicitis. An additional 10 (29.4%) specimens contained a combination of acute and chronic inflammation. Mean time to operation in the IA group was 57.1 days (range, nine to 234 days) after index diagnosis by CTscan. Given the high percentage of IA specimens with acute or chronic appendicitis and the extremely high proportion (91%) of patients with pathologically abnormal specimens, it appears that IA may be justified in most cases.

Is there truly an oncologic indication for interval appendectomy?

BACKGROUND

The rate of recurrent appendicitis is low following nonoperative management of complicated appendicitis. However, recent data suggest an increased rate of neoplasms in these cases.

METHODS

The study was a retrospective review of patients with acute appendicitis at 2 university-affiliated community hospitals over a 12-year period. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of appendiceal neoplasm following interval appendectomy.

RESULTS

Six thousand thirty-eight patients presented with acute appendicitis. Appendectomy was performed in 5,851 (97%) patients at the index admission. Of the 188 patients treated with initial nonoperative management, 89 (47%) underwent interval appendectomy. Appendiceal neoplasms were identified in 11 of the 89 (12%) patients. These included mucinous neoplasms (n = 6), carcinoid tumors (n = 4), and adenocarcinoma (n = 1). The rate of neoplasm in patients over age 40 was 16%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant rate of neoplasms identified in patient over age 40 undergoing interval appendectomy. This should be considered following nonoperative management of complicated appendicitis.