Randomized clinical trial of Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score-based management of patients with suspected appendicitis

Systemic immune-inflammation index combined with pediatric appendicitis score in assessing the severity and prognosis for paediatric appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Pediatric appendicitis is a common cause of abdominal pain in children and is recognized as a significant surgical emergency. A prompt and accurate diagnosis is essential to prevent complications such as perforation and peritonitis.

AIM

To investigate the predictive value of the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) combined with the pediatric appendicitis score (PAS) for the assessment of disease severity and surgical outcomes in children aged 5 years and older with appendicitis.

METHODS

Clinical data of 104 children diagnosed with acute appendicitis were analyzed. The participants were categorized into the acute appendicitis group and chronic appendicitis group based on disease presentation and further stratified into the good prognosis group and poor prognosis group based on prognosis. The SII and PAS were measured, and a joint model using the combined SII and PAS was constructed to predict disease severity and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed in the SII and PAS parameters between the acute appendicitis group and chronic appendicitis group. Correlation analysis showed associations among the SII, PAS, and disease severity, with the combined SII and PAS model demonstrating significant predictive value for assessing disease severity [aera under the curve (AUC) = 0.914] and predicting surgical outcomes (AUC = 0.857) in children aged 5 years and older with appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

The study findings support the potential of integrating the SII with the PAS for assessing disease severity and predicting surgical outcomes in pediatric appendicitis, indicating the clinical utility of the combined SII and PAS model in guiding clinical decision-making and optimizing surgical management strategies for pediatric patients with appendicitis.

Internal and external factors affecting the performance score of surgical trainees doing laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective, observational cohort study in a structured training programme

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic appendectomy is a common procedure and introduced early in general surgical training. How internal (i.e. surgeon's experience) or external (i.e. disease severity) may affect procedure performance is not well-studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate factors that may have an influence on the performance scores for surgical trainees.

METHODS

A prospective, observational cohort study of laparoscopic appendectomies performed by surgical trainees (experience < 4 years) operating under supervision. Trainers evaluated trainees' overall performance on a 6-point scale for proficiency. Perioperative data were recorded, including appendicitis severity, operating time and the overall difficulty of the procedure as assessed by the trainer. A "Challenging" procedure was defined as a combination of either/or "perforation" and "difficult". Trainees who had performed > 30 appendectomies were defined as "experienced". The trainees were asked if they had used simulation or web-based tools the week prior to surgery.

RESULTS

142 procedure evaluation forms were included of which 19 (13%) were "perforated", 14 (10%) "difficult" and 24 (17%) "Challenging". Perforated appendicitis was strongly associated with procedure difficulty (OR 21.2, 95% CI 6.0-75.6). Experienced trainees performed "proficient" more often than non-experienced (OR 34.5, 95% CI 6.8-176.5). "Difficult" procedures were inversely associated with proficiency (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.0-0.9). In "Challenging" procedures, identifying the appendix had lowest proficiency (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.1-0.9). The procedures assessed as "difficult" had significantly longer operating time with a median (IQR) of 90 (75-100) min compared to 59 (25-120) min for the non-difficult (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both internal and external factors contribute to the performance score. Perforated appendicitis, technical difficult procedures and trainee experience all play a role, but a "difficult" procedure had most overall impact on proficiency evaluation.

Predicting severity of acute appendicitis with machine learning methods: a simple and promising approach for clinicians

BACKGROUNDS

Acute Appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common surgical emergencies worldwide. This study aims to investigate the predictive performances of 6 different Machine Learning (ML) algorithms for simple and complicated AA.

METHODS

Data regarding operated AA patients between 2012 and 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Based on operative findings, patients were evaluated under two groups: perforated AA and none-perforated AA. The features that showed statistical significance (p < 0.05) in both univariate and multivariate analysis were included in the prediction models as input features. Five different error metrics and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were used for model comparison.

RESULTS

A total number of 1132 patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into training (932 samples), testing (100 samples), and validation (100 samples) sets. Age, gender, neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, Neutrophil to Lymphocyte ratio, total bilirubin, C-Reactive Protein (CRP), Appendix Diameter, and PeriAppendicular Liquid Collection (PALC) were significantly different between the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, age, CRP, and PALC continued to show a significant difference in the perforated AA group. According to univariate and multivariate analysis, two data sets were used in the prediction model. K-Nearest Neighbors and Logistic Regression algorithms achieved the best prediction performance in the validation group with an accuracy of 96%.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that using only three input features (age, CRP, and PALC), the severity of AA can be predicted with high accuracy. The developed prediction model can be useful in clinical practice.

Observation Safely Reduces the Use of the Computerized Tomography in Medium-to-Low-Risk Patients with Suspected Acute Appendicitis: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives-The objective was to compare the effectiveness of observation in standard-of-care computed tomography (CT) in adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis (AA). Methods-Patients with clinically suspected AA and inconclusive diagnosis after primary clinical examination, laboratory examination, and transabdominal ultrasound (TUS) were eligible for the study, and they were randomized (1:1) to parallel groups: observation-group patients were observed for 8-12 h and then, repeated clinical and laboratory examinations and TUS were performed; CT group (control group) patients underwent abdominopelvic CT scan. The study utilized Statistical Analysis System 9.2 for data analysis, including tests, logistic regression, ROC analysis, and significance evaluation. Patients were enrolled in the study at Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos in Lithuania between December 2018 and June 2021. Results-A total of 160 patients (59 men, 101 women), with a mean age of 33.7 ± 14.71, were included, with 80 patients in each group. Observation resulted in a reduced likelihood of a CT scan compared with the CT group (36.3% vs. 100% p < 0.05). One diagnostic laparoscopy was performed in the observation group; there were no cases of negative appendectomy (NA) in the CT group. Both conditional CT and observation pathways resulted in high sensitivity and specificity (97.7% and 94.6% vs. 96.7% and 95.8%). Conclusions-Observation including the repeated evaluation of laboratory results and TUS significantly reduces the number of CT scans without increasing NA numbers or the number of complicated cases.

Clinical decision rules for appendicitis are not used by surgeons in training: A survey

BACKGROUNDS

We aimed to investigate surgeons in training knowledge of clinical decision rules (CDR) for diagnosing appendicitis and their attitudes toward implementing them.

METHODS

We included surgeons in training practicing in East Denmark who independently could decide to perform a diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis. The survey was developed in Research Electronic Data Capture and face-validated before use. It consisted of three parts: (1) the characteristics of the surgeons, (2) their diagnostic approach, and (3) their knowledge and attitude toward introducing CDR in the clinic. Data were collected in January 2023.

RESULTS

We achieved 83 (90%) responses, and 52% of surgeons in training believed that appendicitis was difficult to diagnose. Their diagnostic approach mostly included symptoms and physical examinations for abdominal pain, and C-reactive protein. A total of 48% knew of at least one clinical decision rule, and 72% had never used a clinical decision rule. Regarding the necessity of CDR in clinical practice, surgeons in training options were divided into thirds: not needed, neither needed nor not needed, and needed. Surgeons in training indicated that CDR needed to be validated and easily applied before they would implement them.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 3/4 of surgeons in training had never utilized a clinical decision rule to diagnose appendicitis, and only half knew of their existence. The symptoms and findings incorporated in most CDR aligned with their diagnostic approach. They were conflicted if CDR needed to be implemented in clinical practice.

Is pelvic ultrasound useful in the clinical assessment and management of women with right iliac fossa pain? A single-centre retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain is a common presenting symptom in surgical patients, with a wide range of differentials, particularly in premenopausal females. This study explores ultrasound usage in the management of women aged 16-55 years presenting with RIF pain.

METHODS

A total of 1,082 patients who presented to a tertiary hospital over 12 months were included. Data were collected from patients' electronic records, including initial clinical impression, imaging, management, operative findings, histology and subsequent hospital attendances within 6 weeks and within 6 months.

RESULTS

Following clinical assessment, 607 (56%) of patients underwent an ultrasound. Of these, 280 (25.9%) patients received no radiological imaging on initial presentation, and 252 (42%) had pathology identified on ultrasound. The most common finding was an ovarian cyst, closely followed by unexplained free pelvic fluid. Of the 607 patients scanned, 29 (4.8%) had an ultrasound diagnosis of appendicitis; 254 of 1,082 (23.5%) patients underwent operative management. Of the 254 patients who had surgery, 179 (70.5%) had preoperative imaging. Of the 29 (11.4%) cases where the intraoperative finding was gynaecological, 15 (51.7%) cases had not had any preoperative imaging. The negative appendicectomy rate was 21.3% (45/211). Of the 45 patients who had a histologically normal appendix, 22 (48.9%) had not had any previous imaging. Ultrasound had a specificity of 78% for diagnosing appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who underwent operative management, a negative finding or finding not requiring surgical management was associated with no preoperative imaging. This supports the use of ultrasound scans as an adjunct in a multimodal approach to the assessment of women presenting with RIF pain.

The Alvarado Score Is the Most Impactful Diagnostic Tool for Appendicitis: A Bibliometric Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this bibliometric analysis was to investigate the citation pattern of studies that have developed a diagnostic tool to diagnose appendicitis.

METHODS

We investigated characteristics of citations, publication frequency, evolution of citations, and fluctuation of previously highly cited studies. We analyzed which studies had been cited in the method section and identified impactful studies in this research field by a network visualization. We analyzed the differences in citations between diagnostic tools requiring a doctor to be present against the diagnostic tools not requiring doctors to be present, English language studies against non-English studies, and identified diagnostic tools targeting children.

RESULTS

There was an upward trend in publications in this research field, and between 1999-2021 the Alvarado score has been cited the most. In general, there was a high fluctuation, and 40 studies had been cited in the methods sections. There were significant differences in studies regarding diagnostic tools written in English compared to non-English studies, with more citations in the English-language studies. Furthermore, 22 studies had children as the target population.

CONCLUSIONS

The Alvarado score was the highest cited study since 1999, with 1086 citations, making it the most impactful study in this research field of diagnostic tools to diagnose appendicitis. Due to the diversity of target populations and settings for which diagnostic tools are developed, there is a need to expand research on diagnostic tools for appendicitis.

Validation of the modified Alvarado score on patients attending A&E units with suspected appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of our prospective study was to confirm validity and diagnostic accuracy of the modified Alvarado score, which was developed at the Department of Surgery, University of Szeged, on patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of acute appendicitis (right lower quadrant complaints) at the A&E department.

PATIENT POPULATION, METHODS

138 patients were included in our study between 01.01.2019 and 01.01.2020. For patients attending A&E, the first medic calculated and recorded the modified Alvarado score before surgical consultation. The consulting surgeon decided on further treatment without knowing the score. Validation of the score was based on the pathology report of the removed appendix (whether the operation was warranted, and if the score also supported indication for surgery), if there was readmission or surgery due to worsening symptoms after discharge from A&E. We also examined if there was any connection between the value of the Alvarado score and the severity of inflammation. Our aim was to prove that using modified Alvarado score at the A&E Units helps to reduce patient's waiting time and avoid unnecessary surgical consultations. Furthermore our study included measuring the diagnostic accuracy of the ultrasound examination (specificity, sensitivity).

RESULTS

Based on the results, patients presenting at A&E had a mean modified Alvarado score of 6.5. Comparing the score to histological results showed that the specificity of the modified Alvarado score was 100%, and its sensitivity was 80.7%. Based on Spearman's rank correlation (0.796) and ROC analysis (AUC 0.968), the modified Alvarado score has an excellent predictive value in diagnosing acute appendicitis. When comparing the patients' waiting times with the use of modified Alvarado score and without it we found that there was a significant difference in group also in group under 4 points and in group over 7 points when using modified Alvarado score, so the diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm should be much quicker with the help of the score. We found a correlation between the severity of inflammation based on the Fisher's exact test. Rank correlation of the same question also showed a significant connection. All patients had an US examination during their diagnostic course, its sensitivity was 82.6%, specificity was 87%. Based on this, we can conclude that the predictive value of the imaging method is good.

CONCLUSIONS

We can conclude according to our results that the predictive value of the modified score is excellent, and it can be safely applied by non-surgeons in urgent care in the differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The new score incorporates the results of an easily obtainable, ionising radiation free imaging method, the ultrasound, which was not included in previous scores. With the help of the new score, the number of unnecessary surgical referrals and waiting times for patients are reduced, excess examinations will become avoidable.

Many diagnostic tools for appendicitis: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

We aimed to provide an overview of all diagnostic tools developed to diagnose appendicitis with their reported accuracy and to further characterize these including their need for diagnostic equipment.

METHODS

This scoping review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and a protocol was registered at Open Science Framework. We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Índice Bibliográfico Espanhol de Ciências da Saúde, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature. We included original articles of all languages with the purpose to derive an accessible diagnostic tool. We extracted data regarding study- and diagnostic tool characteristics, and the accuracy of each diagnostic tool.

RESULTS

The search led to 6419 records, where 74 studies were included, yielding 82 diagnostic tools reported in seven different languages. Among these tools, 35% included patient characteristics, 85% symptoms, 93% physical examinations, 37% vital signs, 78% laboratory values, and 16% imaging. Among the diagnostic tools, 35% relied on a medical doctor/surgeon with access to a laboratory, and six diagnostic tools did not require a bedside medical doctor/surgeon. The median positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity across diagnostic tools were 91%, 94%, 89%, and 86%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 82 diagnostic tools that most frequently were based on symptoms and physical examinations. Most diagnostic tools relied on a medical doctor/surgeon with access to laboratory values. The accuracy was high across the diagnostic tools.

Diagnostic value of systemic immune inflammation index in acute appendicitis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis is often difficult and involves a synthesis of clinical, laboratory, and radiological findings. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the systemic immune inflammation index can be used as an effective parameter in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and its reliability in the differentiation of complicated vs. non-complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

The study was conducted retrospectively with patients admitted to the emergency department with abdominal pain and diagnosed with acute appendicitis. In total, 150 patients and 150 control cases were included in the study. Demographic data, medical history, white blood cell count, platelet count, neutrophil count, systemic immune inflammation index values, Alvarado score, adult appendicitis score, and pathology result of appendectomy material were retrieved from the hospital automation system and recorded in the data form.

RESULTS

Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and systemic immune inflammation index were significantly higher, and platelet-neutrophil ratio and lymphocyte-neutrophil ratio were significantly lower in the patient group compared to the control group (p<0.001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed that the sensitivity and specificity of systemic immune inflammation index with a cutoff value of 840.13 was 82 and 66.7%, respectively, for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Correlation analysis revealed that systemic immune inflammation index, Alvarado score, and adult appendicitis score were positively correlated, and this correlation was statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Systemic immune inflammation index may be used to promote the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and may reduce the need for radiation exposure and diagnostic imaging tests such as contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography. It can also be used to differentiate between complicated and non-complicated acute appendicitis cases.

Non-operative management of acute appendicitis in children

Appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emergencies in children and adults. Appendectomy as the standard care has been challenged in the recent years with growing evidence about non-operative treatment as a potential primary treatment in patients presenting with signs and symptoms suggestive of acute appendicitis. This review aims to establish where the recent research stands regarding conservative treatment of acute appendicitis, especially in children. There are several studies that report the potential safety and efficacy of treating acute appendicitis non-operatively. Several studies have challenged the concept of acute appendicitis being a progressive disease that always ends in perforation, rather than a disease that can present as different forms with only a defined number of cases progressing to perforation. The lack of randomized controlled studies is a limitation and well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the role of non-operative management of acute appendicitis in children.

Diagnostic accuracy of blood tests of inflammation in paediatric appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Possible childhood appendicitis is a common emergency presentation. The exact value of blood tests is debated. This study sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of four blood tests (white cell count (WCC), neutrophil(count or percentage), C reactive protein (CRP) and/or procalcitonin) for childhood appendicitis.

DESIGN

A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, Web of Science searched from inception-March 2022 with reference searching and authors contacted for missing/unclear data. Eligibility criteria was studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of the four blood tests compared to the reference standard (histology or follow-up). Risk of bias was assessed (QUADAS-2), pooled sensitivity and specificity were generated for each test and commonly presented cut-offs. To provide insight into clinical impact, we present strategies using a hypothetical cohort.

RESULTS

67 studies were included (34 839 children, 13 342 with appendicitis), all in the hospital setting. The most sensitive tests were WCC (≥10 000 cells/µL, 53 studies sensitivity 0.85 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.89)) and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) (≥7500 cells/µL, five studies sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.94)). Combination of WCC or CRP increased sensitivity further(≥10 000 cells/µL or ≥10 mg/L, individual patient data (IPD) of 6 studies, 0.97 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.99)).Applying results to a hypothetical cohort(1000 children with appendicitis symptoms, of whom 400 have appendicitis) 60 and 40 children would be wrongly discharged based solely on WCC and ANC, respectively, 12 with combination of WCC or CRP.The most specific tests were CRP alone (≥50 mg/L, 38 studies, specificity 0.87 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.91)) or combined with WCC (≥10 000 cells/µL and ≥50 mg/L, IPD of six studies, 0.93 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.95)).

CONCLUSIONS

The best performing single blood tests for ruling-out paediatric appendicitis are WCC or ANC; with accuracy improved combining WCC and CRP. These tests could be used at the point of care in combination with clinical prediction rules. We provide insight into the best cut-offs for clinical application.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017080036.

The Diagnostic Differentiation Challenge in Acute Appendicitis: How to Distinguish between Uncomplicated and Complicated Appendicitis in Adults

(1) Background: How to best define, diagnose and differentiate uncomplicated from complicated acute appendicitis remains debated. Hence, the aim of this review was to present an overview of the current knowledge and emerging field of acute appendicitis with a focus on the diagnostic differentiation of severity currently subject to ongoing investigations. (2) Methods: We conducted a PubMed search using the MeSH terms “appendicitis AND severity” and “appendicitis AND classification”, with a focus on studies calling appendicitis as ‘uncomplicated’ or ‘complicated’. An emphasis on the last 5 years was stressed, with further studies selected for their contribution to the theme. Further studies were retrieved from identified full-text articles and included per the authors’ discretion. (3) Results: The assumption that appendicitis invariably will proceed to perforation has been outdated. Both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis exist with likely different pathophysiology. Hence, this makes it important to differentiate disease severity. Clinicians must diagnose appendicitis, but, in the next step, also differentiate between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in order to allow for management decisions. Diagnostic accuracy without supportive imaging is around 75–80% and, based on clinical judgement and blood tests alone, the negative appendectomy rate has been described as high as 36%. More research is needed on available biomarkers, and the routine use of imaging still remains debated. Scoring systems have the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, but no scoring system has yet been validated for differentiating disease severity. Currently, no universally agreed definition exists on what constitutes a complicated appendicitis. (4) Conclusions: Uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis appear to have different pathophysiology and should be treated differently. The differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis remains a diagnostic challenge.

DIAgnostic iMaging or Observation in early equivocal appeNDicitis (DIAMOND): open-label, randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Mild appendicitis may resolve spontaneously. The use of CT may lead to an overdiagnosis of uncomplicated appendicitis. The aims of this study were to examine whether early imaging results in more patients being diagnosed with acute appendicitis than initial observation, and to study the safety and feasibility of score-based observation compared with imaging in patients with equivocal signs of appendicitis.

METHODS

Patients with suspected appendicitis with symptoms for fewer than 24 h and an Adult Appendicitis Score of 11-15 were eligible for this trial. After exclusions, patients were randomized openly into two equal-sized groups: imaging and observation. Patients in the imaging group had ultrasound imaging followed by CT when necessary, whereas those in the observation group were reassessed after 6-8 h with repeated scoring and managed accordingly. The primary outcome was the number of patients requiring treatment for acute appendicitis within 30 days.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients were randomized to imaging and 92 to observation; after exclusions, 93 and 88 patients respectively were analysed. In the imaging group, more patients underwent treatment for acute appendicitis than in the observation group: 72 versus 57 per cent (difference 15 (95 per cent c.i. 1 to 29) per cent). This suggests that patients with spontaneously resolving appendicitis were not diagnosed or treated in the observation group. Some 55 per cent of patients in the observation group did not need diagnostic imaging within 30 days after randomization. There was no difference in the number of patients diagnosed with complicated appendicitis (4 versus 2 per cent) or negative appendicectomies (1 versus 1 per cent) in the imaging and observation groups.

CONCLUSION

Score-based observation of patients with early equivocal appendicitis results in fewer patients requiring treatment for appendicitis. Registration number: NCT02742402 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Predicting complicated appendicitis based on clinical findings: the role of Alvarado and Appendicitis Inflammatory Response scores

PURPOSE

The pre-interventional differentiation between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis is decisive for treatment. In the context of conservative therapy, the definitive diagnosis of uncomplicated appendicitis is mandatory. This study investigates the ability of clinical scoring systems and imaging to differentiate between the two entities.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of two cohorts from two tertiary referral centers in Switzerland and Germany. All consecutive patients underwent appendectomy between January 2008 and April 2013 (in the first cohort) or between January 2017 and June 2019 (the second cohort). Exclusion criteria did not apply as all patients found by the database search and received an appendectomy were included. Diagnostic testing and calculation of a receiver operating curve were performed to identify a cutoff for clinical scores that resulted in a minimum sensitivity of 90% to detect complicated appendicitis. The cutoff was combined with additional diagnostic imaging criteria to see if diagnostic properties could be improved.

RESULTS

Nine hundred fifty-six patients were included in the analysis. Two hundred twenty patients (23%) had complicated appendicitis, and 736 patients (77%) had uncomplicated appendicitis or no inflammation. The complicated appendicitis cohort had a mean Alvarado score of 7.03 and a mean AIR of 5.21. This compared to a mean Alvarado of 6.53 and a mean AIR of 4.07 for the uncomplicated appendicitis cohort. The highest Alvarado score with a sensitivity of > 90% to detect complicated appendicitis was ≧ 5 (sensitivity = 95%, specificity 8.99%). The highest AIR score with a sensitivity of > 90% to detect complicated appendicitis was ≧ 3 (sensitivity 91.82%, specificity 18.53). The analysis showed that additional CT information did not improve the sensitivity of the proposed cut-offs.

CONCLUSION

AIR and Alvarado scores showed limited capability to distinguish between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis even with additional imaging in this retrospective cohort. As conservative management of appendicitis needs to exclude patients with complicated disease reliably, appendectomy seems until now to remain the safest option to prevent undertreatment of this mostly benign disease.

Risk factors for periappendiceal adhesions in acute appendicitis: a retrospective comparative study

Purpose

Acute appendicitis usually requires immediate surgical treatment, but appendectomies were difficult for some patients with severe periappendiceal adhesions. We investigated risk factors of intraoperative adhesions to help surgeons make better treatment plans for appendicitis.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 186 cases diagnosed with acute appendicitis and underwent surgery in Shandong Provincial Hospital affiliated to Shandong First Medical University between January 2018 and December 2019. According to the degree of intraoperative adhesions, they were divided into mild, moderate and severe groups. Then, we analyzed a number of preoperative factors contributed to adhesions, suppuration and perforation during appendectomy in 186 patients.

Results

Contrast to the moderate group (MoG) and the mild group (MiG), the severe degree of adhesions group (SG) had a higher intraoperative perforation and suppuration rate, a greater likelihood of conversion to open and more postoperative complications. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that recurrent appendicitis and high neutrophil percentage were independently associated with periappendiceal adhesions. The preoperative ultrasonography (US) revealed periappendiceal fluid and high neutrophil percentage were independently associated with appendix suppuration. A high preoperative neutrophil percentage was independently associated with appendix perforation.

Conclusions

Recurrent appendicitis and preoperative high neutrophil percentage were risk factors of periappendiceal adhesions; preoperative US revealed periappendiceal fluid and high neutrophil percentage were risk factors of appendix suppuration; and a high preoperative neutrophil percentage was a risk factor of appendix perforation.

THE APPENDICITIS INFLAMMATORY RESPONSE SCORE FOR ACUTE APPENDICITIS: IS IT IMPORTANT FOR EARLY DIAGNOSIS?

ABSTRACT - BACKGROUND: The use of Appendicitis Inflammatory Response clinical score in patients with suspected acute appendicitis makes the diagnosis more objective and accurate. AIMS: The aim of this study was to prospectively compare two groups with suspected acute appendicitis, analyzing the number of imaging tests requested, waiting time in the emergency department, until definition of conduct, as well as the sensitivity and specificity of this diagnostic method. METHODS: This is a prospective randomized study comparing 55 patients submitted to clinical-radiological diagnosis according to the routine of the service (control group), with another 55 patients submitted to the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score flowchart (intervention group). RESULTS: Waiting time for defining the intervention group’s conduct was 1.5 h shorter than the control group (p=0.02). Computed tomography was performed in 42 patients in the control group, compared with 25 in the intervention group (p=0.001). The impact of the flowchart based on the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score of the cases compared to the control group was the reduction of appendectomies with a normal-appearing appendix from 5 to 1 and an increase in the exclusion of appendicitis diagnoses. The use of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score resulted in a diagnostic specificity of 92%, compared to 29% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score reduced the waiting time for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, decreased the number of imaging tests, and increased diagnostic specificity of the disease.

Low-Dose Abdominal CT for Evaluating Suspected Appendicitis in Adolescents and Young Adults: Review of Evidence

Due to its excellent diagnostic performance, CT is the mainstay of diagnostic test in adults with suspected acute appendicitis in many countries. Although debatable, extensive epidemiological studies have suggested that CT radiation is carcinogenic, at least in children and adolescents. Setting aside the debate over the carcinogenic risk of CT radiation, the value of judicious use of CT radiation cannot be overstated for the diagnosis of appendicitis, considering that appendicitis is a very common disease, and that the vast majority of patients with suspected acute appendicitis are adolescents and young adults with average life expectancies. Given the accumulated evidence justifying the use of low-dose CT (LDCT) of only 2 mSv, there is no reasonable basis to insist on using radiation dose of multi-purpose abdominal CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis, particularly in adolescents and young adults. Published data strongly suggest that LDCT is comparable to conventional dose CT in terms of clinical outcomes and diagnostic performance. In this narrative review, we will discuss such evidence for reducing CT radiation in adolescents and young adults with suspected appendicitis.

Clinical Decision Rules in the Evaluation and Management of Adult Gastrointestinal Emergencies

Although abdominal pain is a common chief complaint in the emergency department, only 1 in 6 patients with abdominal pain are diagnosed with a gastrointestinal (GI) emergency. These patients often undergo extensive testing as well as hospitalizations to rule out an acute GI emergency and there is evidence that not all patients benefit from such management. Several clinical decision rules (CDRs) have been developed for the diagnosis and management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis and upper GI bleeding to identify those patients who may safely forgo further testing or hospital admission. Further validation studies demonstrating the superiority of these CDRs over contemporary practice are needed.

WSES/GAIS/SIS-E/WSIS/AAST global clinical pathways for patients with intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in hospitals worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs include early recognition, adequate source control, appropriate antimicrobial therapy, and prompt physiologic stabilization using a critical care environment, combined with an optimal surgical approach. Together, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery (GAIS), the Surgical Infection Society-Europe (SIS-E), the World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) have jointly completed an international multi-society document in order to facilitate clinical management of patients with IAIs worldwide building evidence-based clinical pathways for the most common IAIs. An extensive non-systematic review was conducted using the PubMed and MEDLINE databases, limited to the English language. The resulting information was shared by an international task force from 46 countries with different clinical backgrounds. The aim of the document is to promote global standards of care in IAIs providing guidance to clinicians by describing reasonable approaches to the management of IAIs.

Management of Acute Appendicitis During the COVID-19 Pandemic is Significantly Different: A Retrospective Single UK Hospital Study

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a change in the delivery of acute and emergency surgical services. With emphasis on reducing unnecessary operative intervention and performing more CT scans, there has been a shift in managing acute appendicitis conservatively. We evaluate the impact of this shift on the management of acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A single UK centre retrospective study evaluating patients with suspected acute appendicitis pre-COVID-19 rota (18 March 2020) and post-COVID rota implementation. Data including demographics, inflammatory markers, imaging, mode of management and operative findings were collected. Logistic regression with SPSS was used to determine which factors were associated with conservative management and treated with antibiotics.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients were analysed, 82 pre-COVID19 and 79 post-COVID19. Of the pre-COVID-19 patients, 67.07% underwent appendicectomy while the rest were conservatively managed; 24.3% of these patients underwent a CT scan only. Post-COVID-19, 22.78% of patients underwent appendicectomy with a higher percentage of diagnostic CT scans performed, 43/79 (54.4%, p <0.001). The proportion of histologically normal appendicectomies was significantly reduced in the post-COVID-19 era (12.78% vs 0.00%; p-value 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed a normal WCC to be associated with greater likelihood of conservative management. No conservatively managed patients returned to theatre in the 30-day follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

Due to the restrictions imposed by the post-COVID-19 rota, a greater proportion of patients were managed conservatively with comparable patient outcomes. The approach also led to fewer negative appendicectomies owing to greater reliance on imaging.

Surgical and obstetrical outcomes after laparoscopic appendectomy during pregnancy: a case-matched analysis

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) for acute appendicitis (AA) remains controversial during pregnancy. We aimed to determine surgical and obstetrical outcomes of LA in pregnant women.

METHODS

Pregnant women who underwent LA for AA (G1) between 2006 and 2019 were included and matched by gender, age, white blood cells, ASA score, and presence of peritonitis in a 1:2 ratio with non-pregnant women who had undergone LA (G2). Demographics and surgical outcomes were compared between groups. Preterm delivery and fetal loss rate were also analyzed.

RESULTS

From a total of 2009 LA, 18 (0.9%) were included in G1 and 36 (1.8%) in G2. There were no intraoperative complications or converted surgeries. Length of hospital stay was longer in G1 (G1: 2.6 vs G2: 1.4 days, p < 0.01). There was no difference in overall morbidity and readmission rates. Fetal loss and preterm delivery rates were both 11%.

CONCLUSION

LA in pregnant women has similar intraoperative and postoperative outcomes as those achieved in non-pregnant patients. In addition, the laparoscopic approach does not seem to jeopardize obstetrical outcomes.

Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score in Comparison to Alvarado Score in Acute Appendicitis

Appendicitis is a common differential diagnosis of right lower quadrant pain. Clinical evaluation alone results in high negative appendicectomy rates. Alvarado scoring is the most commonly used clinical prediction rule. The study aimed to compare the recently developed appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score with the Alvarado score. This cross-sectional observational study included patients who underwent appendicectomy for clinical suspicion of appendicitis. The clinical and laboratory parameters required for obtaining Alvarado score and AIRS were gathered. Area under ROC curve was calculated for both Alvarado score and AIRS. The study included 130 patients (77 males and 53 females). The negative appendicectomy rate was 10.7%. The perforation rate was 10.3%. The area under ROC for Alvarado score was 0.821 and for AIR score was 0.901. The Alvarado score had a sensitivity of 72% and a specificity of 79% at score ≥6. The appendicitis inflammatory response score had a sensitivity of 98% for scores ≥5 and a specificity of 97% for score ≥6. The C-reactive protein (CRP) value was the best performing individual parameter with an area under ROC of 0.789, followed by WBC count with an area under ROC of 0.762. Appendicitis inflammatory response score is a recently developed score that outperforms the Alvarado score. AIR score has a higher specificity. The sound construction, gradation of parameters, the inclusion of CRP, and avoidance of subjective parameters make the AIR score an attractive clinical prediction rule which can decrease the rate of negative appendicectomy.

Diverticular Disease of the Appendix Is Associated with Complicated Appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

Diverticular disease of the vermiform appendix (DDA) has an incidence of 0.004 to 2.1% in appendicectomy specimens. DDA is variably associated with perforation and malignancy. We report a single-center experience of DDA. The primary aim is to validate the association of DDA with complicated appendicitis or malignancy, and the secondary aim is to validate systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria and quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scores.

METHODS

The histopathology reports of 2,305 appendicectomy specimens from January 2011 to December 2015 were reviewed. Acute appendicitis was found in 2,164 (93.9%) specimens. Histology of the remaining 141 (6.1%) patients revealed: normal appendix (n = 110), DDA (n = 22), endometriosis of appendix (n = 6), and an absent appendix (n = 3). Patient demographics, clinical profile, operative data, and perioperative outcomes of DDA patients are studied. Modified Alvarado score, Andersson score, SIRS criteria, and qSOFA scores were retrospectively calculated.

RESULTS

The incidence of DDA was 0.95%. Ten patients (45.5%) had diverticulitis. The mean age of DDA patients was 39.5 years (range 23-87), with male preponderance (n = 12, 54.5%). The median Modified Alvarado score was 8 (range 4-9), and the median Andersson score was 5 (range 2-8). Fourteen patients (63.6%) had SIRS, and none had a high qSOFA score. Eight patients (36.4%) had complicated appendicitis (perforation [n = 2] or abscess [n = 6]). Eleven (50%) patients underwent laparoscopic appendicectomy. There were three 30-day readmissions and no mortality.

CONCLUSION

DDA is a distinct clinical pathology associated with complicated appendicitis.

Conditional CT Strategy-An Effective Tool to Reduce Negative Appendectomy Rate and the Overuse of the CT

(1) Background: Diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) remains challenging; either computed tomography (CT) is universally used or negative appendectomy rates of up to 30% are reported. Transabdominal ultrasound (TUS) as the first-choice imaging modality might be useful in adult patients to reduce the need for CT scans while maintaining low negative appendectomy (NA) rates. The aim of this study was to report the results of the conditional CT strategy for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. (2) Methods: All patients suspected of acute appendicitis were prospectively registered from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018. Data on their clinical, radiological and surgical outcomes are presented. (3) Results: A total of 1855 patients were enrolled in our study: 1206 (65.0%) were women, 649 (35.0%) were men, and the median age was 34 years (IQR, 24.5–51). TUS was performed in 1851 (99.8%) patients, and CT in 463 (25.0%) patients. Appendices were not visualized on TUS in 1320 patients (71.3%). Furthermore, 172 (37.1%) of 463 CTs were diagnosed with AA, 42 (9.1%) CTs revealed alternative emergency diagnosis and 249 (53.8%) CTs were normal. Overall, 519 (28.0%) patients were diagnosed with AA: 464 appendectomies and 27 diagnostic laparoscopies were performed. The NA rate was 4.2%. The sensitivity and specificity for TUS and CT are as follows: 71.4% and 96.2%; 93.8% and 93.6%. (4) Conclusion: A conditional CT strategy is effective in reducing NA rates and avoids unnecessary CT in a large proportion of patients. Observation and repeated TUS might be useful in unclear cases.

Clinical Prediction Scores for Pediatric Appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

 The rate of misdiagnosis of appendicitis in children is a challenge and clinical prediction scores could be part of the solution. However, the pediatric appendicitis score (PAS) and the Alvarado score have shown disappointing diagnostic accuracy in pediatric validation studies, while the appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score and the novel pediatric appendicitis risk calculator (pARC) have not yet been validated thoroughly. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate these four prediction scores prospectively in children with suspected appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 A prospective study was conducted over a 2-year period. All patients <15 years with suspected appendicitis were eligible for inclusion. The four prediction scores were compared regarding predictive values, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves, decision curve analysis, and clinical outcome.

RESULTS

 Of the 318 patients included, 151 (47 %) patients had appendicitis. The AIR score and the pARC had substantially higher specificity and positive predictive value, and lower rate of false positives (7% and 2%), than the PAS and Alvarado score (36 and 28%, p < 0.001). Across the different gender and age groups, the AIR score and the pARC generally had fewer false positives than the PAS and Alvarado score. There were no significant differences in sensitivity, negative predictive values, rates of missed appendicitis, or ROC curve analysis. In decision curve analysis, the AIR score and the pARC outperformed the PAS and Alvarado score at most threshold probabilities.

CONCLUSION

 The AIR score and the pARC are superior to the PAS and Alvarado score in diagnosing children with suspected appendicitis.

Validation of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) Score

Background

Patients with suspicion of appendicitis present with a wide range of severity. Score-based risk stratification can optimise the management of these patients. This prospective study validates the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score in patients with suspicion of appendicitis.

Method

Consecutive patients over the age of five with suspicion of appendicitis presenting at 25 Swedish hospital’s emergency departments were prospectively included. The diagnostic properties of the AIR score are estimated.

Results

Some 3878 patients were included, 821 with uncomplicated and 724 with complicated appendicitis, 1986 with non-specific abdominal pain and 347 with other diagnoses. The score performed better in detecting complicated appendicitis (ROC area 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88–0.90) versus 0.83 (CI 0.82–0.84) for any appendicitis, p < 0.001), in patients below age 15 years and in patients with >47 h duration of symptoms (ROC area 0.93, CI 0.90–0.95 for complicated and 0.87, CI 0.84–0.90 for any appendicitis in both categories). Complicated appendicitis is unlikely at AIR score <4 points (Negative Predictive Value 99%, CI 98–100%). Appendicitis is likely at AIR score >8 points, especially in young patients (positive predictive value (PPV) 96%, CI 90–100%) and men (PPV 89%, CI 84–93%).

Conclusions

The AIR score has high sensitivity for complicated appendicitis and identifies subgroups with low probability of complicated appendicitis or high probability of appendicitis. The discriminating capacity is high in children and patients with long duration of symptoms. It performs equally well in both sexes. This verifies the AIR score as a valid decision support.

Trial registration number

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00971438

Clinical-pathological features and treatment of acute appendicitis in the very elderly: an interim analysis of the FRAILESEL Italian multicentre prospective study

BACKGROUND

Emergency abdominal surgery in the elderly represents a global issue. Diagnosis of AA in old patients is often more difficult. Appendectomy remains the gold standard of treatment and, even though it is performed almost exclusively with a minimally invasive technique, it can still represent a great risk for the elderly patient, especially above 80 years of age. A careful selection of elderly patients to be directed to surgery is, therefore, fundamental. The primary aim was to critically appraise and compare the clinical-pathological characteristics and the outcomes between oldest old (≥ 80 years) and elderly (65-79 years) patients with Acute Appendicitis (AA).

METHODS

The FRAILESEL is a large, nationwide, multicentre, prospective study investigating the perioperative outcomes of patients aged ≥ 65 years who underwent emergency abdominal surgery. Particular focus has been directed to the clinical and biochemical presentation as well as to the need for operative procedures, type of surgical approach, morbidity and mortality, and in-hospital length of stay. Two multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess perioperative risk factors for morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

182 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Mean age, ileocecal resection, OAD and ASA score ≥ 3 were related with both overall and major complication. The multivariate analysis showed that MPI and complicated appendicitis were independent factors associated with overall complications. OAD and ASA scores ≥ 3 were independent factors for both overall and major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Age ≥ 80 years is not an independent risk factor for morbidities. POCUS is safe and effective for the diagnosis; however, a CECT is often needed. Having the oldest old a smaller functional organ reserve, an earlier intervention should be considered especially because they often show a delay in presentation and frequently exhibit a complicated appendicitis.

Differences between inflamed and non inflamed appendices diagnosed as acute appendicitis

Background

Despite the great advances in diagnostic methods, the incidence of the surgical removal of a morphologically normal appendix in patients with clinical and complementary signs of acute appendicitis continues to exceed 20%. This study aimed to compare the clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound findings of inflammatory and noninflammatory appendiceal disorders diagnosed as acute appendicitis.

Methods

The medical records of 208 patients with clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound findings indicative of acute appendicitis were studied. The patients were divided into two groups: group 1 comprising 94 patients whose appendicular histological results suggested a normal appendix and group 2 comprising 114 patients with histopathological tests confirming acute appendicitis. The variables analyzed were age at the time of surgery, sex, nausea and vomiting, inappetence, fever, pain migrating to the right iliac fossa, pain on palpation of the right iliac fossa, Blumberg's sign, blood counts, ultrasound findings, and Alvarado score.

Results

An inflamed appendix was associated with inappetence, pain on palpation of the right iliac fossa, appendiceal diameter >6 mm, and Alvarado score >6 (p < 0.001). In contrast, fever was more frequently found in noninflammatory appendiceal disorders (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Inappetence, pain on palpation of the right iliac fossa, appendiceal diameter > 6 mm, and Alvarado score > 6 indicate an inflammatory appendiceal disease, whereas fever is more often present in noninflammatory appendiceal diseases.

DIALAPP: a prospective validation of a new diagnostic algorithm for acute appendicitis

Purpose

The management of patients with suspected appendicitis remains a challenge in daily clinical practice, and the optimal management algorithm is still being debated. Negative appendectomy rates (NAR) continue to range between 10 and 15%. This prospective study evaluated the accuracy of a diagnostic pathway in acute appendicitis using clinical risk stratification (Alvarado score), routine ultrasonography, gynecology consult for females, and selected CT after clinical reassessment.

Methods

Patients presenting with suspected appendicitis between November 2015 and September 2017 from age 18 years and above were included. Decision-making followed a clear management pathway. Patients were followed up for 6 months after discharge. The hypothesis was that the algorithm can reduce the NAR to a value of under 10%.

Results

A total of 183 patients were included. In 65 of 69 appendectomies, acute appendicitis was confirmed by histopathology, corresponding to a NAR of 5.8%. Notably, all 4 NAR appendectomies had other pathologies of the appendix. The perforation rate was 24.6%. Only 36 patients (19.7%) received a CT scan. The follow-up rate after 30 days achieved 69%, including no patients with missed appendicitis. The sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic pathway was 100% and 96.6%, respectively. The potential saving in costs can be as much as 19.8 million €/100,000 cases presenting with the suspicion of appendicitis.

Conclusion

The risk-stratified diagnostic algorithm yields a high diagnostic accuracy for patients with suspicion of appendicitis. Its implementation can safely reduce the NAR, simultaneously minimizing the use of CT scans and optimizing healthcare-related costs in the treatment of acute appendicitis.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02627781 (December 2015)

Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is still challenging and some controversies on its management are still present among different settings and practice patterns worldwide. In July 2015, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) organized in Jerusalem the first consensus conference on the diagnosis and treatment of AA in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines. An updated consensus conference took place in Nijemegen in June 2019 and the guidelines have now been updated in order to provide evidence-based statements and recommendations in keeping with varying clinical practice: use of clinical scores and imaging in diagnosing AA, indications and timing for surgery, use of non-operative management and antibiotics, laparoscopy and surgical techniques, intra-operative scoring, and peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

METHODS

This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of AA. Literature search has been updated up to 2019 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. The statements were voted, eventually modified, and finally approved by the participants to the consensus conference and by the board of co-authors, using a Delphi methodology for voting whenever there was controversy on a statement or a recommendation. Several tables highlighting the research topics and questions, search syntaxes, and the statements and the WSES evidence-based recommendations are provided. Finally, two different practical clinical algorithms are provided in the form of a flow chart for both adults and pediatric (< 16 years old) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2020 WSES guidelines on AA aim to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) non-operative management for uncomplicated AA, (3) timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, (4) surgical treatment, (5) intra-operative grading of AA, (6) ,management of perforated AA with phlegmon or abscess, and (7) peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

Consensus Statement of the Italian Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons (SPIGC): Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Appendicitis

Background: Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common causes of abdominal pain requiring surgical intervention. Approximately 20% of AA cases are characterized by complications such as gangrene, abscesses, perforation, or diffuse peritonitis, which increase patients' morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis of AA can be difficult, and evaluation of clinical signs, laboratory index and imaging should be part of the management of patients with suspicion of AA.Methods: This consensus statement was written in relation to the most recent evidence for diagnosis and treatment of AA, performing a literature review on the most largely adopted scientific sources. The members of the SPIGC (Italian Polispecialistic Society of Young Surgeons) worked jointly to draft it. The recommendations were defined and graded based on the current levels of evidence and in accordance with the criteria adopted by the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) for the strength of the recommendations.Results: Fever and migratory pain tend to be present in patients with suspicion of AA. Laboratory and radiological examinations are commonly employed in the clinical practice, but today also scoring systems based on clinical signs and laboratory data have slowly been adopted for diagnostic purpose. The clinical presentation of AA in children, pregnant and elderly patients can be unusual, leading to more difficult and delayed diagnosis. Surgery is the best option in case of complicated AA, whereas it is not mandatory in case of uncomplicated AA. Laparoscopic surgical treatment is feasible and recommended. Postoperative antibiotic treatment is recommended only in patients with complicated AA.

The SIFIPAC/WSES/SICG/SIMEU guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis in the elderly (2019 edition)

The epidemiology and the outcomes of acute appendicitis in elderly patients are very different from the younger population. Elderly patients with acute appendicitis showed higher mortality, higher perforation rate, lower diagnostic accuracy, longer delay from symptoms onset and admission, higher postoperative complication rate and higher risk of colonic and appendiceal cancer. The aim of the present work was to investigate age-related factors that could influence a different approach, compared to the 2016 WSES Jerusalem guidelines on general population, in terms of diagnosis and management of elderly patient with acute appendicitis. During the XXIX National Congress of the Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology (SIFIPAC) held in Cesena (Italy) in May 2019, in collaboration with the Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery (SICG), the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (SIMEU), a panel of experts participated to a Consensus Conference where eight panelists presented a number of statements, which were developed for each of the four topics about diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in elderly patients, formulated according to the GRADE system. The statements were then voted, eventually modified and finally approved by the participants to the Consensus Conference. The current paper is reporting the definitive guidelines statements on each of the following topics: diagnosis, non-operative management, operative management and antibiotic therapy.

Appendicitis risk prediction models in children presenting with right iliac fossa pain (RIFT study): a prospective, multicentre validation study

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in children. Differentiation of acute appendicitis from conditions that do not require operative management can be challenging in children. This study aimed to identify the optimum risk prediction model to stratify acute appendicitis risk in children.

METHODS

We did a rapid review to identify acute appendicitis risk prediction models. A prospective, multicentre cohort study was then done to evaluate performance of these models. Children (aged 5-15 years) presenting with acute right iliac fossa pain in the UK and Ireland were included. For each model, score cutoff thresholds were systematically varied to identify the best achievable specificity while maintaining a failure rate (ie, proportion of patients identified as low risk who had acute appendicitis) less than 5%. The normal appendicectomy rate was the proportion of resected appendixes found to be normal on histopathological examination.

FINDINGS

15 risk prediction models were identified that could be assessed. The cohort study enrolled 1827 children from 139 centres, of whom 630 (34·5%) underwent appendicectomy. The normal appendicectomy rate was 15·9% (100 of 630 patients). The Shera score was the best performing model, with an area under the curve of 0·84 (95% CI 0·82-0·86). Applying score cutoffs of 3 points or lower for children aged 5-10 years and girls aged 11-15 years, and 2 points or lower for boys aged 11-15 years, the failure rate was 3·3% (95% CI 2·0-5·2; 18 of 539 patients), specificity was 44·3% (95% CI 41·4-47·2; 521 of 1176), and positive predictive value was 41·4% (38·5-44·4; 463 of 1118). Positive predictive value for the Shera score with a cutoff of 6 points or lower (72·6%, 67·4-77·4) was similar to that of ultrasound scan (75·0%, 65·3-83·1).

INTERPRETATION

The Shera score has the potential to identify a large group of children at low risk of acute appendicitis who could be considered for early discharge. Risk scoring does not identify children who should proceed directly to surgery. Medium-risk and high-risk children should undergo routine preoperative ultrasound imaging by operators trained to assess for acute appendicitis, and MRI or low-dose CT if uncertainty remains.

FUNDING

None.

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis.

METHODS

A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16-45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis).

RESULTS

Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two-thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut-off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut-off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent).

CONCLUSION

Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision-making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified.

Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Diagnosing acute appendicitis (appendicitis) based on clinical evaluation, blood testing, and urinalysis can be difficult. Therefore, in persons with suspected appendicitis, abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) is often used as an add-on test following the initial evaluation to reduce remaining diagnostic uncertainty. The aim of using CT is to assist the clinician in discriminating between persons who need surgery with appendicectomy and persons who do not.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective Our primary objective was to evaluate the accuracy of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults with suspected appendicitis. Secondary objectives Our secondary objectives were to compare the accuracy of contrast-enhanced versus non-contrast-enhanced CT, to compare the accuracy of low-dose versus standard-dose CT, and to explore the influence of CT-scanner generation, radiologist experience, degree of clinical suspicion of appendicitis, and aspects of methodological quality on diagnostic accuracy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 16 June 2017. We also searched references lists. We did not exclude studies on the basis of language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective studies that compared results of CT versus outcomes of a reference standard in adults (> 14 years of age) with suspected appendicitis. We excluded studies recruiting only pregnant women; studies in persons with abdominal pain at any location and with no particular suspicion of appendicitis; studies in which all participants had undergone ultrasonography (US) before CT and the decision to perform CT depended on the US outcome; studies using a case-control design; studies with fewer than 10 participants; and studies that did not report the numbers of true-positives, false-positives, false-negatives, and true-negatives. Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently collected the data from each study and evaluated methodological quality according to the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2) tool. We used the bivariate random-effects model to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 64 studies including 71 separate study populations with a total of 10,280 participants (4583 with and 5697 without acute appendicitis). Estimates of sensitivity ranged from 0.72 to 1.0 and estimates of specificity ranged from 0.5 to 1.0 across the 71 study populations. Summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 0.96), and summary specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.95). At the median prevalence of appendicitis (0.43), the probability of having appendicitis following a positive CT result was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.94), and the probability of having appendicitis following a negative CT result was 0.04 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.05). In subgroup analyses according to contrast enhancement, summary sensitivity was higher for CT with intravenous contrast (0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), CT with rectal contrast (0.97, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99), and CT with intravenous and oral contrast enhancement (0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.98) than for unenhanced CT (0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.93). Summary sensitivity of CT with oral contrast enhancement (0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94) and unenhanced CT was similar. Results show practically no differences in summary specificity, which varied from 0.93 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.95) to 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98) between subgroups. Summary sensitivity for low-dose CT (0.94, 95% 0.90 to 0.97) was similar to summary sensitivity for standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT (0.95, 95% 0.93 to 0.96); summary specificity did not differ between low-dose and standard-dose or unspecified-dose CT. No studies had high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool. Major methodological problems were poor reference standards and partial verification primarily due to inadequate and incomplete follow-up in persons who did not have surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity and specificity of CT for diagnosing appendicitis in adults are high. Unenhanced standard-dose CT appears to have lower sensitivity than standard-dose CT with intravenous, rectal, or oral and intravenous contrast enhancement. Use of different types of contrast enhancement or no enhancement does not appear to affect specificity. Differences in sensitivity and specificity between low-dose and standard-dose CT appear to be negligible. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution for two reasons. First, these results are based on studies of low methodological quality. Second, the comparisons between types of contrast enhancement and radiation dose may be unreliable because they are based on indirect comparisons that may be confounded by other factors.

[Rational diagnostics of acute appendicitis]

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common abdominal emergencies. An accurate preoperative diagnosis is still a challenge in many cases. Patient history and clinical examination are the mainstay of diagnostics but other tools are also needed in order to reduce the number of misdiagnoses. Laboratory parameters and radiological imaging procedures are widely used and scoring systems can help in the risk stratification of patients with suspected appendicitis. In the USA most patients undergo preoperative computed tomography (CT) as the first-line examination, which can reduce the number of negative appendectomies to less than 5%; however, this practice results in substantial radiation exposure and is less accepted in Europe due to concerns about radiation-induced cancer in the often younger patients. Ultrasound is a valuable first-line imaging procedure and in experienced hands can achieve very good results. In patients with an equivocal diagnosis inpatient surveillance with close control of clinical and laboratory parameter represents a suitable method to reduce the number of negative explorations without resulting in an increase in the rate of perforation or morbidity.

Optimising the antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical trial (APPAC II trial)

BACKGROUND

Based on epidemiological and clinical data acute appendicitis can present either as uncomplicated (70-80%) or complicated (20-30%) disease. Recent studies have shown that antibiotic therapy is both safe and cost-effective for a CT-scan confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis. However, based on the study protocols to ensure patient safety, these randomised studies used mainly broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics requiring additional hospital resources and prolonged hospital stay. As we now know that antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis is feasible and safe, further studies evaluating optimisation of the antibiotic treatment regarding both antibiotic spectrum and shorter hospital stay are needed to evaluate antibiotics as the first-line treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

METHODS

APPAC II trial is a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial comparing per oral (p.o.) antibiotic monotherapy with intravenous (i.v.) antibiotic therapy followed by p.o. antibiotics in the treatment of CT-scan confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Adult patients with CT-scan diagnosed uncomplicated acute appendicitis will be enrolled in nine Finnish hospitals. The intended sample size is 552 patients. Primary endpoint is the success of the randomised treatment, defined as resolution of acute appendicitis resulting in discharge from the hospital without the need for surgical intervention and no recurrent appendicitis during one-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints include post-intervention complications, late recurrence of acute appendicitis after one year, duration of hospital stay, pain, quality of life, sick leave and treatment costs. Primary endpoint will be evaluated in two stages: point estimates with 95% confidence interval (CI) will be calculated for both groups and proportion difference between groups with 95% CI will be calculated and evaluated based on 6 percentage point non-inferiority margin.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, APPAC II trial is the first randomised controlled trial comparing per oral antibiotic monotherapy with intravenous antibiotic therapy continued by per oral antibiotics in the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The APPAC II trial aims to add clinical evidence on the debated role of antibiotics as the first-line treatment for a CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis as well as to optimise the non-operative treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT03236961, retrospectively registered on the 2nd of August 2017.

Mandatory imaging in the work-up of children suspected of having appendicitis reduces the rate of unnecessary surgeries

OBJECTIVE

In children, the diagnosis “acute appendicitis” is difficult. In 2010, a new Dutch appendicitis guideline was published with the goal to reduce the negative appendectomy rate. The guideline recommended mandatory imaging (ultrasound first and CT or MRI when inconclusive) before surgery. This study examines whether the negative appendectomy rate in children has declined after the implementation of the guideline and if the number of ionising imaging procedures increased.

METHODS

In this cohort study, all consecutive patients aged 17 or younger, with the suspicion of appendicitis were included. Patients were divided into two groups. Those who presented between 2006 and 2010 (before the implementation) and those between 2011 and 2016 (after implementation).

RESULTS

In total, 748 children were enrolled, of which 363 children were seen before and 385 children after implementation of the guideline. Before implementation, 46% of the children with acute appendicitis underwent preoperative ultrasound compared with 95% in the post implementation group, p < 0.001. Any imaging was performed in 51% and 100%, respectively, p < 0.001. The percentage of negative appendectomy before implementation was 13% and 2.7% after implementation, p < 0.001. There was no significant increase in the number of CT scans before and after the implementation of the guideline, 3.6% versus 6.0%, respectively, p = 0.126. There was no increase in direct medical costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Mandatory preoperative imaging in children with the suspicion of acute appendicitis results in a significant decrease in negative appendectomies with no increase in the number of CT scans and without a substantial increase in costs.

Appendectomy and Risk of Subsequent Diverticular Disease Requiring Hospitalization: A Population-Based Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis and acute diverticulitis share clinical features and are both influenced by genetic and environmental factors. Appendectomy has been positively associated with diverticular disease in hospital-based case-control studies.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to investigate, in a population-based setting, whether appendectomy, with or without appendicitis, is associated with an altered risk of hospitalization with diverticular disease.

DESIGN

This was a population-based case-control study.

SETTINGS

The study was based on national healthcare and population registers.

PATIENTS

We studied 41,988 individuals hospitalized between 2000 and 2010 with a first-time diagnosis of colonic diverticular disease and 413,115 matched control subjects.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The association between appendectomy with or without appendicitis and diverticular disease was investigated by conditional logistic regression, including a model adjusting for hospital use.

RESULTS

A total of 2813 cases (6.7%) and 19,037 controls (4.6%) had a previous record of appendectomy (appendectomy with acute appendicitis: adjusted OR = 1.31 (95% CI, 1.24-1.39); without appendicitis: adjusted OR = 1.30 (95% CI, 1.23-1.38)). Appendectomy was most strongly associated with an increased risk of diverticular disease within 1 year (with appendicitis: adjusted OR = 2.26 (95% CI, 1.61-3.16); without appendicitis: adjusted OR = 3.98 (95% CI, 2.71-5.83)), but the association was still present ≥20 years after appendectomy (with appendicitis: adjusted OR = 1.22 (95% CI, 1.12-1.32); without appendicitis: adjusted OR = 1.19 (95% CI, 1.10-1.28)).

LIMITATIONS

Detailed clinical information on the cases was not available. There were unmeasured potential confounders, such as smoking and dietary factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings are consistent with a hypothesis of appendectomy causing an increased risk of diverticular disease, for example, by affecting the mucosal immune system or the gut microbiome. However, several other mechanisms may contribute to, or account for, the positive association, including a propensity for abdominal pain increasing the risk of both the exposure and the outcome. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A604.

Successful nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis: predictors and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to identify predictors of successful nonoperative management (NOM) of uncomplicated appendicitis. We hypothesized that the absence of diabetes, absence of an appendicolith, short duration of symptoms, absence of systemic inflammation, and low modified Alvarado score would predict successful NOM.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of 81 consecutive patients who underwent NOM of uncomplicated appendicitis. Successful NOM was defined as resolution of appendicitis with antibiotics alone and no recurrent appendicitis within 180 days. Patients with successful NOM (n = 36) were compared with patients who failed NOM (n = 45). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of successful NOM, expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals. Model strength was assessed by calculating area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Patient age (35 years), the American Society of Anesthesiologists class (2.0), and Charlson comorbidity index (0.0) were similar between groups. Independent predictors of successful NOM were duration of symptoms prior to admission >25 hours: OR 4.17 (1.42-12.24), maximum temperature within 6 hours of admission <37.3°C: OR 8.07 (1.79-36.38), modified Alvarado score <4: OR 9.06 (1.26-64.93), and appendiceal diameter <13 mm: OR 17.55 (1.30-237.28); model AUC: 0.81 (0.72-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a longer duration of symptoms prior to admission were more likely to have successful NOM. Other independent predictors of successful NOM included lower temperature, lower modified Alvarado score, and smaller appendiceal diameter. These findings provide a framework for clinical decision-making and large-scale derivation and validation of a model to predict successful NOM of uncomplicated appendicitis.