Role of interval appendectomy in the management of complicated appendicitis in children

Perforated Appendicitis in Children: Management, Microbiology, and Antibiotic Stewardship

Although appendicitis has been described for more than 300 years, its optimal management remains a topic of active investigation. Acute appendicitis is the most common cause of peritonitis in children, and rates of perforated appendicitis are much higher in children than in adults. Increased risk for perforated appendicitis in children is related to a delay in diagnosis due to age, size, access to care, and more. Surgical options include immediate appendectomy versus nonoperative management with intravenous antibiotics ± a drainage procedure, with a subsequent interval appendectomy. Microbiota of perforated appendicitis in children most often includes Escherichia coli, Bacteroides fragilis, Streptococcus, and more. Even though the most common organisms are known, there is a large variety of practice when it comes to postoperative antibiotic management in these patients. Studies discuss the benefits of mono- versus dual or triple therapy without a particular consensus regarding what to use. This is reflected across differing practices at various institutions. In this review, we aim to explore the implications of perforated appendicitis in pediatrics, common organisms seen, antibiotic regimen coverage, and the implications of variations of practice. Resistance to commonly used broad-spectrum antibiotics is evolving, therefore minimization of care variability is needed for improved patient outcomes and proper antibiotic stewardship.

Image-Guided Transrectal Drainage of Pelvic Abscesses in Children

OBJECTIVE

 To describe our technique and share our experience with image-guided transrectal drainage (TRD) of pelvic abscesses in children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Retrospective review and analysis of indications for image-guided TRD and examination of procedural outcomes in pediatric patients with pelvic abscesses over 8 years.

RESULTS

 A total of 69 patients (33 males and 36 females) with symptomatic pelvic abscesses underwent image-guided TRD. The median age and weight of the patients were 11.5 years (range, 3-18) and 46.8 kg (range, 15.1-118.0), respectively. The etiologies of the pelvic abscesses were perforated appendicitis (72.5%) and post-operative collections (27.5%). All patients presented with abdominal pain. Fever, emesis, and diarrhea were also common symptoms. The size of the pelvic abscesses ranged from 24.0 to 937.1 mL (median, 132.7). Technical success was achieved in 68 of 69 TRD procedures (98.6%). Clinical improvement was observed in all patients with technically successful TRD. The TRD catheter dwell time ranged from 0 to 10 days (median, 4.0). Most patients who underwent TRD for perforated appendicitis subsequently underwent elective appendectomy after the resolution of the pelvic abscess (84.0%). The median time from TRD to elective appendectomy was 2.8 months (range, 0.3-6.1). There were no procedure-related complications.

CONCLUSION

 Image-guided TRD is a safe and effective procedure with high technical and clinical success rates for the treatment of pelvic abscesses in children.

Effect of instant surgery compared with traditional management on paediatric complicated acute appendicitis post-surgery wound: A meta-analysis

A meta-analysis study to assess the influence of instant surgery (IS) compared with conservative therapy (CT) on paediatric complicated acute appendicitis (CAA) post-surgery wounds. A comprehensive literature examination until January 2023 was implemented, and 2098 linked studies were appraised. The picked studies contained 66 674 subjects with paediatric CAA post-surgery wounds in the picked studies' baseline; 64 643 of them were using IS, and 2031 were using CT. The odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate the consequence of the IS compared with the CT on paediatric CAA post-surgery wounds using the dichotomous and continuous styles and a fixed or random model. The IS had a significantly higher wound infection (OR, 4.97; 95% CI, 2.35-10.54, P < .001) with moderate heterogeneity (I2  = 57%) compared with the CT in a paediatric CAA post-surgery wound. However, no significant difference was found between IS and CT in total antibiotic duration (MD, -5.34; 95% CI,-12.67 to -1.98, P = .15) with high heterogeneity (I2  = 95%) in paediatric CAA post-surgery wounds. The IS had a significantly higher wound infection; however, no significant difference was found in total antibiotic duration compared with the CT in paediatric CAA post-surgery wounds. Although precautions should be taken when commerce with the consequences because most of the studies picked for this meta-analysis had low sample sizes.

Nationwide management of perforated pediatric appendicitis: Interval versus same-admission appendectomy

PURPOSE

Although conservative management followed by readmission for interval appendectomy is commonly used to manage perforated appendicitis, many studies are limited to individual or noncompeting pediatric hospitals. This study sought to compare national outcomes following interval or same-admission appendectomy in children with perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmission Database was queried (2010-2014) for patients <18 years old with perforated appendicitis who underwent appendectomy using ICD9-CM Diagnosis codes. A propensity score-matched analysis (PSMA) utilizing 33 covariates between those with (Interval Appendectomy) and without a prior admission (Same-Admission Appendectomy) was performed to examine postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 63,627 pediatric patients with perforated appendicitis. 1014 (1%) had a prior admission for perforated appendicitis within one calendar year undergoing interval appendectomy compared to 62,613 (99%) Same-Admission appendectomy patients. The Interval Appendectomy group was more likely to receive a laparoscopic (87% vs. 78% same-admission) than open (13% vs. 22% same-admission; p < 0.001) operation. Patients receiving interval appendectomy were more likely to have their laparoscopic procedure converted to open (5% vs. 3%) and receive more concomitant procedures. PSMA demonstrated a higher rate of small bowel obstruction in those receiving Same-Admission appendectomy while all other complications were similar. Although those receiving Interval Appendectomy had a shorter index length of stay (LOS) and lower admission costs, they incurred an additional $8044 [$5341-$13,190] from their prior admission.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with interval appendectomy experienced more concomitant procedures and incurred higher combined hospitalization costs while still having a similar postoperative complication profile compared to those receiving same-admission appendectomy for perforated appendicitis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective Comparative Study.

The feasibility of interval laparoscopic appendectomy and appropriate patient selection: A retrospective study of adult appendiceal masses

INTRODUCTION

We examined the safety and effectiveness of interval laparoscopic appendectomy (ILA) for adult appendiceal mass (AAM) and then used a novel white blood cell (WBC) parameter to identify the types of AAM cases for which nonsurgical treatment followed by ILA is effective.

METHODS

We reviewed the cases of 956 patients who had undergone appendectomy between April 2012 and March 2018 at our facility. Of these patients, 49 had AAM, including 34 who underwent ILA. We examined the safety and effectiveness of ILA by comparing it with laparoscopic appendectomy (LA); specifically, the 34 cases treated with ILA were compared with 477 cases of adult uncomplicated appendicitis treated with LA from the same patient cohort. We then examined the factors associated with not successfully completing the planned nonsurgical treatment and interval before ILA. Patient demographics and clinical variables were reviewed.

RESULTS

Patients who had undergone ILA had longer operative times than those who had undergone LA (P = .0059), but they also had shorter postoperative hospital stays (P < .001). There were no significant differences in other perioperative variables. Multivariate analysis showed that a ratio of WBC count on day 3 and day 0 from the start of nonsurgical treatment (WBC day3/day0) of 0.906 or higher was significantly associated with not completing the nonsurgical treatment and interval before ILA (P = .045).

CONCLUSION

A comparison of the procedures found that ILA for AAM was almost as safe and effective as LA for adult uncomplicated appendicitis. The WBC day3/day0 ratio can be an objective parameter to assess the effectiveness of the nonsurgical treatment before ILA earlier in the course of treatment.

Interval laparoscopic appendectomy after antibiotic therapy for appendiceal abscess in elderly patients

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of interval laparoscopic appendectomy after antibiotic therapy in elderly patients with appendiceal abscess.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data for 50 patients with appendiceal abscess aged ≥18 years who had initially planned to undergo interval laparoscopic appendectomy after antibiotic therapy and 50 patients with appendicitis aged ≥70 years who had undergone early laparoscopic appendectomy. All patients were treated at the National Hospital Organization Kumamoto Medical Center between 2012 and 2018. We compared perioperative outcomes after interval appendectomy between patients aged <70 years and ≥70 years.

RESULTS

Clinical progression of appendicitis during antibiotic therapy developed in one patient (2.0%), and recurrent appendicitis after antibiotic therapy for appendiceal abscess occurred in two patients (4.0%). Pathological findings confirmed appendiceal neoplasms in four patients (8.0%). Postoperative infectious complications occurred in 1 of 47 patients (2.1%) who had undergone successful interval laparoscopic appendectomy, and the median length of postoperative hospital stay was 4 days (interquartile range, 3-5 days). There were no significant differences in outcomes after interval appendectomy between patients aged <70 years and ≥70 years. In the secondary analysis, the median length of postoperative hospital stay after interval laparoscopic appendectomy for appendiceal abscess (4 days) was significantly shorter than that after early laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis (7 days; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Interval laparoscopic appendectomy for appendiceal abscess may be safe and effective in elderly patients without severe comorbidities. Interval appendectomy may be necessary for determining the underlying cause of appendiceal abscess in adults.

Management of complicated acute appendicitis in children: Still an existing controversy

Complicated acute appendicitis (CAA) is a serious condition and carries significant morbidity in children. A strict diagnosis is challenging, as there are many lesions that mimic CAA. The management of CAA is still controversial. There are two options for treatment: Immediate operative management and non-operative management with antibiotics and/or drainage of any abscess or phlegmon. Each method of treatment has advantages and disadvantages. Operative management may be difficult due to the presence of inflamed tissues and may lead to detrimental events. In many cases, non-operative management with or without drainage and interval appendectomy is advised. The reasons for this approach include new medications and policies for the use of antibiotic therapy. Furthermore, advances in radiological interventions may overcome difficulties such as diagnosing and managing the complications of CAA without any surgeries. However, questions have been raised about the risk of recurrence, prolonged use of antibiotics, lengthened hospital stay and delay in returning to daily activities. Moreover, the need for interval appendectomy is currently under debate because of the low risk of recurrence. Due to the paucity of high-quality studies, more randomized controlled trials to determine the precise management strategy are needed. This review aims to study the current data on operative vs non-operative management for CAA in children and to extract any useful information from the literature.

Early appendectomy vs. conservative management in complicated acute appendicitis in children: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

No consensus exists among surgeons regarding the optimal treatment of complicated acute appendicitis in children (CAA). Existing studies present heterogeneity of data and only few studies analyzed free perforated appendicitis (FPA) separately from appendicular abscess (AAb) and appendicular phlegmon (AP).

METHOD

Studies which have been judged eligible for this systematic review and consequent meta-analysis are those comparing non-operative management (NOM) with operative management (OM) in children with CAA. Studies were subgrouped between those analyzing mixed patients with CAA, those focusing on patients with AAb/AP and those focusing on patients with FPA.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 1288 patients. In the fixed-effects model the complication rate was significantly favorable to the initial NOM arm for the AAb/AP subgroup (RR = 0.07, 95%CI = 0.02-0.27) and to the OM arm for the FPA subgroup (RR = 1.86, 95%CI = 1.20-2.87); the re-admission rate was significantly favorable to the initial NOM arm for the AAb/AP subgroup (RR = 0.35, 95%CI = 0.13-0.93) and to the OM arm for the FPA subgroup (RR = 1.49, 95%CI = 1.49-7.44). There was no statistical heterogeneity for the two subgroups of patients. The costs weren't significantly different between NOM and OM. The length of stay was favorable to OM. The pooled proportion rate of NOM success was 90%, the pooled relapse rate of appendicitis was 15.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with AAb/AP reported better results in terms of complication rate and re-admission rate if treated with NOM. Conversely children with FPA showed lower complication rate and re-admission rate if treated with OM.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Factors affecting non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis in children: Should laparoscopic appendectomy be immediate, interval, or emergency?

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a prospective non-randomized comparison of children with uncomplicated appendicitis treated either by primary laparoscopic appendectomy (PLA) or by non-operative management (NOM) followed by interval laparoscopic appendectomy (ILA) if NOM was successful or emergency laparoscopic appendectomy (ELA) if NOM was unsuccessful.

METHODS

Before 2015, all patients with uncomplicated appendicitis underwent PLA using a standard three-port technique. Postoperatively, piperacillin/tazobactam was administered until the white blood cell count was less than 10 000/μL and patients were afebrile. Since 2015, in cases of uncomplicated appendicitis, intravenous analgesia has been administered once after assessment, and then NOM has been immediately employed, with repeat doses of piperacillin/tazobactam administered every 8 h after admission. We have also used standard management cut-off criteria to determine when to perform laparoscopic appendectomy after NOM: if NOM fails, ELA is performed within 6 h, and if NOM is successful, ILA is planned.

RESULTS

There were 103 eligible subjects for this study. Eleven cases of suspected complicated appendicitis were excluded, leaving 34 PLA cases and 58 NOM cases. After NOM, 27 patients were treated with ILA and 31 with ELA. There was one recurrence after successful NOM, and in two cases, patients' parents refused to consent to ILA after successful NOM. There were more perforations and significantly more residual abscesses in ELA than in PLA. Operative time and postoperative hospitalization were significantly longer among ELA patients than among PLA patients, and operative time was significantly shorter during ILA than in PLA.

CONCLUSION

Further evaluation is required to confirm which patients will benefit most from NOM and what role PLA has in treating uncomplicated appendicitis.

Immediate surgery or conservative treatment for complicated acute appendicitis in children? A meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study carried out a meta-analysis to compare immediate surgery (IS) with conservative treatment (CT) of complicated acute appendicitis (CAA) in children.

METHODS

Systematic literature research was performed for relevant studies published from 1969 to date. Trials of IS compared with CT were included. Outcomes of interest were postoperative morbidity and length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Fifteen trials were studied (1.243 patients). CT achieved better rates of any complication type (odds ratio [OR] 0.22, [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14, 0.38], p = 0.001) and wound infection (OR: 0.40 [95% CI: 0.17, 0.96], p = 0.041). Neither intraabdominal abscess (OR: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.31, 3.37], p = 0.958) nor postoperative ileus (OR: 0.29 [95% CI: 0.06, 1.44], p = 0.130) was affected by the treatment option. The polled difference in LOS showed a trend for shorter LOS in the IS group (standard mean difference [SMD]: 0.25 [95% CI: 0.07, -0.43], p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

IS was associated with shorter LOS, while overall complication rates and wound infection declined significantly with CT. The development of intraabdominal abscess and postoperative ileus was not affected by the treatment of choice. The heterogeneity of most studies depicts the need for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to discover safe management of CAA in children.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III: Type of study: Meta-analysis.

Conservative treatment of acute appendicitis

Acute appendicitis has been considered by surgeons a progressive disease leading to perforation for more than 100 years. In the last decades the theories about this concept gained attention, especially in adults. However, appendectomy for acute appendicitis remains the most common urgent/emergent surgical procedure. At present, accumulating evidences are showing the changing in clinical practice towards the non-operative management of several cases of acute appendicitis either non-complicated or complicated. The present review aims to show the literature results regarding the non-operative management of acute appendicitis in non-complicated and in complicated cases.

Perforation risk in pediatric appendicitis: assessment and management

Perforated appendicitis, as defined by a visible hole in the appendix or an appendicolith free within the abdomen, carries significant morbidity in the pediatric population. Accurate diagnosis is challenging as there is no single symptom or sign that accurately predicts perforated appendicitis. Younger patients and those with increased duration of symptoms are at higher risk of perforated appendicitis. Elevated leukocytosis, bandemia, high C-reactive protein, hyponatremia, ultrasound, and CT are all useful tools in diagnosis. Distinguishing patients with perforation from those without is important given the influence of a perforation diagnosis on the management of the patient. Treatment for perforated appendicitis remains controversial as several options exist, each with its indications and merits, illustrating the complexity of this disease process. Patients may be managed non-operatively with antibiotics, with or without interval appendectomy. Patients may also undergo appendectomy early in the course of their index hospitalization. Factors known to predict failure of non-operative management include appendicolith, leukocytosis greater than 15,000 white blood cells per microliter, increased bands, and CT evidence of disease beyond the right lower quadrant. In this review, the indications and benefits of each treatment strategy will be discussed and an algorithm to guide treatment decisions will be proposed.

Acute appendicitis in children: can surgery be postponed? Short-term results in a cohort of 225 children

PURPOSE

To our knowledge, there is no German study, which has examined the relationship between a postponement of surgery (from emergency service to standard working time) and the corresponding risk of postoperative complications in children and adolescents with acute appendicitis. The aim of this study is to examine if surgery of acute appendicitis in childhood can be postponed from night shift to the next working day without negative effects for the patient.

METHODS

In a retrospective analysis (September 2001 to June 2007), the files of 225 paediatric surgical patients with acute appendicitis have been analysed concerning history, histology, course of treatment and development of complications. The cohort was divided into groups by their histology (common, "A", complicated appendicitis, "B") and by the median time (10 h) from admission to surgery (immediate, "C", delayed surgery, "D"). These groups have been analysed and compared.

RESULTS

Groups A and B did not differ concerning time to admittance (p = 0.922). Seven patients developed complications (n = 7/225, 3.1%). Six complications were seen in group C (n = 6/113, 5.3%) compared to 1 in group D (n = 1/112, 0.9%), the difference was not significant (p = 0.119). None of the patients of group B developed complications after delayed surgery. Median follow-up was 10 days (IQR 7-15).

CONCLUSIONS

In view of the development of complications, there was no evidence that the time between inpatient admission and surgery had any impact on the postoperative result. Thus, there is usually no need to perform surgery in common appendicitis during night shift.

Therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage and factors for performing an interval appendectomy in pediatric appendiceal abscess

Background

In this study, we studied the therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage with antibiotics and the need for an interval appendectomy for treating appendiceal abscess in children with a research-oriented dataset released by the Bureau of National Health Insurance in Taiwan through the Collaboration Center for Health Information Application (CCHIA).

Methods

We identified 1225 patients under 18 years of age who had non-surgical treatment for an appendiceal abscess between 2007 and 2012 in a Taiwan CCHIA dataset. The treatment included percutaneous drainage with antibiotics or antibiotics alone. We also analyzed data of patient’s baseline characteristics, outcomes of percutaneous drainage, and indicating factors for performing an interval appendectomy.

Results

Totally, 6190 children had an appendiceal abscess, an 1225 patients received non-operative treatment. Of 1225 patients, 150 patients received treatment with percutaneous drainage and antibiotics, 78 had recurrent appendicitis, 185 went on to receive an interval appendectomy, and 10 had postoperative complications after the interval appendectomy. We found that patients treated with percutaneous drainage and antibiotics had a significantly lower rate of recurrent appendicitis (p < 0.05), a significantly smaller chance of receiving an interval appendectomy (p < 0.05), and significantly fewer postoperative complications after the interval appendectomy (p < 0.05) than those without percutaneous drainage treatment. Older children (13 ~ 18 years) patients were found to have a significantly smaller need to receive an interval appendectomy than those who were ≤ 6 years of age (odd ratio (OR) = 2.071, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 1.34–3.19, p < 0.01), and those who were 7 ~ 12 years old (OR = 1.662, 95 % CI = 1.15–2.41, p < 0.01). In addition, those treated with percutaneous drainage were significantly less indicated to receive an interval appendectomy later (OR = 2.249, 95 % CI = 1.19 ~ 4.26, p < 0.05). In addition, those with recurrent appendicitis had a significantly increased incidence of receiving an interval appendectomy later (OR = 3.231, 95 % CI = 1.95 ~ 5.35, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

In this study, we used nationwide data to demonstrate therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage and antibiotics was more beneficial than only antibiotics in treating patients with an appendiceal abscess. We also found three factors that were significantly associated with receiving an interval appendectomy: recurrent appendicitis, being aged ≤ 13 years, and treatment with antibiotics only.

A history of the treatment of appendicitis in children: lessons learned

During the latter half of the 19th century, surgeons increasingly reported performing appendicectomies. Fitz from Harvard, Groves from Canada and Tait from Britain all recorded successful removal of the appendix. McBurney described the point of maximal tenderness in classic appendicitis and also the muscle-splitting incision centred on this point. Priority is given to McArthur in describing the lateral muscle-splitting incision. The direction of the cutaneous incision was later modified by Elliott and Lanz. Incisions that healed well were essential to recovery. Appendicectomy became a 'fashionable' operation after the London surgeon, Treves, removed the appendix of King Edward VII. Through the 20th century, the mortality from appendicitis fell notably with the advent of sulphonamide and penicillin, improvements in fluid therapy and safer anaesthesia. By 1990, diagnostic delay was the main cause of death. Semm performed the first laparoscopic appendicectomy in 1990, roundly criticized at the time for what is now a routine procedure. We view contemporary debates on the indications for appendicectomy, the best approach and how to optimize recovery in the light of the history of this intriguing disease.

Laparoscopic treatment of perforated appendicitis

The use of laparoscopy has been established in improving perioperative and postoperative outcomes for patients with simple appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with less wound pain, less wound infection, a shorter hospital stay, and faster overall recovery when compared to the open appendectomy for uncomplicated cases. In the past two decades, the use of laparoscopy for the treatment of perforated appendicitis to take the advantages of minimally invasiveness has increased. This article reviewed the prevalence, approaches, safety disclaimers, perioperative and postoperative outcomes of the laparoscopic appendectomy in the treatment of patients with perforated appendicitis. Special issues including the conversion, interval appendectomy, laparoscopic approach for elderly or obese patient are also discussed to define the role of laparoscopic treatment for patients with perforated appendicitis.

Treatment of suspected acute perforated appendicitis with antibiotics and interval appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Initial antibiotics with planned interval appendectomy (interval AP) have been used to treat patients with complicated perforated appendicitis; however, little experience exists with this approach in children with suspected acute perforated appendicitis (SAPA). We sought to determine the outcome of initial antibiotics and interval AP in children with SAPA.

METHODS

Over an 18-month period, 751 consecutive patients underwent appendectomy including 105 patients with SAPA who were treated with initial intravenous antibiotics and planned interval AP ≥ 8 weeks after presentation. All SAPA patients had symptoms for ≤ 96 hours. Primary outcome variables were rates of readmission, abscess formation, and need for interval AP prior to the planned ≥ 8 weeks.

RESULTS

Intraabdominal abscess rate was 27%. Appendectomy prior to planned interval AP was 11% and readmission occurred in 34%. All patients underwent eventual appendectomy with pathologic confirmation confirming the previous appendiceal inflammation. White blood cell (WBC) count >15,000, WBC >15,000 plus fecalith on imaging, and WBC >15,000 plus duration of symptoms >48 hours were all significantly associated with higher rates of readmission (p=0.01, p=0.04, p=0.02) and need for interval AP prior to the planned ≥ 8 weeks (p=0.003, p=0.05, p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of SAPA with antibiotics and planned interval AP is successful in the majority of patients; however, complications such as abscess formation and/or readmission prior to planned interval AP occur in up to one-third of patients. Certain clinical variables are associated with increased treatment complications.

Expanded utilization of nonoperative management for complicated appendicitis in children

PURPOSE

The initial approach to complicated appendicitis in children has become increasingly nonoperative, particularly when there is presumed perforation and a localized abscess. We extended the indications for nonoperative management to include most cases other than simple appendicitis, including those with diffuse peritoneal involvement. We evaluated outcomes and sought to identify factors at the time of hospital admission that predicted an extended length of stay (LOS) with this strategy.

METHODS

The records of 223 consecutive children who were managed nonoperatively for complicated appendicitis were reviewed. A conservative approach was typically pursued in those with an abscess, phlegmon, or free fluid on initial imaging studies, and diffuse tenderness, diarrhea, or significant leukocytosis after 2 days of symptoms. Interval appendectomies were performed selectively.

RESULTS

The average LOS was 5.6 days (1-38), but nine subjects had a LOS of greater than 14 days. Eleven (4.9 %) required appendectomy during the initial admission. Free fluid on admission imaging studies, present in 78 % of those with an extended LOS, [odds ratio (OR) 5.5], in addition to a requirement for early nasogastric drainage (OR 24.2) and a higher band count (19 vs 15 %), was significantly associated with an extended LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

An expansion of the indications for nonoperative management of complicated appendicitis yielded an acceptable average LOS and a low incidence of early appendectomy. However, a small subset of subjects had an extended LOS, and most of those had free peritoneal fluid on admission.

Percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal abscess in children with perforated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Because the surgical management of perforated appendicitis remains controversial, percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) has gained favor for managing periappendiceal abscess in hemodynamically stable children.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and effectiveness of PCD in children with perforated appendicitis and to identify any variables of prognostic value.

MATERIALS & METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated clinical data and imaging features for 33 children undergoing PCD for periappendiceal abscess from October 2006 to February 2010. Those with preprocedural CT studies were assigned to one of three risk categories based on imaging features.

RESULTS

Appendectomy was successfully postponed for all patients. Our technical success rate was 87.9%, with three recurrences (two requiring repeat drainage, one managed conservatively) and one possible complication (enterocutaneous fistula formation). Children with large and diffuse abscesses had a 50% rate of technical failure, which was significantly increased when compared to children with large but localized abscesses (P < 0.028). Extraluminal appendicolith, extraluminal gas, leukocytosis, ileus/obstruction and procedural variables were not reliable predictors of outcome.

CONCLUSION

PCD can be effective for managing perforated appendicitis in children. Children with large and ill-defined abscess might be at increased risk for complication or recurrence.

Treatment of perforated appendicitis in children: what is the cost?

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

We compared direct hospital costs and indirect costs to the family associated with immediate appendectomy or initial nonoperative management for perforated appendicitis in children.

METHODS

From June 2009 through May 2010, 61 prospectively identified families completed a cost diary, documenting the numbers of missed school days for the child and missed employment days for the adult caregiver(s) over the treatment course. Hospital costs were obtained from hospital financial databases. Mann-Whitney U tests and Fisher exact tests were used to compare outcome measures for each treatment strategy.

RESULTS

Patients treated by initial nonoperative management had a significantly longer median length of stay (9 days vs 7 days, P = .02) and a significantly greater median total hospital cost per patient ($31,349 vs $21,323, P = .01) when compared with those treated by immediate appendectomy. There was no significant difference in median number of missed school days (9 days vs 10 days, P = .23) or missed employment days for adult caregiver(s) (5 days vs 7 days, P = .18) between treatment strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with perforated appendicitis treated by initial nonoperative management had a greater length of stay and a significantly greater total hospital cost but were not burdened by significantly greater indirect costs compared with those treated by immediate appendectomy.

Is interval appendicectomy justified after successful nonoperative treatment of an appendix mass in children? A systematic review

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Interval appendicectomy (IA) is commonly performed after successful nonoperative treatment of appendix mass (AM); although, this approach has recently been challenged. We systematically reviewed the pediatric literature with regard to the justification for this practice.

METHODS

Using a defined search strategy, studies were identified and data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Incidences of recurrent appendicitis, complications after IA, and carcinoid tumor were estimated accounting for interstudy heterogeneity. Cost and length of stay of IA were analyzed.

RESULTS

Three studies (127 cases) reporting routine nonsurgical treatment were identified; all were retrospective. There was marked interstudy heterogeneity and variable follow-up. After successful nonoperative treatment of AM, the risk of recurrent appendicitis is 20.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.3%-28.4%). The incidence of complications after IA (23 studies, n = 1247) is 3.4% (95% CI, 2.2-5.1), and the incidence of carcinoid tumor found at IA (15 studies, n = 955) is 0.9% (95% CI, 0.5-1.8). No reports compared costs. Mean length of stay for IA was 3 days (range, 1-30 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective studies comparing routine IA with nonoperative treatment without IA in children are lacking. Available data suggest that 80% of children with AM may not need IA. A prospective study to evaluate the natural history of this condition compared with the morbidity and costs of IA is warranted.

Antibiotics and appendicitis in the pediatric population: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to review evidence-based data regarding the use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis in children.

DATA SOURCE

Data were obtained from PubMed, MEDLINE, and citation review.

STUDY SELECTION

We conducted a literature search using "appendicitis" combined with "antibiotics" with children as the target patient population. Studies were selected based on relevance for the following questions: (1) What perioperative antibiotics should be used for pediatric patients with nonperforated appendicitis? (2) For patients with perforated appendicitis treated with appendectomy: a. What perioperative intravenous antibiotics should be used? b. How long should perioperative intravenous antibiotics be used? c. Should oral antibiotics be used? (3) For patients with perforated appendicitis treated with initial nonoperative management, what antibiotics should be used in the initial management?

RESULTS

Children with nonperforated appendicitis should receive preoperative, broad-spectrum antibiotics. In children with perforated appendicitis who had undergone appendectomy, intravenous antibiotic duration should be based on clinical criteria. Furthermore, broad-spectrum, single, or double agent therapy is as equally efficacious as but is more cost-effective than triple agent therapy. If intravenous antibiotics are administered for less than 5 days, oral antibiotics should be administered for a total antibiotic course of 7 days. For children with perforated appendicitis who did not initially undergo an appendectomy, the duration of broad-spectrum, intravenous antibiotics should be based on clinical symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supports the use of guidelines as described above for antibiotic therapy in children with acute and perforated appendicitis.

A meta-analysis comparing conservative treatment versus acute appendectomy for complicated appendicitis (abscess or phlegmon)

BACKGROUND

No standardized approach is available for the management of complicated appendicitis defined as appendiceal abscess and phlegmon. This study used meta-analytic techniques to compare conservative treatment versus acute appendectomy.

METHODS

Comparative studies were identified by a literature search. The end points evaluated were overall complications, need for reoperation, duration of hospital stay, and duration of intravenous antibiotics. Heterogeneity was assessed and a sensitivity analysis was performed to account for bias in patient selection.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (16 nonrandomized retrospective and 1 nonrandomized prospective) reported on 1,572 patients: 847 patients received conservative treatment and 725 had acute appendectomy. Conservative treatment was associated with significantly less overall complications, wound infections, abdominal/pelvic abscesses, ileus/bowel obstructions, and reoperations. No significant difference was found in the duration of first hospitalization, the overall duration of hospital stay, and the duration of intravenous antibiotics. Overall complications remained significantly less in the conservative treatment group during sensitivity analysis of studies including only pediatric patients, high-quality studies, more recent studies, and studies with a larger group of patients.

CONCLUSION

The conservative management of complicated appendicitis is associated with a decrease in complication and reoperation rate compared with acute appendectomy, and it has a similar duration of hospital stay. Because of significant heterogeneity between studies, additional studies should be undertaken to confirm these findings.

Spontaneous vaginal drainage of a pelvic abscess: an unusual presentation of perforated appendicitis

We report a child with the unusual presentation of spontaneous vaginal drainage of a pelvic abscess after nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis. Although drainage through the rectum has been previously described, this is the first report of spontaneous transvaginal drainage of a pelvic abscess from appendicitis in a child.

Early decisions in perforated appendicitis in children: lessons from a study of nonoperative management

BACKGROUND

In nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis, some children do not respond to treatment. This study sought early identifiers of failure to help in surgical decision making.

METHODS

Fifty-eight patients with computed tomographic (CT)-proven perforated appendicitis were treated according to a nonoperative protocol. Patients who recovered were considered "successes;" those who did not improve underwent appendectomy and were scored as "failures" of nonoperative treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-six (62%) of 58 patients responded to treatment and 22 (38%) failed. Three parameters distinguished the 2 groups: the number of band forms on the admission white blood cell count, the body temperature response after 24 hours of treatment, and the areas of the abdomen involved in the CT scan. Patients in whom nonoperative treatment failed stayed in the hospital longer (17 vs 9 days) and had more complications (46% vs 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Because failure of nonoperative management is associated with a high complication rate, it is important to make an early decision about appendectomy. Persistence of fever after 24 hours of treatment, bandemia on admission, and multisector involvement on CT scan identify most patients who fail nonoperative management. When combined with clinical judgment, these are useful indicators to guide early decisions.

Complicated appendicitis in children: a clear role for drainage and delayed appendectomy

INTRODUCTION

Children presenting with complicated appendicitis represent a common and challenging problem. Conflicting data exist concerning optimal treatment of these patients with primary versus delayed appendectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all children undergoing appendectomy over a 5-year period was performed.

RESULTS

We identified 1,106 children: 360 had evidence of perforation and 92 had an intra-abdominal abscess or right lower quadrant phlegmon. Of these 92, 60 underwent primary appendectomy and 32 underwent drainage and/or antibiotic therapy with delayed appendectomy. Children undergoing delayed appendectomy had a longer prodrome of symptoms (6.9 vs 4.6 days, P = .002), slightly higher presenting white blood cell count (19.3 vs 16.6, P = .08), and had the same hospital length of stay, yet had a lower complication rate requiring readmission to the hospital (0% vs 10%) compared to those undergoing immediate appendectomy.

CONCLUSION

In children presenting with prolonged symptoms and a discrete appendiceal abscess or phlegmon, drainage and delayed appendectomy should be the treatment of choice.

Matched analysis of nonoperative management vs immediate appendectomy for perforated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The role of nonoperative therapy vs immediate appendectomy in the management of children with perforated appendicitis remains undefined. The objective of this study was to rigorously compare these management options in groups of patients with matched clinical characteristics.

METHODS

Multicenter case-control study was conducted from 1998 to 2003. We compared patients treated nonoperatively vs those undergoing appendectomy to identify differences in 12 clinical parameters. We then generated a second control group of patients matched for these variables and compared the following outcomes in these clinically similar groups: complication rate, abscess rate, and length of stay (LOS). Analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat principles, using chi2, Fisher exact, and Student t tests.

RESULTS

The only significant difference between patients treated nonoperatively and those treated by appendectomy was the duration of pain on presentation (6.8 vs 3.1 days of pain). We created a second control group of patients undergoing immediate appendectomy matched on duration of pain on presentation to patients treated nonoperatively. These groups continued to be clinically comparable for the other 11 parameters. Compared to this matched control group, the nonoperative group had fewer complications (19% vs 43%, P < .01), fewer abscesses (4% vs 24%, P < .01), and a trend for shorter LOS (6.5 +/- 5.7 vs 8.8 +/- 6.7 days, P = .08).

CONCLUSIONS

When nonoperative management for perforated appendicitis was studied using appropriately matched clinical controls, we found that it resulted in a lower complication rate and shorter LOS in the subset of patients presenting with a long duration of pain. Our data suggest that nonoperative management should be prospectively evaluated in children with perforated appendicitis presenting with a history of pain exceeding 5 days.