Evaluation of the appendix during diagnostic laparoscopy, the laparoscopic appendicitis score: a pilot study

Diagnosing granulomatous disease during appendectomy

Difficulties during surgery are uncommon situations in appendectomy. For granulomatous appendicitis, literature is insufficient about surgical findings. The procedure of a 17-year-old male patient was a struggle due to adhesions. I thought a surgeon could expect granulomatous diseases by evaluating the macroscopic appearance of the appendix during surgical procedure.

A comparison of intra-operative diagnosis to histopathological diagnosis of acute appendicitis in paediatric and adult cohorts: an analysis of over 1000 patients

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is a common general surgical emergency. The role of removing a normal appendix is debated. However, this relies on accurate intra-operative diagnosis of a normal appendix by the operating surgeon. This study aimed to compare surgeon's intra-operative assessment to final histological result acute appendicitis in paediatric and adult patients.

METHODS

All patients who underwent appendicectomy over a 14-year period in a general surgical department were identified using the prospective Lothian Surgical Audit system and pathology reports retrieved to identify final histological diagnosis. Open appendicectomy was selected to examine, as the routine practise at our institution is to remove a normal appendix at open appendicectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 1035 open appendicectomies were performed for clinically suspected appendicitis. Sensitivity of intra-operative diagnosis of appendicitis with operating surgeon was high at 95.13% with no difference between trainee and consultant surgeon or between adult and paediatric cases. Specificity of intra-operative diagnosis was lower in the paediatric group (32.58%) than in the adult group (40.58%). Women had a higher rate of negative appendicectomy than men.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study highlight some discordance between histological evidence of acute appendicitis and intra-operative impression. Therefore other clinical variables and not just macroscopic appearance alone should be used when deciding to perform appendicectomy.

Reducing the negative appendectomy rate with the laparoscopic appendicitis score; a multicenter prospective cohort and validation study

BACKGROUND

Approximately nine percent of all acute appendectomies are unintentionally performed on a normal appendix. Failure of treatment (negative appendectomy or missed appendicitis) is associated with higher morbidity and mortality when compared to appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis. The Laparoscopic APPendicitis (LAPP) score was developed in order to systematically evaluate the appendix for the presence of inflammation. This study aims to determine whether the LAPP score reduces the negative appendectomy rate without missing appendicitis.

METHODS

From September 2013 through May 2016, 322 adult patients presenting with a clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis and an indication for diagnostic laparoscopy were included and analyzed in this multicenter prospective validation study. Depending on the LAPP score, the appendix was either removed (n = 300) or left in situ (n = 22). These patients were compared to a historical control group of 584 patients treated at the same hospitals. The appendix was examined by a pathologist and the negative appendectomy rate was calculated.

RESULTS

The negative appendectomy rate was significantly lower when the LAPP score was used (4,7% vs. 8,4%; P = 0,034). None of the patients with a negative LAPP score, in which the appendix remained in situ, developed acute appendicitis within three months. There were no significant differences in operation time, complications, or readmissions. Using the LAPP score was associated with significantly higher rates of preoperative radiological imaging (98% vs. 70%; P < 0,001). After adjusting for covariables, including radiological imaging, use of the LAPP score led to fewer treatment failures when compared to not using the LAPP score (OR: 0,48, 95% C.I. 0,251 to 0,914; P = 0,025).

CONCLUSION

The LAPP score is a safe and simple tool to reduce the negative appendectomy rate during laparoscopic surgery without missing cases of acute appendicitis.

Management of the normal-appearing appendix during laparoscopy for clinically suspected acute appendicitis in the pediatric population

PURPOSE

The widespread use of laparoscopy has brought forth the question of how to manage a macroscopically normal-appearing appendix in cases of clinically suspected appendicitis. This study aimed to determine the current practices of pediatric general surgeons in Canada regarding this matter.

METHODS

An online survey was created following the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) guidelines and distributed via email to the Canadian Association of Pediatric Surgeons (CAPS) staff surgeons. The questions assessed clinician characteristics, standard practice, and rationale. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 54/72 (75%) CAPS members practicing in Canada completed the survey. All (100%) agreed they would remove a normal-appearing appendix during laparoscopy for suspected acute appendicitis. The most common reasons were: possibility of microscopic appendicitis (39/54, 72.2%), avoiding future diagnostic confusion (28/54, 51.9%), and patient preference/consent discussion (21/54, 38.9%). Most (53/54, 98.1%) had performed a negative appendectomy and 49/54 (90.7%) agreed there were no sufficient guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of pediatric surgeons agree sufficient guidelines do not exist to support decision making when a normal-appearing appendix is found during laparoscopy for suspected acute appendicitis. This survey shows that removal of the appendix in this case would be supported by the majority of Canadian pediatric surgeons.

TYPE OF STUDY

Survey LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: VII (Expert Opinion).

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.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy in the Setting of Clinical Prediction Rules

PURPOSE

Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most frequent surgical entity in the emergency department, but its correct diagnosis remains challenging. To improve diagnosis, clinical prediction rules (CPRs) have been created to establish objective scores for the probability of suffering AA. In this study, we establish scores indicating whether laparoscopy would be superior to clinical observation or repeat diagnostic test.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was conducted with 433 patients submitted to surgery for suspected AA using a laparoscopic approach. The Alvarado, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis, appendicitis inflammatory response, and adult appendicitis score scales were applied in each case to establish a high, medium, or low probability of suffering AA.

RESULTS

Of the 433 patients analyzed, 381 (88.0%) had AA. Twelve (2.8%) were converted to open surgery, and complications were observed in 54 (12.5%) cases. The CPRs studied showed statistically significant differences between AA and negative appendectomies. However, in patients with intermediate probability scores, the diagnostic accuracy of the CPRs evaluated was not adequate.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery can serve as a diagnostic tool for patients with intermediate AA probability scores because of its low associated morbidity and mortality and because it affords a direct diagnosis of the problem, allowing determination of the appropriate treatment.

Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015

Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis.

WSES Jerusalem guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis

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

How to improve the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis in resource limited settings

This article is a general review of the diagnostic tools that the clinician can use for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis with emphasis on the Alvarado Score, and it is aimed principally to the medical practitioners in different parts of the world where the diagnostic facilities and technological resources are limited.

How good are surgeons at identifying appendicitis? Results from a multi-centre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Convincing arguments for either removing or leaving in-situ a macroscopically normal appendix have been made, but rely on surgeons' accurate intra-operative assessment of the appendix. This study aimed to determine the inter-rater reliability between surgeons and pathologists from a large, multicentre cohort of patients undergoing appendicectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Multicentre Appendicectomy Audit recruited consecutive patients undergoing emergency appendicectomy during April and May 2012 from 95 centres. The primary endpoint was agreement between surgeon and pathologist and secondary endpoints were predictors of this disagreement.

RESULTS

The final study included 3138 patients with a documented pathological specimen. When surgeons assessed an appendix as normal (n = 496), histopathological assessment revealed pathology in a substantial proportion (n = 138, 27.8%). Where surgeons assessed the appendix as being inflamed (n = 2642), subsequent pathological assessment revealed a normal appendix in 254 (9.6%). There was overall disagreement in 392 cases (12.5%), leading to only moderate reliability (Kappa 0.571). The grade of surgeon had no significant impact on disagreement following clinically normal appendicectomy. Females were at the highest risk of false positives and false negatives and pre-operative computed tomography was associated with increased false positives.

CONCLUSIONS

This multi-centre study suggests that surgeons' judgements of the intra-operative macroscopic appearance of the appendix is inaccurate and does not improve with seniority and therefore supports removal at the time of surgery.

Population level analysis of diagnostic laparoscopy versus normal appendicectomy for acute lower abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

There is virtually no evidence to guide surgeons and patients when faced with an absence of pathology for acute lower abdominal pain. This study aimed to compare diagnostic laparoscopy alone to laparoscopic removal of a normal appendix in patients with acute lower abdominal pain but an absence of pathology.

METHOD

Retrospective analysis of routinely collected hospital data from all English acute hospitals performing emergency appendicectomy between 01/04/2002 and 31/03/2012. Patients admitted as emergencies with lower abdominal pain undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy (with no other procedure or associated diagnosis) were compared to those undergoing laparoscopic normal appendicectomy. The primary outcome measure was emergency readmission for abdominal pain during the 12 period after index surgery. Multivariable binary logistic regression was used to produce adjusted odds ratios (OR and bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals).

RESULT

10,072 patients undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy were compared to 9665 undergoing laparoscopic normal appendicectomy. Overall, 32.9% (n = 6499/19,737) were readmitted as an emergency for abdominal pain during the 12 months after index surgery. Following risk-adjustment, laparoscopic normal appendicectomy was associated with 44% reduced odds of readmission (adjusted OR 0.56, 0.50-61). In the diagnostic laparoscopy group, 2.1% of patients (213) required subsequent appendicectomy, which was abnormal in 47.4% (101/213) cases.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that removal of a laparoscopically normal appendix, when no other pelvic pathology is visible, may reduce one-year readmission rates. Although limited through selection bias from routinely collected data, this study provides evidence for practicing surgeons and information for methodologists to power a future trial.

The morbidity of negative appendicectomy

INTRODUCTION

The increased use of diagnostic laparoscopy for management of right iliac fossa pain may have lowered the threshold for removing normal appendices, particularly as there is a perception that this practice carries little additional morbidity. The aim of this retrospective audit was to determine the negative appendicectomy rate after laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) in our busy district hospital, and to compare the relative incidence and severity of complications after removal of an inflamed or non-inflamed appendix.

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent LA in 2011-2012 were identified from theatre registers. Histology results were reviewed to differentiate between inflamed and normal appendices. Postoperative complications and events following discharge were identified via electronic patient records. Complication severity was stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Over 2 years, 467 LAs were performed, of which 143 (30.6%) were for normal appendices. Significantly more negative appendicectomies were performed in women (43%) than in men (17%) (p<0.0001). Complications were seen in 62 patients (13.3%). There was no significant difference between the complication rates for those who had an inflamed (16.6%) or non-inflamed (11.9%) appendix (p=0.141). Similarly, there was no difference in the severity of complications between these groups. Reoperation or invasive intervention was required after four negative appendicectomies (2.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

LA carries a similar morbidity regardless of whether the appendix is inflamed. Negative appendicectomy should not be undertaken routinely during laparoscopy for right iliac fossa pain.

Intraoperative motive for performing a laparoscopic appendectomy on a postoperative histological proven normal appendix

Background:

Diagnostic laparoscopy is the ultimate tool to evaluate the appendix. However, the intraoperative evaluation of the appendix is difficult, as the negative appendectomy rate remains 12%–18%. The aim of this study is to analyze the intraoperative motive for performing a laparoscopic appendectomy of an appendix that was proven to be noninflamed after histological examination.

Methods:

In 2008 and 2009, in five hospitals, operation reports of all negative laparoscopic appendectomies were retrospectively analyzed in order to assess the intraoperative motive for removing the appendix.

Results:

A total of 1,465 appendectomies were analyzed with an overall negative appendectomy rate of 9% (132/1,465). In 57% (841/1,465), a laparoscopic appendectomy was performed, with 9% ( n = 75) negative appendectomies. In 51% of the negative appendectomies, the visual assessment of the appendix was decisive in performing the appendectomy. In 33%, the surgeon was in doubt whether the appendix was inflamed or normal. In 4%, the surgeon was aware he removed a healthy appendix, and in 9%, an appendectomy was performed for different reasons.

Conclusion:

In more than half of the microscopic healthy appendices, the surgeon was convinced of the diagnosis appendicitis during surgery. Intraoperative laparoscopic assessment of the appendix can be difficult.