Laparoscopic interval appendectomy for periappendicular abscess

Preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio may contribute to the prediction of postoperative infectious complications in patients with acute appendicitis: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have assessed various clinical variables to identify risk factors for postoperative complications in patients with acute appendicitis. However, few studies have focused on the relationships between systemic inflammatory variables and postoperative complications in patients with acute appendicitis. We investigated the relationships between postoperative complications and systemic inflammatory variables, and assessed the clinical utility of these variables as predictors of postoperative complications in patients with acute appendicitis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 181 patients who underwent immediate appendectomy for acute appendicitis. All postoperative complications were classified as infectious or noninfectious, and we evaluated the relationships between postoperative complications and clinical factors including the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio.

RESULTS

In total, 28 patients (15.5%) had postoperative Clavien-Dindo grade II-IV complications; 17 patients (9.4%) and 11 patients (6.1%) were categorized as the infectious and noninfectious complication groups, respectively. The cutoff value of the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for all complications was 11.3, and multivariate analysis revealed that the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was an independent predictor of any postoperative complication (odds ratio: 4.223, 95% confidence interval: 1.335-13.352; P = 0.014). The cutoff value of the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio for infectious complications was 11.4, and multivariate analysis revealed that the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was an independent predictor of infectious complications (odds ratio: 4.235, 95% confidence interval: 1.137-15.776; P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute appendicitis, the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio may be a useful predictor of all postoperative complications, especially infectious complications.

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.

Laparoscopic interval appendectomy versus open interval appendectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

This was a prospective randomized controlled study designed to compare laparoscopic and open interval appendectomy and involved 100 patients of appendicular phlegmon. After initial conservative management, patients were divided into 2 groups of 50 each and interval appendectomy was performed by laparoscopy in one of the groups and by open method in the other. Mean operative time in open surgery was 33.9 minutes and that in laparoscopic surgery was 57.64 minutes (P < 0.05). Concomitant pathology was observed in 16% and 2% of patients in the laparoscopic and open groups, respectively. Mean pain scores on the first postoperative day were 5.14 in the laparoscopic group and 6.01 in the open group (P < 0.05). Patients in the laparoscopic group had a shorter duration of ileus, postoperative stay, and returned to work earlier (P < 0.05). We conclude that laparoscopy offers a number of advantages over open interval appendectomy.

Treatment options of inflammatory appendiceal masses in adults

At present, the treatment of choice for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults continues to be surgical. The inflammation in acute appendicitis may sometimes be enclosed by the patient’s own defense mechanisms, by the formation of an inflammatory phlegmon or a circumscribed abscess. The management of these patients is controversial. Immediate appendectomy may be technically demanding. The exploration often ends up in an ileocecal resection or a right-sided hemicolectomy. Recently, the conditions for conservative management of these patients have changed due to the development of computed tomography and ultrasound, which has improved the diagnosis of enclosed inflammation and made drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses easier. New efficient antibiotics have also given new opportunities for nonsurgical treatment of complicated appendicitis. The traditional management of these patients is nonsurgical treatment followed by interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence. The need for interval appendectomy after successful nonsurgical treatment has recently been questioned because the risk of recurrence is relatively small. After successful nonsurgical treatment of an appendiceal mass, the true diagnosis is uncertain in some cases and an underlying diagnosis of cancer or Crohn’s disease may be delayed. This report aims at reviewing the treatment options of patients with enclosed appendiceal inflammation, with emphasis on the success rate of nonsurgical treatment, the need for drainage of abscesses, the risk of undetected serious disease, and the need for interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence.

Can Acute Appendicitis be Treated by Antibiotics Alone?

Emergency appendectomy at presentation has been the standard of care for acute appendicitis. We examined the use of antibiotics as an alternative treatment. From September 2002 to August 2003, 170 consecutive patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis without abscess were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I (n = 151) underwent emergency appendectomy and Group II (n = 19) received antibiotics alone. The mode of treatment was at the attending surgeon's discretion. The overall complication rate was eight per cent for Group I and 10 per cent for Group II patients ( P = 0.22). Group II patients suffered no complications during antibiotic treatment, and any complications that did occur developed after subsequent appendectomy. One Group II patient had recurrent appendicitis (5%). The length of stay was 2.61 ± 0.21 days for Group I and 2.95 ± 0.38 days for Group II patients ( P = 0.57). Patients with acute appendicitis may be treated safely with antibiotics alone without emergency appendectomy.

Interval appendicectomy after appendiceal mass or abscess in adults: what is "best practice"?

There is still much controversy surrounding whether interval appendicectomy is appropriate for adults with an appendiceal mass or abscess. The main debate centres on the recurrence rate, the complication rate of interval appendicectomy, and the potential for underlying malignancy. This review aims to assess current practice and to determine whether it is possible to define "best practice" for the asymptomatic patient who has had an appendiceal mass or abscess treated conservatively. I sent a postal questionnaire to 90 consultant general surgeons requesting information about their practice of interval appendicectomy. I also conducted a literature search confined to studies involving only adult patients. The 77.8% of questionnaires returned revealed that 53% of the surgeons perform routine interval appendicectomy, mainly because of concerns about recurrence. The preference was for open appendicectomy at 6 weeks to 3 months. The literature search revealed a recurrence rate of 10%-25%, with a complication rate of 23%. It was evident that the chances of missing malignancy are low and thorough investigation is better than interval appendicectomy in detecting colonic cancer. The practice of performing interval appendicectomy varies, with just over half of the surgeons surveyed performing this procedure routinely. The literature provides little evidence that interval appendicectomy is routinely indicated and would support the view that it is unnecessary in 75%-90% of cases. However, there is scope for further consideration of the use of laparoscopic interval appendicectomy and a randomised trial is needed to fully evaluate this issue.

Comparison of therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage with antibiotics versus antibiotics alone in the treatment of periappendiceal abscess: is appendectomy always necessary after perforation of appendix?

BACKGROUND

The present study was designed to compare the therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage with antibiotics versus antibiotics alone in the treatment of appendicitis complicated by periappendiceal abscess.

METHODS

In a prospective study, 50 patients with acute appendicitis complicated by periappendiceal abscess > or = 3 cm in size were randomly assigned to two groups. The first group received treatment with ultrasound guided-percutaneous drainage and i.v. antibiotics (ampicillin, cefuroxime, and metronidazole), and the other group received antibiotics only. Patient's baseline characteristics, duration of hospital stay, and treatment outcome and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Appendectomy was avoided in 16/25 patients in the drainage group and 2/25 patients in the non-drainage group during follow-up with RR of 0.39 (95% CI = 0.22-0.62; p < 0.05). One patient in the drainage group and 8 patients in the non-drainage group underwent surgery in the first month after the beginning of treatment. Eight patients in the drainage group and 15 in the non-drainage group underwent interval appendectomy. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding patient demographics, abscess size, and pretreatment clinical symptoms. Hospital stay up to the subsidence of clinical and sonographic signs was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in the drainage group, with a mean difference of 6.4 days (95% CI = 5.0-7.9; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous drainage with antibiotics is a safe and effective way of treating acute perforated appendicitis. The recurrence rate for these patients is relatively low, and very often interval appendectomy is not required. For patients with periappendiceal abscess > or = 3 cm in diameter, antibiotic therapy alone is insufficient and the recurrence rate is high.

Comparison of therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage with antibiotics versus antibiotics alone in the treatment of periappendiceal abscess: is appendectomy always necessary after perforation of appendix?

BACKGROUND

The present study was designed to compare the therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage with antibiotics versus antibiotics alone in the treatment of appendicitis complicated by periappendiceal abscess.

METHODS

In a prospective study, 50 patients with acute appendicitis complicated by periappendiceal abscess > or = 3 cm in size were randomly assigned to two groups. The first group received treatment with ultrasound guided-percutaneous drainage and i.v. antibiotics (ampicillin, cefuroxime, and metronidazole), and the other group received antibiotics only. Patient's baseline characteristics, duration of hospital stay, and treatment outcome and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

Appendectomy was avoided in 16/25 patients in the drainage group and 2/25 patients in the non-drainage group during follow-up with RR of 0.39 (95% CI = 0.22-0.62; p < 0.05). One patient in the drainage group and 8 patients in the non-drainage group underwent surgery in the first month after the beginning of treatment. Eight patients in the drainage group and 15 in the non-drainage group underwent interval appendectomy. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding patient demographics, abscess size, and pretreatment clinical symptoms. Hospital stay up to the subsidence of clinical and sonographic signs was significantly shorter (p < 0.001) in the drainage group, with a mean difference of 6.4 days (95% CI = 5.0-7.9; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous drainage with antibiotics is a safe and effective way of treating acute perforated appendicitis. The recurrence rate for these patients is relatively low, and very often interval appendectomy is not required. For patients with periappendiceal abscess > or = 3 cm in diameter, antibiotic therapy alone is insufficient and the recurrence rate is high.

Interval Appendectomy: An Old New Operation

A retrospective chart review of 32 patients who underwent laparoscopic interval appendectomy at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario between May 1999 and December 2003 was performed. The age range was 0.5 to 18 years (mean, 11.8 years; median, 11.5 years). The interval time from the acute episode to the laparoscopic interval appendectomy ranged from 1 to 16 weeks (median, 6 weeks). The initial presentations were 11 patients with appendiceal abscess, 9 with appendiceal masses/phlegmons, and 12 patients with an acute but resolving clinical picture with ultrasonographic evidence of appendicitis. There were no wound infections or recurrent intra-abdominal abscesses. The average length of stay was 1.38 days, ranging from same-day discharge (1 patient) to a three-night stay (2 patients). There were no complications related to the laparoscopic technique, confirming reports that laparoscopic interval appendectomy is a technically safe procedure. Pathologic analysis of the appendices demonstrated acute or subacute changes in 14 patients (interval time = 7.9 weeks), chronic changes in 8 (interval time = 8.1 weeks), both acute and chronic changes in 5 (interval time = 8.2 weeks), and no pathologic diagnosis in 6 (interval time = 4.28 weeks). These findings support the need for interval appendectomy, and suggest that laparoscopy is a safe alternative to open appendectomy.

Neonatal periappendicular abscess--updated treatment

The authors present a case of periappendicular abscess in a 5-day-old full-term neonate. Prompt diagnosis enabled us to deliver conservative treatment followed by interval laparoscopic appendectomy, instead of a risky urgent laparotomy. This is the first description of an advanced imaging-guided drainage procedure, followed by minimal invasive surgery, for the treatment of periappendicular abscess at such a young age.

Laparoscopic appendectomy in modern gynecology

Gynecologists frequently manage women with acute or chronic pain in the right iliac fossa. Appendicitis is one of the common conditions encountered in this setting. From the gynecologic perspective, issues regarding the role of laparoscopic appendectomy include radioimaging and laparoscopic diagnosis, operative technique, advantages and disadvantages, and laparoscopic appendectomy in pregnancy and in complicated appendicitis. Most studies are in favor of the procedure, and it seems reasonable to include it in training programs in gynecology.

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute and recurrent appendicitis: retrospective analysis of a single-group 5-year experience

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Twenty years after the first report of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA), its role in the treatment of appendicitis is still under debate. We report herein a retrospective analysis of our cases of LA in the last 5 years, during which we adopted a policy of an almost uniform laparoscopic approach on a rather selected population composed mainly of women with acute or recurrent lower quadrant abdominal pain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed on 33 male and 98 female patients. The mean age at operation was 25.7+/-11.4 years (range 11-59 years). Acute appendicitis with localized or diffuse peritonitis was present in 34 cases. In the remaining 97 patients, the operation was performed for acute or recurring symptoms of lower quadrant abdominal pain.

RESULTS

There were no conversions to open surgery. The operating time was 45+/-17 minutes (range 30-110 minutes). The pathology examination of the removed appendices showed acute appendicitis in 34 cases and chronic inflammation in the remaining 97 patients. In one case, histology revealed a coexisting mucinous carcinoid that extended to the perivisceral fat, and a completion right hemicolectomy was performed. Complications were minor in most cases. Reoperation for deep abdominal abscess or hematoma was required in three cases. The mean hospital stay was 2.59+/-1.58 days (range 24 hours-11 days).

CONCLUSION

In our hands, LA has proven to be safe and effective. The laparoscopic operation has significant advantages in terms of lower invasiveness and better diagnostic capability. It is especially useful in women of child-bearing age, in whom it may be considered the procedure of choice.