Current management of appendicitis at a community center--how can we improve?

Revisiting delayed appendectomy in patients with acute appendicitis

Acute appendicitis (AA) is the most common acute abdomen, and appendectomy is the most common nonelective surgery performed worldwide. Despite the long history of understanding this disease and enhancements to medical care, many challenges remain in the diagnosis and treatment of AA. One of these challenges is the timing of appendectomy. In recent decades, extensive studies focused on this topic have been conducted, but there have been no conclusive answers. From the onset of symptoms to appendectomy, many factors can cause delay in the surgical intervention. Some are inevitable, and some can be modified and improved. The favorable and unfavorable results of these factors vary according to different situations. The purpose of this review is to discuss the causes of appendectomy delay and its risk-related costs. This review also explores strategies to balance the positive and negative effects of delayed appendectomy.

Accuracies of Diagnostic Methods for Acute Appendicitis

The objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasonography, computed tomography, and physical examination for diagnosing acute appendicitis with analyzing their accuracies and negative appendectomy rates in a clinical rather than research setting. A total of 2763 subjects were enrolled. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value and negative appendectomy rate for ultrasonography, computed tomography, and physical examination were calculated. Confirmed positive acute appendicitis was defined based on pathologic findings, and confirmed negative acute appendicitis was defined by pathologic findings as well as on clinical follow-up. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for ultrasonography were 99.1, 91.7, 96.5, and 97.7 per cent, respectively; for computed tomography, 96.4, 95.4, 95.6, and 96.3 per cent, respectively; and for physical examination, 99.0, 76.1, 88.1, and 97.6 per cent, respectively. The negative appendectomy rate was 5.8 per cent (5.2% in the ultrasonography group, 4.3% in the computed tomography group, and 12.2% in the physical examination group). Ultrasonography/computed tomography should be performed routinely for diagnosis of acute appendicitis. However, in view of its advantages, ultrasonography should be performed first. Also, if the result of a physical examination is negative, imaging studies after physical examination can be unnecessary.

The Role of Doctors and Patients in Appendicitis Perforation

In this study, we aimed to determine factors that cause appendix perforations and to identify the role of physicians and patients in contributing to the cause of these perforations. This study was conducted between April 2010 and May 2015 and included 64 patients with perforated appendicitis. Patients’ medical records were examined for factors that might have contributed to perforation, and the roles of patients and physicians in perforation appendicitis were evaluated. The perforation rate of patients with appendicitis was 16.0 per cent. The average duration from symptom onset to hospital admission was 4.4 days (29 patients were admitted to hospital within two days, 35 were admitted later). In total, 38 patients had visited a different hospital before admission. Furthermore, six out of 26 patients who had not visited any other hospital had consumed analgesics. Factors contributing to appendix perforation included misdiagnosis at the patient's initial visit (56.0%), delayed admission to hospital (11.0%), and use of analgesics (9.0%). The cause of perforation was mostly physician-related in children and adults, and patient-related in older adults.

Enteral contrast in the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis: comparative effectiveness in a prospective surgical cohort

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to perform a comparative effectiveness study of intravenous (IV)-only versus IV + enteral contrast in computed tomographic (CT) scans performed for patients undergoing appendectomy across a diverse group of hospitals.

BACKGROUND

Small randomized trials from tertiary centers suggest that enteral contrast does not improve diagnostic performance of CT for suspected appendicitis, but generalizability has not been demonstrated. Eliminating enteral contrast may improve efficiency, patient comfort, and safety.

METHODS

We analyzed data for adult patients who underwent nonelective appendectomy at 56 hospitals over a 2-year period. Data were obtained directly from patient charts by trained abstractors. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to adjust for potential confounding. The main outcome measure was concordance between final radiology interpretation and final pathology report.

RESULTS

A total of 9047 adults underwent appendectomy and 8089 (89.4%) underwent CT, 54.1% of these with IV contrast only and 28.5% with IV + enteral contrast. Pathology findings correlated with radiographic findings in 90.0% of patients who received IV + enteral contrast and 90.4% of patients scanned with IV contrast alone. Hospitals were categorized as rural or urban and by their teaching status. Regardless of hospital type, there was no difference in concordance between IV-only and IV + enteral contrast. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbid conditions, weight, hospital type, and perforation, odds ratio of concordance for IV + enteral contrast versus IV contrast alone was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.72-1.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Enteral contrast does not improve CT evaluation of appendicitis in patients undergoing appendectomy. These broadly generalizable results from a diverse group of hospitals suggest that enteral contrast can be eliminated in CT scans for suspected appendicitis.

Negative Appendectomy: an Audit of Resident-Performed Surgery. How Can Its Incidence Be Minimized?

Negative appendectomy remains a concern in current surgical practice. Data from the developing world is scarce. Data of appendectomies during the last 5 years were analyzed. Interval and incidental appendectomies were excluded. The demographic details, presenting complaints, clinical signs, and investigations performed were recorded in a predesigned proforma. The data were critically analyzed. Six hundred eighty-five appendectomies were performed during the period. One hundred eighty-five patients with a normal appendix were identified on histopathology. Sixty-seven patients with incidental or interval appendectomies were excluded. Thus, 118 patients had appendectomies performed erroneously. All these patients with presumed diagnosis of acute appendicitis were operated on by resident surgeons. Records of 17 patients could not be retrieved. The most common symptom was abdominal pain (100 %), and the commonest sign was right iliac fossa tenderness (93 %). Most of the patients underwent USG to supplement the diagnosis. CT scan and diagnostic laparoscopy were not performed. The negative appendectomy rate was 17.2 % (12.4 % in males; 33.3 % in females). The highest incidence of negative appendectomy was in females aged 11-20 years (66.7 %). The rate of negative appendectomy at our institute is comparable with the world statistics. More diligence is required in making the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis, especially in young females. The use of C-reactive protein and CT scan may decrease the negative appendectomy rate.

Improvement in the diagnosis of appendicitis

Our attempts to systematically improve accuracy in the evaluation of patients with suspected appendicitis are, in some ways, hindered by the fact that the condition is so frequently straightforward to diagnose. Careful history-taking and physical examination are reliable in most patients. However, establishing the diagnosis with these skills alone remains vulnerable to conditions that masquerade as acute appendicitis. A substantial body of clinical research over the last quarter-century has shown that improved accuracy is possible. Strategies for improvement include the use of diagnostic scoring systems, laboratory makers such as CRP, diagnostic laparoscopy, and advanced imaging modalities such as CT, MRI, and US. How clinicians use these strategies depends on many factors related to practice setting, the population served, and clinical goals. In children, for instance, the desire to limit exposure to ionizing radiation competes with the greater anatomic detail that a CT scan can provide; at the same time, many hospitals that treat children do not have the resources to maintain the sort of full-time, highly sophisticated abdominal US programs that achieve the highest rates of diagnostic accuracy in clinical studies. Trade-offs have to be made, but improvement is possible in almost all groups of patients: the clinical community should no longer settle for a 15% NA rate when 5% is clearly possible without adverse consequences. Many clinicians will be faced with the task of evaluating patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. A deliberate, proactive, and, ideally, benchmarked strategy for improving diagnosis should be the standard to which we hold ourselves and the promise we deliver to our patients.

Ideal timing of surgery for acute uncomplicated appendicitis

Background:

Early surgery for appendicitis is thought to avoid complications associated with appendiceal rupture.

Aims:

This study was to evaluate the effect of timing of surgery on complications, length of stay (LOS) and cost in patients undergoing appendectomy.

Materials and Methods:

Retrospective review of 396 patients with appendectomies from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 was performed. Demographic data, time of presentation, physical findings, diagnostic data, operating room times, LOS, cost and complications were collected. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on time from presentation to appendectomy.

Results:

Pathology confirmed appendicitis in 354 (89%) patients. Most patients (90%) had surgery within 18 h of presentation. Timing of surgery did not affect the incidence of purulent peritonitis (P = 0.883), abscess (P = 0.841) or perforation (P = 0.464). LOS was significantly shorter for patients with emergency department registration to operating room times less than 18 h (P < 0.0001). Costs were significantly higher for patients with times to operating room greater than 18 h (P < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Timing of surgery did not affect the incidence of complications or perforated appendicitis. However, delay in surgical consultation and surgery are associated with increased LOS and increased hospital costs. The optimal timing of appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis appears to be within 18 h of emergency department presentation.

Progress in the diagnosis of appendicitis: a report from Washington State's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Studies suggest that computed tomography and ultrasonography can effectively diagnose and rule out appendicitis, safely reducing negative appendectomies (NAs); however, some within the surgical community remain reluctant to add imaging to clinical evaluation of patients with suspected appendicitis. The Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program (SCOAP) is a physician-led quality initiative that monitors performance by benchmarking processes of care and outcomes. Since 2006, accurate diagnosis of appendicitis has been a priority for SCOAP. The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between imaging and NA in the general community.

METHODS

Data were collected prospectively for consecutive appendectomy patients (age > 15 years) at nearly 60 hospitals. SCOAP data are obtained directly from clinical records, including radiological, operative, and pathological reports. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the association between imaging and NA. Tests for trends over time were also conducted.

RESULTS

Among 19,327 patients (47.9% female) who underwent appendectomy, 5.4% had NA. Among patients who were imaged, frequency of NA was 4.5%, whereas among those who were not imaged, it was 15.4% (P < 0.001). This association was consistent for men (3% vs 10%, P < 0.001) and for women of reproductive age (6.9% vs 24.7%, P < 0.001). In a multivariate model adjusted for age, sex, and white blood cell count, odds of NA for patients not imaged were 3.7 times the odds for those who received imaging (95% CI: 3.0-4.4). Among SCOAP hospitals, use of imaging increased and NA decreased significantly over time; frequency of perforation was unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who were not imaged during workup for suspected appendicitis had more than 3 times the odds of NA as those who were imaged. Routine imaging in the evaluation of patients suspected to have appendicitis can safely reduce unnecessary operations. Programs such as SCOAP improve care through peer-led, benchmarked practice change.

The negative appendectomy rate: who benefits from preoperative CT?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to determine the negative appendectomy rates of patients who did and did not undergo preoperative CT and to determine, more specifically, whether men benefit from preoperative CT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 512 patients who had a nonincidental appendectomy between July 1, 2002, and June 30, 2007. Pathology records were compared with a radiology records search to determine which patients underwent preoperative CT. Proportions of patients were compared between groups using the Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

Of 512 patients who had a nonincidental appendectomy, 465 (91%) underwent preoperative CT, and 47 (9%) underwent appendectomy only on the basis of clinical findings. Overall, 22 of 465 patients (4.7%) who underwent preoperative CT had a negative appendectomy compared with six of 47 patients who did not undergo preoperative imaging (negative appendectomy rate, 12.7%; p = 0.03). Among men, six of 237 (2.5%) with preoperative CT had a negative appendectomy, versus five of 42 without imaging (negative appendectomy rate, 11.9%; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The negative appendectomy rate was decreased for adult patients who underwent preoperative CT compared with patients who did not undergo preoperative imaging. Although most prior studies have suggested that CT is efficacious only in decreasing the negative appendectomy rate among women, we found that men benefit from CT as well.

Negative appendectomy: a 10-year review of a nationally representative sample

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy remains one of the most common emergency surgical procedures encountered throughout the United States. With improvements in diagnostic techniques, the efficiency of diagnosis has increased over the years. However, the entity of negative appendectomies still poses a dilemma because these are associated with unnecessary risks and costs to both patients and institutions. This study was conducted to show current statistics and trends in negative appendectomy rates in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from the National Inpatient Sample from 1998 to 2007. Adult patients (>18 y) having undergone appendectomies were identified by the appropriate International Classification of Diseases 9th revision codes. Patients with incidental appendectomy and those with appendiceal pathologies, also identified by relevant International Classification of Diseases 9th revision codes, were excluded. The remaining patients represent those who underwent an appendectomy without appendiceal disease. The patients then were stratified according to sex, women were classified further into younger (18-45 y) and older (>45 y) based on child-bearing age. The primary diagnoses subsequently were categorized by sex to identify the most common conditions mistaken for appendiceal disease in the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Between 1998 and 2007, there were 475,651 cases of appendectomy that were isolated. Of these, 56,252 were negative appendectomies (11.83%). There was a consistent decrease in the negative appendectomy rates from 14.7% in 1998 to 8.47% in 2007. Women accounted for 71.6% of cases of negative appendectomy, and men accounted for 28.4%. The mortality rate was 1.07%, men were associated with a higher rate of mortality (1.93% vs .74%; P < .001). Ovarian cyst was the most common diagnosis mistaken for appendicitis in younger women, whereas malignant disease of the ovary was the most common condition mistaken for appendiceal disease in women ages 45 and older. The most common misdiagnosis in men was diverticulitis of the colon.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a consistent decline in the rates of negative appendectomy. This trend may be attributed to better diagnostics. Gynecologic conditions involving the ovary are the most common to be misdiagnosed as appendiceal disease in women.

[Impact of imaging tests on the negative appendectomy rate]

INTRODUCTION

Negative appendectomies and perforated appendectomies have traditionally been quality indicators in surgery. The aim of this study is to analyze the emergency appendectomies in our hospital regarding the use of imaging tests and a review of the literature to analyze the quality of diagnosis in acute appendicitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study including all patients operated on for suspected acute appendicitis at a single institution for one year (2007). Data gathered from histology and imaging tests reports. Analysis of the histology results, imaging test used and its diagnostic accuracy. Comparison with quality levels published in the international literature.

RESULTS

A total of 394 patients were included in the study, the overall rate of negative appendectomy was 9.6%. Abdominal ultrasound (AU) was performed on 54.6% of patients and abdominal CT-scan on 10.2% of them, and 4.2% of the patients had both tests. AU positive predictive value was 82%. CT-scan positive predictive value was 97%.

CONCLUSION

The negative appendectomy rate (9.6%) in our centre shows values lower than the published ones in historical series but superior to the one published recently in the USA. The use of imaging tests in our hospital is lower than the one published in the USA, although similar to data reported in other European countries.

The value of preoperative diagnostic tests in acute appendicitis, retrospective analysis of 196 patients

BACKGROUND

In this study our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic value of preoperative laboratory and radiological studies for appendicitis.

METHODS

The clinical data of 196 patients who have undergone conventional appendectomy between March 2007 and April 2008 were collected retrospectively. Patients were examined for age, sex, white blood cell count, ultrasonography results, histopathological diagnosis and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Negative appendectomy rate was 17.3% (27% for female, 11.5% for male). White blood cell counts were found to be high in 83% for acute appendicitis group and %61 for negative appendectomy group. There were 66 (34%) patients who had negative USG findings for acute appendicitis. Of these patients, histopathological examination revealed acute appendicitis in 46 patients whereas 20 patients had normal appendix. Hospital stays were 2.79 +/- 1.9 and 2.66 +/- 1.7 days for negative and positive appendicectomies respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Besides the improvement of diagnostic tests for acute appendicitis, we could not sufficiently reduce the negative appendectomy rate.

The management of right iliac fossa pain - is timing everything?

BACKGROUND

Right iliac fossa (RIF) pain remains the commonest clinical dilemma encountered by general surgeons. We prospectively audited the management of acute RIF pain, examining the relationship between symptom duration, use of pre-operative radiological imaging and patient outcome.

METHODS

Over a six-month period, 302 patients, median age 18 years, 59% female, were admitted with RIF pain. Symptoms, clinical findings and laboratory results were documented. Patient management, timing of radiological investigations and operations, and outcome were recorded prospectively.

RESULTS

Non-specific abdominal pain (26%), gynaecological (22%) and miscellaneous causes (14%) accounted for most admissions. Ultimately, 119 patients (39%) had appendicitis. Anorexia, tachycardia or rebound tenderness in the RIF significantly predicted a final diagnosis of appendicitis. Patients with perforated appendicitis (n = 29) had a longer duration of pre-hospital symptoms (median 50h) compared to those with simple appendicitis (median 17 h) (p<0.001). The use of pre-operative imaging resulted in an increased time to surgery but was not associated with increased post-operative morbidity or perforated appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients presenting to hospital with RIF pain did not have appendicitis. Increased duration of pre-hospital symptoms was the main factor associated with perforated appendicitis. However, increased in-hospital time to theatre was not associated with perforated appendicitis or post-operative morbidity.