A lower costly laparoscopic appendectomy: our experience of more than 2000 cases

The presence and the anatomical variations of the accessory appendicular artery: A systematic review of 604 cases

INTRODUCTION

The accessory appendicular artery (AAA) is an accessory source of blood supply to the appendix. Its existence and potential point of origin are seldom addressed in the literature.

METHODS

To fill this knowledge gap, we performed a systematic review of all available studies involving both cadaveric and surgical specimens and documented the presence and the origin of the AAA, following the guidelines outlined in the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement.

RESULTS

Eleven studies, with an overall of 604 specimens were included. Our research revealed that the AAA is notably absent in most cases (83.6%). When present, it most commonly originates from the posterior cecal artery (12.4%), followed by the descending branch of the ileocolic artery (2%), and the ileal branch of the ileocolic artery (0.7%). Instances of origin from the anterior cecal, common cecal, or the ileocolic trunk were even more infrequent. Based on our observations, we introduced a new simplified classification system.

DISCUSSION

The effect of an accessory artery on the process of appendicitis remains to be clarified. We firmly recommend that surgeons should consider the possible presence and various origins of the AAA during appendectomy procedures to avoid serious complications.

Clinical characteristics of appendiceal diverticular disease

BACKGROUND

Appendiceal diverticular disease (ADD) is a rare pathology which is associated with an increased mortality risk due to rapid perforation and high rates of neoplasm. In our study, we aimed to evaluate the clinical and histopathological characteristics of ADD with differences from acute appendicitis (AA) diagnosis and to determine the association with neoformative processes.

METHODS

The 4279 patients who underwent appendectomy were evaluated retrospectively. ADD patients histopathologically classified into four groups. Patients' demographic characteristics, imaging and preoperative laboratory findings, additionally postoperative histopathology results were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The prevalence of ADD was 2.29% (n = 98). In addition, the male/female ratio was 2.37 in ADD patients who were found to be significantly older than those with AA patients. Type III was the most frequently (62.2%) identified sub-group of ADD. The incidence of neoplasms, plastrone, and Littre's hernia was found statistically higher in ADD group than AA group. Mucinous adenomas (10.2%) was the most common neoplasm while the carcinoid tumor (1%) and precancerous serrated adenomas (4.1%) were also reported.

CONCLUSIONS

As a result, high neoplasm in ADD patients can be shown with incidence of perforation and plastron, and in order to avoid possible neoplasm or major complications, it is necessary to carry out new studies for the right diagnosis of ADD whether the diagnosis is done preoperatively or ıntraoperatively. We recommend surgical resection of the ADD, which may even be incidentally detected during any surgical procedure, due to its high risk of neoplasm and rapid perforation.

Appendiceal diverticulosis: a harbinger of underlying primary appendiceal adenocarcinoma?

Diagnosis of primary appendiceal adenocarcinoma (PAA) is hindered by its rarity and largely asymptomatic nature. Appendiceal diverticulosis (AD) is equally rare. We report an unusual case of PAA presenting with perforated appendiceal diverticulitis, and discuss a review of the literature about its association, and its surgical and pathological implications. A middle-aged man was admitted with right iliac fossa (RIF) pain and a corresponding tender abdominal mass for 5 days. Computerised tomography (CT) scan demonstrated a thickened appendix with 3 cm abscess at its base. During laparoscopic appendicectomy, the appendiceal phlegmon was adhered to the surrounding bowel. Histology showed a perforated diverticulum near the appendiceal tip, and a primary appendiceal well-differentiated adenocarcinoma located proximal to it with clear margins. Up to 48% of ADs are associated with appendiceal neoplasms, but its coexistence with PAA is reported in fewer than ten instances worldwide. Obstructing appendiceal tumours, by raising intraluminal pressure, can predispose to AD formation. Intestinal-type PAA is often managed like its colorectal counterpart, although controversies about management of PAA in a perforated AD remain. Recognition of the association of AD and PAA is critical to ensure meticulous oncological resection and histological examination.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis in children

BACKGROUND

Appendectomy is one of the most common emergency operations performed in the pediatric population. The aim of this pooled analysis is to compare the outcome from complicated appendicitis (CA) and uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) following laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) in children.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. Primary outcome measures were incidence of complications, intra-abdominal abscess, and wound infection. Secondary outcomes were length of operation, length of hospital stay, incidence of bowel obstruction, and readmission.

RESULTS

Seventy-three thousand one hundred fifty appendectomies for UA and 34,474 appendectomies for CA were included. For UA, the only significant difference between the groups was a reduced length of hospital stay following LA. LA in CA was associated with reduced complications (pooled odds ratio [POR] = 0.53; P < 0.05), wound infections (POR = 0.42; P < 0.05), length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.67; P < 0.05), and bowel obstruction episodes (POR = 0.8; P < 0.05), but an increased incidence of intra-abdominal abscess and length of operation.

CONCLUSION

Pooled analysis demonstrates that, in children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis, LA is associated with a reduced hospital stay but broad equivalence in postoperative morbidity when compared with the conventional approach. Although overall morbidity is reduced when the laparoscopic approach is utilized, in cases of CA, the risk of intra-abdominal abscess is increased.

A brief review of laparoscopic appendectomy: the issues and the evidence

Laparoscopic appendectomy was first performed more than 25 years ago. We performed a systematic literature search on laparoscopic appendectomy and selected related topics. The technique should be considered the gold standard for surgical removal of the appendix in women of childbearing age (level of evidence Ia). There is minor but consistent evidence that it should also be advocated for men (level of evidence III), obese (level of evidence III), and elderly (level of evidence IIb) patients, while there is some evidence of unfavorable results on pregnant women (level of evidence IIb). Studies reporting higher incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses after laparoscopic appendectomy are difficult to interpret due to a lack of standardization of the operative technique and lack of uniformity related to the different grades of disease (ranging from uninflamed appendix to diffuse peritonitis, gangrene, or perforation of the organ). As far as surgical technique, the three-port procedure is superior to needleoscopy and single port access (level of evidence Ia). Costly high-tech instruments for dissection are mostly unnecessary (level Ib). Mechanical closure of the stump might prove safer (level Ib). The quantity of peritoneal lavage fluid is generally scanty (level III), and abdominal drains are not useful (level Ia). Fast-track protocols should be implemented (level Ic). Training and technical standardization are the key to devising future trials on this topic.