Comparison of Appendectomy for Perforated Appendicitis With and Without Abscess: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Analysis

The contemporary management of perforated appendicitis in adults: To operate or wait?

Objectives

The optimal management of perforated appendicitis remains controversial. Many studies advocate for antibiotics and an interval appendectomy whereas others suggest that performing an appendectomy at the time of presentation decreases post-operative morbidity. Confounding this argument further are the patients who fail non-operative management and end up requiring surgery during their initial hospitalization. This study aims to determine if early operative intervention should be considered for perforated appendicitis.

Methods

This was a retrospective review of all patients who underwent an appendectomy (both laparoscopic or open) for perforated appendicitis between 2015 and 2020 at our institution.

Results

A total of 271 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Of this group, 250 patients underwent an immediate appendectomy whereas the remaining 21 patients underwent a trial of non-operative management and eventually required an appendectomy during their initial admission. When comparing the immediate versus delayed operative groups, there were no differences in demographic data including age and gender, and no differences in various imaging findings including AAST Grade IV or V appendicitis. Operatively, patients in the delayed group had a longer operative time (83.1 ± 32.9 vs. 64.1 ± 26.2, p = 0.01), were more likely to require an open operation (23.8 % vs. 2.8 %, p < 0.0001), and were more likely to have a drain placed intra-operatively (42.9 % vs 14.4 %, p = 0.004). While there were no differences in 30-day readmission rates, patients in the delayed group had a significantly longer hospital length of stay than patients in the immediate group (9.4 ± 7.4 vs. 3.1 ± 3.3, p = 0.008).

Conclusions

Patients undergoing an immediate appendectomy for perforated appendicitis can discharge from the hospital sooner and demonstrate no increase in post-operative morbidity suggesting that surgeons can initially manage this disease process in an operative fashion.

Early surgery for perforated appendicitis: Are we moving the needle on postoperative abscess?

BACKGROUND

Perforated appendicitis is often managed nonoperatively though upfront surgery is becoming more common. We describe postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing surgery at their index hospitalization for perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

We used the 2016-2020 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify patients with appendicitis who underwent appendectomy or partial colectomy. The primary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI).

RESULTS

132,443 patients with appendicitis underwent immediate surgery. Of 14.1% patients with perforated appendicitis, 84.3% underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. Intra-abdominal abscess rates were lowest after laparoscopic appendectomy (9.4%). Open appendectomy (OR 5.14, 95% CI 4.06-6.51) and laparoscopic partial colectomy (OR 4.60, 95% CI 2.38-8.89) were associated with higher likelihoods of SSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Upfront surgical management of perforated appendicitis is now predominantly approached by laparoscopy, often without bowel resection. Postoperative complications occurred less frequently with laparoscopic appendectomy compared to other approaches. Laparoscopic appendectomy during the index hospitalization is an effective approach to perforated appendicitis.

Does the length matter in acute appendicitis for the perforation risk?: A retrospective cohort study

It has been hypothesized that short appendices increase intraluminal pressure more rapidly and perforate more frequently than long appendices. Two hundred seventy-seven adult patients were retrospectively analyzed and underwent an appendectomy between January 2015 and August 2021. Data extracted from patient records included sex, age, time from admission to operation (hospital interval), weekday or weekend operation time, and operative and pathological findings. Operation was performed on 273 patients, of whom 178 (65.2%) were male and 95 (34.8%) female. The mean age of the male patients was 31.7 ± 08 (range 18-67), and that of the female patients was 38.9 ± 1.4 (range 18-78). Perforation was observed in 57 (20.9%) patients. Sex was not a factor in the development of perforation (P = .95). The mean age of the patients with and without perforation was 40.1 ± 2.2 and 32.7 ± 0.7, respectively. The perforation rate increased with age (P = .003). Appendix lengths were similar in both groups, and length was not a factor in the development of perforation (P = .83). This study found that the development of perforated appendicitis is not related to the length of the appendix. The risk of perforation increased with age.

Patient backgrounds and short‐term outcomes of complicated appendicitis differ from those of uncomplicated appendicitis

Background

Appendicitis is classified as either complicated (CA) or uncomplicated (UA). Some authors have shown that the epidemiologic trends of CA and UA may differ. The aim of this study was to clarify differences in backgrounds and surgical outcomes between CA and UA patients.

Methods

This study was a cohort study. We extracted case data from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database from January 2014 to December 2017. Patients were classified into three groups, depending on whether they underwent emergency appendectomy for CA (CA group), emergency appendectomy for UA (UA group), or elective appendectomy (EA group). We evaluated patient characteristics and surgical outcomes for each group.

Results

We included 89,355 adult patients in the study, comprising 29,331 CA, 48,691 UA, and 11,333 EA patients. Old age, larger body mass index, smoking, and medication with antidiabetic drugs, oral corticosteroids, oral antiplatelet drugs, and oral anticoagulant drugs were independent risk factors for CA. The percentage of CA increased with age. In‐hospital mortality (0.15%, 0.02%, and 0.00%) and 30‐d mortality (0.09%, 0.01%, and 0.00%), respectively, of CA patients were significantly higher than those of the UA and EA groups. The duration of postoperative antibiotic administration, duration of fasting, and time before removal of a prophylactic drain were significantly longer in the CA group than in the UA and EA groups.

Conclusion

Backgrounds and treatment outcomes of CA and UA patients after emergency surgery are entirely different. Thus, the treatment strategy of CA and UA patients should differ accordingly.

Risk of emergency surgery for complicated appendicitis: Japanese nationwide study

AIM

Appendicitis is divided into two categories: complicated appendicitis (CA) and uncomplicated appendicitis (UA). In pediatric patients with CA, the use of interval appendectomy (IA), which is non-operative management followed by elective surgery, has decreased the number of postoperative complications. Before discussing the merit of IA for adult patients, we need to clarify whether the frequency and seriousness of the complication rate after emergency surgery is higher for CA than for UA.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included adult patients who underwent appendectomy and who were registered in the National Clinical Database (NCD) from 2014 to 2016. Patients with CA who underwent emergency appendectomy comprised the CA group. Patients with UA comprised the UA group. Patients with chronic or recurrent appendicitis who underwent elective appendectomy comprised the elective appendectomy (EA) group. Primary outcomes were all morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality within 30 days after appendectomy.

RESULTS

We included 109 256 patients in the study: 14 798 CA, 86 876 UA, and 7582 EA patients. Compared with the UA group, the rates of all morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality were significantly higher in the CA group. All morbidity, serious morbidity, and mortality rates were significantly lower in the EA group than in the other two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed that emergency surgery for CA places the patient at relatively higher risk. We also showed that the risk associated with EA is significantly lower than that for the other methods.