Conservative management of appendix mass in children

The benefits of interval appendectomy and risk factors for nonoperative management failure in the therapeutic strategy for complicated appendicitis

PURPOSE

Emergency surgery (ES) for complicated appendicitis (CA) is associated with high morbidity. Interval appendectomy (IA) decreases this rate; however, nonoperative management (NOM) is not always successful. Some patients require unplanned ES due to NOM failure (IA failure: IA-F). This study aimed to verify the benefits of IA and to evaluate the risk factors for NOM failure.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with CA who underwent surgery between January 2012 and December 2021 were included in this study. We compared the surgical outcomes of the ES group with those of the IA success (IA-S) and IA-F groups. We also analyzed 14 factors that predicted NOM failure.

RESULTS

Among 302 patients, the rate of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III) was significantly higher in the ES group (N = 165) than in the IA-S group (N = 102). The rates were equal between the ES (N = 165) and IA-F (N = 35) groups. NOM was successful in 110 patients and failed in 27. Lack of abscesses, comorbidities, high WBC count, and free air were independent risk factors for NOM failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the benefits of IA and the non-inferior surgical outcomes of IA-F compared to ES, IA is a good therapeutic strategy for CA. However, in patients exhibiting four independent risk factors for NOM failure, careful monitoring of unplanned ES is necessary.

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.

Management of appendiceal mass and abscess in children; early appendectomy or initial non-operative treatment? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Appendiceal mass and abscess and its treatment are associated with significant morbidity and high costs. Still, the optimal treatment strategy is the point of debate. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare overall complications between initial non-operative treatment (NOT) and early appendectomy (EA) in children with appendiceal mass and/or abscess.

METHODS

Pubmed and Embase were searched. Only randomized controlled trials and prospective or historical cohort studies that compared NOT with EA in children with appendiceal mass or abscess in terms of complications were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed. Primary outcome was the overall complication rate. Secondary, length of stay and readmission rate were investigated. A meta-analysis of overall complications associated with both treatment strategies was performed.

RESULTS

14 of 7083 screened studies were selected, including 1022 children in the NOT group and 333 in the EA group. Duration of follow-up ranged between four weeks and 12 years. Risk of bias was moderate in four and serious in 10 studies. NOT was associated with a lower overall complication rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.37 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.65]). However, NOT led to increased length of stay (mean difference varied between 0.2 and 8.4 days) and higher readmission rate (RR 1.75 [95%CI 0.79-3.89]), although not significantly. Interval appendectomy after NOT was performed as a routine procedure in all but one study. This study found a recurrence rate of 34% in a group of 38 patients during a follow-up period of 3.4 ± 1.7 years.

CONCLUSION

NOT may reduce the overall complication rate compared to EA, but the evidence is very uncertain. As evidence is scarce, and of low level, and heterogeneity between studies is substantial, the results should be interpreted with caution. Large prospective studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment strategy for children with appendiceal mass and/or abscess.

Management of complicated acute appendicitis in children: Still an existing controversy

Complicated acute appendicitis (CAA) is a serious condition and carries significant morbidity in children. A strict diagnosis is challenging, as there are many lesions that mimic CAA. The management of CAA is still controversial. There are two options for treatment: Immediate operative management and non-operative management with antibiotics and/or drainage of any abscess or phlegmon. Each method of treatment has advantages and disadvantages. Operative management may be difficult due to the presence of inflamed tissues and may lead to detrimental events. In many cases, non-operative management with or without drainage and interval appendectomy is advised. The reasons for this approach include new medications and policies for the use of antibiotic therapy. Furthermore, advances in radiological interventions may overcome difficulties such as diagnosing and managing the complications of CAA without any surgeries. However, questions have been raised about the risk of recurrence, prolonged use of antibiotics, lengthened hospital stay and delay in returning to daily activities. Moreover, the need for interval appendectomy is currently under debate because of the low risk of recurrence. Due to the paucity of high-quality studies, more randomized controlled trials to determine the precise management strategy are needed. This review aims to study the current data on operative vs non-operative management for CAA in children and to extract any useful information from the literature.

Superior outcomes (but at higher costs) of non-operative management with interval appendectomy over immediate surgery in appendicitis with abscess: Results from a large adult population cohort

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare surgical outcomes and hospitalization costs between immediate surgery and non-operative management followed by interval appendectomy in adults presenting with appendicitis with abscess.

METHODS

From 2003 to 2015, 3316 patients presented with appendicitis, including 101 who presented with appendicular abscess. Between 2003 and 2006, 33 patients with appendicular abscess were managed with emergency operations (emergency group). Non-operative management followed by interval appendectomy was implemented in 2007 and offered to 68 patients during the study period. Of these patients, 64 patients underwent the procedure (interval group), and 4 patients refused.

RESULTS

Non-operative management was successful in 76.6% of cases (49/64 patients) in the interval group. Operative time and length of hospital stay were similar between the emergency and interval groups. In the interval group, blood loss, the need for extended resection, and overall postoperative morbidity were significantly lower than in the emergency group (P < 0.01, respectively). Medical costs for surgery in the interval group were lower than in the emergency group ($4512 vs $6888, P = 0.002), but this group's total medical costs were higher ($9591 vs $6888, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The interval strategy is associated with a reduced need for extended resection, lower postoperative morbidity, and a shorter length of hospital stay. However, total medical costs for the interval strategy are higher than those for emergency operations in cases of appendicular abscess in adults.

Medical Treatment: An Emerging Standard in Acute Appendicitis?

Appendicectomy has been accepted as the gold standard for the management of appendicitis over the years, but there has been an increasing evidence and trend toward the conservative approach to the management of appendicitis. The aim of this review is to search existing literature and to evaluate and compare the conservative and operative approaches to the management of appendicitis. An electronic search of published literature was conducted through Pubmed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Medline using a variety of search items to find relevant observational studies, randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Bibliographies of selected articles were also analyzed for publications of interest relevant to the scope of the topic. The articles that reported primary outcomes after the management of appendicitis, complications, economic implications, and duration of follow-up were reviewed in detail. The major primary outcomes show a high recurrence rate and failed treatment associated with the conservative management of appendicitis. The other outcomes obtained show that there is an increased incidence of complications associated with operative management. Economic implications and cost-effectiveness analysis show that conservative treatment may be preferred. The length of hospital stay was significantly higher in conservative approach to management; however, shorter time off activities was observed. In general, the conservative management of appendicitis is still regarded as safe, effective, and efficacious, and further research with well-constructed study design, and larger sample size is required.

Conservative treatment of acute appendicitis

Acute appendicitis has been considered by surgeons a progressive disease leading to perforation for more than 100 years. In the last decades the theories about this concept gained attention, especially in adults. However, appendectomy for acute appendicitis remains the most common urgent/emergent surgical procedure. At present, accumulating evidences are showing the changing in clinical practice towards the non-operative management of several cases of acute appendicitis either non-complicated or complicated. The present review aims to show the literature results regarding the non-operative management of acute appendicitis in non-complicated and in complicated cases.

Perforation risk in pediatric appendicitis: assessment and management

Perforated appendicitis, as defined by a visible hole in the appendix or an appendicolith free within the abdomen, carries significant morbidity in the pediatric population. Accurate diagnosis is challenging as there is no single symptom or sign that accurately predicts perforated appendicitis. Younger patients and those with increased duration of symptoms are at higher risk of perforated appendicitis. Elevated leukocytosis, bandemia, high C-reactive protein, hyponatremia, ultrasound, and CT are all useful tools in diagnosis. Distinguishing patients with perforation from those without is important given the influence of a perforation diagnosis on the management of the patient. Treatment for perforated appendicitis remains controversial as several options exist, each with its indications and merits, illustrating the complexity of this disease process. Patients may be managed non-operatively with antibiotics, with or without interval appendectomy. Patients may also undergo appendectomy early in the course of their index hospitalization. Factors known to predict failure of non-operative management include appendicolith, leukocytosis greater than 15,000 white blood cells per microliter, increased bands, and CT evidence of disease beyond the right lower quadrant. In this review, the indications and benefits of each treatment strategy will be discussed and an algorithm to guide treatment decisions will be proposed.

[Appendicular plastron: emergency or deferred surgery: a series of 27 cases collected in the surgical clinic of the Aristide Le Dantec Hospital]

Le but de notre étude était d’évaluer les résultats du traitement chirurgicale du plastron appendiculaire après appendicectomie différée ou immédiate. Il s’agit d’une étude rétrospective de type descriptif allant de Janvier 2000 au 31 Décembre 2007 portant sur 27 patients reçus et traités pour plastron appendiculaire. Le diagnostic était clinique par la présence d’une masse à la fosse iliaque droite, échographique, ou per opératoire. Tous les patients opérés en urgence ont été classés dans le groupe I et ceux opérés à froid, groupe II. Nous avons noté 18 hommes et 9 femmes avec un sex-ratio homme /femme = 3. L’âge moyen de nos patients était de 33 ans avec des extrêmes de 19 et 57 ans. Les signes cliniques étaient dominés par la douleur à la fosse iliaque droite et la fièvre respectivement 25 (92,6%) et 15 (55,6%) des cas. Dans le groupe I, l’appendicectomie n’a pu être réalisée pour 7 patients (n = 15) dû aux difficultés opératoires. Dans les autres cas, l’appendicectomie était possible au prix de l’élargissement de l’incision de Mac Burney et une durée de séjour plus longue. Le groupe II a concerné 12 patients (n = 12) avec 9 abords laparoscopiques et dans 3 cas, la voie de Mac Burney a été empruntée. Trois cas d’adhérences péritonéales ont été notés lors de la coelioscopie. L’appendicectomie à froid du plastron appendiculaire est un procédé sûr et efficace. Elle permet d’éviter les cicatrices inesthétiques et les fistules digestives iatrogènes. L’appendicectomie immédiate doit être abandonnée chez les patients porteurs de plastron appendiculaire car elle engendre beaucoup de morbidité.

Minimally Invasive Treatment for Appendiceal Mass Formed After Acute Perforated Appendicitis

The optimal treatment for appendiceal mass formed after appendiceal rupture due to acute appendicitis is surrounded with controversy. The treatment strategy ranges from open surgery (emergency or interval appendectomy), laparoscopic appendectomy, and image-guided drainage, to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics. Nonsurgical treatment (including conservative and drainage treatment), followed by interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence, is the traditional management of these patients. The need for interval appendectomy after a successful conservative or/and image-guided drainage treatment, has recently been questioned as the risk of recurrence is relatively small. Several authors consider that even in cases involving only ambulatory follow-up observation, without interval surgery after conservative management, the recurrence rate and risks of missing underlying pathologies were not high. This article evaluates the minimally invasive treatment modalities in the management of appendiceal mass, risk of undetected serious disease, and the need for interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence.

Nonoperative management of appendiceal phlegmon or abscess in children less than 3 years of age

Background

In children less than 3 years of age, there is little experience in the nonoperative management of appendiceal phlegmon or abscess (APA), especially in APA with an appendicolith. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effects of an appendicolith and the success rate of nonoperative management for APA in these young children.

Methods

Children younger than 3 years of age with APA who underwent attempted initial nonoperative treatment between January 2008 and December 2016 were reviewed. Based on the presence or absence of an appendicolith on admission ultrasonography examination or computed tomography scan, children were divided into two groups: appendicolith group and no appendicolith group.

Results

There were 50 children who met the study criteria. Among 50 children, three children failed to respond to nonoperative treatment because of aggravated intestinal obstruction or recurrent appendicitis within 30 days of admission. The overall success rate for nonoperative management of APA was 94% (47/50) in children younger than 3 years old. The rate of diarrhea and CRP levels were higher in the appendicolith group than that of the no appendicolith group (P < 0.05). However, the success rate and the hospital length of stay for nonoperative treatment in the appendicolith group and the no appendicolith group were similar without statistical significance.

Conclusion

APA with or without an appendicolith can have nonoperative management without immediate appendectomy in children less than 3 years old.

Early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess

BACKGROUND

Appendiceal phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms and avoid complications. The timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess, in terms of overall morbidity and mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to 23 August 2016), Embase Ovid (1974 to 23 August 2016), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 23 August 2016), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 23 August 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (23 August 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (23 August 2016) for ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials, irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 80 participants in this review. 1. Early versus delayed open appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmonForty participants (paediatric and adults) with appendiceal phlegmon were randomised either to early appendicectomy (appendicectomy as soon as appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission) (n = 20), or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy six weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no mortality in either group. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of using either early or delayed open appendicectomy onoverall morbidity (RR 13.00; 95% CI 0.78 to 216.39; very low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infection (RR 9.00; 95% CI 0.52 to 156.91; very low quality evidence) or faecal fistula (RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; very low quality evidence). The quality of evidence for increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in the early appendicectomy group (MD 6.70 days; 95% CI 2.76 to 10.64, and MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48, respectively) is very low quality evidence. The trial reported neither quality of life nor pain outcomes. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscessForty paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess were randomised either to early appendicectomy (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy) (n = 20) or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial did not report on overall morbidity or complications. There was no mortality in either group. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of using either early or delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for outcomes relating to hospital stay between the groups (MD -0.20 days; 95% CI -3.54 to 3.14; very low quality of evidence). Health-related quality of life was measured with the Pediatric Quality of Life Scale-Version 4.0 questionnaire (a scale of 0 to 100 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Health-related quality of life score measured at 12 weeks after appendicectomy was higher in the early appendicectomy group than in the delayed appendicectomy group (MD 12.40 points; 95% CI 9.78 to 15.02) but the quality of evidence was very low. This trial reported neither the pain nor the time away from normal activities.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether early appendicectomy prevents complications compared to delayed appendicectomy for people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess. The evidence indicating increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in people with early open appendicectomy is of very low quality. The evidence for better health-related quality of life following early laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with delayed appendicectomy is based on very low quality evidence. For both comparisons addressed in this review, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy.Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery and resolution of the appendiceal phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities, quality of life and the length of hospital stay.

Risk Factors for Prolonged Hospitalization in Pediatric Appendicitis Patients with Medical Treatment

BACKGROUND

With effective antibiotics against enteric flora and computed tomography-guided drainage for abscesses, the initial use of nonoperative therapy for children with appendicitis has increased both in recent reports and at our hospital. However, it has been reported that these patients have a relatively longer hospital stay and that their treatment is more expensive than those who undergo aggressive surgical intervention.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study based in a single medical center. A systemic chart review was conducted to identify risk factors for prolonged hospitalization in pediatric appendicitis patients not initially undergoing surgical treatment. Patient demographics, clinical symptoms, duration of symptoms, laboratory findings, imaging findings, complications, and length of hospital stay were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify significant predictors of prolonged hospitalization (≥15 days) and readmission.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-five patients were recruited in this study, of whom 53 (42.4%) had prolonged hospitalization. The values of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) were significantly higher in patients with prolonged hospitalization compared with those without prolonged hospitalization (203 ± 108.6 mg/L vs. 140 ± 93.0 mg/L, p = 0.001). Risk factors of prolonged hospitalization were serum CRP >150 mg/L (35/53 vs. 28/72, p = 0.001), abscess formation (38/53 vs. 35/72, p = 0.008), and multiple abscesses (10/53 vs. 1/72, p = 0.001). Under multivariate analysis, CRP >150 mg/L (odds ratio=1.004, p = 0.0334) and multiple abscesses (odds ratio = 8.788, p = 0.044) were two independent predictors for prolonged hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Marked elevation of serum CRP (>150 mg/L) and multiple abscesses are two independent risk factors for prolonged hospitalization in children with appendicitis who are initially treated nonoperatively.

The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective: 2017 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in the emergency departments worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs are early recognition, adequate source control, and appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Prompt resuscitation of patients with ongoing sepsis is of utmost important. In hospitals worldwide, non-acceptance of, or lack of access to, accessible evidence-based practices and guidelines result in overall poorer outcome of patients suffering IAIs. The aim of this paper is to promote global standards of care in IAIs and update the 2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections.

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.

A Systematic Review of Perforated Appendicitis and Phlegmon: Interval Appendectomy or Wait-and-See?

Patients with appendiceal abscess or phlegmon have been traditionally managed with antibiotics and radiologically guided drainage of the abscess. Many studies have questioned the need for interval appendectomy. A systematic review of the nonsurgical treatment of patients with an appendiceal abscess or phlegmon was undertaken. The rate of recurrence after nonsurgical management, morbidity and length of hospital stay was measured. PubMed and Cochrane databases were queried to identify 21 studies reporting the morbidity of nonsurgical treatment of appendiceal phlegmon or abscess, and five studies reporting the morbidity of performing interval appendectomy. Repeat nonsurgical management was compared with that of performing interval appendectomy. The studies included a total of 1943 patients, of which 1400 patients were managed nonsurgically and 543 patients underwent interval appendectomy. Nonoperative treatment had a mean recurrence of 12.4 per cent, a morbidity of 13.3 per cent, and the length of hospital stay was 9.6 days. The mean morbidity rate and length of hospital stay for patients who underwent interval appendectomy was 10.4 per cent and 5.0 days, respectively. Interval appendectomy and repeat nonoperative management in case of recurrence are associated with similar morbidity; however, elective interval appendectomy implies additional operative costs to prevent recurrence in one of eight patients.

Endoscopic biliary drainage as a bridging procedure to single-stage surgery for perforated choledochal cyst: a case report and review of the literature

Choledochal cyst (CC)—a congenital anomaly of the bile duct—is rare. We report a 28-year-old woman complaining of epigastralgia who was transferred to our hospital. Physical examination revealed severe tenderness to abdominal palpation without symptoms of diffuse peritonitis. Urgent contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography indicated the dilated common bile duct (CBD) was perforated, with a presumed diagnosis of perforated CC. Endoscopic external biliary drainage was performed immediately as a bridging procedure to the definitive surgery. Additional evaluations confirmed a type IVa CC, according to Todani’s classification, but no signs of malignancy. Twenty-two days after biliary drainage, laparotomy was performed. A large cystic mass was found in the CBD with a perforated scar on the right-side wall. Because inflammation around the pancreas head was too severe to perform cyst excision safely, the patient underwent subtotal stomach-preserving pancreatoduodenectomy. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on the 29th postoperative day. Pathologic examination of a specimen showed no malignancy, and the patient has remained well during the 3-year follow-up. Our experience with this case suggests that definitive single-stage surgery for perforated CC in an adult can be performed safely owing to external biliary drainage as a bridging procedure, if manifestation of diffuse peritonitis is not evident.

Effectiveness of Interval Appendectomy After Conservative Treatment of Pediatric Ruptured Appendicitis with Abscess

The management of patients with acute perforated appendicitis with abscess is controversial. The aim of the present study was to assess the outcomes of treatment in patients with this condition. We retrospectively analyzed 31 patients (16 men and 15 women with a mean age of 8.4 years) with appendicitis presenting with abscess. Patients were divided into two groups (emergency operation group and interval operation group), and clinical characteristics and outcomes of treatment were investigated. On presentation, no differences in gender, age, body weight, duration of symptoms, temperature, white blood cell count, C-reactive protein level, or maximum size of the abscess in the axial view were detected between the two groups. Fifteen patients (48.4 %) underwent emergency surgery. The remaining 16 patients (51.6 %) were initially treated conservatively with antibiotics. All 16 patients underwent planned operations after receiving conservative treatment, and two (12.5 %) of these patients underwent appendectomy before the planned operation day because of recurrent appendicitis without abscess. There were no differences in the length of hospital stay. In the emergency operation group, six (40 %) patients presented with wound infection and four (26.7 %) developed a postoperative intra-abdominal abscess. No infective complications were reported in the interval operation group. Interval appendectomy after conservative treatment of pediatric ruptured appendicitis with abscess significantly reduced postoperative infection rates.

Histological analysis of appendices removed during interval appendectomy after conservative management of pediatric patients with acute appendicitis with an inflammatory mass or abscess

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

To clarify the role of interval appendectomy (IA) in pediatric patients with acute appendicitis with an appendiceal inflammatory mass or abscess, we histologically analyzed the appendices removed during IA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We treated 355 consecutive pediatric patients with acute appendicitis and reviewed the admission charts of patients who started conservative management (CM). The histology of the appendix removed during IA was also examined. The relationships among the clinical features, appendicolith formation at the time of IA and histological findings were analyzed by stepwise regression analyses.

RESULTS

(1) CM was started in 48 patients (13.5 %). Recurrence or a remaining abscess was observed in nine patients (18.8 %). (2) Histopathological changes, particularly foreign body reaction with fibrosis and infiltration of inflammatory cells, were observed in about half of the specimens. (3) In a stepwise regression analysis, the presence of an appendicolith at IA was correlated with an appendicolith at diagnosis, foreign body reaction in the appendix and a decrease in the inflammatory reaction at diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

More than half the patients had strong histopathological changes in the appendix, suggesting a high possibility of recurrence. The presence of appendicolith formation at IA, which is a risk factor for recurrence, was influenced by the presence of an appendicolith at diagnosis, foreign body reaction in the appendix and the inflammatory status of patients at diagnosis. These clinical findings are indications for IA.

Recurrence of acute appendicitis after non-operative treatment of appendiceal abscess in children: a single-centre experience

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of recurrence of acute appendicitis after initial successful non-operative treatment of appendiceal abscess in children.

METHODS

This study was an observational cohort study of children treated non-operatively for appendiceal abscess at a large tertiary referral centre from 2006 to 2010. The primary outcome was recurrence of acute appendicitis. Secondary outcome variables were re-admission and interval appendectomy.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients were discharged after successful non-operative treatment of appendiceal abscess. The median age was 10.1 (1.3-16.3) years. Nine patients underwent surgery during the follow-up period. Five patients were re-admitted with ongoing symptoms leading to an appendectomy. They all returned shortly after discharge and are considered failures of initial treatment. Two of 82 patients returned with a new episode of acute appendicitis during the trial period. Hence, the recurrence rate was 2.4 % during 5.1 years of follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our data support the strategy of not performing an interval appendectomy after successful non-operative treatment with antibiotics of an appendiceal abscess in children.

Predictors of recurrent appendicitis after non-operative management of children with perforated appendicitis presenting with an appendicular inflammatory mass

AIM

To determine clinical and imaging predictors of recurrent appendicitis after non-operative management for children with perforated appendicitis presenting with an appendicular inflammatory mass.

METHODS

A case-control study was carried out of children with clinical and ultrasonographic diagnosis of an appendicular inflammatory mass. Patients were divided into two groups according to the presence or not of recurrent appendicitis (or predisposing pathological findings during interval appendectomy). Several clinical and imaging factors were compared between both groups using an independent and progressive analysis to identify which were the most relevant predictors.

RESULTS

The persistence of symptoms after resolution of the appendicular inflammatory mass, as well as its time of resolution (p<0.001), were the most relevant factors during group classification. The identification of an ultrasonographic image of an appendicolith and the initial size of the mass were also identified as independent predictors (p<0.018 and p<0.01). The presence of the first two factors in a patient was strongly associated with recurrent appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Persistent symptoms after the recovery of the initial episode, associated with a slow resolution of the appendicular inflammatory mass, are indications for an interval appendectomy. A previous history of appendicitis or detection of an ultrasonographic image of an appendicolith is the other indication for an interval appendectomy.

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.

Nonoperative management of appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with an appendicolith in children

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment of appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with an appendicolith is controversial. This study aimed to evaluate outcomes and prognosis of nonoperative management of appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with an appendicolith in children.

METHODS

From 2007 to 2011, 105 children with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess who were treated nonoperatively without interval appendectomy were reviewed. Average follow-up of subjects was 2.4 years. Data were compared between subjects with and without an appendicolith or persistent presence and disappearance of an appendicolith.

RESULTS

The success rate for nonoperative therapy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with appendicolith was 95.9 %. The risk of recurrent appendicitis in appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with appendicolith (19.1 %) was higher than that without appendicolith (8.9 %, P = 0.132). The rate of appendicolith disappearance during follow-up was 80.9 %. The persistent presence of an appendicolith was associated with a significantly higher recurrence rate (66.7 %) compared with appendicolith disappearance (7.9 %, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with an appendicolith can be managed nonoperatively, and most appendicoliths can be resolved. Persistent presence of an appendicolith is a significant risk factor for recurrent appendicitis. Interval appendectomy is recommended for persistent presence of appendicolith, but is not indicated in cases without appendicolith or appendicolith disappearance.

Caecal tumour masquerading as an appendicular mass

Appropriate management of appendix mass is based on an accurate diagnosis of the underlying pathology. This is a report of a complex patient presenting with an appendix mass, whose surgery was deferred due to severe co-morbidities and who later died from severe metastatic disease. A 65-year-old lady presented with right iliac fossa pain and a mass. She was treated for an appendix mass initially and when the mass failed to resolve after four weeks, she was thoroughly investigated for the possibility of a tumour. Severe co-morbities had a significant impact on her management as definitive surgery was delayed. She represented 10 months after the initial admission with small bowel obstruction and died of metastatic caecal cancer. Management of appendix mass must entail a careful approach to investigating and treatment with emphasis on early intervention if the mass does not resolve promptly. This will avoid delayed diagnosis, treatment and a detrimental impact on prognosis.

Antibiotics versus appendectomy in the management of acute appendicitis: a review of the current evidence

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis remains the most common cause of the acute abdomen in young adults, and the mainstay of treatment in most centres is an appendectomy. However, treatment for other intra-abdominal inflammatory processes, such as diverticulitis, consists initially of conservative management with antibiotics. The aim of this study was to determine the role of antibiotics in the management of acute appendicitis and to assess if appendectomy remains the gold standard of care.

METHODS

A literature search using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library identified studies published between 1999 and 2009, and we reviewed all relevant articles. The articles were critiqued using the Public Health Resource Unit (2006) appraisal tools.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 41 papers, and we identified a total of 13 papers within the criteria specified. All of these papers, while posing pertinent questions and demonstrating the role of antibiotics as a bridge to surgery, failed to adequately justify their findings that antibiotics could be used as a definitive treatment of acute appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

Appendectomy remains the gold standard of treatment for acute appendicitis based on the current evidence.

Appendiceal mass: Is interval appendicectomy “something of the past”?

The need for interval appendicectomy (I.A) after successful conservative management of appendiceal mass has recently been questioned. Furthermore, emergency appendicectomy for appendiceal mass is increasingly performed with equal success and safety to that performed in non-mass forming acute appendicitis. There is an increasing volume of evidence -although mostly retrospective- that if traditional conservative management is adopted, there is no need for routine I.A except for a small number of patients who continue to develop recurrent symptoms. On the other hand, the routine adoption of emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) in patients presenting with appendiceal mass obviates the need for a second admission and an operation for I.A with a considerable complication rate. It also abolishes misdiagnoses and deals promptly with any unexpected ileo-cecal pathology. Moreover, it may prove to be more cost-effective than conservative treatment even without I.A due to a much shorter hospital stay and a shorter period of intravenous antibiotic administration. If emergency LA is to become the standard of care for appendiceal mass, I.A will certainly become ‘something’ of the past.

Is interval appendicectomy justified after successful nonoperative treatment of an appendix mass in children? A systematic review

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Interval appendicectomy (IA) is commonly performed after successful nonoperative treatment of appendix mass (AM); although, this approach has recently been challenged. We systematically reviewed the pediatric literature with regard to the justification for this practice.

METHODS

Using a defined search strategy, studies were identified and data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Incidences of recurrent appendicitis, complications after IA, and carcinoid tumor were estimated accounting for interstudy heterogeneity. Cost and length of stay of IA were analyzed.

RESULTS

Three studies (127 cases) reporting routine nonsurgical treatment were identified; all were retrospective. There was marked interstudy heterogeneity and variable follow-up. After successful nonoperative treatment of AM, the risk of recurrent appendicitis is 20.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.3%-28.4%). The incidence of complications after IA (23 studies, n = 1247) is 3.4% (95% CI, 2.2-5.1), and the incidence of carcinoid tumor found at IA (15 studies, n = 955) is 0.9% (95% CI, 0.5-1.8). No reports compared costs. Mean length of stay for IA was 3 days (range, 1-30 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective studies comparing routine IA with nonoperative treatment without IA in children are lacking. Available data suggest that 80% of children with AM may not need IA. A prospective study to evaluate the natural history of this condition compared with the morbidity and costs of IA is warranted.

Management of appendicitis presenting with abscess or mass

Purpose

Management strategy in acute appendicitis patients initially presenting with abscess or mass is surrounded with controversy. This study was performed to identify the outcomes of management for this condition.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed prospectively registered 76 patients (male:female = 39:37; mean age, 50.8 years) with appendicitis presenting with abscess or mass over a 9-year period at the Seoul National University Hospital. Patients were divided into three groups (emergency operation group, delayed operation group, and follow-up group), and clinical characteristics and outcomes of treatment were investigated.

Results

Twenty-eight patients (36.8%) underwent an emergency operation. Of the remaining 48 patients, 20 (41.7%) were initially treated with conservative management through the use of antibiotics only; the other 28 (58.3%) with and additional ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage of the abscess. Twenty-six (54.2%) patients underwent planned operations after conservative management, and 22 (45.8%) were followed without surgery (median duration, 37.8 month), of which 3 (13%) underwent an appendectomy due to recurrent appendicitis (mean of 56.7 days after initial attack). There were no statistical differences in types of operation performed (appendectomy or ileocecectomy), postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay among the patients who underwent emergency operations, delayed operations and operations for recurrence during follow-up.

Conclusion

Although the recurrence rate was relatively low after conservative management for appendicitis patients presenting with abscess or mass, there was no difference in surgical outcome between the emergent, elective, or recurrent groups. Our results indicate that proper management of appendicitis with abscess or mass can be selected according to surgeon's preference.

Dollars and sense of interval appendectomy in children: a cost analysis

PURPOSE

Although initial nonoperative management of focal, perforated appendicitis in children is increasingly practiced, the need for subsequent interval appendectomy remains debated. We hypothesized that cost comparison would favor continued nonoperative management over routine interval appendectomy.

METHODS

Decision tree analysis was used to compare continued nonoperative management with routine interval appendectomy after initial success with nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis. Outcome probabilities were obtained from literature review and cost estimates from the Kid's Inpatient Database. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the 2 most influential variables in the model, the probability of successful nonoperative management and the costs associated with successful observation. Monte Carlo simulation was performed using the range of cost estimates.

RESULTS

Costs for continued nonoperative observation were estimated at $3080.78 as compared to $5034.58 for the interval appendectomy. Sensitivity analysis confirms a cost savings for nonoperative management as long as the likelihood of successful observation exceeds 60%. As the cost of nonoperative management increased, the required probability for its success also increased. Using wide distributions for both probability estimates as well as costs, Monte Carlo simulation favored continued observation in 75% of scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Continued nonoperative management has a cost advantage over routine interval appendectomy after initial success with conservative management in children with focal, perforated appendicitis.

A meta-analysis comparing conservative treatment versus acute appendectomy for complicated appendicitis (abscess or phlegmon)

BACKGROUND

No standardized approach is available for the management of complicated appendicitis defined as appendiceal abscess and phlegmon. This study used meta-analytic techniques to compare conservative treatment versus acute appendectomy.

METHODS

Comparative studies were identified by a literature search. The end points evaluated were overall complications, need for reoperation, duration of hospital stay, and duration of intravenous antibiotics. Heterogeneity was assessed and a sensitivity analysis was performed to account for bias in patient selection.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (16 nonrandomized retrospective and 1 nonrandomized prospective) reported on 1,572 patients: 847 patients received conservative treatment and 725 had acute appendectomy. Conservative treatment was associated with significantly less overall complications, wound infections, abdominal/pelvic abscesses, ileus/bowel obstructions, and reoperations. No significant difference was found in the duration of first hospitalization, the overall duration of hospital stay, and the duration of intravenous antibiotics. Overall complications remained significantly less in the conservative treatment group during sensitivity analysis of studies including only pediatric patients, high-quality studies, more recent studies, and studies with a larger group of patients.

CONCLUSION

The conservative management of complicated appendicitis is associated with a decrease in complication and reoperation rate compared with acute appendectomy, and it has a similar duration of hospital stay. Because of significant heterogeneity between studies, additional studies should be undertaken to confirm these findings.

Spontaneous vaginal drainage of a pelvic abscess: an unusual presentation of perforated appendicitis

We report a child with the unusual presentation of spontaneous vaginal drainage of a pelvic abscess after nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis. Although drainage through the rectum has been previously described, this is the first report of spontaneous transvaginal drainage of a pelvic abscess from appendicitis in a child.

Management of appendiceal mass

BACKGROUND

The management of appendiceal mass is surrounded with controversy. Traditional management has been conservative, with interval appendicectomy performed weeks after the mass had resolved. This remains the most common approach at many centers in the world. Recently, an increasing number of studies have challenged this approach. This article reviews some of the controversial issues in the management of appendix mass, assesses current practice and suggests an appropriate approach for the management of appendix mass.

METHODS

A Medline, Pubmed and Cochrane database search were used to find such key words and combinations of: appendix, appendiceal, appendicular, interval, appendectomy, appendicectomy, mass, abscess, phlegmon, and appendicitis. Results were saved and managed by Reference manager 11. All articles were cross-referenced by the authors.

RESULTS

A conservative management is still a highly acceptable approach for appendix mass. This should be followed with interval appendicectomy especially in patients with persistent right iliac fossa pain.

CONCLUSION

We recommend initially conservative approach to the management of appendiceal mass especially in our environment.

Outpatient interval appendectomy after perforated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Interval appendectomy may be advisable after successful nonoperative treatment of perforated appendicitis. To reduce the perceived morbidity of interval appendectomy, we sought to determine if the operation could be done on an outpatient basis. This study is focused on patient comfort and safety after laparoscopic interval appendectomy (LIA).

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of the clinical course and length of stay of 24 children who had LIA during a 4-year period.

RESULTS

Of the 24 patients, 12 were discharged on the evening of surgery without incident. Nine additional patients were observed for the first postoperative night-2 for short episodes of temperature elevation, 3 for pain treated within the first 4 hours of recovery and requiring no further treatment, and 4 because the idea of outpatient appendectomy had yet to become popular. None of these patients was febrile overnight, none required narcotic or parenteral analgesics after leaving the recovery room, and all accepted feedings without nausea or vomiting. It is likely that all 9 of these patients could have been discharged on the day of operation. Three other patients stayed in the hospital for treatment of pain, low-grade fever, or slow resumption of feeding.

CONCLUSION

Of 24 patients, 21(88%) were or could have been discharged on the day of operation. When interval appendectomy is indicated, LIA can be performed safely as an outpatient surgical procedure in most children.

Early decisions in perforated appendicitis in children: lessons from a study of nonoperative management

BACKGROUND

In nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis, some children do not respond to treatment. This study sought early identifiers of failure to help in surgical decision making.

METHODS

Fifty-eight patients with computed tomographic (CT)-proven perforated appendicitis were treated according to a nonoperative protocol. Patients who recovered were considered "successes;" those who did not improve underwent appendectomy and were scored as "failures" of nonoperative treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-six (62%) of 58 patients responded to treatment and 22 (38%) failed. Three parameters distinguished the 2 groups: the number of band forms on the admission white blood cell count, the body temperature response after 24 hours of treatment, and the areas of the abdomen involved in the CT scan. Patients in whom nonoperative treatment failed stayed in the hospital longer (17 vs 9 days) and had more complications (46% vs 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Because failure of nonoperative management is associated with a high complication rate, it is important to make an early decision about appendectomy. Persistence of fever after 24 hours of treatment, bandemia on admission, and multisector involvement on CT scan identify most patients who fail nonoperative management. When combined with clinical judgment, these are useful indicators to guide early decisions.

Routine interval appendectomy is unnecessary after conservative treatment of appendiceal mass

OBJECTIVE

The traditional management of appendiceal mass is initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy. Recently interval appendicectomy has been questioned by a growing amount of evidence. The purpose of this study was to clarify the role of interval appendicectomy after successful initial conservative treatment.

METHOD

The study included 98 patients with a mass in the right iliac fossa. Four (4%) patients were excluded wing to another diagnosis of appendiceal mass including caecal cancer (two), diverticulitis (one), and Crohn's disease (one). The remaining 94 patients were treated conservatively. Routine interval appendicectomy was not performed after successful conservative treatment.

RESULTS

Ultrasound (US)-guided drainage was performed in seven (7.4%) patients. Two were drained surgically because of a persistent abscess despite a previous US-guided drainage. In five (5.3%) patients, a delayed operation was necessary because of complications. One patient developed small bowel obstruction, and in three patients, conservative treatment was unsuccessful with the abscess remaining unresolved. Within 3 months, seven out of the 89 patients were readmitted to hospital with a recurrent mass in two patients and acute appendicitis without a mass in five patients. Six (6.7%) patients were readmitted with recurrent appendicitis after 3 months. The recurrence rate after successful conservative treatment was 14.6%. The majority (nine patients; 10.1%) of the recurrences occurred within the first 6 months, and after 1 year the recurrence rate was very low (two patients; 2.2%).

CONCLUSION

Routine interval appendicectomy after initial successful conservative treatment is not justified and should be abandoned. At present, there is no consensus for the management of appendiceal mass. There is, therefore, a need to develop a protocol for the management of this common problem.

Management of pediatric acute appendicitis in the computed tomographic era

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The treatment options for complicated appendicitis in children continue to evolve. Optimal management of complicated appendicitis relies on an accurate preoperative diagnosis. We examined the accuracy of our preoperative diagnosis including computed tomography (CT) and the influence on the management of children with perforated and nonperforated appendicitis.

METHODS

Following IRB approval, a 6-year review of all patients that underwent an appendectomy for suspected appendicitis was performed. Treatments included immediate operations and initial nonoperative management (antibiotic therapy +/- percutaneous drainage of abscess). Appendicitis was confirmed by histological examination.

RESULTS

One thousand seventy-eight patients underwent appendectomy for suspected appendicitis. Preoperative CT scans were performed in 697 (64.7%) patients: 615 (88.2%) positive for appendicitis; 42 (6.0%) negative; and 40 (5.7%) equivocal. One hundred seventy-three (28.1%) positive CT scans further suggested perforation. Initial nonoperative management was initiated in 39 (22.5%) cases of suspected perforated appendicitis with abscess. The positive-predictive value (PPV) for suspected acute appendicitis based on history and physical examination alone was 90.8%. The PPV for positive CT scan for acute appendicitis was 96.4% with a PPV of 91.9% for positive CT scan for perforated appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

The correct preoperative diagnosis of appendicitis appears statistically more accurate with CT scan compared to history and physical examination alone (PPV 96.4% versus 90.8%, P = 0.045). For those with clinically suspicious complicated appendicitis, CT evaluation may direct therapy toward initial nonoperative management. The efficacy of this regimen warrants further investigation.

Management of appendiceal mass: controversial issues revisited

PURPOSE

Although appendix mass occurs in 10% of patients with acute appendicitis, its surgical management is surrounded with controversy. This article reviews some of the controversial issues in the management of appendix mass.

METHODS

A search of the English literature was conducted for "appendiceal mass," "interval appendicectomy," and "laparoscopic appendicectomy" and manual cross-referencing.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The majority of the studies were small and retrospective. Emergency appendicectomy for appendix mass is emerging as an alternative to conventional conservative treatment. It is feasible, safe, and cost-effective, allowing early diagnosis and treatment of unexpected pathology. However, the appropriate timing for emergency surgery is not clear. After successful conservative management, interval appendicectomy is not necessary and can safely be omitted, except in patients with recurrent symptoms. In patients over 40 years of age, other pathological causes of right iliac mass must be excluded by further investigations (colonoscopy and computerized tomography scan), and a close follow-up is needed. Laparoscopic appendicectomy whether in emergency or interval settings is feasible and safe and should replace the conventional open method. Large prospective, randomized controlled trials are lacking, and therefore, such trials are needed to scientifically compare emergency surgery vs conservative management without interval appendicectomy.

Laparoscopic appendectomy after conservative management of appendix mass

The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic appendicectomy following non-operative management of appendix mass in children. Medical records of 103 consecutive patients (61 males, 42 females) who underwent non-operative treatment of appendix mass followed by laparoscopic elective appendicectomy were examined. Their ages ranged from 2 years 5 months to 15 years (mean 8.3 years). All patients were treated conservatively by close observation, antibiotics and intravenous fluids. Once the child was fit for discharge laparoscopic elective appendicectomy was booked for 4-6 weeks later. Ninety-three children responded to the initial conservative treatment and were discharged after a mean hospital stay of 5.6 days (range 3-10 days). Ten (9.7%) did not respond to initial treatment and developed appendix abscess requiring drainage. Average hospital stay in the 97 patients who had laparoscopic elective appendicectomy was 2.5 days (range 1-5 days). Three patients developed complications after elective appendicectomy, a stitch abscess in one, paralytic ileus in one and wound infection in one. Histological examination revealed fibrosed or resolving appendicitis in 52, acute or subacute appendicitis in 24, carcinoid tumour in two and normal appendix in 19. Laparoscopic elective appendicectomy is a safe and effective method of treatment following conservative treatment of appendix mass. Not only does it make the dissection and resection of the appendix easier but it also has the added advantage of performing adhesiolysis.

Nonsurgical treatment of appendiceal abscess or phlegmon: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review of the nonsurgical treatment of patients with appendiceal abscess or phlegmon, with emphasis on the success rate, need for drainage of abscesses, risk of undetected serious disease, and need for interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Patients with appendiceal abscess or phlegmon are traditionally managed by nonsurgical treatment and interval appendectomy. This practice is controversial with proponents of immediate surgery and others questioning the need for interval appendectomy.

METHODS

A Medline search identified 61 studies published between January 1964 and December 2005 reporting on the results of nonsurgical treatment of appendiceal abscess or phlegmon. The results were pooled taking the potential clustering on the study-level into account. A meta-analysis of the morbidity after immediate surgery compared with that after nonsurgical treatment was performed.

RESULTS

Appendiceal abscess or phlegmon is found in 3.8% (95% confidence interval (CI), 2.6-4.9) of patients with appendicitis. Nonsurgical treatment fails in 7.2% (CI: 4.0-10.5). The need for drainage of an abscess is 19.7% (CI: 11.0-28.3). Immediate surgery is associated with a higher morbidity compared with nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio, 3.3; CI: 1.9-5.6; P < 0.001). After successful nonsurgical treatment, a malignant disease is detected in 1.2% (CI: 0.6-1.7) and an important benign disease in 0.7% (CI: 0.2-11.9) during follow-up. The risk of recurrence is 7.4% (CI: 3.7-11.1).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this review of mainly retrospective studies support the practice of nonsurgical treatment without interval appendectomy in patients with appendiceal abscess or phlegmon.

Routine interval appendectomy in children is not indicated

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates outcomes for children treated without interval appendectomy (IA) after successful nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

A retrospective study of pediatric patients with appendicitis was performed from 12 regional acute-care hospitals from 1992 to 2004 with mean length of follow-up of 7.5 years. Main outcomes were recurrent appendicitis and cumulative length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The study included 6439 patients, of which 6367 (99%) underwent initial appendectomy. Seventy-two (1%) patients were initially managed nonoperatively and 11 patients had IA. Of the remaining 61 patients without IA, 5 (8%) developed recurrent appendicitis. Age, sex, type of appendicitis, and abscess drainage had no influence on recurrent appendicitis. Cumulative length of hospital stay was 6.6 days in patients without IA, 8.5 days in patients with IA, and 9.6 days in patients with recurrent appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

Recurrent appendicitis is rare in pediatric patients after successful nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis. Routine IA is not necessarily indicated for these children.

Antibiotic Therapy and Interval Appendectomy for Perforated Appendicitis in Children: A Selective Approach

The role of initial nonoperative treatment in pediatric perforated appendicitis remains controversial. We examined our outcomes after using this approach in a selective manner. Children with perforated appendicitis treated during a 28-month period were retrospectively reviewed. Antibiotics and delayed appendectomy were used if there were more than 3 days of symptoms, absence of bowel obstruction, absence of diffuse peritonitis, and an appendiceal mass. Of 221 patients with perforated appendicitis, 32 (14%) were treated with this approach. Average age was 7.4 ± 4.2 years. Twenty-eight patients (88%) were successfully managed and 26 (81%) underwent appendectomy 8.6 ± 4.2 weeks after first presentation. Two patients did not respond completely, and underwent appendectomy during the same admission. Two patients initially responded, but had recurrent symptoms necessitating earlier appendectomy. There were no complications. Average total hospital stay was 7.2 ± 3.0 days. Initial nonoperative treatment is highly successful in selected children who meet specific criteria. Failure is not associated with increased morbidity.

New primary management for appendiceal masses in children: laparoscopic drainage

PURPOSE

The management of appendiceal masses (AM) in children remains controversial. In this study, we evaluated primary laparoscopic drainage (PLD) for efficacy.

METHODS

Eleven (11) consecutive cases of AM (mean age, 8.1 +/- 2.8 years) treated between 2000 and 2004 were the subjects for this study. All had PLD on presentation. If the appendix was seen easily seen after PLD, a laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) was also performed.

RESULTS

Eight (8) patients underwent PLD alone (LD group) and 3 underwent PLD and LA (LDLA group). In the LD group, the mean operating time was 87.9 +/- 23.2 minutes, oral feeding was commenced after a mean of 2.3 +/- 0.8 days, patients became afebrile within 4.3 +/- 3.1 days, intravenous antibiotics were ceased after 5.3 +/- 3.1 days, C-reactive protein normalized within 13.6 +/- 4.2 days, drains were removed within 4.0 +/- 1.3 days, and hospital stay ranged from 7 to 15 days. There were no intra- or postoperative complications related to the PLD procedure. Interval LA was performed 6.8 +/- 5.8 months after PLD in 6 of 8 LD group patients and was not performed in the remaining 2 owing to parental refusal. In the LDLA group, operating time ranged from 125 to 150 minutes, and oral feeding commenced 4, 5, and 5 days after LA, respectively. One (1) patient developed an adhesive bowel obstruction after LA, which resolved with conservative therapy; in the remaining 2, there were no complications. All 11 patients are well after a mean follow-up period of 3.7 +/- 1.0 years. A histologic examination of the excised appendices showed mild to severe inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend that PLD be adopted for the primary management of appendiceal masses, as it would appear to be simple, safe, and effective.

Failure in the nonoperative management of pediatric ruptured appendicitis: predictors and consequences

INTRODUCTION

The initial nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis fails in 15% to 25% of children. These children have complications and increased hospitalization. The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of failure.

METHODS

Children with perforated appendicitis treated with antibiotics and intent for nonoperative management over a 4-year period were reviewed. Seventy-five children were identified and included in the study. Failure was defined as undergoing appendectomy before the initially planned interval.

RESULTS

Nine (12%) of the patients required appendectomy sooner than initially planned. Age, presenting symptoms, physical examination findings, and white blood cell (WBC) count were similar in both success and failure groups. Absence of abscess and presence of appendicolith were both predictors of failure in a multivariate analysis, which included the presence of small bowel obstruction. The failed group had a longer median total length of stay (18 days [range, 4-67] vs 8 days [range, 4-31]; P = .002) and underwent 3 times as many computed tomography scans as successes (3 [range, 2-7] vs 1 [range, 0-5]; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Lack of abscess and presence of an appendicolith predict failure of nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis in children even when the effect of small bowel obstruction is accounted for. Children with these characteristics may benefit from alternative management strategies.

Matched analysis of nonoperative management vs immediate appendectomy for perforated appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The role of nonoperative therapy vs immediate appendectomy in the management of children with perforated appendicitis remains undefined. The objective of this study was to rigorously compare these management options in groups of patients with matched clinical characteristics.

METHODS

Multicenter case-control study was conducted from 1998 to 2003. We compared patients treated nonoperatively vs those undergoing appendectomy to identify differences in 12 clinical parameters. We then generated a second control group of patients matched for these variables and compared the following outcomes in these clinically similar groups: complication rate, abscess rate, and length of stay (LOS). Analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat principles, using chi2, Fisher exact, and Student t tests.

RESULTS

The only significant difference between patients treated nonoperatively and those treated by appendectomy was the duration of pain on presentation (6.8 vs 3.1 days of pain). We created a second control group of patients undergoing immediate appendectomy matched on duration of pain on presentation to patients treated nonoperatively. These groups continued to be clinically comparable for the other 11 parameters. Compared to this matched control group, the nonoperative group had fewer complications (19% vs 43%, P < .01), fewer abscesses (4% vs 24%, P < .01), and a trend for shorter LOS (6.5 +/- 5.7 vs 8.8 +/- 6.7 days, P = .08).

CONCLUSIONS

When nonoperative management for perforated appendicitis was studied using appropriately matched clinical controls, we found that it resulted in a lower complication rate and shorter LOS in the subset of patients presenting with a long duration of pain. Our data suggest that nonoperative management should be prospectively evaluated in children with perforated appendicitis presenting with a history of pain exceeding 5 days.

Nonoperative management of pediatric ruptured appendix with inflammatory mass or abscess: presence of an appendicolith predicts recurrent appendicitis

AIM OF STUDY

The aim of this study was to determine if the presence of an appendicolith is associated with an increased risk for recurrent appendicitis after nonoperative treatment of pediatric ruptured appendix with inflammatory mass or abscess.

METHODS

Ninety-six pediatric patients (52 girls, 44 boys), aged 16 months to 17 years (average, 7 years), were managed between 1980 and 2003. All were treated nonoperatively with intravenous triple antibiotics for 5 to 21 days. All children had at least a 2-year follow-up. This study was approved by the hospital research ethics board.

MAIN RESULTS

Six children (6%) who became worse and 41 (46%) who had an interval appendectomy were eliminated from the study. The other 49 patients comprised the study group and received no further treatment. Twenty-eight (57%) had no recurrence, and 21 (43%) had a recurrence within 1 month to 2 years (average, 3 months). In the study group, 31 (63%) children had no appendicolith on radiological imaging and 18 (37%) had. Presence of an appendicolith was associated with a 72% rate of recurrent appendicitis compared with a recurrence rate of 26% in those with no appendicolith (chi2 test, P < .004).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the patients with appendicolith should have an interval appendectomy.

Comparison of two methods for the management of appendicular mass in children

Appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency in pediatric surgery. In the presence of an appendicular mass, surgical management can be difficult. We evaluate the results of appendix mass management both with immediate operation and conservative treatment over a period of 5 years. Forty children who presented with appendicular mass over a period of 5 years were reviewed. Their mean age was 7.6+/-2.7 years, and the mean duration of symptoms was 7.8+/-2.7 days. We evaluated the children in two groups: The first group included 19 children who were operated on immediately, and the second group included 21 children who were managed conservatively, followed by elective appendectomy. In the first group, mean hospitalization time was 8.7+/-3.2 days. The complication rate was found to be high (26.3%). Ileal injury occurred in two patients, intraabdominal abscess developed in one patient, and wound infection developed in another. Appendectomy could not be done in one patient who required another laparotomy 8 weeks later. In the second group, mean hospitalization time was 8.9+/-2.6 days. Two patients (8.6%) failed to respond to conservative management. Elective appendectomy was performed after 2-3 months. Two patients returned with perforated appendicitis 5 months and 12 months later, respectively, because they were not brought back for subsequent appendectomy. It can be concluded that conservative treatment of appendicular mass is safe; we also advocate elective appendectomy because of the probable risk of recurrence.

Predictors of Outcome for Children with Perforated Appendicitis Initially Treated with Non-Operative Management

BACKGROUND

Initial non-operative therapy for children with perforated appendicitis has become increasingly popular with the advent of powerful broad-spectrum antibiotics. However, there is no consensus regarding which patients may be managed effectively with this strategy. We reviewed all children with perforated appendicitis who were treated initially with non-operative therapy to determine those characteristics that may predict a successful outcome.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of children admitted to our hospital between January 1, 2000 and May 1, 2003 with the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. Only those who were treated initially with a single broad-spectrum antibiotic (piperacillin-tazobactam), with the intention of performing an interval appendectomy, were included in this study. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they were managed successfully with non-operative therapy: Responders and non-responders. Non-responders were defined as patients who either did not improve with antibiotic therapy or who required appendectomy prior to their electively scheduled time (six weeks). Demographic data, duration and type of presenting symptoms, initial white blood cell count (WBC), percent bands, percent neutrophils (PMNs), computed tomography (CT) interpretation, and interventions/operations were abstracted. Categorical data were compared using Chi-square analysis or the Fisher exact test; continuous variables were compared using the Student t-test and the Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

Overall, 26% (19/73) of patients treated initially non-operatively required appendectomy prior to the electively scheduled date. There was no difference between responders (n = 54) and non-responders (n = 19) with respect to age, gender, initial WBC, percent bands, percent PMNs, or duration and type of presenting symptoms. However, responders were more likely to have a phlegmon on CT scan compared to non-responders (11/54 vs. 0/19, p = 0.03). Non-responders were twice as likely to undergo drainage of an abscess by interventional radiology (10/19 vs. 13/54, p = 0.02) compared to responders. Among all patients who required percutaneous drainage, the failure rate of non-operative management was 43% (10/23).

CONCLUSIONS

Children with perforated appendicitis can be managed effectively with nonoperative therapy, even in the presence of intra-abdominal abscesses. However, the need for abscess drainage increases the failure rate, perhaps due to inadequate source control. Those patients with a phlegmon on CT scan as opposed to an abscess, are most likely to respond to non-operative management. Initial non-operative therapy of perforated appendicitis in children is appropriate under certain clinical circumstances, especially when the body itself or interventional radiology can achieve adequate source control.