Diagnostic laparoscopy in 1043 patients with suspected acute appendicitis

Is endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy a better modality for acute uncomplicated appendicitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous studies had shown endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) is an effective treatment for acute appendicitis. However, different studies reported conflicting outcomes regarding the effectiveness of ERAT in comparison with laparoscopic appendectomy (LA).

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of ERAT with LA.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies of ERAT for acute uncomplicated appendicitis were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the WanFang Database, and Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP) from the establishment date to March 1 2021. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I-squared statistic. Pooled odds ratios (OR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and standard mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated through either fixed-effects or random-effects model. Sensitivity analysis was also performed. Publication bias was tested by Egger's test, and Begg's test. The quality of included RCT were evaluated by the Jadad scale, while Newcastle-Ottawa scale is adopted for assessing the methodological quality of case-control studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Stata 15.1 statistical software. All statistical analysis was performed using Stata 15.1 statistical software. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021243955.

RESULTS

After screening, 10 RCTs and 2 case-control studies were included in the current systematic review. Firstly, the length of hospitalizations [WMD = -1.15, 95%CI: -1.99, -0.31; P = 0.007] was shorter than LA group. Secondly, the level of post-operative CRP [WMD = -10.06, 95%CI: (-17.39, -2.73); P = 0.007], TNF-α [WMD = -7.70, 95%CI: (-8.47, -6.93); P < 0.001], and IL-6 Levels [WMD = -9.78, 95%CI: (-10.69, -8.88); P < 0.001; P < 0.001] in ERAT group was significantly lower than LA group. Thirdly, ERAT group had a lower incidence of intestinal obstruction than LA group. [OR = 0.19, 95%CI: (0.05, 0.79); P = 0.020]. Moreover, the quality of 10 RCTs were low with 0-3 Jadad scores, while the methodological quality of two case-control studies were fair with a score of 2 (each).

CONCLUSION

Compared with LA, ERAT reduces operation time, the level of postoperative inflammation, and results in fewer complications and shorter recovery time, with preserving the appendix and its immune and biological functions.

Management of the normal-appearing appendix during laparoscopy for clinically suspected acute appendicitis in the pediatric population

PURPOSE

The widespread use of laparoscopy has brought forth the question of how to manage a macroscopically normal-appearing appendix in cases of clinically suspected appendicitis. This study aimed to determine the current practices of pediatric general surgeons in Canada regarding this matter.

METHODS

An online survey was created following the American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) guidelines and distributed via email to the Canadian Association of Pediatric Surgeons (CAPS) staff surgeons. The questions assessed clinician characteristics, standard practice, and rationale. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 54/72 (75%) CAPS members practicing in Canada completed the survey. All (100%) agreed they would remove a normal-appearing appendix during laparoscopy for suspected acute appendicitis. The most common reasons were: possibility of microscopic appendicitis (39/54, 72.2%), avoiding future diagnostic confusion (28/54, 51.9%), and patient preference/consent discussion (21/54, 38.9%). Most (53/54, 98.1%) had performed a negative appendectomy and 49/54 (90.7%) agreed there were no sufficient guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of pediatric surgeons agree sufficient guidelines do not exist to support decision making when a normal-appearing appendix is found during laparoscopy for suspected acute appendicitis. This survey shows that removal of the appendix in this case would be supported by the majority of Canadian pediatric surgeons.

TYPE OF STUDY

Survey LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: VII (Expert Opinion).

[Can Uncomplicated Adult Appendicitis Also Be Treated Conservatively?]

Can Uncomplicated Adult Appendicitis Also Be Treated Conservatively? Abstract. For more than a century, appendectomy has been the first-line treatment for acute appendicitis. Despite modern imaging, it is not an easy disease to diagnose and is one of the most common emergency procedures worldwide. Conservative therapy for uncomplicated adult appendicitis is increasingly becoming the focus of discussion. Due to current data, a recommendation for conservative therapy of uncomplicated adult appendicitis can not be given. For the time being it should be reserved for a selected patient group.

The Unacceptable Morbidity of Negative Laparoscopic Appendicectomy

BACKGROUND

One of the most common acute conditions managed by general surgeons is acute appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) is the surgical technique used by many surgeons. The aims of this study were to define our unit's negative appendicectomy rate and compare the outcomes associated with removal of a normal appendix with those for acute appendicitis in patients having LA.

METHODS

A single-centre retrospective case note review of patients undergoing LA for suspected acute appendicitis was performed. Patients were divided into positive and negative appendicectomy groups based on histology results. The positive group was subdivided into uncomplicated and complicated (perforated and/or gangrenous) appendicitis. Outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

There were 1413 patients who met inclusion criteria, 904 in the positive group and 509 in the negative group, an overall negative appendicectomy rate of 36.0%. Morbidity rates (6.3% vs. 6.9%; P = 0.48) and types of morbidity were the same for negative appendicectomy and uncomplicated appendicitis. There was no significant difference in complication severity (all P > 0.17) or length of stay (2.3 vs. 2.6 days; P = 0.06) between negative appendicectomy and uncomplicated appendicitis groups. Patients with complicated appendicitis had a significantly higher morbidity rate compared to negative and uncomplicated groups (20.1% vs. 6.3% and 20.1% vs. 6.9%; both P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The morbidity of negative LA is the same as LA for uncomplicated appendicitis. The morbidity of LA for complicated appendicitis is significantly higher. The selection criteria for LA in our unit needs to be reviewed to address the high negative appendicectomy rate and avoid unnecessary surgery and its associated morbidity.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The removal of the acute appendix is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Open surgery associated with therapeutic efficacy has been the treatment of choice for acute appendicitis. However, in consequence of the evolution of endoscopic surgery, the operation can also be performed with minimally invasive surgery. Due to smaller incisions, the laparoscopic approach may be associated with reduced postoperative pain, reduced wound infection rate, and shorter time until return to normal activity.This is an update of the review published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) with regard to benefits and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE and Embase (9 February 2018). We identified proposed and ongoing studies from World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials Register (9 February 2018). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LA versus OA in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed the meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the Peto odds ratio (OR) for very rare outcomes, and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (or standardised mean differences (SMD) if researchers used different scales such as quality of life) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 85 studies involving 9765 participants. Seventy-five trials included 8520 adults and 10 trials included 1245 children. Most studies had risk of bias issues, with attrition bias being the largest source across studies due to incomplete outcome data.In adults, pain intensity on day one was reduced by 0.75 cm on a 10 cm VAS after LA (MD -0.75, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.45; 20 RCTs; 2421 participants; low-quality evidence). Wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.51; 63 RCTs; 7612 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of intra-abdominal abscesses was increased following LA (Peto OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.43; 53 RCTs; 6677 participants; moderate-quality evidence).The length of hospital stay was shortened by one day after LA (MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.70; 46 RCTs; 5127 participant; low-quality evidence). The time until return to normal activity occurred five days earlier after LA than after OA (MD -4.97, 95% CI -6.77 to -3.16; 17 RCTs; 1653 participants; low-quality evidence). Two studies showed better quality of life scores following LA, but used different scales, and therefore no pooled estimates were presented. One used the SF-36 questionnaire two weeks after surgery and the other used the Gastro-intestinal Quality of Life Index six weeks and six months after surgery (both low-quality evidence).In children, we found no differences in pain intensity on day one (MD -0.80, 95% CI -1.65 to 0.05; 1 RCT; 61 participants; low-quality evidence), intra-abdominal abscesses after LA (Peto OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.22; 9 RCTs; 1185 participants; low-quality evidence) or time until return to normal activity (MD -0.50, 95% CI -1.30 to 0.30; 1 RCT; 383 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, wound infections were less likely after LA (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.42; 10 RCTs; 1245 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and the length of hospital stay was shortened by 0.8 days after LA (MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.62; 6 RCTs; 316 participants; low-quality evidence). Quality of life was not reported in any of the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Except for a higher rate of intra-abdominal abscesses after LA in adults, LA showed advantages over OA in pain intensity on day one, wound infections, length of hospital stay and time until return to normal activity in adults. In contrast, LA showed advantages over OA in wound infections and length of hospital stay in children. Two studies reported better quality of life scores in adults. No study reported this outcome in children. However, the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate and some of the clinical effects of LA were small and of limited clinical relevance. Future studies with low risk of bias should investigate, in particular, the quality of life in children.

Clinical Management of Appendicitis

Background

Ever since the first appendectomy has been performed, surgery has been the standard of care for acute appendicitis, with antibiotic therapy being reserved for special situations. Recent studies have shown the feasibility of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated appendicitis.

Methods

This clinical therapeutic review is based both on author expertise and a selective literature survey in PubMed based on the term 'appendicitis', combined with the terms 'acute', 'complicated', 'conservative', 'non-operative', 'therapy', 'surgery', and 'strategy'. According to these search results as well as to the treatment guidelines from the American College of Surgeons, Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, European Association of Endoscopic Surgery, and World Society of Emergency Surgery, we present an interdisciplinary treatment concept.

Results

Approximately 90% of patients treated with antibiotics are able to avoid surgery during the initial admission. The other 10% that fail to respond to antibiotics require a rescue appendectomy. Recurrence rates of non-operated patients within 1 year are as high as 20-30%.

Conclusion

In uncomplicated appendicitis without risk factors for failure of non-operative management, a shared decision based on the patient's preferences should be made. In cases with risk factors, appendectomy is still the treatment recommended. If the diagnosis is uncertain or clinical symptoms are rather mild, antibiotic therapy should be started. In complicated appendicitis, management depends on the clinical state, with either immediate surgery or primarily antibiotic therapy and combined with drainage of abscess, being followed by interval appendectomy in some cases.

Unplanned readmission and outpatient examination 90-days after acute appendectomy in adults

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and indications for unplanned readmission and outpatient examination after acute appendectomy.

METHODS

Adults who underwent acute appendectomy from 2008-2013 were included in the study and events occurring within 90-days from discharge recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 710 patients underwent surgery. The appendix was removed in 622 patients and post-discharge contact occurred in 99 (15.9%): readmission in 60 (9.6%), outpatient examination in 39 (6.3%). The main reasons for post-discharge contact were infection (n = 25; intraabdominal, n = 16; superficial) and abdominal pain of uncertain cause (n = 25). Use of prophylactic antibiotics was associated with lower rates of contact, 8.5% versus 20.9% (p = 0.006), respectively. Removal of non-inflamed appendix was borderline associated with higher rates of contact, 21.7% versus 8.0% (if left in-situ; p = 0.058), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of patients underwent readmission or outpatient examination within 90-days after appendectomy in the current study. The procedure is common and attempts to prevent readmissions are important. Correct use of antibiotics and not removing a non-inflamed appendix may be key points.

Analysis of Recurrence Management in Patients Who Underwent Nonsurgical Treatment for Acute Appendicitis

The recurrence rate for acute appendicitis treated nonoperatively varies between studies. Few studies have adequately evaluated the management of these patients when appendicitis recurs. We aimed to explore the recurrence rate and management of patients with acute appendicitis that were first treated nonoperatively.We identified patients in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database who were hospitalized due to acute appendicitis for the first time between 2000 and 2010 and received nonsurgical treatment. The recurrence and its management were recorded. Data were analyzed to access the risk factors for recurrence and factors that influenced the management of recurrent appendicitis.Among the 239,821 patients hospitalized with acute appendicitis for the first time, 12,235 (5.1%) patients were managed nonoperatively. Of these, 864 (7.1%) had a recurrence during a median follow-up of 6.5 years. Appendectomy was performed by an open and laparoscopic approach in 483 (55.9%) and 258 (29.9%) patients, respectively. The remaining 123 (14.2%) patients were again treated nonsurgically. Recurrence was independently associated with young age, male sex, percutaneous abscess drainage, and medical center admission by multivariable analysis. In addition, age <18, a (CCI) <2, medical center admission, and a longer time to recurrence were correlated with using laparoscopy to treat recurrence. Neither type of appendicitis, percutaneous abscess drainage, nor length of first time hospital stay had an influence on the selection of surgical approach.In conclusion, a laparoscopic appendectomy can be performed in recurrent appendicitis cases, and its application may not be related to previous appendicitis severity.

Laparoscopic Appendectomy in Children: Preliminary Study in Pediatric Hospital Albert Royer, Dakar

Appendiceal pathology's management has benefited in recent years from the advent of laparoscopic surgery. This study is to make a preliminary assessment of laparoscopic management of acute and complicated appendicitis in children after a few months of practice at the University Hospital Albert Royer, Dakar. This is a retrospective study of 22 cases of patients, all operated on by the same surgeon. The parameters studied were age, sex, clinical data and laboratory features, radiological data, and results of surgical treatment. The mean age of patients was 9.5 years with a male predominance. The series includes 14 cases of acute appendicitis and 8 complicated cases. Appendectomy anterograde is practiced in 81% of cases. Appendectomy was associated with peritoneal wash in 17 patients including 9 cases of acute appendicitis. Drainage of Douglas pouch is performed in 2 patients with complicated appendicitis; the average production was 300 cc of turbid liquids and any complications were not founded. An abscess of Douglas pouch is noted in 2 patients with complicated appendicitis undrained. These Douglas abscesses were treated medically. No conversion of laparotomy was performed in the series. After an average of 8 months no other problems were noted.

The morbidity of negative appendicectomy

INTRODUCTION

The increased use of diagnostic laparoscopy for management of right iliac fossa pain may have lowered the threshold for removing normal appendices, particularly as there is a perception that this practice carries little additional morbidity. The aim of this retrospective audit was to determine the negative appendicectomy rate after laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) in our busy district hospital, and to compare the relative incidence and severity of complications after removal of an inflamed or non-inflamed appendix.

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent LA in 2011-2012 were identified from theatre registers. Histology results were reviewed to differentiate between inflamed and normal appendices. Postoperative complications and events following discharge were identified via electronic patient records. Complication severity was stratified using the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Over 2 years, 467 LAs were performed, of which 143 (30.6%) were for normal appendices. Significantly more negative appendicectomies were performed in women (43%) than in men (17%) (p<0.0001). Complications were seen in 62 patients (13.3%). There was no significant difference between the complication rates for those who had an inflamed (16.6%) or non-inflamed (11.9%) appendix (p=0.141). Similarly, there was no difference in the severity of complications between these groups. Reoperation or invasive intervention was required after four negative appendicectomies (2.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

LA carries a similar morbidity regardless of whether the appendix is inflamed. Negative appendicectomy should not be undertaken routinely during laparoscopy for right iliac fossa pain.

Lessons learned with laparoscopic management of complicated grades of acute appendicitis

Background

Laparoscopy has not been consolidated as the approach of first choice in the management of complicated appendicitis. Methodological flaws and absence of disease stratification criteria have been implicated in that less evidence. The objective is to study the safe and effectiveness of laparoscopy in the management of complicated appendicitis according to laparoscopic grading system.

Method

From January 2008 to January 2011, 154 consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis were evaluated in the prospective way. The patient’s age ranged from 12 to 75 years old (31.7 ± 13.3) and 58.3% were male. Complicated appendicitis refers to gangrenous and/or perforated appendix and were graded as 3A (segmental necrosis), 3B (base necrosis), 4A (abscess), 4B (regional peritonitis) and 5 (diffuse peritonitis). The outcomes including operative time, infection complication, operative complications and conversion rate were chosen to evaluate the procedure.

Results

The grade 3A was the most frequent with 50 (32.4%) patients. The mean operative time was 69.4 ± 26.3 minutes. The grade 4A showed the highest mean operative time (80.1 ± 26.7 minutes). The wound and intra-abdominal infection rates were 2.6 and 4.6%, respectively. The base necrosis was the most important factor associated with the conversion (5.2%). The grades 4A and 5 were associated with greater possibility of intra-abdominal collection. There were no operative complications.

Conclusion

The laparoscopic management of all complicated grades of acute appendicitis is safe and effective and should be the procedure of first choice. The laparoscopic grading system allows us to assess patients in the same disease stage.

Laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original review, published in Issue 1, 2011, of The Cochrane Library. Acute lower abdominal pain is common, and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal women, as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with symptoms of appendicitis, early pregnancy complications and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age.

SEARCH METHODS

The Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINAHL were searched (October 2013). The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) was also searched. No new studies were included in this updated version.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included. Trials were included if they evaluated laparoscopy with open appendicectomy, or laparoscopy with a wait and see strategy. Study selection was carried out by two review authors independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two review authors and the risk of bias assessed. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. A summary of findings table was prepared using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 12 studies including 1020 participants were incorporated into the review. These studies had low to moderate risk of bias, mainly because allocation concealment or methods of sequence generation were not adequately reported. In addition, it was not clear whether follow-up was similar for the treatment groups. The index test was incorporated as a reference standard in the laparoscopy group, and differential verification or partial verification bias may have occurred in most RCTs. Overall the quality of the evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes, as per the GRADE approach.Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (seven RCTs, 561 participants; odds ratio (OR) 4.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.50 to 6.71; I(2) = 18%), but no evidence was found of reduced rates for any adverse events (eight RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I(2) = 0%). A meta-analysis of seven studies found a significant difference favouring the laparoscopic procedure in the rate of removal of normal appendix (seven RCTs, 475 participants; OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.24; I(2) = 0%).Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. A significant difference favoured laparoscopy in terms of rate of specific diagnoses (four RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I(2) = 79%), but no evidence suggested a difference in rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I(2) = 0%).  

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that laparoscopy in women with acute lower abdominal pain, non-specific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis led to a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared with open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. No evidence showed an increase in adverse events when any of these strategies were used.

Integration of ultrasound findings with Alvarado score in children with suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the integration of ultrasound (US) findings with Alvarado score in diagnosing or excluding acute appendicitis.

METHODS

Data were analyzed in 122 pediatric patients with suspected appendicitis who had undergone US. The US findings were classified into four groups, and the patients were classified into three groups according to Alvarado score. US results and Alvarado score were compared.

RESULTS

Alvarado score was a good predictor of appendicitis for scores ≥7.

CONCLUSION

In the case of non-visualization of the appendix without a high Alvarado score, appendicitis can be safely ruled out.

Appendiceal stump closure by metal endoclip in the management of complicated acute appendicitis

Background

Closure of appendicular stump has been performed in different ways; however, the use of the metal endoclip in complicated grades of acute appendicitis, has not been evaluated yet in a prospective way.

Objective

To establish the effectiveness of appendiceal stump closure by metal endoclip for complicated appendicitis.

Method

From January 2009 to January 2011 were evaluated 131 consecutive patients who underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated acute appendicitis. From those, 118 underwent appendiceal stump closure by metal endoclip. The patient’s age ranged from 12 to 75 years old (31.7 ± 13.3) and 52.7% were male. Complicated appendicitis refers to gangrenous and/or perforated appendix, which may lead to abscess formation and degrees of peritonitis. The outcomes viability, operative time, infection complication, operative complications, and conversion rate were chosen to evaluate the procedure.

Results

The appendiceal stump closure by metal endoclip was used in 90% of cases. The presence of appendix base necrosis was the most important factor involved in failure of the procedure. Laparoscopic knot (1.5%), laparoscopic endo-suture (3.8%) and video assisted laparotomy (4.7%) were the alternatives used in difficult cases. The mean operative time was (67.54 ± 28.13 minutes). The wound and intra-abdominal infection rates were 2.54% and 5.08%, respectively. There were no operative complications and the conversion rate was 0.85%.

Conclusion

The appendiceal stump closure by metal endoclip, in complicated grades of acute appendicitis, is a safe and effective procedure. In patients with appendix base necrosis it should be avoided in favor of other alternatives.

Appendicopathy--a clinical and diagnostic dilemma

PURPOSE

The term "neurogenic appendicopathy" has been used for patients operated on for acute appendicitis with their appendices lacking signs of acute inflammation. The aim of this retrospective study was to clarify the presence of potential neurogenic appendicopathies, analyzing patients' clinical symptoms and their corresponding appendiceal specimens.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-one patients were identified showing a histological diagnosis of chronic appendicitis. Eventually, 40 patients qualified for the potential diagnosis "neurogenic appendicopathy." Appendix specimens were immunohistochemically examined for the expression of S-100, vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP), and substance P. Controls consisted of 110 patients with acute appendicitis and 120 patients following appendectomies operated on for other reasons.

RESULTS

Eventually, 40 of 120 patients qualified for the potential diagnosis "neurogenic appendicopathy." Compared to patients with acute appendicitis, there was only little difference in clinical symptoms. Histologically, neuromas, thought of being characteristic of neurogenic appendicopathy, were demonstrated significantly more often in the control group (p = 0.01). S-100 was significantly more expressed in the appendicopathy group (p = 0.0024), but nearly 50% of control specimens showed an intense staining, too. S-100(+) neurofibers were significantly (p = 0.00122) more often found in the mucosa of appendicopathy specimens, but this was true for only 25% of specimens. VIP was more strongly expressed in control specimens (p = 0.0211). Substance P was of no diagnostic value.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study could not confirm the neurogenic origin of appendicopathies. Yet, clinical data strongly suggest the existence of the entity "appendicopathy." Therefore, we suggest removing a macroscopically unaffected appendix in patients with appendicitis-like symptoms if, on laparoscopy, no other cause can be found.

Laparoscopy grading system of acute appendicitis: new insight for future trials

BACKGROUND

The mini-invasive techniques have revolutionized the surgery; however, the superiority of laparoscopic access for complicated appendicitis is still controversial. The most critical point has been the dismal quality of the methodology found in the series comparing laparoscopic and laparotomic procedures. The lack of stratification criteria to evaluate the inflammation in the appendix and abdomen has been pointed out by several authors.

PURPOSE

To validate the laparoscopic grading system for acute appendicitis.

METHODS

Prospective study of 186 patients with presumed acute appendicitis who underwent an appendectomy if diagnostic laparoscopy showed appendicitis or normal-looking appendix without any other intra-abdominal disease. The appendix was graded as to different levels based upon its visual appearance: grade 0 (normal looking), 1 (redness and edema), 2 (fibrin), 3A (segmental necrosis), 3B (base necrosis), 4A (abscess), 4B (regional peritonitis), and 5 (diffuse peritonitis). This was then compared with a histologic assessment of the removed appendix supplemented by a biochemical study of collected peritoneal fluid (gold standard) to determine the diagnostic indexes. Besides that, the κ coefficient confirmed concordance between them.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for acute appendicitis diagnosis were 100%, 63.3%, and 84.1%, respectively, and presented substantial concordance [κ=0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.88)]. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the laparoscopic grading system were 63%, 83.3%, and 80.1%, respectively, and presented moderate concordance [κ=0.39 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.55)]. The biochemical-histologic grading system changed for 48 (25.8%) patients who had been previously classified by surgeons during laparoscopy. Most incorrect graduation occurred in grades 0 and 1. The presence of exudates was confirmed in all cases classified as grades 4A, 4B, and 5.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy showed good to excellent accuracy for diagnosis and grading of acute appendicitis. The better grading system allowed the evaluation of patients with acute appendicitis in the same clinical stage.

Evaluation of the appendix during diagnostic laparoscopy, the laparoscopic appendicitis score: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic laparoscopy is the ultimate diagnostic tool to evaluate the appendix. Still, according to the literature, this strategy results in a negative appendectomy rate of approximately 12-18 % and associated morbidity. Laparoscopic criteria for determining appendicitis are lacking. The goal of this study is to define clear and reliable criteria for appendicitis during diagnostic laparoscopy that eventually may safely reduce the negative appendectomy rate.

METHODS

From December 2009 through April 2011, 134 patients were included and analysed in a single-centre prospective pilot study. Intraoperatively, the appendix was evaluated by the surgeon according to nine criteria for appendicitis. The operating surgeon decided whether it should be removed or not. Immediately after the operation the surgeon had to complete a questionnaire on nine criteria for appendicitis. All removed appendices were examined by a pathologist. In case the appendix was not removed, the clinical postoperative course was decisive for the (missed) presence of appendicitis.

RESULTS

In 109 cases an inflamed appendix was removed; in 25 patients the appendix was normal, 3 of which had been removed. After univariate analysis and clinical judgement six variables were included in the Laparoscopic APPendicitis score (LAPP score). In this study, use of the LAPP score would have led to a positive predictive value of 99 % and a negative predictive value of 100 %.

CONCLUSIONS

This study presents the LAPP score. The LAPP score is an easily applicable score that can be used by surgeons to evaluate the appendix during diagnostic laparoscopy. The score has high positive and negative predictive value. The LAPP score needs to be validated in a multicentre validation study.

Diagnostic values of ultrasound and the Modified Alvarado Scoring System in acute appendicitis

Background

Making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis is difficult, and is important for preventing perforation of the appendix and negative appendectomy results. Ultrasound and clinical scoring systems are very helpful in making the diagnosis. Ultrasound is non-invasive, available and cost-effective, and can accomplish more than CT scans. However, there is no certainty about its effect on the clinical outcomes of patients, and it is operator dependent. Counting the neutrophils as a parameter of the Alvarado Scale is not routine in many laboratories, so we decided to evaluate the diagnostic value of the Modified Alvarado Scaling System (MASS) by omitting the neutrophil count and ultrasonography.

Methods

After ethical approval of methodology in Tehran University of Medical Sciences ethical committee, we collected the data. During 9 months, 75 patients with right lower quadrant pain were enrolled in the study, and underwent abdominal ultrasonography and appendectomy, with pathological evaluation of the appendix. The MASS score was calculated for these patients and compared with pathology results.

Results

Fifty-five male and 20 female patients were assessed. Of these patients 89.3% had acute appendicitis. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy rate of ultrasonography was 71.2%, 83.3%, 97.4%, 25% and 72.4%, respectively. By taking a cutoff point of 7 for the MASS score, a sensitivity of 65.7%, specificity of 37.5%, PPV of 89.8%, NPV of 11.5% and accuracy of 62.7% were calculated. Using the cutoff point of 6, a sensitivity of 85.1%, specificity of 25%, PPV of 90.5%, NPV of 16.7% and accuracy of 78.7% were obtained.

Conclusion

Ultrasound provides reliable findings for helping to diagnose acute appendicitis in our hospital. A cutoff point of 6 for the MASS score will yield more sensitivity and a better diagnosis of appendicitis, though with an increase in negative appendectomy.

The appendiceal stump closure during laparoscopy: historical, surgical, and future perspectives

During a laparoscopic appendectomy, the closure of the appendiceal stump is an important step because of postoperative complications from its inappropriate management. The development of life-threatening events such as stercoral fistulas, postoperative peritonitis, and sepsis is feared and unwanted. The tactical modification of the appendiceal stump closure with a single endoligature, replacing the invaginating suture, adjusted very well to laparoscopic appendectomy, and nowadays is the procedure of choice, whenever possible. Among the alternatives that do not make use of an invaginating suture, studies advocate the use of an endostapler, endoligature (endo-loop), metal clips, bipolar endocoagulation, and polymeric clips. All alternatives have advantages and disadvantages against the different clinical stages of acute appendicitis, and it should be noted that the different forms of appendiceal stump closure have never been assessed in prospective randomized studies. Knowledge about and appropriate use of all of them are important for a safe and more cost-effective procedure.

Laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age

BACKGROUND

Acute lower abdominal pain is common and making a diagnosis is particularly challenging in premenopausal woman as ovulation and menstruation symptoms overlap with the symptoms of appendicitis and pelvic infection. A management strategy involving early laparoscopy could potentially provide a more accurate diagnosis, earlier treatment and reduced risk of complications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and harms of laparoscopy for the management of acute lower abdominal pain in women of childbearing age.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The  Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS and CINHAL were searched (to April 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included women of childbearing age who presented with acute lower abdominal pain, nonspecific lower abdominal pain or suspected appendicitis were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently extracted by two authors and the risk of bias assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

Laparoscopy was compared with open appendicectomy in eight RCTs. Laparoscopy was associated with an increased rate of specific diagnoses (7 RCTs, 561 participants; OR 4.10, 95% CI 2.50 to 6.71; I(2) 18%) but there was no evidence of reduced rate for any adverse event (8 RCTs, 623 participants; OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.10; I(2) 0%).Laparoscopic diagnosis versus a 'wait and see' strategy was investigated in four RCTs. There was a significant difference favouring laparoscopy in the rate of specific diagnoses (4 RCTs, 395 participants; OR 6.07, 95% CI 1.85 to 29.88; I(2) 79%) but there was no evidence of a difference in the rates of adverse events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.67; I(2) 0%).  

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of laparoscopy in women with nonspecific abdominal pain and suspected appendicitis include a higher rate of specific diagnoses being made and a lower rate of removal of normal appendices compared to open appendicectomy only. Hospital stays were shorter. There was no evidence of an increase in adverse events with any of the strategies.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis has been proposed to have advantages over conventional surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic and therapeutic effects of laparoscopic and conventional 'open' surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CNKI, SciSearch, study registries, and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults or children. Studies comparing immediate OA versus diagnostic laparoscopy (followed by LA or OA if necessary) were separately identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Missing information or data was requested from the authors. We used odds ratios (OR), relative risks (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies, of which 56 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were less likely after LA than after OA (OR 0.43; CI 0.34 to 0.54), but the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses was increased (OR 1.87; CI 1.19 to 2.93). The duration of surgery was 10 minutes (CI 6 to 15) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 8 mm (CI 5 to 11 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Hospital stay was shortened by 1.1 day (CI 0.7 to 1.5). Return to normal activity, work, and sport occurred earlier after LA than after OA. While the operation costs of LA were significantly higher, the costs outside hospital were reduced. Seven studies on children were included, but the results do not seem to be much different when compared to adults. Diagnostic laparoscopy reduced the risk of a negative appendectomy, but this effect was stronger in fertile women (RR 0.20; CI 0.11 to 0.34) as compared to unselected adults (RR 0.37; CI 0.13 to 1.01).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In those clinical settings where surgical expertise and equipment are available and affordable, diagnostic laparoscopy and LA (either in combination or separately) seem to have various advantages over OA. Some of the clinical effects of LA, however, are small and of limited clinical relevance. In spite of the mediocre quality of the available research data, we would generally recommend to use laparoscopy and LA in patients with suspected appendicitis unless laparoscopy itself is contraindicated or not feasible. Especially young female, obese, and employed patients seem to benefit from LA.

Routine ultrasound and limited computed tomography for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis continues to be a challenging diagnosis. Preoperative radiological imaging using ultrasound (US) or computed tomography (CT) has gained popularity as it may offer a more accurate diagnosis than classic clinical evaluation. The optimal implementation of these diagnostic modalities has yet to be established. The aim of the present study was to investigate a diagnostic pathway that uses routine US, limited CT, and clinical re-evaluation for patients with acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A prospective analysis was performed of all patients presenting with acute abdominal pain at the emergency department from June 2005 until July 2006 using a structured diagnosis and management flowchart. Daily practice was mimicked, while ensuring a valid assessment of clinical and radiological diagnostic accuracies and the effect they had on patient management.

RESULTS

A total of 802 patients were included in this analysis. Additional radiological imaging was performed in 96.3% of patients with suspected appendicitis (n = 164). Use of CT was kept to a minimum (17.9%), with a US:CT ratio of approximately 6:1. Positive and negative predictive values for the clinical diagnosis of appendicitis were 63 and 98%, respectively; for US 94 and 97%, respectively; and for CT 100 and 100%, respectively. The negative appendicitis rate was 3.3%, the perforation rate was 23.5%, and the missed perforated appendicitis rate was 3.4%. No (diagnostic) laparoscopies were performed.

CONCLUSIONS

A diagnostic pathway using routine US, limited CT, and clinical re-evaluation for patients with acute abdominal pain can provide excellent results for the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis.

[Laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis. Should an appendix that appears normal be removed?]

The question whether an appendix found to be macroscopically normal at laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis should be removed remains open to debate. Potential advantages of appendicectomy in all cases include early diagnosis of neoplastic lesions that cannot be detected macroscopically, diagnosis and cure of neurogenic appendicectomy, avoidance of diagnostic confusion in later episodes of abdominal pain, and prevention of appendicitis developing later in life. Therefore, adopting a strategy of always removing the appendix even if it is found to be uninflamed at laparoscopy seems justified as long as it does not imply an increase in postoperative morbidity. We retrospectively studied all patients undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy in which a "normal appendix" was found and all patients undergoing diagnostic laparoscopy in our hospital during a 7-year period. Our data as well as a critical review of the literature show that removal of the appendix does not increase morbidity compared to simple diagnostic laparoscopy and should always be done when performing laparoscopy for suspected acute appendicitis.

Acute appendicitis: is removal of a normal appendix still existing and can we reduce its rate?

BACKGROUND/AIM

To determine the incidence of negative appendectomies and to identify factors that may reduce the risk of having the normal appendices removed surgically.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

College of Medicine and King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The surgical and histological data of 852 patients who underwent appendicectomy were reviewed. All incidental or interval appendicectomies were excluded. Only patients who were admitted and whose appendices were removed and subjected to histology were included (585 patients). The data on patients who had a normal appendix on histology further analyzed to include demographics, specific investigations, operative findings of the appendix and additional operative findings that need other surgical procedures.

RESULTS

A normal appendix was removed in 54 (9.2%) of the patients. Only 5.5% of those patients had a computed tomography (CT) scan preoperatively and 3.7% had diagnostic laparoscopy. In 21 patients, additional operative and histological findings were obtained that might have caused the right lower abdominal pain.

CONCLUSION

In spite of the advances in the diagnostic and imaging techniques, the rates of negative findings on appendicectomy have not decreased much. Clinical judgment is still the most important factor in the management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis. The routine use of CT scan or diagnostic laparoscopy for all patients who are suspected to have appendicitis is neither cost-effective nor safe.

Evaluating routine diagnostic imaging in acute appendicitis

AIM

To evaluate the impact of selective imaging on clinical management of patients who present with symptoms suggesting acute appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During a two-and-half year period, 941 consecutive patients with right lower quadrant pain were analyzed. Patients who underwent selective imaging were compared to those treated without further imaging.

RESULTS

In 650 (69%) patients with right lower quadrant pain, diagnosis was based on medical history, physical and laboratory examination only. The diagnostic accuracy was 84%. Another 291 patients (31%) underwent selective imaging reaching a diagnostic accuracy of 71%. Ultrasound was conducted in 277 patients (sensitivity: 59%; specificity: 91%). CT scan was conducted in 43 patients (sensitivity: 100%; specificity: 95%).

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that, in the majority of patients, appendicitis acuta can be diagnosed without the aid of imaging studies. In all these cases, high diagnostic accuracy rates and low morbidity rates were achieved. In all the other cases when clinical diagnosis is uncertain, further evaluation should include imaging. In our series ultrasound is of limited value; CT scan or diagnostic laparoscopy seems superior.

The efficacy of laparoscopic surgery in patients with peritonitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is an essential part of our armamentarium in certain conditions and has been recently begun to be used on acute abdominal peritonitis effectively and frequently by surgeons. But, there is still a debate on laparoscopic management of surgical emergencies. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the safety and efficiency of laparoscopy and its role in patients with acute abdominal emergencies retrospectively.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From May 2002 to May 2006, 147 patients with provisional diagnosis of acute abdomen were operated laparoscopically (68 suspected lower quadrant peritonitis, 17 gastroduodenal perforated ulcers, and 62 cholecystitis).

RESULTS

A definitive diagnosis was accomplished in 93.1% (137 patients) of the cases and 85.7% (126) of the patients were successfully treated by emergent laparoscopy. An unnecessary laparotomy was avoided in 17.0% (24 women and 1 man) of the patients. The conversion rate was 14.2%. The morbidity rate was 4.0% with a postoperative mortality rate of 0.68%. After a mean period of 16.2 months, postoperative evolutions of patients were satisfactory.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery, with high diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic capabilities, can be safely and effectively applied to the patients with acute abdominal emergencies in experienced hands. We believe that laparoscopy is a valuable way to prevent unnecessary laparotomies when routine investigations fail to identify the cause. This technique can be widely used in abdominal emergencies with increasing experience, but further studies are required to definitively establish its role in acute abdominal disorders.

Decision making in patients with acute abdominal pain at a university and at a rural hospital: does the value of abdominal sonography differ?

Introduction and objectives

Abdominal sonography is regarded as a quick and effective diagnostic tool for acute abdominal pain in emergency medicine. However, final diagnosis is usually based on a combination of various clinical examinations and radiography. The role of sonography in the decision making process at a hospital with advanced imaging capabilities versus a hospital with limited imaging capabilities but more experienced clinicians is unclear.

The aim of this pilot study was to assess the relative importance of sonography and its influence on the clinical management of acute abdominal pain, at two Swiss hospitals, a university hospital (UH) and a rural hospital (RH).

Methods

161 patients were prospectively examined clinically. Blood tests and sonography were performed in all patients. Patients younger than 18 years and patients with trauma were excluded. In both hospitals, the diagnosis before and after ultrasonography was registered in a protocol. Certainty of the diagnosis was expressed on a scale from 0% to 100%.

The decision processes used to manage patients before and after they underwent sonography were compared. The diagnosis at discharge was compared to the diagnosis 2 – 6 weeks thereafter.

Results

Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of sonography were high: 94%, 88% and 91%, respectively.

At the UH, management after sonography changed in only 14% of cases, compared to 27% at the RH. Additional tests were more frequently added at the UH (30%) than at the RH (18%), but had no influence on the decision making process-whether to operate or not. At the UH, the diagnosis was missed in one (1%) patient, but in three (5%) patients at the RH. No significant difference was found between the two hospitals in frequency of management changes due to sonography or in the correctness of the diagnosis.

Conclusion

Knowing that sonography has high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in the diagnosis of acute abdominal pain, one would assume it would be an important diagnostic tool, particularly at the RH, where tests/imaging studies are rare.

However, our pilot study indicates that sonography provides important diagnostic information in only a minority of patients with acute abdominal pain.

Sonography was more important at the rural hospital than at the university hospital. Further costly examinations are generally ordered for verification, but these additional tests change the final treatment plan in very few patients.

Routine use of laparoscopy in patients with clinically doubtful diagnosis of appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic and diagnostic laparoscopy, a minimal invasive technique, has been used effectively and frequently for appendicitis by surgeons. There is still controversy about whether this technique should be applied to all patients or in the setting of a doubt of the diagnosis of appendicitis, especially for women. Based on these controversies, the aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy for patients with suspected peritonitis imitating acute appendicitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between May 2002 and September 2006, a consecutive series of 74 patients operated on for suspected acute lower quadrant peritonitis were studied retrospectively. Despite being unclear, the preoperative diagnoses were thought to be suspected peritonitis imitating acute appendicitis. Therefore, patients all had diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients included in this study were successfully operated on by laparoscopy. Thirty-five of these patients were diagnosed with appendicitis and had an appendectomy by laparoscopy. Six of the 35 patients were converted to a conventional open appendectomy because of retrocecal localization and perforated appendicitis. In the 29 of the remaining 39 patients, pelvic inflammatory disease, mesenteric lenfadenopathy, torsed omentum and ruptured hemorrhagic, and endometrial or simple ovarian cysts were revealed. So, these 29 patients' (39.1%) appendices were left in place, and an unnecessary appendectomy was avoided, thereby reducing the negative appendectomy rate. In the remaining 10 patients, nothing was found to explain the clinical signs. After a mean follow-up period of 16 months, postoperative evaluations of the patients were satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy, a single procedure and an accurate modality for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with acute abdominal conditions, can be recommended in patients, especially fertile women, with suspected peritonitis imitating acute appendicitis when the diagnosis cannot be made by physical examination and noninvasive methods.

Optimization of diagnostic imaging use in patients with acute abdominal pain (OPTIMA): Design and rationale

BACKGROUND

The acute abdomen is a frequent entity at the Emergency Department (ED), which usually needs rapid and accurate diagnostic work-up. Diagnostic work-up with imaging can consist of plain X-ray, ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT) and even diagnostic laparoscopy. However, no evidence-based guidelines exist in current literature. The actual diagnostic work-up of a patient with acute abdominal pain presenting to the ED varies greatly between hospitals and physicians. The OPTIMA study was designed to provide the evidence base for constructing an optimal diagnostic imaging guideline for patients with acute abdominal pain at the ED.

METHODS/DESIGN

Thousand consecutive patients with abdominal pain > 2 hours and < 5 days will be enrolled in this multicentre trial. After clinical history, physical and laboratory examination all patients will undergo a diagnostic imaging protocol, consisting of plain X-ray (upright chest and supine abdomen), US and CT. The reference standard will be a post hoc assignment of the final diagnosis by an expert panel. The focus of the analysis will be on the added value of the imaging modalities over history and clinical examination, relative to the incremental costs.

DISCUSSION

This study aims to provide the evidence base for the development of a diagnostic algorithm that can act as a guideline for ED physicians to evaluate patients with acute abdominal pain.

Classificação laparoscópica da apendicite aguda: correlação entre graus da doença e as variáveis perioperatórias

OBJETIVO: Apresentar a classificação laparoscópica da apendicite aguda e verificar a relação entre os graus da doença com o tempo de sintomas, tempo operatório, permanência hospitalar, complicações infecciosas e uso de antimicrobianos. MÉTODO: Estudo prospectivo, transversal, envolvendo 105 pacientes com diagnóstico de apendicite aguda e submetidos a apendicectomia laparoscópica entre Janeiro de 2000 e Julho de 2001. A doença foi classificada em grau 0 - Normal; 1 - Hiperemia e edema; 2 - Exsudato fibrinoso; 3 - Necrose segmentar; 4A - Abscesso; 4B - Peritonite regional; 4C - Necrose da base do apêndice; 5 - Peritonite difusa. RESULTADOS: A distribuição dos pacientes segundo a classificação foi: grau 0 (10,4%); 1 (40%); 2 (29,5%); 3 (2,9%); 4A (1,9%); 4B (4,8%); 4C (3,8%) e 5 (6,7%). O tempo médio de início de sintomas acima de 40 h correlacionou-se com possibilidade de necrose e peritonite. O tempo operatório variou de 18 a 126 minutos, média de 31,4 minutos. A permanência hospitalar variou de 12 a 192 h, média de 39,5 h. A maior incidência de complicações Infecciosa ocorreu nos graus 4 e 5. O antimicrobiano foi de uso profilático graus 0, 1 e 2 e terapêutico nos demais. A laparotomia foi necessária duas (1,9%) vezes e não houve óbito. CONCLUSÕES: A classificação laparoscópica da apendicite aguda contemplou todas as formas clínicas da doença, possibilitou correlação com os tempos início de sintomas, operatório e de permanência hospitalar. Permitiu ainda, prever complicações infecciosas e racionalizar o uso de antimicrobianos.

[Adverse outcomes in the surgical treatment of acute appendicitis]

OBJECTIVES

To describe adverse outcomes after appendectomy for acute appendicitis and to analyze the association between these outcomes and specific characteristics of the patient and hospital admission.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We studied a cohort of 792 patients who underwent appendectomy for acute appendicitis. Postoperative complications, reoperations and deaths were prospectively studied and all readmissions were retrospectively identified. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between complications and patient characteristics, as well as hospital admission.

RESULTS

Postsurgical complications developed in 9.8% of the patients. These complications mainly consisted of surgical wound infection (4.2%) and intra-abdominal complications (2.1%). A total of 0.7% of patients underwent reoperation during admission, 0.5% were admitted to the intensive care unit and five patients (0.6%) died in hospital. The rate of operation-related readmissions in the following year was 3.2%. Length of hospital stay was longer in patients with complications than in those without complications (9.6 and 3.5 days, respectively). Postoperative complications were associated with older age (45-65 years, OR 3.62, p < 0.001; more than 65 years OR 8.68, p < 0.001) and acute appendicitis complicated with peritonitis or perforation (OR 3.69, p < 0.005). Readmissions related to previous surgery were associated only with complications during the first admission (OR 18.79, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In appendectomy, the most frequent adverse outcomes are surgical wound infection and intra-abdominal complications, which are associated with older patients and perforations. This subgroup of patients at high risk requires closer surveillance.

Douleurs aiguës de la fosse iliaque droite: intérêt de la surveillance clinique hospitalière

INTRODUCTION

Because of the potential severity of acute appendicitis, many authors recommend the broad use of appendectomy. In this case, 15 to 20% of appendectomies are ultimately found to have been unnecessary. Hospital observation with repeated clinical and laboratory exams can be useful for patients with atypical clinical presentation. This paper assesses our approach, in which some patients with pain in the right iliac fossa (RIF) are admitted for observation before a decision about appendectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients (205 cases) admitted from March 2002 through February 2003 for acute abdominal pain of the RIF were included in this prospective study. The 120 women and 85 men (sex ratio=0.7) had a mean age of 27 years. We classified the patients into 3 groups: those who had an emergency appendectomy, those who had surgery after an observation period, and those discharged without appendectomy after observation.

RESULTS

The first group included 110 patients: 63% had a (rectal) temperature greater than 38 degrees C; 44% had guarding of the RIF and 87% elevated white blood cell counts (>10000/mm3). At surgery, appendicitis was diagnosed in 92%. After a mean delay of 36 hours of observation, 50 of the patients in the second group underwent surgery: 44% with (rectal) temperature > 38 degrees C, RIF guarding in 8%, and elevated white blood cell count (>10000/mm3) in 74%. In this group, 94% were diagnosed with appendicitis during surgery. Forty-five patients were discharged without surgery after 36 hours of observation.

COMMENTARY

In this study, pain and RIF guarding, associated with temperature greater than 38 degrees C and elevated white blood cell counts, were predictive of appendicitis in 96% of cases. Admission for observation of patients with atypical presentation avoided 45 unnecessary appendectomies (22%).

Laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with endometriosis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To report the frequency and spectrum of histologically proved diseases of the appendix in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for chronic pelvic pain in conjunction with endometriosis in a tertiary referral center.

DESIGN

Patient database with retrospective chart review (Canadian Task Force classification II-3).

SETTING

University ambulatory endoscopic surgery center-tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Two hundred thirty-one women.

INTERVENTIONS

Appendectomy during laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We reviewed the medical records of 231 patients who underwent appendectomy during laparoscopic treatment of endometriosis performed from January 1994 through July 2004. Of the 231 patients with pelvic endometriosis, concomitant appendiceal pathology was present in 115.

CONCLUSION

The appendix may be involved and may contribute to pelvic pain in patients with endometriosis.

Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for confirmed appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is safe for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. This study compared recovery after laparoscopic (LA) and open appendicectomy (OA) for confirmed appendicitis, carried out by experienced surgeons in an educational setting.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-three patients with laparoscopically confirmed appendicitis suitable for LA were randomized prospectively to either LA or OA in a blinded fashion. The primary endpoint was time to full recovery. Secondary endpoints were operating time, complications, hospital stay and functional status.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between LA and OA in time to full recovery (9 and 11 days respectively; P = 0.225). Operating time was 55 min in the LA group and 60 min in the OA group (P = 0.416). The complication rate was 8.6 and 11.0 per cent respectively (P = 0.696), and median hospital stay was 2 days in both groups (P = 0.192). Functional status was significantly better in the LA group 7-10 days after operation (P = 0.045).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in time to full recovery after LA and OA in patients with laparoscopically confirmed appendicitis. A trend towards better physical activity was noted after the laparoscopic procedure.

Alvarado score: an admission criterion in patients with right iliac fossa pain

Appendicitis is an important differential diagnosis in patients with right iliac fossa pain. The diagnosis in patients with equivocal signs can be difficult. Many patients with suspected appendicitis are admitted for observation. We studied the Alvarado scores of 175 patients who presented to the emergency department with right iliac fossa pain and found that patients with scores of 4 or less did not have appendicitis. We also present an algorithm incorporating the Alvarado score for patients with suspected appendicitis.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis has been proposed to have advantages over conventional surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic and therapeutic effects of laparoscopic and conventional 'open' surgery.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciSearch, the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults or children. Studies comparing immediate OA versus diagnostic laparoscopy (followed by LA or OA if necessary) were separately identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Missing information or data was requested from the authors. We used odds ratios (OR), relative risks (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies, of which 45 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were less likely after LA than after OA (OR 0.45; CI 0.35 to 0.58), but the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses was increased (OR 2.48; CI 1.45 to 4.21). The duration of surgery was 12 minutes (CI 7 to 16) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 9 mm (CI 5 to 13 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Hospital stay was shortened by 1.1 day (CI 0.6 to 1.5). Return to normal activity, work, and sport occurred earlier after LA than after OA. While the operation costs of LA were significantly higher, the costs outside hospital were reduced. Five studies on children were included, but the result do not seem to be much different when compared to adults. Diagnostic laparoscopy reduced the risk of a negative appendectomy, but this effect was stronger in fertile women (RR 0.20; CI 0.11 to 0.34) as compared to unselected adults (RR 0.37; CI 0.13 to 1.01).

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

In those clinical settings where surgical expertise and equipment are available and affordable, diagnostic laparoscopy and LA (either in combination or separately) seem to have various advantages over OA. Some of the clinical effects of LA, however, are small and of limited clinical relevance. In spite of the mediocre quality of the available research data, we would generally recommend to use laparoscopy and LA in patients with suspected appendicitis unless laparoscopy itself is contraindicated or not feasible. Especially young female, obese, and employed patients seem to benefit from LA.

Which children could benefit from additional diagnostic tools in case of suspected appendicitis?

BACKGROUND

New diagnostic tools such as ultrasound scan, computed tomography (CT) scan, and diagnostic laparoscopy, have become available for children with suspected appendicitis but should be reserved for equivocal cases. The aim of this study was to develop a scoring system to identify this subgroup of children.

METHODS

Patients from 2 different periods (period 1, 99 consecutive children [group 1] and period 2, 62 consecutive children [group 2] with suspected appendicitis) were prospectively evaluated. Variables predicting appendicitis were obtained from group 1. By means of a regression analysis, a scoring system was created and applied to the patients of group 2. Missed appendicitis and negative appendectomy rates obtained by clinical practice were compared with the results that would have been accomplished based on the scoring system. Thereafter, the scoring system was externally validated in a group of children presented at another hospital (group 3, n = 114).

RESULTS

The variables, leukocyte count > or = 10.10(9)/L (2 points); rebound tenderness (2 points); and temperature > or = 38 degrees C (1 point) correlated significantly with appendicitis. The scoring system was used to categorize patients into 3 groups: appendicitis unlikely, doubtful appendicitis, and suspected appendicitis. The specificity and sensitivity of the scoring system were, respectively, 85% and 89%. Applying the scoring system would lead to comparable negative appendectomy rates of 8% versus 6% using clinical judgement and a comparable number of performed laparoscopies (26% v 31%). However, it could lead to a lower missed appendicitis rate (1% v 6%) and a lower perforation rate (0% v 11%). External validation showed comparable performed laparoscopies (32%) and missed appendicitis (2%) rates but a higher negative appendectomy rate (19%), probably owing to a lower percentage of appendicitis in hospital (2, 47%) compared with hospital (1, 71%).

CONCLUSIONS

Children can be observed if leukocyte count is less than 10.10(9)/L and rebound tenderness is absent; a diagnostic laparoscopy should be performed if one of these is present, and if both are present one could perform an appendectomy.

Age-related clinical features in older patients with acute appendicitis

Acute appendicitis, the most common cause of abdominal surgical emergency, shows a different pathogenesis, clinical course and outcome in the elderly. Age-specific factors are effective on preoperative clinical diagnosis and on the stage of this infectious disease. We aimed to present our experience with a series of elderly patients with appendicitis who were subjected to appendectomy. Operative and hospital records of patients with appendicitis were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who were 50 years of age or older were the main constituents of the study. Demographic features, preoperative clinical diagnosis, abdominal interventions, and postoperative morbidity and mortality were analysed as the main criteria. A total of 109 older patients have constituted 4.3% of our appendectomy cases. Besides right lower quadrant transversal incisions, surgery was performed via vertical incisions in 28.4% of cases with a diagnosis of acute abdomen. In the elderly, the perforation rate was significantly higher than in paediatric and adult patients (P<0.001). The proportion of the elderly among perforated cases was significantly increased when compared with non-perforated cases (12.9 versus 2.9%; P<0.001). Postoperative morbidity was noted in 35.8% of elderly patients, in 73.8% of perforated, and in 11.9% of non-perforated cases (P<0.001). The mortality rate was 5.5% in the elderly group, 11.9% in patients with perforated, and 1.5% in patients with non-perforated appendicitis. No mortality was noted in patients younger than 50 years. The precise diagnosis of appendicitis is relatively low in the elderly. Despite the uncommon occurrence of appendicitis, the perforation rate is still unfavourable. Postoperative morbidity and mortality is unacceptably high. Advancing age adversely affects clinical diagnosis, the stage of disease and the outcome of patients. Perforated appendicitis and septic progression is the main cause of undesirable outcomes.

Late abdominal complaints after appendectomy--readmissions during long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The postoperative risk of small bowel obstruction is a recognized complication following appendectomy. Few studies have reconsidered the whole extent of abdominal complaints and problems following appendectomy. This study tries to evaluate the long-term outcome describing abdominal complaints requiring readmission following appendectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 3,230 patients undergoing open appendectomy at a single center university hospital in Sweden between 1981 and 1996. Late (>30 days) readmissions were noted and the cause for readmission and need for surgical intervention were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, late readmissions occurred in 2.94% during a median follow-up of 10 years after appendectomy. Females predominated among those readmitted, as did patients with complicated appendicitis or a 'normal' appendix. Nonspecific abdominal pain with no sign of small bowel obstruction caused almost half of the readmissions (45%). To a large extent this group consisted of females (76%). Small bowel obstruction was seen in 1.24% and was surgically treated in 0.68% of all appendectomies. Incisional hernias were also seen (0.4% of all appendectomies).

CONCLUSION

The magnitude of readmissions due to abdominal complaints is more pronounced than previously reported with as many patients with signs of small bowel obstruction managed nonoperatively as surgically, and frequent readmissions due to nonspecific abdominal pain.

The role of the emergency medicine resident using the Alvarado score in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis compared with the general surgery resident

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of diagnosing appendicitis between emergency medicine residents using the Alvarado score and general surgery residents using ultrasonography and their clinical provision.

METHODS

A total of 358 patients (192 men and 166 women) were admitted to the emergency service with suspected appendicitis. Each patient was evaluated by an emergency medicine resident and then by a general surgeon independently. Age, sex, operational data, diagnosis, and the Alvarado scores were measured.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of the Alvarado score were 95.4% (95% confidence interval 91-99%) and 45.7% (95% confidence interval 37.4-54%), respectively. There was a significant difference between the sexes in the predictive values of a positive test (P=0.045) and a negative test (P=0.02). There was no statistical difference between the emergency medicine residents and general surgery residents in terms of positive and negative predicitive values (P>0.05 each).

CONCLUSION

There was no statistical difference between the emergency medicine residents using the Alvarado score and the general surgery residents in terms of suspecting the diagnosis of appendicitis.

Implications of removing a normal appendix

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of acute appendicitis remains difficult and therefore 15-30% of the removed appendices appear to be normal. The aim of this study was to investigate morbidity, mortality and costs of removing a normal appendix in patients with suspected appendicitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective study of patients who underwent a negative appendectomy for suspected appendicitis in the period 1991-1999 with a median follow-up of 4.4 years. Patients who underwent an elective appendectomy or appendectomy for other reasons were excluded.

RESULTS

In 285 patients (70% women, 30% men) a normal appendix was removed. In 192 (67%) patients a muscle-splitting incision was performed, in 6 (2%) a median laparotomy, and in 51 (18%) the normal appendix was removed by laparoscopy. In 36 patients (13%) a diagnostic laparoscopy was converted to a muscle-splitting incision. Complications occurred in 16 (6%) patients, in 5 (2%) a re-operation was needed. The mean hospital stay was 4.4 (SE 2.8) days, in case of complications 7.4 (SE 4.2) days. The mean extra hospital costs of a negative appendectomy were EUR 2712.

CONCLUSION

The removal of a normal appendix has considerable complications and costs. In an attempt to prevent these costs, extra diagnostic tools should be considered. Expensive diagnostic tools such as diagnostic laparoscopy should be used selectively in order not to further increase costs.

Implications of removing a normal appendix

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of acute appendicitis remains difficult, and therefore 15-30% of the removed appendices appear to be normal. The aim of this study is to investigate the morbidity, mortality and costs of removing a normal appendix in patients with suspected appendicitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on patients who underwent a negative appendectomy for suspected appendicitis in the period 1991-1999 with a median follow-up of 4.4 years. Patients who underwent an elective appendectomy or appendectomy for other reasons were excluded.

RESULTS

In 285 patients (70% women, 30% men) a normal appendix was removed. In 192 (67%) patients a muscle-splitting incision was performed, in 6 (2%) a median laparotomy, and in 51 (18%) the normal appendix was removed by laparoscopy. In 36 patients (13%) a diagnostic laparoscopy was converted to a muscle-splitting incision. Complications occurred in 16 (6%) patients, in 5 (2%) a reoperation was needed. The mean hospital stay was 4.4 (SE 2.8) days, in case of complication 7.4 (SE 4.2) days. The mean extra hospital costs of a negative appendectomy were EUR 2,712.

CONCLUSION

The removal of a normal appendix has considerable complications and costs. In an attempt to prevent these costs, extra diagnostic tools should be considered. Expensive diagnostic tools as diagnostic laparoscopy should be used selectively in order to not further exceed costs.

Laparoscopia no abdome agudo inflamatório de difícil diagnóstico

OBJETIVOS: O objetivo deste estudo foi analisar a eficácia do método laparoscópico em casos de abdome agudo inflamatório de difícil avaliação, quanto à acurácia, sensibilidade, especificidade e valores preditivos positivo e negativo. MÉTODO: Foram examinados, prospectivamente, 29 doentes com suspeita clínica de abdome agudo inflamatório, que após exames clínico e complementares não esclarecedores, foram submetidos à laparoscopia diagnóstica e/ou terapêutica. RESULTADOS: A precisão diagnóstica do exame foi de 96,5%. Com relação à terapêutica, 58,6 % dos doentes foram tratados por laparoscopia, 34,4% clinicamente e 6,8 % por laparotomia. A taxa de complicação foi de 10,3%, com ausência de mortalidade nesta série. Os doentes submetidos ao tratamento laparoscópico, tiveram alta hospitalar em média 36 horas após o procedimento. CONCLUSÕES: A laparoscopia mostrou-se um método de elevada acurácia diagnóstica, que permitiu manejo terapêutico satisfatório, associado à baixa morbidez e à recuperação pós-operatória precoce.

Laparoscopic appendectomy: a gynecological approach

The removal of surgical specimen at operative laparoscopy through an incision of the posterior fornix is frequently performed for the removal of pelvic masses of the internal genital tract. We present a technique for the removal of the appendix through a laparoscopic colpotomy. Eight patients who underwent laparoscopy for a suspected pelvic or adnexal disease and intraoperatively found to be affected by an appendicular disease were included in the present series. After intrabdominal dissection, the appendix was removed from the abdomen transvaginally through a laparoscopic colpotomy. The median range of the operation was 45 minutes (range 25-95). There were no intraoperative complications. The postoperative hospitalization period ranged from 2 to 7 days. Vaginal spotting was present in one case and lasted 24 hours. At follow-up visit, no patients complained of pelvic pain or dyspareunia. Vaginal wall induration was not found in any of the patients at pelvic examination. The removal of the appendix through a posterior colpotomy after laparoscopic appendectomy is simple, safe, feasible, well tolerated, and can be considered a valid alternative to other methods.