Do young patients with high clinical suspicion of appendicitis really need cross-sectional imaging? Proceedings from a highly controversial debate among the experts' panel of 2020 WSES Jerusalem guidelines

Diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains controversial. This systematic review details the evidence and current best practices for the evaluation and management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in adults and children.

METHODS

Eight questions regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis were formulated. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov/NLM were queried for articles published from 2010 to 2022 with key words related to at least one question. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Two reviewers screened each publication for eligibility and then extracted data from eligible studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on all quantitative data. The quality of randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 or Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively.

RESULTS

2792 studies were screened and 261 were included. Most had a high risk of bias. Computerized tomography scan yielded the highest sensitivity (> 80%) and specificity (> 93%) in the adult population, although high variability existed. In adults with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management resulted in higher odds of readmission (OR 6.10) and need for operation (OR 20.09), but less time to return to work/school (SMD - 1.78). In pediatric patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management also resulted in higher odds of need for operation (OR 38.31). In adult patients with complicated appendicitis, there were higher odds of need for operation following antibiotic treatment only (OR 29.00), while pediatric patients had higher odds of abscess formation (OR 2.23). In pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, higher risk of reoperation at any time point was observed in patients who had drains placed at the time of operation (RR 2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains nuanced. A personalized approach and appropriate patient selection remain key to treatment success. Further research on controversies in treatment would be useful for optimal management.

Validation of scoring systems for the prediction of complicated appendicitis in adults using clinical and computed tomographic findings

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to evaluate scoring systems for predicting complicated appendicitis in adults diagnosed with acute appendicitis on computed tomography.

METHODS

Three hundred twenty-five consecutive adult patients (mean age 51.9 ± 19.6 years, 212 women) diagnosed with acute appendicitis on computed tomography were retrospectively included. Clinical and imaging findings were compared between patients with and without complicated appendicitis, and independent associations were identified. As C-reactive protein was not available for most patients, 5 out of 8 scoring systems were modified. They, and a newly proposed system, were compared via area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC), Additionally, the latter was internally validated. Pairwise comparison was performed, and diagnostic performance of these scoring systems was obtained.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-seven patients (36.8%) had complicated appendicitis. Significant independent associations were found between complicated appendicitis and duration of symptoms > 12 h, appendicolith, periappendiceal fat stranding, periappendiceal fluid, and extraluminal air (p values < 0.001 to 0.037; AUCs of 0.824-0.829). AUCs of 9 scoring systems ranged from 0.692 to 0.831. Of these, modified Atema, Kim HY, and proposed scores had similarly high and non-significantly different AUCs (0.793-0.831) on pairwise comparison. Their sensitivities, specificities, and accuracies were 73.0-90.6%, 48.5-70.6%, and 64.3-72.3%, respectively. Internal validity test demonstrated high AUCs (0.826-0.844) with one of the proposed scores using odds ratio having 100% sensitivity and 100% negative predictive value.

CONCLUSIONS

Few scoring systems, including proposed ones, had high AUCs, sensitivity, and reasonable specificities, which could potentially aid in safely selecting adult patients with acute appendicitis for nonoperative management.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

The study suggests few scoring systems for predicting complicated appendicitis with high AUCs and reasonable sensitivities, potentially aiding in selecting patients for nonoperative management.

KEY POINTS

• The study evaluated existing and proposed new scoring systems to predict complicated appendicitis in adults with acute appendicitis on computed tomography. • Several factors were found to be significantly associated with complicated appendicitis, including duration of symptoms, appendicolith, periappendiceal fat stranding, periappendiceal fluid, and extraluminal air. • The modified Atema, Kim HY, and newly proposed scoring systems performed well, potentially aiding in nonoperative management selection.

The Diagnostic Differentiation Challenge in Acute Appendicitis: How to Distinguish between Uncomplicated and Complicated Appendicitis in Adults

(1) Background: How to best define, diagnose and differentiate uncomplicated from complicated acute appendicitis remains debated. Hence, the aim of this review was to present an overview of the current knowledge and emerging field of acute appendicitis with a focus on the diagnostic differentiation of severity currently subject to ongoing investigations. (2) Methods: We conducted a PubMed search using the MeSH terms “appendicitis AND severity” and “appendicitis AND classification”, with a focus on studies calling appendicitis as ‘uncomplicated’ or ‘complicated’. An emphasis on the last 5 years was stressed, with further studies selected for their contribution to the theme. Further studies were retrieved from identified full-text articles and included per the authors’ discretion. (3) Results: The assumption that appendicitis invariably will proceed to perforation has been outdated. Both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis exist with likely different pathophysiology. Hence, this makes it important to differentiate disease severity. Clinicians must diagnose appendicitis, but, in the next step, also differentiate between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in order to allow for management decisions. Diagnostic accuracy without supportive imaging is around 75–80% and, based on clinical judgement and blood tests alone, the negative appendectomy rate has been described as high as 36%. More research is needed on available biomarkers, and the routine use of imaging still remains debated. Scoring systems have the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, but no scoring system has yet been validated for differentiating disease severity. Currently, no universally agreed definition exists on what constitutes a complicated appendicitis. (4) Conclusions: Uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis appear to have different pathophysiology and should be treated differently. The differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis remains a diagnostic challenge.

Predicting complicated appendicitis based on clinical findings: the role of Alvarado and Appendicitis Inflammatory Response scores

PURPOSE

The pre-interventional differentiation between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis is decisive for treatment. In the context of conservative therapy, the definitive diagnosis of uncomplicated appendicitis is mandatory. This study investigates the ability of clinical scoring systems and imaging to differentiate between the two entities.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of two cohorts from two tertiary referral centers in Switzerland and Germany. All consecutive patients underwent appendectomy between January 2008 and April 2013 (in the first cohort) or between January 2017 and June 2019 (the second cohort). Exclusion criteria did not apply as all patients found by the database search and received an appendectomy were included. Diagnostic testing and calculation of a receiver operating curve were performed to identify a cutoff for clinical scores that resulted in a minimum sensitivity of 90% to detect complicated appendicitis. The cutoff was combined with additional diagnostic imaging criteria to see if diagnostic properties could be improved.

RESULTS

Nine hundred fifty-six patients were included in the analysis. Two hundred twenty patients (23%) had complicated appendicitis, and 736 patients (77%) had uncomplicated appendicitis or no inflammation. The complicated appendicitis cohort had a mean Alvarado score of 7.03 and a mean AIR of 5.21. This compared to a mean Alvarado of 6.53 and a mean AIR of 4.07 for the uncomplicated appendicitis cohort. The highest Alvarado score with a sensitivity of > 90% to detect complicated appendicitis was ≧ 5 (sensitivity = 95%, specificity 8.99%). The highest AIR score with a sensitivity of > 90% to detect complicated appendicitis was ≧ 3 (sensitivity 91.82%, specificity 18.53). The analysis showed that additional CT information did not improve the sensitivity of the proposed cut-offs.

CONCLUSION

AIR and Alvarado scores showed limited capability to distinguish between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis even with additional imaging in this retrospective cohort. As conservative management of appendicitis needs to exclude patients with complicated disease reliably, appendectomy seems until now to remain the safest option to prevent undertreatment of this mostly benign disease.

Neoplasias apendiculares incidentales

Las neoplasias apendiculares se presentan hasta en el 50 % de los casos como un episodio de apendicitis aguda. Existen características demográficas, clínicas y radiológicas que aumentan las posibilidades de un tumor apendicular subyacente, sin embargo, en la mayoría de los casos, son los hallazgos intraoperatorios los que alertan al cirujano. A pesar de que el tipo histológico determina la radicalidad del manejo quirúrgico de estos pacientes, algunas características macroscópicas pueden orientar a las patologías específicas y a una conducta adecuada. En general, los objetivos del manejo quirúrgico inicial se cumplen con una resección limitada al apéndice cecal, asociada a la citología de mucina y biopsia de los implantes peritoneales si están presentes, reservando las resecciones extendidas, como hemicolectomía derecha oncológica, para los pacientes con compromiso extenso de la base o del mesenterio apendicular ante la sospecha de neoplasias neuroendocrinas o adenocarcinoma del apéndice cecal.

Inferior Vena Cava Thrombosis, Appendicitis Mimic

Right lower quadrant abdominal pain is a common presentation to the Emergency Department. While appendicitis is a frequently diagnosed pathology associated with this complaint, there are multiple, well-documented alternatives that must be considered. The authors present a unique case of a 20 year old active duty male who presented with 3 days of acutely worsening right lower quadrant abdominal pain, right flank pain, and anorexia. Following a detailed work-up, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated a bland thrombus within the inferior vena cava (IVC) secondary to a vascular web. This case highlights the difficulty in astutely diagnosing appendicitis utilizing clinical examination and scoring metrics. While IVC thrombosis is a rare phenomenon, it should be considered in the emergency physician's differential for right lower quadrant abdominal pain, particularly when additional nonspecific symptoms are present.

Periappendiceal fat-stranding models for discriminating between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a diagnostic and validation study

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have reported promising outcomes of non-operative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis; however, the preoperative prediction of complicated appendicitis is challenging. We developed models by incorporating fat stranding (FS), which is commonly observed in perforated appendicitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed the data of 402 consecutive patients with confirmed acute appendicitis from our prospective registry. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to select clinical and radiographic factors predicting complicated acute appendicitis in our model 1 (involving backward elimination) and model 2 (involving stepwise selection). We compared c statistics among scoring systems developed by Bröker et al. (in J Surg Res 176(1):79-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2011.09.049 , 2012), Imaoka et al. (in World J Emerg Surg 11(1):1-5, 2016), Khan et al. (in Cureus. https://doi.org/1010.7759/cureus.4765 , 2019), Kim et al. (in Ann Coloproctol 31(5):192, 2015), Kang et al. (in Medicine 98(23): e15768, 2019), Atema et al. (in Br J Surg 102(8):979-990. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9835 , 2015), Avanesov et al. (in Eur Radiol 28(9):3601-3610, 2018), and Kim et al. (in Abdom Radiol 46:1-12, 2020). Finally, we examined our models by performing the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) test.

RESULTS

Among enrolled patients, 64 (15.9%) had complicated acute appendicitis. We developed new 10-point scoring models by including the following variables: C-reactive protein, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, and computed tomography features of FS, ascites, and appendicolith. A cutoff score of ≥ 6 exhibited a high sensitivity of 82.8% and a specificity of 82.8% for model 1 and 81.3% and 82.3% for model 2, respectively, with c statistics of 0.878 (model 1) and 0.879 (model 2). Compared with the model developed by Bröker et al. which included C-reactive protein and the abdominal pain duration (c statistic: 0.778), the models developed by Atema et al. (c statistic: 0.826, IDI: 5.92%, P = 0.0248), H.Y Kim et al. (c statistics: 0.838, IDI: 13.82%, P = 0.0248), and our two models (IDI: 18.29%, P < 0.0001) demonstrated a significantly higher diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSION

Our models and the scoring systems developed by Atema et al. and Kim et al. were validated to have a high diagnostic accuracy; moreover, our models included the lowest number of variables.

WSES/GAIS/SIS-E/WSIS/AAST global clinical pathways for patients with intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are common surgical emergencies and have been reported as major contributors to non-trauma deaths in hospitals worldwide. The cornerstones of effective treatment of IAIs include early recognition, adequate source control, appropriate antimicrobial therapy, and prompt physiologic stabilization using a critical care environment, combined with an optimal surgical approach. Together, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery (GAIS), the Surgical Infection Society-Europe (SIS-E), the World Surgical Infection Society (WSIS), and the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) have jointly completed an international multi-society document in order to facilitate clinical management of patients with IAIs worldwide building evidence-based clinical pathways for the most common IAIs. An extensive non-systematic review was conducted using the PubMed and MEDLINE databases, limited to the English language. The resulting information was shared by an international task force from 46 countries with different clinical backgrounds. The aim of the document is to promote global standards of care in IAIs providing guidance to clinicians by describing reasonable approaches to the management of IAIs.

The Risk of Alzheimer's Disease After Acute Appendicitis With or Without Appendectomy

OBJECTIVE

Previous epidemiologic studies have suggested an association between appendectomy and Parkinson's disease. The aim of the current study was to examine the risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other types of dementia following appendicitis or appendectomy for appendicitis.

DESIGN

Population-based cohort study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We used claims data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Participants aged ≥45 years with acute appendicitis or who received appendectomy for appendicitis were enrolled and followed up for more than 15 years. Cases and controls underwent 1:1 matching by age, sex, index date, and dementia-related comorbidities.

METHODS

The primary outcome was AD, and secondary outcomes included other dementia types. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were calculated, and a competing risk regression model was created. The E value for causality of evidence was calculated.

RESULTS

Patients developing appendicitis (0.6% vs 0.1%, P = .005) and those receiving appendectomy for appendicitis (0.4% vs 0.1%, P = .003) had higher incidences of AD than the controls during the follow-up period. A Cox regression analysis with adjustment for potential confounders showed that patients with appendicitis [aHR 6.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.84-24.48] and those receiving appendectomy for appendicitis (aHR 5.01, 95% CI 1.33-18.85) were more likely to develop AD than the controls. These 2 groups also had higher risks for unspecified dementia and all types of dementia but not for vascular dementia than the controls. The age at dementia diagnosis was 88.51 years in the controls; however, among people who developed dementia following appendicitis, the mean age at diagnosis was 70.18 years, and dementia occurred 5.84 years after appendicitis. The competing risk regression models and the E values support the study findings.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

After recovery from appendicitis, these patients should be followed up for signs of AD.

Appendicectomy for Uncomplicated Simple Appendicitis: Is It Always Required?

BACKGROUND

Although appendicectomy is still the classical and standard treatment for acute appendicitis, initial conservative antibiotic only treatment for simple uncomplicated cases has been proposed and tried as a feasible and effective approach. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of antibiotics treatment for acute simple uncomplicated appendicitis.

METHODS

This is a prospective controlled nonrandomized study in which a total of 156 patients whose ages range from 16 to 54 years presenting with clinical diagnosis of acute uncomplicated appendicitis were assigned for conservative antibiotics treatment, which consists of ceftriaxone I gram twice daily and metronidazole infusions, 500 mg in 100 ml, 3 times daily for 48 to 72 hours to be converted on oral antibiotics after clinical improvement for 5 to 7 days. Patients who failed to initial conservative treatment and those who had recurring symptoms of appendicitis were presented for appendectomy.

RESULTS

Antibiotic treatment was successful and feasible in 138 (88.5%) patients. Progression of the signs and symptoms despite full medical treatment was observed in 11 (7%) patients during the same admission. Further 7 (4.5%) patients showed recurrence of the symptoms during follow-up period of 6-12 months after successful initial conservative treatment and also proceeded for appendicectomy.

CONCLUSION

Nonoperative antibiotic treatment of acute simple appendicitis is safe, feasible, and effective for properly selected cases, thus avoiding unnecessary surgery with its possible complications.