Controversies and Future Directions in Management of Acute Appendicitis: An Updated Comprehensive Review

Globally, acute appendicitis has an estimated lifetime risk of 7-8%. However, there are numerous controversies surrounding the management of acute appendicitis, and the best treatment approach depends on patient characteristics. Non-operative management (NOM), which involves the utilization of antibiotics and aggressive intravenous hydration, and surgical appendectomy are valid treatment options for healthy adults. NOM is also ideal for poor surgical candidates. Another important consideration is the timing of surgery, i.e., the role of interval appendectomy (IA) and the possibility of delaying surgery for a few hours on index admission. IA refers to surgical removal of the appendix 8-12 weeks after the initial diagnosis of appendicitis. It is ideal in patients with a contained appendiceal perforation on initial presentation, wherein an initial nonoperative approach is preferred. Furthermore, IA can help distinguish malignant and non-malignant causes of acute appendicitis, while reducing the risk of recurrence. On the contrary, a decision to delay appendectomy for a few hours on index admission should be made based on the patients' baseline health status and severity of appendicitis. Post-operatively, surgical drain placement may help reduce postoperative complications; however, it carries an increased risk of drain occlusion, fistula formation, and paralytic ileus. Furthermore, one of the most critical aspects of appendectomy is the closure of the appendiceal stump, which can be achieved with the help of endoclips, sutures, staples, and endoloops. In this review, we discuss different aspects of management of acute appendicitis, current controversies in management, and the potential role of endoscopic appendectomy as a future treatment option.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CT of appendicoliths in adult appendicitis: clinical significance and characteristics of overlooked cases

OBJECTIVES

Accurate computed tomography (CT) identification of appendicoliths in adults with acute appendicitis is crucial as it may preclude nonoperative management due to high risk of failure and complications. This investigation aimed to identify the significance of appendicoliths in acute appendicitis and to evaluate the performance of portovenous-phase (PVP) CT and the consequences of overlooked appendicoliths.

METHODS

CT examinations of 324 consecutive patients (mean age 51.9 years, 112 men) with pathologically confirmed acute appendicitis were retrospectively included. Two radiologists independently reviewed the images, and disagreement was resolved by a consensus.

RESULTS

Appendicoliths were identified in 134/324 patients, of which 75 had complicated appendicitis. Among 190 patients without appendicoliths, 52 had complicated appendicitis. An appendicolith was independently associated with complicated appendicitis (adjusted odds ratio 2.289; 95% CI: 1.343-3.902; p = 0.002). The larger minimum diameter was significantly associated with complication. The 4.5-/6.0-mm cutoffs for minimum and maximum diameters of appendicoliths demonstrated 82.7%/85.3% sensitivity and 35.6%/33.9% specificity in predicting complications. The PVP alone had 82.1-88.1% sensitivity, respectively per patient and per appendicolith, and a 100% specificity in the detection of appendicoliths, as compared with combined noncontrast and PVP. PVP overlooked 28/237 appendicoliths (11.8%) corresponding to 24/134 patients (17.9%). Of the 24 patients with overlooked appendicoliths, 16 had complicated appendicitis but 14 were correctly categorized by findings other than appendicoliths. In total, 2/127 patients (1.6%) with complicated appendicitis were misdiagnosed as having uncomplicated appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Appendicoliths in acute appendicitis were strongly associated with complications. While PVP overlooked some appendicoliths, only 1.6% of complicated appendicitis were misclassified when considering other CT findings.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study found a strong association between appendicoliths and complications. Its presence may preclude conservative management. Although portovenous-phase CT overlooked some appendicoliths, the combination with other CT findings allowed correct classification in a vast majority of cases.

KEY POINTS

• Accurate identification of appendicoliths is crucial for nonoperative management decisions in adult acute appendicitis. • Appendicoliths are strongly associated with complications in adult acute appendicitis. • Portovenous-phase CT overlooked some appendicoliths, but only a small percentage of patients with complicated appendicitis were misclassified when considering other CT findings.

Interval appendectomy as a safe and feasible treatment approach after conservative treatment for appendicitis with abscess: a retrospective, single-center cohort study

Emergency appendectomy (EA) is the gold standard management for acute appendicitis (AA). However, whether EA or interval appendectomy (IA) after conservative treatment is the optimal approach in AA with abscess remains controversial. This study compared IA and EA in patients presenting with AA accompanied by abscess. This was a retrospective single-center study including 446 consecutive patients undergoing appendectomy between April 2009 and March 2023. AA with abscess was defined as a pericecal abscess observed by computed tomography or abdominal ultrasonography, and patients with signs of peritoneal irritation were excluded. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the patients who directly underwent EA and those who underwent IA after conservative treatment. Among 42 patients (9.4%) with AA and abscess, 34 and 8 patients underwent IA and EA, respectively. The rates of ileocecal resection and postoperative complications were lower in the IA group than in the EA group (3% vs. 50%, P < 0.001 and 9% vs. 75%, P < 0.001, respectively). Colonoscopy before IA was performed in 16 of the 17 patients aged ≥ 40 years in the IA group, and one patient underwent ileocecal resection because of suspicious neoplasm in the root of the appendix. IA after conservative treatment might be considered as the useful therapeutic option for AA with abscess. Colonoscopy during the waiting period between the initial diagnosis and IA should be considered in patients aged ≥ 40 years who may have malignant changes. Implementing IA as a first-line treatment will be beneficial to both patients and healthcare providers.

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.

Thermal Injury to the Subhepatic Appendix Following Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Case Report

We present the first documented case of a fistula between the treated zone and the appendix after RFA in a patient with HCC. Contrast-enhanced CT and MRI revealed a subcapsular hepatic nodule with image findings of HCC located adjacent to the ascending colon and cecum. An ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy was subsequently performed to distinguish between hepatic metastasis and HCC. Post-RFA imaging identified a low-attenuating ablated area adjacent to an air-filled appendix. The patient later experienced complications, including increased liver enzymes and an abscess at the ablation site. Imaging revealed a fistulous tract between the RFA zone and the appendix. Over the following months, the patient underwent conservative treatment involving intravenous antibiotics and repeated percutaneous drainage, exhibiting eventual symptom relief and an absence of the fistulous tract upon subsequent imaging. This case highlights the rare complications that can arise during RFA due to peculiar anatomical variations, such as a subhepatic appendix, resulting from midgut malrotation and previous surgery. It is imperative for operators to be cognizant of potential anatomical variations when considering RFA treatment, ensuring comprehensive pre-procedural imaging and post-procedure monitoring. This case also emphasizes the potential viability of nonoperative management in complex scenarios in which surgical interventions pose significant risks.

Performance and diagnostic accuracy of scoring systems in adult patients with suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to determine the most accurate appendicitis scoring system and optimal cut-off points for each scoring system.

METHODS

This single-centred prospective cohort study was conducted from January-to-June 2021, involving all patients admitted on suspicion of appendicitis. All patients were scored according to the Alvarado score, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score, Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha (RIPASA) score and Adult Appendicitis score (AAS). The final diagnosis for each patient was recorded. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each system. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed for each scoring system, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. Optimal cut-off scores were calculated using Youden's Index.

RESULTS

A total of 245 patients were recruited with 198 (80.8%) patients underwent surgery. RIPASA score had higher sensitivity and specificity than other scoring systems without being statistically significant (sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 62.3%, optimal score 8.5, AUC 0.724), followed by the AAS (sensitivity 60.2%, specificity 75.4%, optimal score 14, AUC 0.719), AIR score (sensitivity 76.7%, specificity 52.2%, optimal score 5, AUC 0.688) and Alvarado score (sensitivity 69.9%, specificity 62.3%, optimal score 5, AUC 0.681). Multiple logistic regression revealed anorexia (p-value 0.018), right iliac fossa tenderness (p-value 0.005) and guarding (p-value 0.047) as significant clinical factors independently associated with appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

Appendicitis scoring systems have shown moderate sensitivity and specificity in our population. The RIPASA scoring system has shown to be the most sensitive, specific and easy-to-use scoring system in the Malaysian population whereas the AAS is most accurate in excluding low-risk patients.

Therapeutic strategy for acute appendicitis based on laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE

The treatment strategies for acute appendicitis differ depending on the facility, and various studies have investigated the usefulness of conservative treatment with antibiotics, laparoscopic surgery, and interval appendectomy (IA). However, although laparoscopic surgery is widely used, the clinical strategy for acute appendicitis, especially complicated cases, remains controversial. We assessed a laparoscopic surgery-based treatment strategy for all patients diagnosed with appendicitis, including those with complicated appendicitis (CA).

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed patients with acute appendicitis treated in our institution between January 2013 and December 2021. Patients were classified into uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) and CA groups based on computed tomography (CT) findings on the first visit, and the treatment course was subsequently compared.

RESULTS

Of 305 participants, 218 were diagnosed with UA and 87 with CA, with surgery performed in 159 cases. Laparoscopic surgery was attempted in 153 cases and had a completion rate of 94.8% (145/153). All open laparotomy transition cases (n = 8) were emergency CA surgery cases. No significant differences were found in the incidence of postoperative complications in successful emergency laparoscopic surgeries. In univariate and multivariate analyses for the conversion to open laparotomy in CA, only the number of days from onset to surgery ≥ 6 days was an independent risk factor (odds ratio: 11.80; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery is preferred in all appendicitis cases, including CA. Since laparoscopic surgery is difficult for CA when several days from the onset have passed, it is necessary that surgeons make an early decision on whether to operate.

Usefulness of Preoperative Predictors of Pathological Complicated Appendicitis

INTRODUCTION

Complicated appendicitis (CA) is often indicated for emergency surgery; however, preoperative predictors of pathological CA (pCA) remain unclear. Furthermore, characteristics of CA that can be treated conservatively have not yet been established.

METHODS

305 consecutive patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups: an emergency surgery and a conservative treatment group. The emergency surgery group was pathologically classified as having uncomplicated appendicitis (pUA) and pCA, and the preoperative predictors of pCA were retrospectively assessed. Based on the preoperative pCA predictors, a predictive nomogram whether conservative treatment would be successful or not was created. The predictors were applied to the conservative treatment group, and the outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

In the multiple logistic regression analysis of the factors contributing to pCA, C-reactive protein ≥3.5 mg/dL, ascites, appendiceal wall defect, and periappendiceal fluid collection were independent risk factors. Over 90% of cases without any of the above four preoperative pCA predictors were pUA. The accuracy of the nomogram was 0.938.

CONCLUSION

Our preoperative predictors and nomogram are useful to aid in distinguishing pCA and pUA and to predict whether or not conservative treatment will be successful. Some CA can be treated with conservative treatment.

Factors associated with recurrent appendicitis after nonoperative management

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to identify predictors for recurrent appendicitis in patients with appendicitis previously treated nonoperatively.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of all adult patients with appendicitis treated at a tertiary care hospital. Patient demographics, radiographic information, management, and clinical outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was recurrent appendicitis within 6 months after discharge from the index admission. Given the competing risk of interval appendectomy, a time-to-event competing-risk analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 699 patients presenting with appendicitis, 74 were treated nonoperatively (35 [47%] were women; median [IQR] age, 48 [33,64] years), and 21 patients (29%) had recurrent appendicitis. On univariate and multivariate analysis, presence of an appendicolith on imaging was the only factor associated with a higher risk of recurrent appendicitis (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of appendicolith was associated with an increased risk of developing recurrent appendicitis within 6 months.

Ultrasound-Tomographic Image Fusion - A Novel Tool for Follow up After Acute Complicated Appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Computerized tomography (CT) is an integral part of the follow-up and decision-making process in complicated acute appendicitis (AA) treated non-operatively. However, repeated CT scans are costly and cause radiation exposure. Ultrasound-tomographic image fusion is a novel tool that integrates CT images to an Ultrasound (US) machine, thus allowing accurate assessment of the healing process compared to CT on presentation. In this study, we aimed to assess the feasibility of US-CT fusion as part of the management of appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected data of consecutive patients with complicated AA managed non-operatively and followed up with US Fusion for clinical decision-making. Patients demographics, clinical data, and follow-up outcomes were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 19 patients were included. An index Fusion US was conducted in 13 patients (68.4%) during admission, while the rest were performed as part of an ambulatory follow-up. Nine patients (47.3%) had more than 1 US Fusion performed as part of their follow-up, and 3 patients underwent a third US Fusion. Eventually, 5 patients (26.3%) underwent elective interval appendectomy based on the outcomes of the US Fusion, due to a non-resolution of imaging findings and ongoing symptoms. In 10 patients (52.6%), there was no evidence of an abscess in the repeated US Fusion, while in 3 patients (15.8%), it significantly diminished to less than 1 cm in diameter.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound-tomographic image fusion is feasible and can play a significant role in the decision-making process for the management of complicated AA.

The role of screening colonoscopy after appendicitis in patients over 40 years of age

BACKGROUND

There is some evidence of the association between acute appendicitis and colorectal neoplasm in patients over the age of 40 years. Despite this, few centres routinely evaluate the colon endoscopically following an episode of appendicitis in these patients. Our aim was to investigate the incidence of colorectal neoplasm in patients aged 40 years and over who underwent screening colonoscopy following acute appendicitis.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients aged 40 years and over who were diagnosed with acute appendicitis via imaging or histology between January 2015 and May 2022. Findings on subsequent screening colonoscopy were evaluated and classified according to adenomatous and non-adenomatous lesions.

RESULTS

A total of 176 patients met inclusion criteria, with a median age of 54 years (range 40-92) and female to male ratio of 1:1.3. One hundred patients (56%) had a colonoscopy following their admission, at a mean duration of 3.5 months post discharge. 15% of patients had an adenomatous polyp detected (10 adenomas, 4 advanced adenomas, and 1 sessile serrated adenoma), and 9% had a non-adenomatous lesion detected (8 hyperplastic polyps and 1 lipoma).

CONCLUSION

Adenoma detection rate in patients aged 40 years and over undergoing colonoscopy after acute appendicitis was 15% in our cohort. This high adenoma detection rate supports the view of appendicitis as an indication for screening faecal immunochemical testing or colonoscopy in patients above 40 years.

Perforated Appendicitis Presenting as a Soft Tissue Infection of the Thigh: An Example of Successful Non-Operative Management

Perforated appendicitis is a rare but serious clinical scenario typically requiring urgent surgical intervention. Herein, we discuss the case of a 62-year-old woman with COVID-19 and ruptured retrocecal appendicitis presenting as a right lower extremity soft tissue infection that was successfully managed using non-operative measures. This unique case illustrates the feasibility of conservative care - rather than urgent surgical intervention - in the treatment of an atypical presentation of complicated appendicitis in a high-risk patient.

An adult female patient with single atrium and single ventricle undergoing appendectomy: A case report

Appendicitis is one of the common diseases, and appendectomy is one of the most commonly performed procedures. Single atrium and single ventricle are rare heart diseases, and very few patients survive to adulthood. We report a patient with single atrial and single ventricles undergoing appendectomy with transverse abdominis plane block and dexmedetomidine sedation anesthesia with smooth postoperative appendectomy.

Interval laparoscopic appendectomy after laparotomy drainage for acute appendicitis with abscess: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Immediate appendectomy for acute appendicitis with abscess has a high frequency of ileocecal resection and postoperative complications compared with interval appendectomy after conservative treatment. The optimal approach to acute appendicitis with abscess remains controversial.

PRESENTATION OF CASE

A 69-year-old woman was referred to our hospital for abdominal pain. A computed tomography scan revealed an enlarged abscess around the cecum. The diagnosis was perforated appendicitis with abscess, and conservative treatment was performed. Percutaneous drainage was difficult because the abscess was near the intestinal tract. Because of the persistence of symptoms on the fourth day of hospitalization, laparotomy drainage was performed, and the patient's condition improved afterwards. Colonoscopy was performed on an outpatient follow-up to rule out malignant tumors of the colon. Interval laparoscopic appendectomy was performed 3 months after discharge to prevent appendicitis. The postoperative course was uneventful.

DISCUSSION

For this case of acute appendicitis with abscess, conservative treatment such as antibiotic therapy and laparotomy drainage was performed. Laparotomy drainage enabled us to approach the abscess directly and minimized the risk of its spread into the abdominal cavity compared to the laparoscopic approach. Interval laparoscopic appendectomy was more effective and easier for this case of appendectomy, wherein adhesions to the abdominal wall were expected compared to laparotomy.

CONCLUSION

Conservative treatment approaches, such as drainage and antibiotic therapy, can be first-line for appendicitis with abscesses. Interval laparoscopic appendectomy can be useful to resect the appendix and observe the abdominal cavity.

Modern Management of the Appendix: So Many Options

Nonoperative management (NOM) of acute appendicitis is becoming more popular, especially in resource-strapped locations, to minimize hospital system costs. In uncomplicated cases of appendicitis, NOM can effectively treat the patient. It does carry a 39.1% risk of recurrence in 5 years, and operative management (OM) does not increase morbidity or risk of complication, so the authors recommend laparoscopic OM for uncomplicated appendicitis. For complicated cases of appendicitis, the authors recommend initial NOM with interval appendectomy in all patients. All appendicitis patients should undergo surveillance endoscopy if older than 40 years to rule out a contributing neoplasm.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Fecalith in the Proximal Area of the Appendix is a Predictor of Failure of Nonoperative Treatment for Complicated Appendicitis in Adults

BACKGROUND

The management of complicated appendicitis remains controversial, since this disease has various clinical presentations and is associated with high rates of adverse events. Although initial nonoperative treatment is generally employed for complicated appendicitis, its clinical presentation and the predictors of nonoperative treatment failure are unclear.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with complicated appendicitis in our hospital between April 2015 and March 2020 were enrolled. In total, 113 patients were classified into three categories: emergency appendectomy, failure of nonoperative treatment and successful nonoperative treatment. The primary outcome was the rate of failure of nonoperative treatment, as assessed by logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcomes were the operative procedures and postoperative courses of the three groups.

RESULTS

Of 113 patients, 45 (40%) underwent emergency appendectomy, 25 (22%) failed nonoperative treatment, and 43 (38%) had successful nonoperative treatment. Among these successful cases, 38 patients (88%) underwent interval appendectomy. In multivariate analyses, the presence of a fecalith in the proximal area of the appendix was an independent risk factor for failure of nonoperative treatment (odds ratio, 20.5; 95% confidence interval, 4.37-95.7, P < 0.001). Postoperative outcomes were more unfavorable in cases of failed nonoperative treatment than in cases of emergency and interval appendectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of a fecalith in the proximal area of the appendix is an independent predictor for failure of nonoperative treatment for complicated appendicitis in adults. Patients with this risk factor should be considered candidates for surgical treatment.

Adult appendicitis: Clinical practice guidelines from the French Society of Digestive Surgery and the Society of Abdominal and Digestive Imaging

INTRODUCTION

The French Society of Digestive Surgery (SFCD) and the Society of Abdominal and Digestive Imaging (SIAD) have collaborated to propose recommendations for clinical practice in the management of adult appendicitis.

METHODS

An analysis of the literature was carried out according to the methodology of the French National Authority for Health (HAS). A selection was performed from collected references and then a manual review of the references listed in the selected articles was made in search of additional relevant articles. The research was limited to articles whose language of publication was English or French. Articles focusing on the pediatric population were excluded. Based on the literature review, the working group proposed recommendations whenever possible. These recommendations were reviewed and approved by a committee of experts.

RESULTS

Recommendations about appendicitis in adult patients were proposed with regard to clinical, laboratory and radiological diagnostic modalities, treatment strategy for uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, surgical technique, and specificities in the case of macroscopically healthy appendix, terminal ileitis and appendicitis in the elderly and in pregnant women.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations for clinical practice may be useful to the surgeon in optimizing the management of acute appendicitis in adults.

Risk of emergency surgery for complicated appendicitis: Japanese nationwide study

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Appendiceal phlegmon in adults: Do we know how to manage it yet?

A Best Evidence Topic in general surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was 'Appendiceal phlegmon in adults: Do we know how to manage it yet?'. Altogether 217 papers were found on Ovid Embase and Medline, 334 on PubMed and 13 on the Cochrane database using the reported search. From the screened articles, 5 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. We conclude that the best management method is conservative only treatment without interval appendicectomy. These patients must be followed up, including colonoscopy and/or CT imaging as indicated, to investigate for conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease or malignancy masquerading as appendicitis.

Validating the efficacy of interval appendectomy for acute appendicitis: representative three cases with different etiologies

Background

Appendectomy for acute appendicitis (AA) is considered one of the most common emergency surgeries. However, emergency appendectomy accompanied with complex lesions such as extensive abscess formation is not recommended in most cases. Therefore, non-operative management followed by interval appendectomy (IA) for AA has been tried. Herein, we present three AA cases with specific etiology that underwent interval appendectomy.

Case presentation

Case 1: A 68-year-old man was diagnosed AA with intestinal malrotation and intra-abdominal abscesses. He initially treated with conservative therapy and underwent laparoscopic IA after detailed preoperative examination.

Case 2: A 22-year-old man had been under treatment for pancolitis-type ulcerative colitis (UC), also bothered by right-lower abdominal pain several times a year. The appendix always appeared swollen on every CT taken during symptoms. He underwent laparoscopic IA; pathological finding revealed typical UC histological features in the resected appendix. After the surgery, he never suffered from terrible right lower abdominal pain.

Case 3: A 69-year-old woman complaining a right lower abdominal pain had undergone CT examination, which revealed AA with appendiceal mass, irregular wall thickness of the cecum, and mediastinal and para-aortic lymph node swelling. The operation was carried out after conservative therapy. The pathological diagnosis revealed BRAF mutated colorectal carcinoma. She had received systematic chemotherapy after the surgery, and all metastatic lesions have completely disappeared.

Conclusion

Interval appendectomy provided us with much clearer anatomical information and precise therapeutic strategies, avoiding technical and general operative complications, and also induced fast recovery and short length of hospital stay. Interval appendectomy is a reasonable procedure and could be recommended in case of AA with some different etiology.

Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is still challenging and some controversies on its management are still present among different settings and practice patterns worldwide. In July 2015, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) organized in Jerusalem the first consensus conference on the diagnosis and treatment of AA in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines. An updated consensus conference took place in Nijemegen in June 2019 and the guidelines have now been updated in order to provide evidence-based statements and recommendations in keeping with varying clinical practice: use of clinical scores and imaging in diagnosing AA, indications and timing for surgery, use of non-operative management and antibiotics, laparoscopy and surgical techniques, intra-operative scoring, and peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

METHODS

This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of AA. Literature search has been updated up to 2019 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. The statements were voted, eventually modified, and finally approved by the participants to the consensus conference and by the board of co-authors, using a Delphi methodology for voting whenever there was controversy on a statement or a recommendation. Several tables highlighting the research topics and questions, search syntaxes, and the statements and the WSES evidence-based recommendations are provided. Finally, two different practical clinical algorithms are provided in the form of a flow chart for both adults and pediatric (< 16 years old) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2020 WSES guidelines on AA aim to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) non-operative management for uncomplicated AA, (3) timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, (4) surgical treatment, (5) intra-operative grading of AA, (6) ,management of perforated AA with phlegmon or abscess, and (7) peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

Ischemic appendicitis due to pelvic adhesions: a case report

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common etiologies of a surgical abdomen. The lifetime risk is estimated to be 7%. Over 300 000 appendectomies occur annually in the USA. The pathophysiology of appendicitis in most patients is believed to be caused by outflow obstruction of the appendiceal lumen leading to increased intraluminal pressure, venous congestion and mucosal ischemia. This can occur due to a variety of internal obstructive causes such as a fecalith, lymphoid hyperplasia, parasites or a tumor. To date, no case reports describing appendicitis secondary to external compression of the appendix leading to outflow obstruction been documented in the literature. This case report describes a 61-year-old female who had a thick, adhesive band compressing the base of her appendix, which created external outflow obstruction leading to the development of appendicitis.

Increased Risk of Neoplasms in Adult Patients Undergoing Interval Appendectomy

PURPOSE

The low rate of recurrent appendicitis after initial nonsurgical management of complicated appendicitis supports the recently implemented strategy of omitting routine interval appendectomy. However, several reports have suggested an increased incidence rate of neoplasms in these patients. We aimed to identify the risk of neoplasms in the population undergoing interval appendectomy.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed consecutive cases of appendicitis that were treated surgically between January 2014 and December 2018 at a single tertiary referral center. Patients were divided into 2 groups depending on whether they underwent immediate or interval appendectomy. Demographics and perioperative clinical and pathologic parameters were analyzed.

RESULTS

All 2,013 adults included in the study underwent surgical treatment because of an initial diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Of these, 5.5% (111 of 2,013) underwent interval appendectomy. Appendiceal neoplasm was identified on pathologic analysis in 36 cases (1.8%). The incidence of neoplasm in the interval group was 12.6% (14 of 111), which was significantly higher than that of the immediate group (1.2% [22 of 1,902], P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The incidence rate of neoplasms was significantly higher in patients undergoing interval appendectomy. These findings should be considered when choosing treatment options after successful nonsurgical management of complicated appendicitis.

Intermediate-term evaluation of interval appendectomy in the pediatric population

BACKGROUND

Initial non-operative management of children with complicated appendicitis has been well studied but when comparing emergency procedures the long-term effectiveness of interval appendectomy remains undefined. This study aimed to determine the effects of interval appendectomy from the perspective of long-term follow-up.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients with complicated appendicitis between 2010 and 2017 was performed. The medical records of 471 patients with initial non-operative therapy and 377 patients treated with emergency appendectomy who served as controls were reviewed. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for any potential selection bias in the two strategies. A comparison of the clinical outcomes, including short- and long-term postoperative complications, was conducted in the 348 matched patients.

RESULTS

On presentation, there were no differences in age, weight, sex distribution, white blood cell (WBC), or procalcitonin (PCT) between the two groups, except for days of symptoms. The patients undergoing emergency appendectomy had a high American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score (p = 0.002). The patients who underwent initial non-operative therapy had a lower complication rate, including surgical wound infection [odds ratio (OR), 3.77; 95% CI 2.59-5.50; p < 0.001) and postoperative peritonitis or abscess (OR, 3.81; 95% CI 1.79-8.12; p < 0.001) than those who underwent emergency appendectomy. Furthermore, the incidence of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) was lower in patients who underwent initial non-operative therapy than in patients who underwent emergency appendectomy (OR, 4.6; 95% CI 0.99-21.41; p = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

Initial non-operative therapy with interval appendectomy was feasible for most patients with appendiceal abscesses and had advantages in terms of postoperative complications, especially regarding long-term obstruction events. Therefore, initial non-operative therapy with interval appendectomy should be considered the first treatment of choice for pediatric patients with complicated appendicitis.

Risk of Appendiceal Neoplasm in Periappendicular Abscess in Patients Treated With Interval Appendectomy vs Follow-up With Magnetic Resonance Imaging: 1-Year Outcomes of the Peri-Appendicitis Acuta Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

The step after conservative treatment of periappendicular abscess arouses controversy, ranging from recommendations to abandon interval appendectomy based on low recurrence rates of the precipitating diagnosis to performing routine interval appendectomy owing to novel findings of increased neoplasm risk at interval appendectomy. To our knowledge, there are no randomized clinical trials with sufficient patient numbers comparing these treatments.

Objective

To compare interval appendectomy and follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging after initial successful nonoperative treatment of periappendicular abscess.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Peri-Appendicitis Acuta randomized clinical trial was a multicenter, noninferiority trial conducted in 5 hospitals in Finland. All patients between age 18 and 60 years with periappendicular abscess diagnosed by computed tomography and successful initial nonoperative treatment from January 2013 to April 2016 were included. Data analysis occurred from April 2016 to September 2017.

Interventions

Patients were randomized either to interval appendectomy or follow-up with magnetic resonance imaging; all patients underwent colonoscopy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was treatment success, defined as an absence of postoperative morbidity in the appendectomy group and appendicitis recurrence in the follow-up group. Secondary predefined end points included neoplasm incidence, inflammatory bowel disease, length of hospital stay, and days of sick leave.

Results

A total of 60 patients were included (36 men [60%]; median [interquartile range] age: interval appendectomy group, 49 [18-60] years; follow-up group, 47 [22-61] years). An interim analysis in April 2016 showed a high rate of neoplasm (10 of 60 [17%]), with all neoplasms in patients older than 40 years. The trial was prematurely terminated owing to ethical concerns. Two more neoplasms were diagnosed after study termination, resulting in an overall neoplasm incidence of 20% (12 of 60). On study termination, the overall morbidity rate of interval appendectomy was 10% (3 of 30), and 10 of the patients in the follow-up group (33%) had undergone appendectomy.

Conclusions and Relevance

The neoplasm rate after periappendicular abscess in this small study population was high, especially in patients older than 40 years. If this considerable rate of neoplasms after periappendicular abscess is validated by future studies, it would argue for routine interval appendectomy in this setting.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03013686.

[Evidence for standard surgical procedures: appendicitis, diverticulitis and cholecystitis]

BACKGROUND

Acute appendicitis, cholecystitis and sigmoid diverticulitis are the most common inflammatory visceral surgical emergencies. According to the principles of evidence-based medicine, treatment methods and surgical indications should be constantly questioned and validated by high-quality clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE

To identify and classify the current evidence on surgical treatment of acute appendicitis, cholecystitis and sigmoid diverticulitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Targeted literature search in Medline, the Cochrane Library and study registers (clinicaltrials.gov).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The indications for surgery are changing due to increasing numbers of high-quality clinical studies. Conservative treatment seems to be feasible in the early stages. In contrast, many surgical steps have not yet been sufficiently validated. Furthermore, there is a great need for high-quality, prospective randomized clinical trials, so that promotion of studies and the study culture in surgery should continue to be of greatest interest.

Appendiceal cancer masked as inflammatory appendicitis in the elderly, not an uncommon presentation (Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Analysis)

BACKGROUND

The misdiagnosis of appendiceal cancer as inflammatory appendicitis is becoming of greater clinical concern because of the rise of nonoperative management especially in the elder population. To quantify this rate of misdiagnosis, we retrospectively reviewed SEER-Medicare data.

METHODS

The SEER-Medicare database was reviewed from 2000 to 2014. We identified patients older than 65 years old who were diagnosed with appendiceal cancer and then cross-referenced them for a diagnosis of inflammatory appendicitis. Demographic data and oncologic stage were collected.

RESULTS

Our results showed that 28.6% of appendiceal cancer patients received an incorrect initial diagnosis of inflammatory appendicitis. Patients older than 75 years of age were more likely to be misdiagnosed than those between ages 65 and 75 (risk ratio [RR]: 0.81; 95% confidence interval: 0.70-0.93; P = .003). We found that 42% of patients within the misdiagnosis group presented with an earlier stage of disease (stage 1 or 2) compared to 26% of those primarily diagnosed with appendiceal cancer (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of patients older than 65 years old with appendiceal cancer were initially misdiagnosed with acute appendicitis. We suggest caution when considering a nonoperative approach for appendicitis in the elderly and follow-up imaging or an interval appendectomy should be part of the treatment plan.

Predictors for interval appendectomy in non-operatively treated complicated appendicitis

PURPOSE

To determine the incidence rate and identify predictive factors for interval appendectomy after non-operatively treated complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective cohort study conducted between January 2008 and June 2017. Adult patients with acute appendicitis were identified. Patients with complicated appendicitis initially treated non-operatively were included. Outcomes included abscess rate on imaging, results of additional imaging during follow-up, incidence rate of and surgical indications for interval appendectomy, and outcomes of histological reports.

RESULTS

Of all adult patients with acute appendicitis (n = 1839), 9% (170/1839) was initially treated non-operatively. Median age of these patients was 55 years (IQR 42-65) and 48.8% (83/170) were men. In 36.4% (62/170) of the patients, an appendicular abscess was diagnosed. 62.4% (106/170) did not require subsequent surgery (no interval appendectomy group) and in 37.6% (64/170), an interval appendectomy was performed (interval appendectomy group). Median follow-up was 80 weeks (17-192) and 113 weeks (34-246), respectively. Most frequent reason to perform subsequent surgery was recurrent appendicitis (45% (29/64)). Increasing age was significantly associated with a lower risk of undergoing interval appendectomy (OR 0.7; CI 0.6-0.89); p = 0.002). In the interval appendectomy group, appendicular neoplasm was found in 11% (7/64) of the patients, in contrast to 1.5% (25/1669) of the patients that had acute surgery (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

One out of three patients non-operatively treated for complicated appendicitis required an interval appendectomy. The incidence of appendicular neoplasms was high in these patients compared with those that had acute surgery. Therefore, additional radiological imaging following non-operatively treated complicated appendicitis is recommended.

Transumbilical Single-Incision Laparoscopic-Assisted Appendectomy (TULAA) Is Useful in Adults and Young Adolescents: Comparison with Multi-Port Laparoscopic Appendectomy

Background and objectives: Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy (SLA) in most previous studies has used intracorporeal excision of the appendix and needed a longer operative time than multi-port laparoscopic appendectomy (MLA), although SLA does have the potential benefit of an almost invisible scar within the umbilicus. Some studies have reported that extracorporeal transumbilical single-incision laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy (TULAA) in children took a considerably reduced operative time compared to MLA. We adopted TULAA in adults, adding routine dissection of the peritoneal attachment of the appendix. The aim was to compare the operative outcomes between TULAA and MLA. Materials and Methods: Between March 2013 and January 2016, 770 patients with acute uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis from 15 to 75 years of age were enrolled retrospectively. The operation was performed as early (EA) and interval appendectomy (IA). Results: Operative time was shorter in the TULAA group than in the MLA group, except for IA. No open conversion occurred in the TULAA group, except one case of ileocecal resection for IA. No intra-abdominal fluid collection was found in the TULAA group. Extended resection (especially partial cecectomy) was performed less frequently in the TULAA group than in the MLA group for IA. Mean postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the TULAA group for uncomplicated appendicitis. When the data of the EA group and the IA group were compared, operative time was significantly shorter in the IA group for both MLA and TULAA. The open conversion rate and the complication rate tended to be lower in the IA group. Confined to IA, the TULAA group tended to have shorter mean initial, postoperative, and total hospital stays. Conclusions: TULAA can be a useful surgical alternative to MLA in adults and young adolescents, because it lacks open conversion and provides both a shorter operative time and a shorter postoperative hospital stay. TULAA is feasible for IA in that it showed a lower rate of extended resection and complications.

Comparison of clinical outcome of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy, single center experience

Introduction

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is now a treatment of choice in patients with appendicitis. This study compares the treatment outcomes of LA and open appendectomies (OA) in our department.

Patients and Methods

From January 2006 to April 2016 a total of 185 patients underwent appendectomy at our institution. We divided the patients into two groups; LA group (LAG) and OA group (OAG). Following parameters were analyzed: age, gender, preoperative clinicolaboratory characteristics, operative factors, interval appendectomy, length of hospital stay (LHS), and surgical site infections (SSI).

Results

There were 93 patients in LA G and 92 in OAG. According to the Univariate analysis, there were statistically significant differences among age (p = 0.037), LHS (p = 0.0001), duration till resuming oral intake (p = 0.016), blood loss (p = 0.038), SSI ratio (p = 0.044) and CRP level (p = 0.038) between the LAG and the OAG. According to the Multivariate analysis, blood loss (p = 0.038) and LHS (p = 0.023) were significantly different between both groups.

Conclusion

LA was decreasing blood loss and LHS.

Early operative management of complicated appendicitis is associated with improved surgical outcomes in adults

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the ideal management of complicated appendicitis.

METHODS

The New York State Planning and Research Cooperative database was used to identify all patients admitted with complicated appendicitis and undergoing appendectomy within 1-year. Primary outcome was any complication. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), hospital charges, and laparoscopy use. Outcomes were compared in appendectomy before or after 48h from admission.

RESULTS

31,167 patients ≥18yo were identified for analysis, 28,015(89.9%) underwent early appendectomy. Early appendectomy patients were more likely to be White (69.8% vs. 64.2% p < 0.01), and commercially insured (53.1% vs. 45.4%, p < 0.01). Of the 3152 undergoing delayed surgery, 1610(51.1%) had surgery later during the index admission, 715(22.7%) were readmitted urgently and underwent appendectomy, and 827(26.2%) had elective appendectomy. Patients undergoing delayed surgery had more complications (OR 1.34 95%CI 1.23-1.45), readmissions (OR 1.55 95%CI 1.42-1.70), high hospital charges (OR 4.79 95%CI 4.35-5.27), and prolonged LOS (OR 6.12 95%CI 5.61-6.68).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-level study of complicated appendicitis we found more complications, longer LOS, and higher charges in patients undergoing delayed surgery.