Management of appendicitis presenting with abscess or mass

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.

Intra-abdominal abscesses: Microbiological epidemiology and empirical antibiotherapy

PURPOSE

Data on the microbiological epidemiology of Intra-Abdominal Abscesses (IAAs) are very scarce. We aimed to study the microbiological epidemiology of these infections in order to optimize empirical antibiotic therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2015 and December 2020, we retrospectively analyzed all IAAs files in our hospital. Clinical and microbiological data such as antibiotic susceptibilities were collected.

RESULTS

We studied 243 IAA cases. All in all, 139 (57.2%) IAAs were healthcare-associated and 201 (82.7%) were drained. The highest risk situations for IAAs were appendicitis (n = 69) and diverticulitis (n = 37). Out of the 163 microbiologically documented infections, 136 (81.9%) were polymicrobial. Enterobacterales (n = 192, 36.1%), Enterococcus sp. (n = 84, 17.6%) and anaerobes (n = 66, 16.1%) were the most frequently identified bacteria. Gram-negative bacteria were susceptible to amoxicillin-acid clavulanic, piperacillin-tazobactam, cefotaxime, meropenem in 55.2%, 84.9%, 77.6% and 99.5% of cases, respectively. Concerning Gram-positive bacteria, the susceptibility rate was 81.8% for amoxicillin-clavulanic acid, piperacillin-tazobactam and meropenem, and decreased to 63.4% for cefotaxime.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the polymicrobial profile of IAAs and their low susceptibility to amoxicillin and clavulanic acid. The piperacillin-tazobactam association remained the most appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy.

Thigh and iliopsoas abscess as a rare presentation of perforated mucinous appendix carcinoma. A case report

•

Only one case has been reported of an appendiceal neoplasm with a thigh abscess.

•

The classic presentation of appendicular neoplasms includes appendicitis-like symptoms.

•

We performed a right hemicolectomy and thigh abscess drainage.

•

No guidelines exist but multidisciplinary management leads to better outcomes.

Early versus delayed (interval) appendicectomy for the management of appendicular abscess and phlegmon: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The safety and role of emergency (EA) versus interval appendicectomy (IA) for appendicular abscess and phlegmon remains debatable with no optimal strategy identified. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate outcomes of managing appendicular abscesses and phlegmon with emergency or interval appendicectomy.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases using key terms including 'appendicular abscess', 'appendicular phlegmon' and 'interval appendicectomy'. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing the two management approaches were included. Operative time, post-operation complication, unplanned bowel resection, rate of surgical site infection, post-operative length of stay and overall mortality rate were evaluated.

RESULTS

We identified six studies (2 RCTs and 4 observational studies) with a total of 9264 patients of whom (n = 1352) underwent IA, and (n 7912) underwent EA. The EA group was associated with statistically significant unplanned bowel resection (OR 0.55, 95% CI [0.33-0.90], P = 0.02) and longer total operating time (MD - 14.11, 95% CI [- 18.26-- 9.96] P = 0.00001). However, the following parameters were compared for both EA and IA groups; there were no significant statistical differences: surgical site infection (OR 0.49, 95% CI [0.17-1.38], P = 0.18), post-operative intra-abdominal collection (RD - 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.04-0.01], P = 0.29), total length of hospital stay (MD 1.83, 95% CI [- 0.19-3.85], P = 0.08), post-operative length of hospital stay (MD - 0.27, 95% CI [- 3.66-3.13], P = 0.88) and mortality rate (MD - 0.27, 95% CI [- 3.66-3.13], P = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

Emergency operation for appendicular abscess and phlegmon may lead to a higher rate of reported morbidity when compared with interval appendicectomy. Although emergency appendicectomy performed for appendicular abscess and phlegmon is a feasible and safe operative approach, it is associated with significantly increased operative time and unplanned bowel resection (ileocolic and right hemicolectomies) compared to interval appendicectomy.

South Coast appendicular mass management (SCAM) survey

Background

Management of appendicular mass and interval appendicectomy remains a controversial issue. Recent publication of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) reported the incidence of around 20% neoplastic lesions in the age group of more than forty years among the interval appendicectomy group against magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance only which led to trial termination. The objective of this study is to evaluate the current practice of the management of appendicular mass in five major hospitals of South Coast of the England.

Methods

A proforma was designed and emailed to the general surgical department of five hospitals in the South Coast of England. The proforma completion rate and compliance were improved by direct telephone call to the on-call registrars and consultants to collect data.

Results

Fifty-three surgeons (22 consultants, 27 ST3-ST8 grade surgical trainees and 4 SAS grades) completed the proforma. The clinical, hematological and computerized tomography (CT) based diagnostic criteria, and in-patient intravenous antibiotics (IV ABTXs) in addition to the radiological drainage in amenable cases for appendicular mass/abscess were mostly agreed initial management plan among surgeons. Normalization of inflammatory markers and radiological resolution were agreed discharge indicators. Agreed follow up investigations were CT scan (by 23%), Colonoscopy (by 13%), and both CT and colonoscopy (by 57%) after discharging patients. Only 17% surgeons offered planned interval appendicectomy and 62% surgeons offered interval appendectomy in selective cases of appendicular mass within 6 weeks to 6 months after discharge.

Conclusions

South Coast appendicular mass management (SCAM) survey confirms diverse practice to manage appendicular mass/abscess among surgeons working in South Coast hospitals. A substantial percentage of surgeons do not offer interval appendectomy to patients potentially leaving neoplastic lesions in situ.

Comparison of treatment methods of appendiceal mass and abscess: A prospective Cohort Study

Background

The aim of our prospective study is to compare and analyze the results of two treatment methods of appendiceal mass and abscess: emergency surgery and conservative treatment with and without interval surgery.

Materials and methods

74 Patients with the diagnosis of appendiceal mass or abscess were enrolled in this study. The patients were assigned into two groups: the emergency surgery group and the conservative management group. The conservative management group was subdivided into two groups: interval surgery group and the ambulatory follow-up observation group without interval surgery. Several clinical characteristics were determined and compared between the groups. Among patients who underwent surgery, the surgical methods, operation time, postoperative hospitalization period, and post-surgical complications were analyzed. In the ambulatory follow-up observation group, recurrence of appendicitis was assessed.

Results

Comparison of the emergency surgery group and interval surgery group revealed that the interval surgery group was characterized by shorter operation time (P = 0.008), a smallernumber of postoperative complications (P = 0.02) and also shorter postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.009). In the ambulatory follow-up observation group, recurrence of appendicitis developed in 3 (13%) patients. US or CT-guided PCD was performed in all 3 patients on the conservative treatment stage. Comparing the interval surgery and recurrent appendicitis groups revealed statistically significant difference: operation time (P = 0.04) as well as postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.04) were shorter in recurrent appendicitis group. In 3 (4.1%) patients, the cause of the appendiceal mass was caecal cancer (2 cases) and Crohn's disease.

Conclusion

Conservative treatment without interval surgery seems to be the preferred method for treatment of appendiceal mass and abscess. Patients can be operated on only in case of recurrence of appendicitis. US or CT PCD of appendiceal abscess presents the risk-factor for the development of recurrence of appendicitis. CT and colonoscopy within 4–6 weeks after completing the conservative treatment is recommended to be performed in all patients.

•

Conservative treatment without interval surgery should be the method of choice for treatment of appendiceal mass and abscess.

•

Patients should be operated only in case of recurrence of appendicitis.

•

US or CT PCD of appendiceal abscess present the risk-factor for the development of recurrence of appendicitis.

•

All patients should be performed CT and colonoscopy in 4–6 weeks after completing the conservative treatment.

Clinical outcomes of single-site laparoscopic interval appendectomy for severe complicated appendicitis: Comparison to conventional emergency appendectomy

AIM

Single-site laparoscopic interval appendectomy (SLIA) for severe complicated appendicitis after conservative treatment (CT) to ameliorate inflammation and eradicate the abscess should be safer and less invasive than emergency appendectomy (EA). However, only a few reports have been published regarding SLIA.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on 264 consecutive patients admitted to Kinan Hospital for treatment of appendicitis between 2012 and 2018. The safety and feasibility of SLIA and its perioperative outcomes for severe complicated appendicitis were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients were included in this study, 25 of whom underwent CT and 36 EA. Among the 25 patients who underwent CT, 23 (92.0%) succeeded; a total of 16 patients (69.5%) underwent SLIA. Compared to the EA group, the SLIA group had less bleeding (median volume 8.5 vs 50 mL, P = .005) and lower rate of expansion surgery (0% vs 27.8%, P = .022). Although the postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the SLIA group than in the EA group (9 vs 12 days, P = .008), the total hospital stay, including the CT period, was longer in the SLIA group than in the EA group (24 vs 12 days, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

SLIA is safe, feasible, and less invasive than EA and may provide the advantages of minimally invasive surgery even if appendicitis is severe. SLIA may be a promising option for complicated appendicitis in select cases despite its disadvantage of prolonging the hospital stay.

Minimally Invasive Treatment for Appendiceal Mass Formed After Acute Perforated Appendicitis

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

Management of intra-abdominal infections: recommendations by the WSES 2016 consensus conference

This paper reports on the consensus conference on the management of intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) which was held on July 23, 2016, in Dublin, Ireland, as a part of the annual World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) meeting. This document covers all aspects of the management of IAIs. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation recommendation is used, and this document represents the executive summary of the consensus conference findings.

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

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

Management of Appendiceal Mass and Abscess. An 11-Year Experience

The aim of our study is to compare the results of emergency surgery versus conservative treatment with interval surgery in patients diagnosed with appendiceal mass and abscess. A retrospective review of 48 patients with appendiceal mass and abscess treated from January 2002 to January 2013 at General Surgery Department of Kipshidze Central University Hospital was performed. Patients with emergency surgery were compared to patients treated by nonoperative management with interval surgery. Demographics, clinical profile, and operative outcomes were studied. The emergency surgery group included 25 patients, and the interval surgery group included 23 patients. The clinical characteristics of the emergency surgery and interval surgery groups were not statistically different. In the emergency surgery group, an open appendectomy was performed on 17 patients, and colonic resections (ileocecectomy or right hemicolectomy) were performed on 8 patients. In the interval surgery group, an open appendectomy was performed on 21 patients, and colonic resections were performed on 2 patients. There were no statistical differences in types of surgery, postoperative complications, operation time without colonic resections, and postoperative hospitalization period among these 2 groups. Operation time with colonic resections was of greater duration in the emergency surgery group than in the interval surgery group (P = 0.04). Both treatment methods for appendiceal mass and abscess have the same results. The surgeon must consider clinical symptoms and results of investigations in each particular case when choosing an appropriate treatment method. Prospective randomized controlled trials are required for comparing the results of all 3 treatment methods of appendiceal mass.

Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015

Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis.

The evolving management of the appendix mass in the era of laparoscopy and interventional radiology

AIM

An appendix mass is the result of a walled-off perforation of the appendix which localises, resulting in a mass and it is encountered in up to 7% of patients presenting with acute appendicitis. However, its management is controversial due to the lack of high level evidence. This review article sets out a rationale diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for the appendix mass based upon up-to-date available evidence.

METHODS

A literature review of the investigation and management of appendix mass/complicated appendicitis was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar.

RESULTS/CONCLUSION

No prospective studies were identified. The great majority of recent evidence supports a conservative management approach avoiding urgent appendicectomy because of the high risk of major complications and bowel resection. Appendix abscesses over 5 cm in diameter and persistent abscesses should be drained percutaneously along with antibiotics. Appendix phlegmon should be treated with antibiotics alone. Surgery is reserved for patients who fail conservative treatment. Routine interval appendicectomy is not recommended, but should be considered in the context of persistent faecolith, ongoing right iliac fossa pain, recurrent appendicitis and appendix mass persistent beyond 2 weeks. Clinicians should be particularly wary of patients with appendix mass aged over 40 and those with features suggesting malignancy.

2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Despite advances in diagnosis, surgery, and antimicrobial therapy, mortality rates associated with complicated intra-abdominal infections remain exceedingly high.The 2013 update of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for the management of intra-abdominal infections contains evidence-based recommendations for management of patients with intra-abdominal infections.