Management of appendiceal mass

A Retrospective Analysis of Conservative Management Versus Early Surgical Intervention in Appendicular Lump

Introduction

Acute appendicitis happens to be increasingly common in school-going children and early part of adult life, peak incidence reaching in the teens and early twenties. Luminal obstruction of the vermiform appendix is thought to be essential for the development of appendicular ischemia, gangrene, and perforation. The treatment of choice in acute appendicitis is emergency appendectomy. Appendicitis particularly puts the surgeon in a dilemma whenever the patient presents late by around four to seven days. In case of delay in presentation, complications like appendicular lump formation occur. The factors that make the clinical presentation inconsistent which in turn makes the diagnosis challenging in the case of acute appendicitis are the variable position of the appendix, the degree/grade of inflammation, and the age of the patient.

At present, the standard treatment is the Ochsner-Sherren regimen universalized by Oschner and has been mostly practised over many decades as the standard care for the appendicular lump. Conservative regimen does not work in a few cases where urgent surgical exploration is necessary. This study was conducted to compare early appendectomy versus conservative management followed by interval appendectomy in case of appendicular mass and to make a better strategy for effective management of patients with complicated appendicitis.

Methods

A total of 112 patients were diagnosed as having an appendicular lump as per the available records between June 2018 and June 2021. The total study population was divided into two comparative groups depending upon the treatment they received. The patients in group-1 received medical treatment and those in group-2 had undergone surgical management. The patients in group-1 were treated according to the Ochsner-Sherren regimen. The patients in group-2 were the patients in whom emergency appendectomy was done. If the general condition of the patient did not improve, pain and tenderness didn’t subside, the size of phlegmon or abscess was increasing and other features of the acute abdomen were persistent, then it was regarded as a failure of medical treatment and the patient was prepared for surgery on an emergency basis.

Results

Out of 1192 cases of acute appendicitis admitted between June 2018 and June 2021, a total of 112 patients were diagnosed with an appendicular lump. As per the record, 64 patients were managed conventionally as per the Ochsner-Sherren regimen followed by elective interval appendectomy (group-1) and 48 cases were managed with an emergency surgical procedure (group-2).

In group-1, out of 64 patients, non-operative treatment was successful in 58 patients (90.62%). Among the remaining patients, there was a failure of non-operative treatment in six patients and they were subjected to emergency surgical exploration (9.37%). So a total of 58 patients underwent interval appendectomy after six weeks. Out of 54 patients who had undergone emergency appendectomy in both groups, the per-operative finding was an appendicular lump in 55.5% of patients while a total of 44 patients in group-2, were discharged from the hospital within six days (91.66%). But in group-1, only 16 patients were discharged from the hospital within six days (25%), rest were discharged from the hospital after more than seven days of stay.

Conclusion

Early appendectomy in appendicular mass is safe due to the improvements in surgical techniques and better postoperative care.

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.

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.

Inflammatory appendix mass in patients with acute appendicitis: CT diagnosis and clinical relevance

The purpose of our study was to analyze the clinical relevance of computerized tomography (CT) in providing the diagnosis of inflammatory appendix mass (IAM) in patients with acute appendicitis. The CT images of 134 patients were reviewed. Two groups of patients were made according to the presence (group 1; n = 21) or the absence (group 2; n = 113) of IAM. Clinical signs of patients, CT features, complications at surgery, and histological examinations were noted. Inter-observer agreement was assessed by using kappa statistics. Twenty-one patients presenting with CT features of IAM were diagnosed. An excellent inter-observer agreement (κ = 0.94) was assessed for the diagnosis of IAM. No significant statistical difference in the age distribution was observed between patients with IAM (mean age 55) and patients without (mean age 45) (p = 0.2232). No clinical sign showed a statistically significant association with the presence of IAM (p = 0.707) or with complication encountered at surgery (p = 0.180). Delay to CT examination was 5.4 days in patients presenting with CT features of IAM and of 1.7 days for patients presenting without (p = 0.0001). Conversely to acute appendicitis complicated by simple perforation (p = 0.153) or peri-appendicular abscess (p = 0.501), acute appendicitis presenting with IAM showed a statistically significant association with complications encountered at surgery (p = 0.0003) and the need for conversion to open surgery (p = 0.001). Performing CT in complicated acute appendicitis provides the diagnosis of IAM. Distinction of IAM appeared to be of clinical relevance, since immediate surgery in IAM was statistically associated with surgical complications and conversion to open surgery in our study.