Surgeon's Definition of Complicated Appendicitis: A Prospective Video Survey Study

Aim

Definition of the type of appendicitis is based on examination of the peritoneum and appendix. Gomes et al. proposed a laparoscopic grading system of acute appendicitis (grades 1 and 2, noncomplicated appendicitis, grade 3-5 complicated appendicitis). The aim of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of this score.

Patients and methods

All patients managed for acute appendicitis between January 2016 and June 2016 were included in this single-center prospective study. Laparoscopic appendectomy procedures were filmed by analogy to Sugerbaker's peritoneal carcinomatosis score (9 quadrants, all of the abdomen was filmed). The videos were then analyzed by seven staff surgeons blinded to each other and the operative report. The primary endpoint was to determine the concordance between staff surgeons for grading of appendicitis using the laparoscopic grading system of acute appendicitis described by Gomes et al.

Results

A total of 40 patients were included in this study. A concordance was observed between the seven staff surgeons in 85% of cases. For regional peritonitis, the mean ± (SD) number of quadrants in which the staff surgeons reported signs of peritonitis was 1.44 ± 0.63. For diffuse peritonitis, the mean (SD) number of quadrants in which the staff surgeons reported signs of peritonitis was 2.59 ± 0.51. On ROC curve analysis, two quadrants was the best cut-off between grade 4B (local peritonitis) and five (diffuse peritonitis) acute appendicitis (AUC = 0.92, Se = 100%, Sp = 92%, p = 0.005).

Conclusion

The classification used to determine the type of appendicitis is reproducible.

Clinical significance

To give a definition of complicated appendicitis.

How to cite this article

Mariage M, Sabbagh C, et al. Surgeon's Definition of Complicated Appendicitis: A Prospective Video Survey Study. Euroasian J Hepatogastroenterol 2019;9(1):1-4.

Distinguishing fecal appendicular peritonitis from purulent appendicular peritonitis

INTRODUCTION

Fecal appendicular peritonitis (FAP) is a poorly studied, rare form of acute appendicitis, corresponding to peritoneal inflammation with the presence of feces secondary to ruptured appendix. The purpose of this study was to describe FAP and to compare FAP with purulent appendicular peritonitis (PAP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study was conducted in consecutive patients to compare the FAP group and the PAP group. The primary endpoint was the 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The secondary endpoints were description and comparison of intraoperative data (laparoscopy rate, conversion rate, type of procedure and the mean operating time), and short-term outcomes (types of complications, length of stay, readmission rate, and reoperation rate), comparison of intraoperative bacteriological samples of FAP and PAP as well as the rate of resistance to amoxicillin and clavulanic acid, used as routine postoperative antibiotic therapy.

RESULTS

Between January 2006 and January 2016, 2.2% of appendectomies were performed for FAP. Patients of the FAP group reported a longer history of pain than patients of the PAP group (mean: 58 h [range: 24-120] vs 24 h [range: 6-504], p = 0.0001) and hyperthermia was more frequent in the FAP group than in the PAP group (72% vs 26%, p = 0.0001). Mean preoperative CRP was also higher in the FAP group than in the PAP group (110 mg/L [range: 67-468] vs 37.5 mg/L [range: 3.1-560], p = 0.007). Significantly less patients were operated by laparoscopy in the FAP group (89.7% vs 96.6%, p < 0.0001). Mean length of stay was significantly longer in the FAP group than in the PAP group (10 days [range: 3-24] vs 5 days [range: 1-32], p = 0.001). The overall 30-day complication rate was significantly higher in the FAP group than in the PAP group (62.1% vs 24.7%, p = 0.0005). The readmission rate was not significantly different between the two groups (14% vs 11.2%, p = 0.2), but the reoperation rate was higher in the FAP group than in the PAP group (31% vs 11%, p = 0.01). No significant difference was observed between the FAP and PAP groups in terms of the positive culture rate (75.9% vs 65.6%, p = 0.3). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of resistance to amoxicillin and clavulanic acid (18.2% vs 20.5%, p = 0.8).

CONCLUSION

FAP is associated with significantly more severe morbidity compared to PAP. Clinicians must be familiar with this form of appendicitis in order to adequately inform their patients.