Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Aim: The aim is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory investigations and ultrasonography (USG) in distinguishing complicated appendicitis (C-AA) from uncomplicated appendicitis (UC-AA). Materials and Methods: Forty-six children who underwent appendicectomy at our center between November 2018 and July 2020 were included. Based on intraoperative findings, they were divided into two groups - complicated (perforated, gangrenous, or associated with fecal peritonitis; n = 18) and UC-AA (n = 28). USG findings and inflammatory markers were compared in both groups at admission. Results: At admission, the mean values for total leukocyte count (TLC) (16090.56 vs. 11739.29 per mm3), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) (35.8 vs. 31.62 mg/L), and procalcitonin (PCT) (3.83 vs. 1.41 ng/mL) were significantly higher in C-AA. Visualization of a blind tubular aperistaltic structure was the only sonographic sign showing statistical significance - significantly lower in C-AA (50% vs. 90%). Independent predictors of C-AA were - duration of symptoms >48 h (odds ratio [OR] 6.3), free fluid/loculated collection in right iliac fossa (OR 3.75), TLC >11000/mm3 (OR 3.6), hsCRP >35 mg/L (OR 6.0), PCT >0.6 ng/mL (OR 4.02), and nonvisualization of appendix on USG (OR 8.33). Biochemical factors were sensitive (89%) and specific (55%) in differentiating C-AA from UC-AA but the addition of sonological parameters significantly improved the specificity of predicting complicated AA to 61% (P = 0.0036). Conclusion: Combining laboratory data with sonological findings significantly improves the predictive value for differentiating C-AA from UC-AA and can help decide operative approach and prognosticating.

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 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) strain has resulted in restrictions potentially impacting patients presenting with acute appendicitis and their disease burden. All acute appendicitis admissions (281 patients) between 1/1/2018-4/30/2020 were reviewed. Two groups were created: 6 weeks before (Group A) and 6 weeks after (Group B) the date elective surgeries were postponed in Massachusetts for COVID-19. Acute appendicitis incidence and disease characteristics were compared between the groups. Similar time periods from 2018 to 2019 were also compared. Fifty-four appendicitis patients were categorized in Group A and thirty-seven in Group B. Those who underwent surgery were compared and revealed a 45.5% decrease (CI: 64.2,-26.7) in uncomplicated appendicitis, a 21.1% increase (CI:3.9,38.3) in perforated appendicitis and a 29% increase (CI:11.5,46.5) in gangrenous appendicitis. Significant differences in the incidence of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis were also noted when comparing 2020 to previous years. The significant increase in complicated appendicitis and simultaneous significant decrease in uncomplicated appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic indicate that patients are not seeking appropriate, timely surgical care. •The fear of contracting COVID-19 has affected healthcare access for patients.•Acute appendicitis patients had delayed presentation to the Emergency Room.•Delayed presentation resulted in decrease of uncomplicated, acute appendicitis.•Patients with complicated appendicitis significantly increased during the pandemic.

BackgroundOver the last three decades, laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) has become the routine treatment for uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The role of laparoscopic surgery for complicated appendicitis (gangrenous and/or perforated) remains controversial due to concerns of an increased incidence of post-operative intra-abdominal abscesses (IAA) in LA compared to open appendicectomy (OA). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of LA versus OA for complicated appendicitis.MethodsA systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Database for randomised controlled trials (RCT) and case–control studies (CCS) that compared LA with OA for complicated appendicitis.ResultsData from three RCT and 30 CCS on 6428 patients (OA 3,254, LA 3,174) were analysed. There was no significant difference in the rate of IAA (LA = 6.1% vs. OA = 4.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.71–1.47, p = 0.91). LA for complicated appendicitis has decreased overall post-operative morbidity (LA = 15.5% vs. OA = 22.7%; OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.31–0.59, p < 0.0001), wound infection, (LA = 4.7% vs. OA = 12.8%; OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.19–0.36, p < 0.001), respiratory complications (LA = 1.8% vs. OA = 6.4%; OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.13–0.49, p < 0.001), post-operative ileus/small bowel obstruction (LA = 3.1% vs. OA = 3.6%; OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42–1.0, p = 0.048) and mortality rate (LA = 0% vs. OA = 0.4%; OR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04–0.61, p = 0.008). LA has a significantly shorter hospital stay (6.4 days vs. 8.9 days, p = 0.02) and earlier resumption of solid food (2.7 days vs. 3.7 days, p = 0.03).ConclusionThese results clearly demonstrate that LA for complicated appendicitis has the same incidence of IAA but a significantly reduced morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay compared with OA. The finding of complicated appendicitis at laparoscopy is not an indication for conversion to open surgery. LA should be the preferred treatment for patients with complicated appendicitis.

BackgroundPatient attendance at emergency departments (EDs) during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak has decreased dramatically under the “stay at home” and “lockdown” restrictions. By contrast, a notable rise in severity of various surgical conditions was observed, suggesting that the restrictions coupled with fear from medical facilities might negatively impact non-COVID-19 diseases. This study aims to assess the incidence and outcome of complicated appendicitis (CA) cases during that period.MethodsA retrospective study comparing the rate and severity of acute appendicitis (AA) cases during the COVID-19 initial outbreak in Israel during March and April of 2020 (P20) to the corresponding period in 2019 (P19) was conducted. Patient data included demographics, pre-ED status, surgical data, and postoperative outcomes.ResultsOverall, 123 patients were diagnosed with acute appendicitis, 60 patients during P20 were compared to 63 patients in P19. The rate of complicated appendicitis cases was significantly higher during the COVID-19 Lockdown with 43.3% (26 patients) vs. 20.6% (13 patients), respectively (p < 0.01). The average delay in ED presentation between P20 and P19 was 3.4 vs. 2 days (p = 0.03). The length of stay was 2.6 days in P20 vs. 2.3 days in P19 (p = 0.4), and the readmission rate was 12% (7 patients) vs. 4.8% (3 patients), p = 0.17, respectively. Logistic regression demonstrated that a delay in ED presentation was a significant risk factor for complicated appendicitis (OR 1.139, CI 1.011–1.284).ConclusionThe effect of the COVID-19 initial outbreak and Lockdown coupled with hesitation to come to medical facilities appears to have discouraged patients with acute appendicitis from presenting to the ED as complaints began, causing a delay in diagnosis and treatment, which might have led to a higher rate of complicated appendicitis cases and a heavier burden on health care systems.

Acute appendicitis is a common condition requiring surgical intervention, with a lifetime risk of 7–8%. Differentiating between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis is essential for appropriate treatment and improved patient outcomes. This study aimed to utilize minimal, non-invasive data to distinguish between these forms of appendicitis, using advanced analytical methods for faster and more precise diagnosis. This retrospective study analyzed acute appendicitis cases from January 2018 to December 2022 at a tertiary care hospital. Data were gathered from 3,045 patients, including demographic details, clinical features, laboratory tests (Red Cell Distribution Width [RDW] and Mean Platelet Volume [MPV]), and imaging results. Patients were classified as having uncomplicated or complicated appendicitis based on surgical and histopathological findings. Statistical analyses, including multivariate logistic regression and ROC curve analyses, were performed using SPSS. Complicated appendicitis was defined based on surgical findings and histopathological criteria, including perforation, abscess formation, or gangrene. Uncomplicated appendicitis was defined as inflammation confined to the appendix without evidence of perforation or abscess. The study population comprised 1,869 males (61.37%) and 1,176 females (38.62%), with a mean age of 36.4 years. The mean RDW was 27.81%, and the mean MPV was 8.68 fL. Among the appendectomy cases, 50.7% were acute appendicitis, 10.3% were negative appendectomies, and 38.9% had complicated appendicitis. RDW was significantly higher in acute appendicitis than in negative cases (t = 2.45, p  = 0.02) and even higher in complicated cases (t = 3.78, p  = 0.001). MPV was highest in complicated appendicitis, consistent with increased inflammation severity (t = 2.56, p  = 0.01). The sensitivity and specificity of RDW for identifying complicated appendicitis were 0.85 and 0.75, respectively, and for MPV, they were 0.80 and 0.70. Univariate logistic regression identified male sex and appendix diameter as significant predictors of complicated appendicitis. In multivariate analysis, appendix diameter remained significant ( p  = 0.01), and male sex approached significance ( p  = 0.06). The optimal cutoff for appendix diameter to differentiate appendicitis types was 10 mm, with an AUC of 0.82. RDW, MPV, and appendix diameter provide a reliable method for distinguishing between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Combining these biomarkers enhances diagnostic accuracy and enables precise risk stratification for better patient management.

This study characterized the failure rate of non-operative management (NOM) for complicated appendicitis (CA; perforation, abscess, phlegmon), and compared outcomes among patients undergoing acute appendectomy (AA), elective interval appendectomy (EIA), and unplanned appendectomy after failing to improve with NOM. Adults treated at one facility between 2007 and 2014 were retrospectively studied. Ninety-five patients presented with CA. Sixty individuals underwent AA. The remaining 35 patients initially underwent NOM: 14 underwent EIA, nine (25.7%) failed NOM, 12 never underwent surgery. All patients failing NOM had an open operation with most (55.6%) requiring bowel resection. AA and EIA were comparable in surgical approach, bowel resection and post-operative readmission. However, AA demonstrated a lower incidence of bowel resection (3.3% vs 17.1%, P = 0.048) when compared to all patients initially undergoing NOM. Due to the high incidence of failed NOM and the morbidity associated with failure, AA may be appropriate for CA. •Non-operative management failed in 25.7% of patients with complicated appendicitis.•Most patients who failed non-operative management required major bowel resection.•The incidence and morbidity of failed non-operative management favors acute surgery.

Acute appendicitis is a frequent surgical emergency in children, and early recognition of severe forms remains challenging. This prospective observational study compared the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) and Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) for grading disease severity in pediatric acute appendicitis. Among 542 children assessed, 138 with suspected appendicitis were included, and 136 underwent appendectomy. All included patients were prospectively scored with AIR and PAS, and clinical, radiologic, intraoperative, and histopathologic findings were recorded. Associations between score categories and complicated appendicitis (gangrenous, abscess, or diffuse peritonitis) or perforated appendicitis were analyzed, and diagnostic performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves. Higher AIR and PAS categories were associated with increasing appendix diameter; AIR categories were significantly associated with both complicated appendicitis and perforation, whereas PAS categories were significantly associated only with perforation. For complicated appendicitis, the area under the curve (AUC) was slightly higher for AIR than PAS, whereas for perforation both scores showed similar AUCs. These findings suggest that AIR is more informative than PAS for overall grading of disease severity in pediatric acute appendicitis, while AIR and PAS provide comparable, moderate accuracy for predicting perforation.

Background: Laboratory tests of inflammatory mediators are routinely used in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the differences of dynamics of inflammatory markers of the blood in patients with suspected acute appendicitis between complicated AA (CAA), non-complicated AA (NAA), and when AA was excluded (No-AA). Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients presented to the Emergency Department (ER) of a tertiary hospital center during a three-year period. All patients suspected of acute appendicitis were prospectively registered from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018. The dynamics of inflammatory markers of the blood between different types of AA (No-AA, NAA or CAA) during different periods of time are presented. Results: A total of 453 patients were included in the study, with 297 patients in the No-AA group, 99 in the NAA group, and 57 in the CAA group. White blood cell (WBC) count in the No-AA decreased with time, with a statistically significant difference between the <8 h and 25–72 h group. The neutrophils (NEU) percentage decreased in the No-AA group and was statistically significantly different between the <8 h and 25–72 h and <8 h and >72 h groups. C-reactive protein (CRP) increased significantly in the No-AA group throughout all time intervals, and from the first 24 h to the 25–72 h in the NAA and CAA groups. There was a statistically significant difference between the WBC count between No-AA, NAA, and No-AA and CAA groups during the first 24 and 24–48 h. There was a statistically significant difference between NEU percentage and LYMP percentage and in the NEU/LYMP ratio between No-AA and CAA groups through all time periods. CRP was significantly higher in the first 24 h in the CAA than in the No-AA group, and in the 24–48 h in the CAA group than in the No-AA and NAA groups. The linear logistic regression model, involving inflammatory mediators and clinical characteristics, showed mediocre diagnostic accuracy for diagnosing AA with an AUC of 0.737 (0.671–0.802). Conclusions: Increasing concentrations of inflammatory markers are more characteristic in CAA patients than in No-AA during the first 48 h after onset of the disease. A combination of laboratory tests with clinical signs and symptoms has a mediocre diagnostic accuracy in suspecting AA.