Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

BackgroundThe treatment algorithm for appendicitis is evolving, with recent interest in non-operative management. However, the safety of non-operative management for patients with complicated appendicitis has been questioned due to concern for increased risk of occult appendiceal neoplasm in this patient population. Our study aims to determine the rate of neoplasms discovered during interval appendectomy for patients with complicated appendicitis and determine the necessity of interval appendectomy.MethodsA retrospective chart review was conducted on interval appendectomies performed in adult patients for complicated appendicitis at our institution over a 9-year period. Interval appendectomy was defined as appendectomy delayed from initial presentation with appendicitis. Complicated appendicitis was defined as perforation, phlegmon, and/or abscess as seen on computed tomography at time of presentation.ResultsWe identified 402 patients who underwent interval appendectomy for complicated appendicitis. A total of 36 appendiceal neoplasms were discovered on final pathology with an overall neoplasm rate of 9%. Patients with an appendiceal neoplasm were significantly older (56.6 years vs 45.1 years, p < 0.01). No patients under the age of 30 had a neoplasm. The rate of appendiceal neoplasms in patients 30 years and older was 11%. The rate for patients 50 years and older was 16%. For patients 80 years and older, the rate of appendiceal neoplasm was 43%.ConclusionThe risk of occult appendiceal neoplasm is low in patients under the age of 30; however, there was an 11% rate of appendiceal neoplasm in patients 30 years and older. The risk increases with increased age, with a 16% risk in patients 50 years and older. Given these findings, we recommend consideration of interval appendectomy in all patients 30 years and older with complicated appendicitis.

ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the timing of interval appendectomy (IA) and its impact on post-operative outcomes.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed for adult patients diagnosed with appendicitis between 2006 and 2017. IA was defined as a follow-up appendectomy > 1 week and < 2 years after the initial presentation. Time intervals were divided into 4 groups based on patient quartiles: 1–6 weeks, 7–9 weeks, 10–15 weeks, and > 15 weeks. The primary outcome measure was length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission and IA post-operative complications. Tertiary outcomes included 30-day mortality and colonoscopy suggesting neoplasm or Inflammatory Bowel Disease.ResultsA total of 5069 patients’ records whose interval appendectomy fell > 1 week and < 2 years after initial presentation were analyzed. Among them, 1006 (19.85%) underwent an initial percutaneous abscess drainage at diagnosis. The median timing for IA was 9.2 weeks. Patients with IA at 1–6 weeks were more likely to have longer LOS when compared to 7–9 weeks (ratio 1.33, 95% CI 1.2–1.48) and 10–15 weeks (ratio 1.38, 95% CI 1.25–1.52). IA between 7 and 9 weeks (ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.73–0.89) and 10–15 weeks (ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.71–0.86) was associated with significantly shorter LOS compared to those receiving the operation after 15 weeks. Further, patients requiring abscess drainage (ratio 1.2, 95% CI 1.13–1.34) or those with comorbidities (ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.39–1.63) were more likely to have longer LOS at IA. Socioeconomic and demographic differences including Black, Hispanic, and those with Medicare and Medicaid insurance had a greater LOS after their IA.ConclusionLOS remains lowest among patients undergoing IA between 7–9 weeks and 10–15 weeks after initial appendicitis presentation. Patients with lower socioeconomic status or from racial minorities had a longer LOS after IA.

The rate of recurrent appendicitis is low following nonoperative management of complicated appendicitis. However, recent data suggest an increased rate of neoplasms in these cases. The study was a retrospective review of patients with acute appendicitis at 2 university-affiliated community hospitals over a 12-year period. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of appendiceal neoplasm following interval appendectomy. Six thousand thirty-eight patients presented with acute appendicitis. Appendectomy was performed in 5,851 (97%) patients at the index admission. Of the 188 patients treated with initial nonoperative management, 89 (47%) underwent interval appendectomy. Appendiceal neoplasms were identified in 11 of the 89 (12%) patients. These included mucinous neoplasms (n = 6), carcinoid tumors (n = 4), and adenocarcinoma (n = 1). The rate of neoplasm in patients over age 40 was 16%. There is a significant rate of neoplasms identified in patient over age 40 undergoing interval appendectomy. This should be considered following nonoperative management of complicated appendicitis.

PurposeWe aimed to evaluate a complicated appendicitis clinical practice guideline at our institution.MethodsRecords were compared before and after protocol implementation. We standardized an ED consult pathway, antibiotic use and need for early appendectomy (EA) versus interval appendectomy (IA). We evaluated demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare patients with small abscess treated with IA pre-protocol versus similar patients treated by EA post-protocol.ResultsIn total 246 patients were reviewed (Pre-protocol = 152, Post-protocol = 94). Pre-protocol early appendectomy rate was 51% versus 82% on post-protocol patients. There were no differences in demographics. Post-protocol the use of preoperative imaging significantly decreased (Pre 92% vs. 56%, p = 0.0001), as well as the use of discharge antibiotics (Pre 93% vs. Post 27%, p = 0.0001) with no change in abscess rate. Overall, post-protocol patients had fewer total CT scans performed (Pre 40% vs. Post 28%, p = 0.03) and decreased total length of stay (Pre 7.7 vs. Post 6.5 days, p = 0.049). On subgroup analysis, post-protocol EA with no or small abscess had lower median number of admissions, decreased total LOS (Pre IA 9 days vs. Post EA 5 days, p = 0.00001) and fewer complications (Pre IA 42% vs. EA 22%, p = 0.022).ConclusionThe establishment of a standardized pediatric complicated appendicitis protocol may lead to improved outcomes and resource utilization. Patients presenting with no or small abscess may be the least likely to benefit from interval appendectomy.Level of evidence: Level III.

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.

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.

Perforated appendicitis, as defined by a visible hole in the appendix or an appendicolith free within the abdomen, carries significant morbidity in the pediatric population. Accurate diagnosis is challenging as there is no single symptom or sign that accurately predicts perforated appendicitis. Younger patients and those with increased duration of symptoms are at higher risk of perforated appendicitis. Elevated leukocytosis, bandemia, high C-reactive protein, hyponatremia, ultrasound, and CT are all useful tools in diagnosis. Distinguishing patients with perforation from those without is important given the influence of a perforation diagnosis on the management of the patient. Treatment for perforated appendicitis remains controversial as several options exist, each with its indications and merits, illustrating the complexity of this disease process. Patients may be managed non-operatively with antibiotics, with or without interval appendectomy. Patients may also undergo appendectomy early in the course of their index hospitalization. Factors known to predict failure of non-operative management include appendicolith, leukocytosis greater than 15,000 white blood cells per microliter, increased bands, and CT evidence of disease beyond the right lower quadrant. In this review, the indications and benefits of each treatment strategy will be discussed and an algorithm to guide treatment decisions will be proposed.

PurposeTo determine the incidence rate and identify predictive factors for interval appendectomy after non-operatively treated complicated appendicitis.MethodsSingle-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.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionsOne 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.

Introduction Acute appendicitis is significantly common. Despite the increased use of computed tomography, the number of perforated cases has been stable in the past three decades. Between 2% and 6% of patients with acute appendicitis present appendiceal mass, often described as inflammatory phlegmon or abscess. Malignant tumors are confirmed by pathological analysis in 0.9–1.4% of all appendectomies performed to treat acute appendicitis. However, recent series demonstrate an elevated incidence of malignancies, ranging from 5.9 to 12%, in patients with inflammatory appendiceal mass. Methods The analysis was based on a systematic review of the literature. The articles were searched in PubMed for the period from 1987 to 2016. Articles presenting the incidence of the hidden malignancy among patients with appendiceal inflammatory mass were selected. Variables as age, interval appendectomy rate, the incidence of neoplasm, time to surgery, minimally invasive assessment, histology, right colectomy rate and morbidity were analyzed. Results A total of 13.244 patients were described as presenting acute appendicitis. Appendiceal tumor is present in approximately 1% of the appendectomies, while the rate of neoplasm varies from 10 to 29% in patients presenting appendiceal inflammatory mass. Interval appendectomies, despite been the minority of the procedures, disregard the higher morbidity associated with right sided colectomies. The review of literature also describes oncologic, histologic and clinical aspects of patients presenting appendiceal neoplasm, describing the most frequent histologic subtypes of this illness. Conclusion Hidden appendiceal neoplasm in acute appendicitis are rare, fortunately. However, its incidence is much higher in patients presenting appendiceal inflammatory mass. Hence, interval appendectomy should be considered in this subgroup of patients.