Treatment of acute appendicitis: Retrospective analysis
Authors:
K. Menclová 1; E. Traboulsi 2; A. Nikov 1; L. Hána 1; M. Rousek 1
; M. Ryska 1
Authors place of work:
Chirurgická klinika 2. LF Univerzity Karlovy a ÚVN – VFN Praha, přednosta: prof. MUDr. M. Ryska, CSc.
1; Oddělení patologie ÚVN – VFN Praha, primář: MUDr. P. Hrabal
2
Published in the journal:
Rozhl. Chir., 2016, roč. 95, č. 8, s. 317-321.
Category:
Original articles
Summary
Introduction:
Acute appendicitis is the most common cause of intra-abdominal emergency surgery worldwide. The approach to its treatment keeps changing. The number of acute appendectomies has been decreasing. Many patients are treated conservatively with success. Our study compares conservative and surgical treatment of acute appendicitis, including its complications in our department.
Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed the group of 117 patients hospitalized with the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis. We distinguished patients with complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis, and patients operated and treated conservatively. We evaluated complication rates and recurrences of the disease, respectively, in 1-year follow-up. The Student t test and Fisher’s exact test were used for the statistical analysis.
Results:
In 2012 we hospitalized 117 patients with acute appendicitis: 83 patients (71%) for uncomplicated and 34 (29%) for complicated appendicitis. 41% of patients with complicated and 13% with uncomplicated appendicitis (p=0.02) were treated conservatively. Conservative treatment or laparoscopic surgery, respectively, were used more often in women ( p≤0.001). There was no failure of conservative treatment. Perioperative morbidity was 13%. No patient died. 6 patients (24%) of the conservatively treated group were hospitalized in the subsequent year for recurrent problems. 4 (16%) were reoperated. The rate of negative appendectomy (negative pathological findings) was 11%. The hospitalization time was shorter in patients treated conservatively or using laparoscopy, respectively, compared to the group of patients undergoing appendectomy.
Conclusion:
In the modern era of available complementary examinations and a broad spectrum of antibiotics the conservative approach is favoured as a treatment of complicated appendicitis. Conservative treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis is an option, but not the method of choice. Routine elective appendectomy after successful conservative treatment is groundless. Laparoscopic appendectomy is associated with lower morbidity than open appendectomy. Despite the available tests and scoring systems the negative appendectomy rate remains high.
Key words:
appendicitis – appendectomy – laparoscopy – antibiotic treatment
Zdroje
1. Pinto F, Pinto A, Russo A. Accuracy of ultrasonography in the diagnoses of acute apendicitis in adults patients: review of literature. Crit Ultrasound J 2013;5(Suppl 1):S2.
2. Shin CS, Roh YN, Kim JI. Delayed appendectomy versus early appendectomy in the treatment of acute appendicitis: a retrospective study. World J Emerg Surg 2014;9:8. doi: 10.1186/1749-7922-9-8
4. Tannoury J, Abboud B. Treatment options of inflammatory appendiceal masses in adults. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19:3942–30.
5. Addis DG, Shaffer N, Bowler BS. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 1990;132:910−25.
6. Masson RJ. Surgery for apendicitis: is it necessary? Surg Infect 2008;9:481−8.
7. Nautiyal H, Ahmad S, Keshwani NK. Combined use of modified Alvarado score and USG in decreasing negative appendectomy rate. Indian Journal of Surgery 2010;72:42−8.
8. Sartelli M, Catena F, Ansaloni L. Complicated intra-abdominal infections in Europe: a comprehensive review of the CIAO study. World J Emerg Surg 2012;7:36.
9. Sartelli M, Viale P, Catena F. 2013 WSES guidlines for management of intra-abdominal infections. World J Emerg Surg 2013;8:3.
10. Thompson JE, Bennion RS, Schmit PJ, et al. Cecectomy for complicated appendicitis. J Am Coll Surg. 1994;179:135–8.
11. Pokala N, Sadhasivam S, Kiran RP, et al. Complicated appendicitis – is the laparoscopic approach appropriate? A comparative study with the open approach: outcome in a community hospital setting. Am Surg 2007;73:737–41; discussion 741−2.
12. Vons C, Barry C, Maitre S. Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid versus appendicectomy for treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;377:1573−9.
13. Connor SJ, Hanna GB, Frizelle FA. Appendiceal tumors: restrospective clinicopathologic analysis of appendiceal tumors from 7,970 appendectomies. Dis Colon Rectum 1998;41:75−80.
14. Oliak D, Yamini D, Udani VM, et al. Initial nonoperative management for periappendiceal abscess. Dis Colon Rectum 2001;44:936–41.
15. Samuel M, Hosie G, Holmes K. Prospective evaluation of nonsurgical versus surgical management of appendiceal mass. J Pediatr Surg 2002;37:882–6.
16. Simillis C, Symeonides P, Shorthouse AJ. A meta-analysis comparing conservative treatment versus acute appendectomy for complicated appendicitis (abscess or phlegmon) Surgery 2010;147:818–29.
17. Mariadason JG, Wang WN, Wallack MK. Negative appendectomy rate as a quality metric in the management of apendicitis: impact of computed tomography, Alavardo score and the definition of negative appendicectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2012;94:395–401.
18. Rather SA, Bari SU, Malik AA. Drainage vs no drainage in secondary peritonitis with sepsis following complicated apendicitis in adults in the modern era of antibiotics. World J Gastointest Surg 2013;5:300−5.
19. Jatagandzidis V, Herdegen P, Mráček M. Komplikace laparoskopické apendektomie. Rozhl Chir 2007;86:288−90.
20. Ninger V. Komplikace laparoskopické apendektomie. Rozhl Chir 2013;92:174−5.
21. Gundavda MK, Bhandarwar AH. Comparative study of laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) as a cross sectional hospital based study for evaluation of: Postoperative quality of life. Indian J Med Sci 2012;66:99−115. doi: 10.4103/0019-5359.114195
22. Schnüriger B, Laue J, Kröll D. Introduction of a new policy of no nighttime appendectomies: Impact on appendiceal perforation rates and postoperative morbidity. World J Surg 2014;38:18−24.
23. Mohebbi HA, Mehrvarz S, Kashani MT. Predicting negative appendectomy by using demographic, clinical, and laboratory parameters: a cross-sectional study. Int J Surg 2008;6:115–8.
24. Teicher I, Landa B, Cohen M. Scoring system to aid in diagnoses of appendicitis. Ann Surg 1983;198:753–9.
25. Alvarado A. A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 1986;15:557–64.
26. Sigdel GS, Lakhey PJ, Mishra PR. Tzanakis score vs Alvarado score in acute appendicitis. J Nepal Med Assoc 2010;49:96–9.
27. Petrosyan M, Estrada J, Chan S. CT scan in patients with suspected appendicitis: clinical implications for the acute care surgeon. Eur Surg Res 2008;40:211–19.
Štítky
Surgery Orthopaedics Trauma surgeryČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Perspectives in Surgery
2016 Číslo 8
- Spasmolytic Effect of Metamizole
- Metamizole at a Glance and in Practice – Effective Non-Opioid Analgesic for All Ages
- Metamizole in perioperative treatment in children under 14 years – results of a questionnaire survey from practice
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Surgical approaches to pineal region – review article
- Treatment of acute appendicitis: Retrospective analysis
- Free-floating thrombus in the internal carotid artery treated by anticoagulation and delayed carotid endarterectomy
- Supravesical hernia as a rare cause of inguinal herniation and its laparoscopic treatment with TAPP approach