Dollars and sense of interval appendectomy in children: a cost analysis

Purpose

Although initial nonoperative management of focal, perforated appendicitis in children is increasingly practiced, the need for subsequent interval appendectomy remains debated. We hypothesized that cost comparison would favor continued nonoperative management over routine interval appendectomy.

Methods

Decision tree analysis was used to compare continued nonoperative management with routine interval appendectomy after initial success with nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis. Outcome probabilities were obtained from literature review and cost estimates from the Kid's Inpatient Database. Sensitivity analyses were performed on the 2 most influential variables in the model, the probability of successful nonoperative management and the costs associated with successful observation. Monte Carlo simulation was performed using the range of cost estimates.

Results

Costs for continued nonoperative observation were estimated at $3080.78 as compared to $5034.58 for the interval appendectomy. Sensitivity analysis confirms a cost savings for nonoperative management as long as the likelihood of successful observation exceeds 60%. As the cost of nonoperative management increased, the required probability for its success also increased. Using wide distributions for both probability estimates as well as costs, Monte Carlo simulation favored continued observation in 75% of scenarios.

Conclusion

Continued nonoperative management has a cost advantage over routine interval appendectomy after initial success with conservative management in children with focal, perforated appendicitis.     

Routine interval appendectomy in children is not indicated

Background

This study evaluates outcomes for children treated without interval appendectomy (IA) after successful nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis.

Methods

A retrospective study of pediatric patients with appendicitis was performed from 12 regional acute-care hospitals from 1992 to 2004 with mean length of follow-up of 7.5 years. Main outcomes were recurrent appendicitis and cumulative length of hospital stay.

Results

The study included 6439 patients, of which 6367 (99%) underwent initial appendectomy. Seventy-two (1%) patients were initially managed nonoperatively and 11 patients had IA. Of the remaining 61 patients without IA, 5 (8%) developed recurrent appendicitis. Age, sex, type of appendicitis, and abscess drainage had no influence on recurrent appendicitis. Cumulative length of hospital stay was 6.6 days in patients without IA, 8.5 days in patients with IA, and 9.6 days in patients with recurrent appendicitis.

Conclusion

Recurrent appendicitis is rare in pediatric patients after successful nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis. Routine IA is not necessarily indicated for these children.     

Early decisions in perforated appendicitis in children: lessons from a study of nonoperative management

Background

In nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis, some children do not respond to treatment. This study sought early identifiers of failure to help in surgical decision making.

Methods

Fifty-eight patients with computed tomographic (CT)-proven perforated appendicitis were treated according to a nonoperative protocol. Patients who recovered were considered “successes;” those who did not improve underwent appendectomy and were scored as “failures” of nonoperative treatment.

Results

Thirty-six (62%) of 58 patients responded to treatment and 22 (38%) failed. Three parameters distinguished the 2 groups: the number of band forms on the admission white blood cell count, the body temperature response after 24 hours of treatment, and the areas of the abdomen involved in the CT scan. Patients in whom nonoperative treatment failed stayed in the hospital longer (17 vs 9 days) and had more complications (46% vs 0%).

Conclusions

Because failure of nonoperative management is associated with a high complication rate, it is important to make an early decision about appendectomy. Persistence of fever after 24 hours of treatment, bandemia on admission, and multisector involvement on CT scan identify most patients who fail nonoperative management. When combined with clinical judgment, these are useful indicators to guide early decisions.     

Nonoperative management of pediatric ruptured appendix with inflammatory mass or abscess: presence of an appendicolith predicts recurrent appendicitis

Aim of Study

The aim of this study was to determine if the presence of an appendicolith is associated with an increased risk for recurrent appendicitis after nonoperative treatment of pediatric ruptured appendix with inflammatory mass or abscess.

Methods

Ninety-six pediatric patients (52 girls, 44 boys), aged 16 months to 17 years (average, 7 years), were managed between 1980 and 2003. All were treated nonoperatively with intravenous triple antibiotics for 5 to 21 days. All children had at least a 2-year follow-up. This study was approved by the hospital research ethics board.

Main Results

Six children (6%) who became worse and 41 (46%) who had an interval appendectomy were eliminated from the study. The other 49 patients comprised the study group and received no further treatment. Twenty-eight (57%) had no recurrence, and 21 (43%) had a recurrence within 1 month to 2 years (average, 3 months). In the study group, 31 (63%) children had no appendicolith on radiological imaging and 18 (37%) had. Presence of an appendicolith was associated with a 72% rate of recurrent appendicitis compared with a recurrence rate of 26% in those with no appendicolith (χ² test, P < .004).

Conclusion

We conclude that the patients with appendicolith should have an interval appendectomy.     

Matched analysis of nonoperative management vs immediate appendectomy for perforated appendicitis

Background

The role of nonoperative therapy vs immediate appendectomy in the management of children with perforated appendicitis remains undefined. The objective of this study was to rigorously compare these management options in groups of patients with matched clinical characteristics.

Methods

Multicenter case-control study was conducted from 1998 to 2003. We compared patients treated nonoperatively vs those undergoing appendectomy to identify differences in 12 clinical parameters. We then generated a second control group of patients matched for these variables and compared the following outcomes in these clinically similar groups: complication rate, abscess rate, and length of stay (LOS). Analysis was performed according to intention-to-treat principles, using χ², Fisher exact, and Student t tests.

Results

The only significant difference between patients treated nonoperatively and those treated by appendectomy was the duration of pain on presentation (6.8 vs 3.1 days of pain).We created a second control group of patients undergoing immediate appendectomy matched on duration of pain on presentation to patients treated nonoperatively. These groups continued to be clinically comparable for the other 11 parameters. Compared to this matched control group, the nonoperative group had fewer complications (19% vs 43%, P < .01), fewer abscesses (4% vs 24%, P < .01), and a trend for shorter LOS (6.5 ± 5.7 vs 8.8 ± 6.7 days, P = .08).

Conclusions

When nonoperative management for perforated appendicitis was studied using appropriately matched clinical controls, we found that it resulted in a lower complication rate and shorter LOS in the subset of patients presenting with a long duration of pain. Our data suggest that nonoperative management should be prospectively evaluated in children with perforated appendicitis presenting with a history of pain exceeding 5 days.     

Antibiotics and appendicitis in the pediatric population: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee systematic review

Objective

The aim of the study was to review evidence-based data regarding the use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis in children.

Data Source

Data were obtained from PubMed, MEDLINE, and citation review.

Study Selection

We conducted a literature search using “appendicitis” combined with “antibiotics” with children as the target patient population. Studies were selected based on relevance for the following questions:

(1)

What perioperative antibiotics should be used for pediatric patients with nonperforated appendicitis?

(2)

For patients with perforated appendicitis treated with appendectomy:

a.

What perioperative intravenous antibiotics should be used?

b.

How long should perioperative intravenous antibiotics be used?

c.

Should oral antibiotics be used?

(3)

For patients with perforated appendicitis treated with initial nonoperative management, what antibiotics should be used in the initial management?

Results

Children with nonperforated appendicitis should receive preoperative, broad-spectrum antibiotics. In children with perforated appendicitis who had undergone appendectomy, intravenous antibiotic duration should be based on clinical criteria. Furthermore, broad-spectrum, single, or double agent therapy is as equally efficacious as but is more cost-effective than triple agent therapy. If intravenous antibiotics are administered for less than 5 days, oral antibiotics should be administered for a total antibiotic course of 7 days. For children with perforated appendicitis who did not initially undergo an appendectomy, the duration of broad-spectrum, intravenous antibiotics should be based on clinical symptoms.

Conclusions

Current evidence supports the use of guidelines as described above for antibiotic therapy in children with acute and perforated appendicitis.     

Adhesive small bowel obstruction after appendectomy in children: comparison between the laparoscopic and open approach

Introduction

Adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) is a common postoperative complication. Published data in the pediatric literature characterizing SBO are scant. Furthermore, the relationship between the risk of SBO for a given procedure is not well described. To evaluate these parameters, we reviewed the incidence of SBO after laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) performed at our institution.

Methods

With institutional review board approval, all patients that developed SBO after appendectomy for appendicitis from January 1998 to June 2005 were investigated. Hospital records were reviewed to identify the details of their postappendectomy SBO. The incidences of SBO after LA and OA were compared with χ² analysis using Yates correction.

Results

During the study period, 1105 appendectomies were performed: 477 OAs (8 converted to OA during laparoscopy) and 628 LAs. After OA, 7 (6 perforated appendicitis) patients later developed SBO of which 6 required adhesiolysis. In contrast, a patient with perforated appendicitis developed SBO after LA requiring adhesiolysis (P = .01). The mean time from appendectomy to the development of intestinal obstruction for the entire group was 46 ± 32 days.

Conclusions

The overall risk of SBO after appendectomy in children is low (0.7%) and is significantly related to perforated appendicitis. Small bowel obstruction after LA appears statistically less common than OA. Laparoscopic appendectomy remains our preferred approach for both perforated and nonperforated appendectomy.     

Is early laparoscopic appendectomy feasible in children with acute appendicitis presenting with an appendiceal mass? A prospective study

Background

The management of an appendiceal mass remains controversial with 2 schools of thought; early surgical intervention vs nonoperative management with or without interval appendectomy. The aim is to determine the role and safety of early laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in children with acute appendicitis presenting with an appendiceal mass.

Methods

This is a prospective study of 88 consecutive pediatric patients who underwent attempted LA for suspected acute appendicitis at KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, between May and October 2003.

Results

A total of 88 patients with a mean age of 10 ± 3 years (range, 3-16 years) underwent LA for an appendiceal mass (n = 22), simple appendicitis (n = 36), other complicated (gangrenous or perforated) appendicitis (n = 23), and a normal appendix (n = 7). There were 7 conversions to open appendicectomy, 3 of which occurred in patients with an appendiceal mass. There were no perioperative or postoperative mortalities. Morbidity occurred in only one patient who underwent LA for perforated appendicitis. He had prolonged sepsis that resolved after 2 weeks of intravenous antibiotics. None of the patients with an appendiceal mass developed complications. Patients who underwent early LA for an appendiceal mass had a statistically significant (P < .05) longer operating time (median, 103 minutes; interquartile range, 90-151 minutes, vs median, 87 minutes; interquartile range, 71-112 minutes), prolonged time to ambulation (median, 2.0 days; interquartile range, 2-2.5 days, vs median, 1.0 days; interquartile, 1-2 days), increased time to resumption of diet (median, 4 days; interquartile, 3-5 days, vs median, 2 days; interquartile, 2-3 days), and longer postoperative stay (median, 6.0 days; interquartile, 5.5-6.5 days, vs median, 4.0 days; interquartile, 3-5.5 days) compared with patients presenting with appendicitis without mass formation. However, there was no statistical difference in these parameters when LA for an appendiceal mass was compared with LA for other complicated appendicitis (perforated and gangrenous).

Conclusion

Although early LA for an appendiceal mass is a technically demanding procedure, it can be performed safely in children with minimal morbidity and mortality. In an era where patients' demand for “key-hole” surgery is rising, early LA is a safe and viable option in the management of children with an appendiceal mass. It also offers the advantage of avoiding misdiagnoses and the need for a second hospitalization.     

Single daily dosing ceftriaxone and metronidazole vs standard triple antibiotic regimen for perforated appendicitis in children: a prospective randomized trial

Introduction

Appendicitis is the most common emergency condition in children. Historically, a 3-drug regimen consisting of ampicillin, gentamicin, and clindamycin (AGC) has been used postoperatively for perforated appendicitis. A retrospective review at our institution has found single day dosing of ceftriaxone and metronidazole (CM) to be a more simple and cost-effective antibiotic strategy. Therefore, we performed a prospective, randomized trial to compare efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these 2 regimens.

Methods

After internal review board approval (IRB no. 04 12-149), children found to have perforated appendicitis at appendectomy were randomized to either once daily dosing of CM (2 total doses per day) or standard dosing of AGC (11 total doses per day). Perforation was defined as an identifiable hole in the appendix. The operative approach (laparoscopic), length of antibiotic use, and criteria for discharge were standardized for the groups. Based on our retrospective analysis using length of postoperative hospitalization as a primary end point, a sample size of 100 patients was calculated for an α of .5 and a power of 0.82.

Results

One hundred patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis. On presentation, there were no differences in sex distribution, days of symptoms, temperature, or leukocyte count. There was no difference in abscess rate or wound infections between groups. The CM group resulted in significantly less antibiotic charges then the AGC group.

Conclusions

Once daily dosing with the 2-drug regimen (CM) offers a more efficient, cost-effective antibiotic management in children with perforated appendicitis without compromising infection control when compared to a traditional 3-drug regimen.     

Postoperative bowel obstruction after laparoscopic and open appendectomy in children: a 15-year experience

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to determine and evaluate the incidence of postoperative bowel obstruction (PBO) after laparoscopic and open appendectomy in children.

Material and Methods

The medical files of children who have undergone an appendectomy, either via the laparoscopic or open approach, at our department from 1992 until 2007 were reviewed. Collected data included age at appendectomy, initial surgical approach, time interval to PBO, and type of definitive treatment. The incidences of PBO after laparoscopic and open appendectomy were compared with the χ² analysis.

Results

From the 1684 children who were found, 1371 had nonperforated appendicitis and 313 had perforated appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy was performed in 954 patients of the nonperforated group and in 221 of the perforated group. Open appendectomy was performed in 417 and 92 patients of the 2 groups, respectively. Overall, the incidence of PBO development was 2.2%. In the laparoscopic appendectomy population, a significantly low incidence of 1.19% of PBO development was detected, compared with the 4.51% of the open appendectomy group (P < .0001).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic appendectomy diminishes the potential of PBO development. The overall incidence of PBO is not related to the severity of the disease but only to the initial operative approach.     

Initial laparoscopic appendectomy versus initial nonoperative management and interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with abscess: a prospective, randomized trial

Introduction

Perforated appendicitis is a common condition in children, which, in a small number of patients, may be complicated by a well-formed abscess. Initial nonoperative management with percutaneous drainage/aspiration of the abscess followed by intravenous antibiotics usually allows for an uneventful interval appendectomy. Although this strategy has become well accepted, there are no published data comparing initial nonoperative management (drainage/interval appendectomy) to appendectomy upon presentation with an abscess. Therefore, we conducted a randomized trial comparing these 2 management strategies.

Methods

After internal review board approval (#06 11-164), children who presented with a well-defined abdominal abscess by computed tomographic imaging were randomized on admission to laparoscopic appendectomy or intravenous antibiotics with percutaneous drainage of the abscess (when possible), followed by interval laparoscopic appendectomy approximately 10 weeks later. This was a pilot study with a sample size of 40, which was based on our recent volume of patients presenting with appendicitis and abscess.

Results

On presentation, there were no differences between the 2 groups regarding age, weight, body mass index, sex distribution, temperature, leukocyte count, number of abscesses, or greatest 2-dimensional area of abscess in the axial view. Regarding outcomes, there were no differences in length of total hospitalization, recurrent abscess rates, or overall charges. There was a trend toward a longer operating time in patients undergoing initial appendectomy (61 minutes versus 42 minutes mean, P = .06).

Conclusions

Although initial laparoscopic appendectomy trends toward a requiring longer operative time, there seems to be no advantages between these strategies in terms of total hospitalization, recurrent abscess rate, or total charges.     

Outcome of laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic (LA) vs open appendectomy (OA) in patients with perforated appendicitis in our center.

Methods

Retrospective review from July 2002 to April 2007 (institutional review board-approved), evaluating 281 patients with perforated appendicitis based on surgical approach. We compared demographics, mean operative time, length of stay (LOS), infectious complications, and follow-up in patients with OA (n = 213) and LA (n = 68).

Results

Laparoscopic appendectomy patients were significantly older (12 vs 9.4 years), heavier (51.8 vs 36.6 kg) and more frequently girls (47.8% vs 34.3%). Mean operative time was longer in LA (72.6 vs 50.2 minutes). Median LOS was 5 days in LA and 6 days in OA. Few patients in each group required a drainage procedure for a persistent abscess (LA 4.4%, OA 4.7%; P = 1.000). Laparoscopic appendectomy patients had fewer wound infections (1.5% vs 9.5%; P = .034), and less follow-up visits were needed (>2 clinic visits 4.5% vs 16.4%; P = .013).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic appendectomy has a shorter median LOS, a trend toward less postoperative infectious complications, and fewer clinic visits than OA, which makes it a safe and effective procedure for patients with perforated appendicitis.     

Outpatient interval appendectomy after perforated appendicitis

Background

Interval appendectomy may be advisable after successful nonoperative treatment of perforated appendicitis. To reduce the perceived morbidity of interval appendectomy, we sought to determine if the operation could be done on an outpatient basis. This study is focused on patient comfort and safety after laparoscopic interval appendectomy (LIA).

Methods

This is a retrospective review of the clinical course and length of stay of 24 children who had LIA during a 4-year period.

Results

Of the 24 patients, 12 were discharged on the evening of surgery without incident. Nine additional patients were observed for the first postoperative night—2 for short episodes of temperature elevation, 3 for pain treated within the first 4 hours of recovery and requiring no further treatment, and 4 because the idea of outpatient appendectomy had yet to become popular. None of these patients was febrile overnight, none required narcotic or parenteral analgesics after leaving the recovery room, and all accepted feedings without nausea or vomiting. It is likely that all 9 of these patients could have been discharged on the day of operation. Three other patients stayed in the hospital for treatment of pain, low-grade fever, or slow resumption of feeding.

Conclusion

Of 24 patients, 21(88%) were or could have been discharged on the day of operation. When interval appendectomy is indicated, LIA can be performed safely as an outpatient surgical procedure in most children.     

The optimal initial management of children with suspected appendicitis: a decision analysis

Background/purpose

As abdominal imaging has improved, the use of computed tomography (CT) and ultrasonography (US) for evaluating children with suspected appendicitis has increased. The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal management strategy for evaluating children with suspected appendicitis given the current accuracy of abdominal imaging.

Methods

Decision analysis was used to evaluate 5 management strategies: discharge, observation, CT, US, and appendectomy. Probabilities and time variables were obtained from publications and a chart review. Each approach was evaluated for its impact on length of stay, hospital charges, cost effectiveness and its capacity to minimize perforation and avoid negative appendectomy (risk-benefit).

Results

Discharge was preferred when the probability of appendicitis was low (<0.09 to <0.47), imaging when in an intermediate range and surgery when high (>0.61 to >0.91). A role for observation was found only when the anticipated time of inpatient observation was brief (<9 hours). Although CT was more expensive than US, CT was more cost effective for preventing negative appendectomy and perforation and achieved a better risk-benefit.

Conclusions

CT has an important role in the management of suspected appendicitis. Among children with a low or high likelihood of appendicitis, the cost of imaging tests required to prevent the complications of appendicitis is high.     

Expanding the inclusion criteria for non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis: Outcomes and cost

Background

Carefully selected children with early appendicitis may be managed nonoperatively. However, it is unknown whether nonoperative management (NOM) is applicable to all patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of NOM of uncomplicated appendicitis with expanded inclusion criteria.

Nonoperative Management of Appendiceal Phlegmon or Abscess with an Appendicolith in Children

Background

The optimal treatment of appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with an appendicolith is controversial. This study aimed to evaluate outcomes and prognosis of nonoperative management of appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with an appendicolith in children.

Methods

From 2007 to 2011, 105 children with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess who were treated nonoperatively without interval appendectomy were reviewed. Average follow-up of subjects was 2.4 years. Data were compared between subjects with and without an appendicolith or persistent presence and disappearance of an appendicolith.

Results

The success rate for nonoperative therapy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with appendicolith was 95.9 %. The risk of recurrent appendicitis in appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with appendicolith (19.1 %) was higher than that without appendicolith (8.9 %, P?=?0.132). The rate of appendicolith disappearance during follow-up was 80.9 %. The persistent presence of an appendicolith was associated with a significantly higher recurrence rate (66.7 %) compared with appendicolith disappearance (7.9 %, P?<?0.05).

Conclusion

Appendiceal phlegmon or abscess with an appendicolith can be managed nonoperatively, and most appendicoliths can be resolved. Persistent presence of an appendicolith is a significant risk factor for recurrent appendicitis. Interval appendectomy is recommended for persistent presence of appendicolith, but is not indicated in cases without appendicolith or appendicolith disappearance.     

Outcome of initially nonoperative treatment for acute simple appendicitis in children

Purpose

To compare the outcome of initially nonoperative treatment with immediate appendectomy for simple appendicitis in children.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children with uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis

Purpose

To address whether laparoscopic appendectomy could be an alternative to conventional open appendectomy in children with complicated appendicitis as well as uncomplicated appendicitis, a retrospective study comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomies was performed.

Methods

One hundred patients who were treated by immediate appendectomy, either laparoscopically or by the open method, between May 2000 and August 2003 were included in the study. There were 53 patients in the laparoscopic appendectomy group and 47 patients in the open appendectomy group.

Results

The operating time was significantly longer for laparoscopic appendectomy than for open appendectomy (P < .001). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with uncomplicated appendicitis (P = .001). Thirteen of the 100 patients (13.0%) had 15 postoperative complications including wound infection (n = 8), intraabdominal abscess (n = 4), stitch abscess (n = 2), and small bowel obstruction (n = 1). In both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, there was no significant difference between laparoscopic and open appendectomies in the complication rates, and the incidences of each complication did not differ between the procedures. Among the 14 patients with generalized peritonitis, postoperative complications were seen in 5 patients (35.7%). Although the presence of generalized peritonitis was associated significantly with postoperative complications (P = .017), there was no significant association between the procedure and complications. Overall treatment costs were increased by 26.0% in laparoscopic appendectomy.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic appendectomy should remain an option in children with uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, and when laparoscopy is selected, consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure is essential.     

A complete course of intravenous antibiotics vs a combination of intravenous and oral antibiotics for perforated appendicitis in children: a prospective, randomized trial

Introduction

In a previous prospective randomized trial, we found a once-a-day regimen of ceftriaxone and metronidazole to be an efficient, cost-effective treatment for children with perforated appendicitis. In this study, we evaluated the safety of discharging patients to complete an oral course of antibiotics.

Methods

Children found to have perforated appendicitis at the time of laparoscopic appendectomy were enrolled in the study. Perforation was defined as a hole in the appendix or fecalith in the abdomen. Patients were randomized to antibiotic treatment with either once daily dosing of ceftriaxone and metronidazole for a minimum of 5 days (intravenous [IV] arm) or discharge to home on oral amoxicillin/clavulanate when tolerating a regular diet (IV/PO arm) to complete 7 days.

Results

One hundred two patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis. On presentation, there were no differences in age, weight, sex distribution, days of symptoms, maximum temperature, or leukocyte count between the 2 groups. There was no difference in the postoperative abscess rate between the two treatment groups. Discharge was possible before day 5 in 42% of the patients in the IV/PO arm.

Conclusions

When patients are able to tolerate a regular diet, completing the course of antibiotics orally decreases hospitalization with no effect on the risk of postoperative abscess formation.     

An evidence-based clinical protocol for diagnosis of acute appendicitis decreased the use of computed tomography in children

Purpose

The increased use of computed tomography (CT) to diagnose appendicitis in children has led to a concern for the possibility of increased CT-related cancer morbidity. We designed a clinical protocol for the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis in children in an attempt to decrease the use of CT scans at our institution.

Methods

Patients who had surgical consultation for suspected appendicitis were placed on the clinical protocol. Data concerning diagnosis and treatment were collected prospectively. Retrospective data from patients admitted to our institution with acute appendicitis before the clinical protocol were collected as historical controls.

Results

One hundred twelve patients were diagnosed and treated by our protocol between June and November 2009. Of these, 100 patients underwent an appendectomy for acute appendicitis. They were compared with 146 patients from 2007. In-house CT use decreased from 71.2% to 51.7% (P = .01). Preoperative ultrasound use increased from 2.7% to 21% (P < .001). The negative appendectomy rate increased (6.8% vs 11%, P = .25).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that the implementation of an evidence-based clinical protocol for the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis in children may safely decrease the use of CT scans and increase the use of ultrasound.