Perforated appendicitis is not a contraindication to laparoscopy.

Recent studies have reported an increased risk of intra-abdominal abscess formation following laparoscopic operation for perforated appendicitis. We undertook this study to compare laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in the treatment of perforated appendicitis. Records of all patients undergoing an appendectomy between January 1994 and June 1997 were reviewed, classifying appendicitis as acute, gangrenous, or perforated based on the intraoperative findings. Operative procedures were categorized as open, laparoscopic converted to open, or laparoscopic. The study group included 690 patients; four hundred fourteen (60%) were acute, 77 (11%) were gangrenous, and 199 (29%) were perforated. Although mean length of stay was shorter for all patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy, patients with perforated appendicitis had similar length of stay between treatment groups. Mean operative time for open appendectomy was significantly shorter than for converted or laparoscopic appendectomy regardless of diagnosis (P<0.01). Ten patients (1.4%) developed an intra-abdominal abscess: six after open appendectomy (1.7%), one after converted appendectomy (3.7%), and three after laparoscopic appendectomy (1%). There was no significant difference in rate of abscess formation in patients with perforated appendicitis undergoing open, converted, or laparoscopic appendectomy. We conclude that laparoscopic appendectomy for perforated appendicitis is not associated with an increased rate of intra-abdominal abscess formation.     

Explaining insurance-related and racial disparities in the surgical management of patients with acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND: Race and insurance status influence the likelihood of undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) versus open appendectomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis. We hypothesized that these disparities are caused by presenting hospitals' use of LA. METHODS: The analysis included 26,104 appendectomies for acute appendicitis in New York State during 2003 and 2004. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors for undergoing LA versus open appendectomy. RESULTS: Before adjustment for individual hospital use of LA, both white patients (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-1.36; P < .0001] and privately insured patients (OR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.44-1.61; P < .0001) were more likely to undergo LA. Controlling for differential hospitals' use of LA decreased the OR for laparoscopic surgery to 1.08 (95% CI 1.01-1.15; P = .04) for white patients and to 1.22 (95% CI 1.15-1.31; P < .0001) for privately insured patients. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in presenting hospitals' use of LA maintain racial and, to a lesser extent, insurance-related disparities in the surgical management of patients with acute appendicitis.     

Laparoscopy should be the approach of choice for acute appendicitis in the morbidly obese

BACKGROUND: The current study compared the outcome of morbidly obese patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. METHODS: We obtained data from the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) database on 1,943 morbidly obese patients who underwent appendectomy for acute or perforated appendicitis between 2002 and 2007. RESULTS: Compared to open appendectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter length of stay (3 vs 4 days) and a lower overall complication rate (9% vs 17%). Most notably, a lower rate of wound infection was noted (1% vs 3%). Within a subset analysis of morbidly obese patients who underwent appendectomy for perforated appendicitis, there was a higher overall complication rate (27% vs 18%) and cost ($16,600 vs $12,300) in the open appendectomy group. CONCLUSION: In the morbidly obese, laparoscopic appendectomy performed for acute and perforated appendicitis is associated with a shorter length of stay and lower morbidity and costs. Laparoscopic appendectomy should be the procedure of choice for the treatment of acute appendicitis in the morbidly obese population.     

A comparative study of routine laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the outcomes of routine laparoscopy and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in patients with suspected appendicitis. This is a retrospective study of the outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy compared with outcomes for patients undergoing open appendectomy (OA) during the time that LA came into use. METHOD: Results of patients managed with routine laparoscopy and LA for suspected acute appendicitis were reviewed and analyzed. The preoperative and intraoperative findings were recorded. The clinical outcomes were compared with those of patients undergoing OA in the preceding 10 months. RESULTS: During the LA study period, 97 patients (47 men) with the median age of 34 years (range, 18 to 79) presented with clinical features of acute appendicitis. With the exclusion of 5 patients with open operations and 10 patients with other pathologies, 82 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (Group A) for appendicitis. Thirty-one (37.8%) patients had complicated appendicitis (perforated or gangrenous appendicitis). Conversions were required in 6 patients (7.3%). During the OA period, 125 patients (57 men) with the median age of 42 (range, 19 to 79) years were operated on. With the exclusion of 6 patients with other pathologies, 119 underwent OA for acute appendicitis (Group B). Fifty-one (42.9%) had either perforated or gangrenous appendicitis. The median durations of surgery in Group A and Group B were 80 minutes (range, 40 to 195) and 60 minutes (range, 25 to 260), respectively (P < 0.005). Postoperative complication rates were comparable between the 2 groups (13.4% in Group A versus 15.8% in Group B). The median hospital stay for patients in Group A and Group B were 3.0 days (range, 1 to 47) and 4.0 days (range, 1 to 47), respectively (P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that routine laparoscopy and LA for suspected acute appendicitis is safe and is associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay. Other intra-abdominal pathologies can also be diagnosed more accurately with the laparoscopic approach.     

Appendectomy in the pre- and postlaparoscopic eras

The role of laparoscopic appendectomy remains controversial since many authors have suggested that overall morbidity is primarily a function of the degree of appendicitis rather than the operative approach. We have reviewed our appendectomy experience to determine the advantages and/or disadvantages of the laparoscopic technique in cases of acute appendicitis, and furthermore to ascertain whether the extent of disease should affect the surgical approach used. Data were accumulated for all 1158 patients who underwent appendectomy at a single institution during the following three time periods that span the pre- and postlaparoscopic eras: period I (1987 to 1990), period II (1991 to 1993), and period III (1994 to 1997). Cases were categorized with regard to pathologic findings and operative approach (i.e., open or laparoscopic appendectomy). The percentage of appendectomies performed laparoscopically increased with time (0%, 27%, and 79% for periods I, II, and III, respectively). Overall, the total operating room time was slightly shorter for laparoscopic compared to open appendectomy (99 vs. 102 minutes; P <0.05). Operating room times for open appendectomy remained unchanged, but the times for laparoscopic appendectomy decreased from period II to period III (119 to 94 minutes; P <0.001). In cases of gangrenous/perforated appendicitis, the times for laparoscopic appendectomy were significantly shorter than those for open appendectomy (98/115 vs. 120/125 minutes; P <0.001 for both). Overall, the hospital stay was shorter for patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy (1.63 vs. 4.21 days; P <0.001), and the difference was maintained in all three time periods. The differences in length of hospital stay for laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy were most dramatic in gangrenous/perforated cases (1.8/3.0 vs. 4.0/9.0 days; P <0.001), whereas there was only a slight difference in cases of simple appendicitis, for example, 1.6 vs. 2.1 days (laparoscopic vs. open appendectomy, period III). There was a significant decrease in the percentage of perforated cases in which surgical treatment had been delayed (>8 hours) (21%, 5%, and 5%) over the three time periods, but the rate of "negative" appendectomies was similar (10%, 8%, and 8%). The complication rates following laparoscopic and open appendectomies during period II were 5.4% and 7.5%, respectively (P >0.05). Laparoscopic appendectomy results in a marked decrease in the length of hospital stay and similar postoperative morbidity compared to open appendectomy. In cases of gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy appears to be especially worthwhile in regard to both operating room time and hospital stay. Presented at the Thirty-Ninth Annual Meeting of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, New Orleans, La., May 17–20, 1998. Supported by the Harvard Center for Minimally Invasive Surgery.     

The impact of ultrasound examinations on the management of children with suspected appendicitis: a 3-year analysis

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of ultrasonography in the routine management of children with suspected appendicitis in a children's hospital. METHODS: Data from surgical, radiologic, and pathologic databases were cross referenced retrospectively to allow for review of all children undergoing appendectomy and all children undergoing an ultrasound scan to rule out appendicitis in the 3-year period August 1, 1996 to July 31, 1999. RESULTS: Pathology reports were available for 1,007 of 1,032 patients undergoing appendectomy. Eighty-four percent had acute appendicitis (26% of these were perforated). Fifty-eight percent of all children undergoing appendectomy had at least 1 preoperative ultrasound scan. Eighty-six percent of those having ultrasound scans had acute appendicitis compared with 82% of those who did not have an ultrasound scan (P <.05 chi(2) Test). During the same period, 2,056 ultrasound examinations were performed by staff radiologists who were available 24 hours a day to rule out appendicitis. Ultrasonography in this setting had a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 95%, positive predictive value of 86%, and a negative predictive value of 96% (true-positives, n = 496; false-positive, n = 81; true-negative, n = 1,417; false-negative, n = 62). An alternate ultrasound diagnosis was offered in 157 children. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound scan improves diagnostic accuracy in children with suspected appendicitis. The high negative predictive value of ultrasound scan, especially when used repeatedly, may reduce the need for admission to hospital for clinical observation to rule out appendicitis.     

Negative appendectomy in pregnant women is associated with a substantial risk of fetal loss

BACKGROUND: The preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis is often inaccurate in pregnant women, and complicated appendicitis is associated with a high rate of fetal loss. The study objective was to evaluate rates of fetal loss and early delivery in pregnant patients undergoing appendectomy, using a large population-based database. STUDY DESIGN: Using the California Inpatient File, we retrospectively analyzed all women undergoing appendectomy between 1995 and 2002 for pregnancy, diagnosis, operative technique, fetal loss, and early delivery during the same hospitalization as appendectomy. RESULTS: Of 94,789 women who underwent appendectomy, 3,133 were pregnant. Complicated appendicitis was found in 30% of pregnant women and 29% of nonpregnant women (p=NS). The rate of negative appendectomy was considerably higher in pregnant compared with nonpregnant women (23% versus 18%, p < 0.05). Rates of fetal loss and early delivery were considerably higher in women with complex appendicitis (6% and 11% respectively; p < 0.05) in comparison with negative (4% and 10%) and simple (2% and 4%) appendicitis. Using multivariate logistic regression, complicated and negative appendicitis (odds ratio [OR] 2.69 and 1.88 respectively, compared with simple) remained major positive predictors of fetal loss. Also, laparoscopy was associated with a higher rate of fetal loss compared with open appendectomy (odds ratio=2.31). CONCLUSIONS: The current approach to possible acute appendicitis in pregnant women puts 23% at risk for fetal loss, even though they have a normal appendix. These data indicate that reducing fetal loss in pregnant women suspected of having acute appendicitis will require more accurate diagnosis to avoid unnecessary operation.     

Is it safe to delay appendectomy in adults with acute appendicitis?

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether delayed surgical intervention in adult patients with acute appendicitis is safe by correlating the interval from onset of symptoms to operation (total interval) with the degree of pathology and incidence of postoperative complications. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Prompt appendectomy has long been the standard of care for acute appendicitis because of the risk of progression to advanced pathology. This time-honored practice has been recently challenged by studies in pediatric patients, which suggested that acute appendicitis can be managed in an elective manner once antibiotic therapy is initiated. No such data are available in adult patients with acute appendicitis. METHODS: A retrospective review of 1081 patients who underwent an appendectomy for acute appendicitis between 1998 and 2004 was conducted. The following parameters were monitored and correlated: demographics, time from onset of symptoms to arrival at the emergency room (patient interval) and from arrival to the emergency room to the operating room (hospital interval), physical, computed tomography (CT scan) and pathologic findings, complications, length of stay, and length of antibiotic treatment. Pathologic state was graded 1 (G1) for acute appendicitis, 2 (G2) for gangrenous acute appendicitis, 3 (G3) for perforation or phlegmon, and 4 (G4) for a periappendicular abscess. RESULTS: The risk of advanced pathology, defined as a higher pathology grade, increased with the total interval. When this interval was <12 hours, the risk of developing G1, G2, G3, and G4, was 94%, 0%, 3%, and 3%, respectively. These values changed to 60%, 7%, 27%, and 6%, respectively, when the total interval was 48 to 71 hours and to 54%, 7%, 26%, and 13% for longer than 71 hours. The odds for progressive pathology was 13 times higher for the total interval >71 hours group compared with total interval<12 hours (95% confidence interval = 4.7-37.1). Although both prolonged patient and hospital intervals were associated with advanced pathology, prehospital delays were more profoundly related to worsening pathology compared with in-hospital delays (P < 0.001). Advanced pathology was associated with tenderness to palpation beyond the right lower quadrant (P < 0.001), guarding (P < 0.001), rebound (P < 0.001), and CT scan findings of peritoneal fluid (P = 0.01), fecalith (P = 0.01), dilation of the appendix (P < 0.001), and perforation (P < 0.001). Increased length of hospital stay (P < 0.001) and antibiotic treatment (P < 0.001) as well as postoperative complications (P < 0.001) also correlated with progressive pathology. CONCLUSION: In adult patients with acute appendicitis, the risk of developing advanced pathology and postoperative complications increases with time; therefore, delayed appendectomy is unsafe. As delays in seeking medical help are difficult to control, prompt appendectomy is mandatory. Because these conclusions are derived from retrospective data, a prospective study is required to confirm their validity.     

Complicated appendicitis in children: a clear role for drainage and delayed appendectomy

INTRODUCTION: Children presenting with complicated appendicitis represent a common and challenging problem. Conflicting data exist concerning optimal treatment of these patients with primary versus delayed appendectomy. METHODS: A retrospective review of all children undergoing appendectomy over a 5-year period was performed. RESULTS: We identified 1,106 children: 360 had evidence of perforation and 92 had an intra-abdominal abscess or right lower quadrant phlegmon. Of these 92, 60 underwent primary appendectomy and 32 underwent drainage and/or antibiotic therapy with delayed appendectomy. Children undergoing delayed appendectomy had a longer prodrome of symptoms (6.9 vs 4.6 days, P = .002), slightly higher presenting white blood cell count (19.3 vs 16.6, P = .08), and had the same hospital length of stay, yet had a lower complication rate requiring readmission to the hospital (0% vs 10%) compared to those undergoing immediate appendectomy. CONCLUSION: In children presenting with prolonged symptoms and a discrete appendiceal abscess or phlegmon, drainage and delayed appendectomy should be the treatment of choice.     

Management of acute appendicitis by an acute care surgery service: is operative intervention timely?

BACKGROUND: Trauma services are increasingly providing emergency surgery care by creating "acute care surgery" teams. We compared two periods at a Level I trauma center to determine if trauma service coverage would negatively impact timely management of acute appendicitis. STUDY DESIGN: All patients admitted through the emergency department of a Level I trauma center who underwent appendectomies between March 2005 and May 2006 (Trauma period) were identified. During this period, the trauma service covered most surgical emergencies. Comparison was made with the earlier 15-month period (Pretrauma). Emergency department to operating room (OR) time, procedure length, and negative appendectomy rates were obtained. RESULTS: In the Pretrauma period, 273 patients underwent appendectomy, compared with 279 in the Trauma period. Two-thirds (66%) of appendectomies in the Trauma period were performed by trauma surgeons. There was no difference in both periods with regard to mean emergency department to OR time (10.5 hours versus 9.9 hours; p = 0.4509), perforation rates (12% Pretrauma versus 7.5% Trauma; p = 0.1134), or negative appendectomy rates (17.9% Pretrauma versus 18.2% Trauma; p = 1.0). In the Trauma period, more appendectomies were completed laparoscopically (84.6% Trauma versus 66.6% Pretrauma; p < 0.0001), and mean OR time was shorter (57.4 minutes versus 67 minutes; p = 0.0006). CONCLUSIONS: In comparing two periods with and without the trauma service coverage of surgical emergencies, no difference was found in emergency department to OR time, perforation rates, or negative appendectomy rates in the management of acute appendicitis. There was a decrease in operative time and an increase in the proportion of laparoscopic appendectomies in the Trauma period. Trauma services can effectively incorporate emergency surgical coverage of procedures, such as appendectomies, without compromising timely intervention.     

Umbilical Negative Pressure Dressing for Transumbilical Appendectomy in Childern

Methods:This study was a retrospective chart review of 1377 patients (2–20 years) undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis in 2 tertiary care referral centers from January 2007 through December 2012. Twenty-two different operative technique/dressing variations were documented. The 6 technique/dressing groups with >50 patients were assessed, including a total of 1283 patients.Results:The surgical site infection rate of the 220 patients treated with TULAA and application of an umbilical vacuum dressing with dry gauze is 1.8% (95% CI, 0.0–10.3%). This compares to an infection rate of 4.1% (95% CI, 1.3–10.5%) in 97 patients with dry dressing without vacuum. In the 395 patients who received an umbilical vacuum dressing with gauze and bacitracin, the surgical site infection rate was found to be 4.3% (95% CI, 2.7–6.8%).Conclusions:Application of an umbilical negative-pressure dressing with dry gauze lowers the rate of umbilical site infections in patients undergoing transumbilical laparoscopic-assisted appendectomy for acute appendicitis.     

Trends in utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy

BACKGROUND: Although a number of trials have analyzed the outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy, the clinical advantages, and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic appendectomy in the management of acute and perforated appendicitis are still not clearly defined. The aim of this study was to examine utilization and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy using a national administrative database of academic medical centers and teaching hospitals. METHODS: Using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes, we obtained data from the University HealthSystem Consortium Clinical Data Base for all patients who underwent appendectomy for acute and perforated appendicitis between 1999 and 2003 (n = 60,236). Trends in utilization of laparoscopic appendectomy were examined over the 5-year period. The outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy were compared including length of hospital stay, 30-day readmission, complications, observed and expected (risk-adjusted) in-hospital mortality, and costs. RESULTS: Overall, 41,085 patients underwent open appendectomy and 19,151 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. The percentage of appendectomy performed by laparoscopy increased from 20% in 1999 to 43% in 2003 (P <0.01). Compared with patients who underwent open appendectomy, patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy were more likely female, more likely white, had a lower severity of illness, and were less likely to have perforated appendicitis. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (2.5 days vs 3.4 days), lower rate of 30-day readmission (1.0% vs 1.3%), and lower rate of overall complications (6.1% vs 9.6%). There was no significant difference in the observed to expected mortality ratio between laparoscopic and open appendectomy (0.5 vs 0.6, respectively). The mean cost per case was similar between the two groups (US$ 6,242 vs US$ 6,260). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of laparoscopic appendectomy at academic centers has increased more than two-fold between 1999 and 2003. Patients selected for laparoscopic appendectomy have less advanced appendicitis and have a shorter length of stay and fewer complications without increasing the inpatient care cost.     

The role of selective computed tomography in the diagnosis and management of suspected acute appendicitis

The negative appendectomy rate in patients with clinically diagnosed acute appendicitis is 20 to 40 per cent. Recently CT has emerged as a powerful diagnostic tool in the evaluation of suspected appendicitis and its routine use has been advocated. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of selective use of abdominal CT on the negative appendectomy rate. Three hundred eight patients were enrolled in this prospective study. Abdominal CT was performed in patients with uncertain clinical signs of appendicitis. CT was not performed in patients with either a very high or a very low index of suspicion. The results were compared with a retrospective analysis of 85 consecutive patients operated by clinical diagnosis alone. One hundred twenty-seven patients had a final diagnosis of acute appendicitis. CT was performed in 198 patients (64%). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CT scans were 91, 92, and 91 per cent, respectively. Surgical management plans were altered in 54 patients after obtaining the CT results; unnecessary delay in surgical treatment or unnecessary operations were prevented in 28 and 26 patients, respectively. In addition CT detected unrelated pathologies in 23 patients. CT was not performed in patients with low index of suspicion and none were found to suffer from acute appendicitis. The negative appendectomy rate was 17 per cent (7% men and 24% women) in patients selected for surgery on the basis of very high clinical suspicion alone. Overall the negative appendectomy rate with the selective use of CT was 16 per cent, which is significantly lower than the rate achieved by diagnosing patients on clinical grounds alone (24%). CT is highly accurate in diagnosing or ruling out acute appendicitis and may substantially decrease the negative appendectomy rate as well as unnecessary delayed observation. We believe that CT should be performed routinely in women with suspected appendicitis and selectively in men.     

Surgery for appendicitis: is it necessary?

ABSTRACT Background: Appendectomy for acute appendicitis is an effective, universally accepted procedure performed more than 300,000 times annually in the United States. It is generally believed that appendicitis progresses invariably from early inflammation to later gangrene and perforation, and that appendectomy is required for surgical source control. Although non-operative management with antibiotics of uncomplicated diverticulitis, salpingitis, and neonatal enterocolitis is now established, the non-operative management of appendicitis remains largely unexplored. Methods: Systematic review of published literature and derived expert opinion. Results: Clinical, epidemiologic, radiologic, and pathologic evidence is presented for spontaneous resolution of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The pathogenesis of appendicitis is reviewed with specific consideration of the role of bacterial infection in the pathogenesis. Evidence is also provided documenting the clinical success of non-operative management. Conclusions: Appendectomy may not be necessary for the majority of patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, as many patients resolve spontaneously and others may be treatable with antibiotics alone. However, the supporting documentation is scant and of poor quality. A randomized, prospective trial of non-operative management versus early appendectomy of acute uncomplicated appendicitis corroborated by radiologic imaging is called for.     

Laparoscopy may be lowering the threshold to operate on patients with suspected appendicitis

Background: Although several randomized trials have compared postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing open and laparoscopic appendectomy, few have examined whether laparoscopy has affected preoperative decision making. We hypothesized that surgeon enthusiasm for laparoscopic appendectomy would lower the threshold to operate on patients with possible appendicitis. To examine this question we designed a retrospective cohort study in the setting of a tertiary care medical center. Methods: We studied a consecutive series of 130 patients taken to the operating room with preoperative diagnoses of appendicitis between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 1999. We excluded pregnant patients, those under 18 or over 75, those admitted electively for chronic symptoms, and those undergoing appendectomy incidental to another procedure. Measures included the proportion of patients with normal appendices or acute appendicitis (perforated and nonperforated), as determined from the pathology report. Other clinical and demographic data were obtained by review of the medical records. Results: During the study period, 87 patients (67%) underwent open appendectomy and 43 patients (33%) underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. Women were more likely to receive the laparoscopic approach than men (43% vs 24% p = 0.021). Preoperative use of advanced imaging tests (computed tomography or ultrasound) was more prevalent in the laparoscopic group (40% vs 30%, p = 0.271). Patients undergoing the laparoscopic procedure were considerably less likely to have acute appendicitis than those undergoing an open one (67% vs 92%, p <0.001). However, among patients with confirmed appendicitis, those undergoing laparoscopic surgery were less likely to be perforated than those who had an open procedure (4.6% vs 25% p = 0.004). Conclusion: At our hospital, the availability of the laparoscopic approach to appendectomy may have lowered the threshold to operate on patients with possible appendicitis, as reflected in higher negative exploration rates and lower rates of perforated appendicitis.     

Can we afford to do laparoscopic appendectomy in an academic hospital?

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have shown laparoscopic appendectomy to be safe for both acute and perforated appendicitis, but there have been conflicting reports as to whether it is superior from a cost perspective. Our academic surgical group, who perform all operative cases with resident physicians, has been challenged to reduce expenses in this era of cost containment. We recognize resident training is an expensive commodity that is poorly reimbursed, and hypothesized laparoscopic appendectomy was too expensive to justify resident teaching of this procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine if laparoscopic appendectomy is more expensive than open appendectomy. METHODS: From April 2003 to April 2004, all patients undergoing appendectomy for presumed acute appendicitis at our university-affiliated teaching hospital were reviewed; demographic data, equipment charge, minutes in the operating room (OR), hospital length of stay, and total hospital charge were analyzed. OR minute charges were gradated based on equipment use and level of skilled nursing care. Conversions to open appendectomy were included in the laparoscopic group for analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 247 patients underwent appendectomy for preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis, with 152 open (113 inflamed, 37 perforated, 2 normal), 88 laparoscopic (69 inflamed, 12 perforated, 7 normal), and 7 converted (2 inflamed, 4 perforated, 1 normal) operations performed. The majority were men (67%) with a mean age of 31.4 +/- 2.2 years. Overall, there was significant difference (P < .05) in intraoperative equipment charge (125.32 dollars +/- 3.99 dollars open versus 1,078.70 dollars +/- 24.06 dollars lap), operative time charge (3,022.16 dollars +/- 57.51 dollars versus 4,065.24 dollars +/- 122.64 dollars), and total hospital charge (12,310 dollars +/- 772 dollars versus 16,773 dollars +/- 1,319 dollars) but no significant difference in operative minutes (56.3 +/- 1.3 versus 57.4 +/- 2.3), operating room minutes (90.5 +/- 1.7 versus 95.7 +/- 2.5), or hospital days (2.6 versus 2.2). In subgroup analysis of patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, open and laparoscopic groups had equivalent hospital days (1.47 versus 1.49) but significantly different hospital charges (9,632.44 dollars versus 14,251.07 dollars). CONCLUSIONS: Although operative time was similar between the 2 groups, operative and total hospital charges were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group. Unless patient factors warrant a laparoscopic approach (questionable diagnosis, obesity), we submit open appendectomy remains the most cost-effective procedure in a teaching environment.     

Laparoscopic appendectomy in Switzerland: a prospective audit of 2, 179 cases

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Since its introduction in 1983, laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has not replaced the conventional open procedure. The patient benefit seems limited to a decreased wound infection rate, and the overall morbidity and mortality rates remain equal to those of open appendectomy. METHODS: The data (collected by the Swiss Association of Laparoscopic and Thoracoscopic Surgery) from 2, 179 patients undergoing LA at 84 surgical institutions in Switzerland between January 1995 and December 1997 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: More than 90% of all patients had no intra- or postoperative complications. However, perforated appendicitis was associated with more complications, in particular a threefold increased wound infection rate (9.2 vs 3.5%). Furthermore, the conversion and reoperation rates of perforated appendicitis were significantly increased compared to 'simple' acute appendicitis (25. 5 and 10.4% vs 4.8 and 2.1%, respectively). LA performed with a stapling device is superior to LA performed with loops, although the difference is not significant. CONCLUSION: Therefore, LA is a safe and effective procedure. The postoperative morbidity and mortality rates are comparable to those of open appendectomy, which is still the most commonly used procedure in Switzerland. The question of whether perforated appendicitis is better treated laparoscopically or by the open procedure cannot be answered with our data.     

Risk of perforation increases with delay in recognition and surgery for acute appendicitis

Background

Appendicitis remains a common indication for urgent surgical intervention in the United States, and early appendectomy has long been advocated to mitigate the risk of appendiceal perforation. To better quantify the risk of perforation associated with delayed operative timing, this study examines the impact of length of inpatient stay preceding surgery on rates of perforated appendicitis in both adults and children.

Methods

This study was a cross-sectional analysis using the National Inpatient Sample and Kids’ Inpatient Database from 1988–2008. We selected patients with a discharge diagnosis of acute appendicitis (perforated or nonperforated) and receiving appendectomy within 7 d after admission. Patients electively admitted or receiving drainage procedures before appendectomy were excluded. We analyzed perforation rates as a function of both age and length of inpatient hospitalization before appendectomy.

Results

Of 683,590 patients with a discharge diagnosis of appendicitis, 30.3% were recorded as perforated. Over 80% of patients underwent appendectomy on the day of admission, approximately 18% of operations were performed on hospital days 2–4, and later operations accounted for <1% of cases. During appendectomy on the day of admission, the perforation rate was 28.8%; this increased to 33.3% for surgeries on hospital day 2 and 78.8% by hospital day 8 (P < 0.001). Adjusted for patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics, odds of perforation increased from 1.20 for adults and 1.08 for children on hospital day 2 to 4.76 for adults and 15.42 for children by hospital day 8 (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Greater inpatient delay before appendectomy is associated with increased perforation rates for children and adults within this population-based study. These findings align with previous studies and with the conventional progressive pathophysiologic appendicitis model. Randomized prospective studies are needed to determine which patients benefit from nonoperative versus surgically aggressive management strategies for acute appendicitis.     

Delayed Appendectomy Is Safe in Patients With Acute Nonperforated Appendicitis

The present study examined whether acute, nonperforated appendicitis is a surgical emergency requiring immediate intervention or a disease that can be treated with a semielective operation. Immediate appendectomy has been the gold standard in the treatment of acute appendicitis because of the risk of pathologic progression. However, this time-honored practice has been recently challenged by studies suggesting that appendectomies can be elective in some cases and still result in positive outcomes. This was a retrospective study using the charts of patients who underwent an appendectomy for acute, nonperforated appendicitis between January 2007 and February 2012. Patients were divided into 2 groups for comparison: an immediate group (those who were moved to an operating room within 12 hours after hospital arrival) and a delayed group (those within 12 to 24 hours after hospital arrival). The end points were conversion rate, operative time, perforation rate, complication rate, readmission rate, length of hospital stay, and medical costs. Of 1805 patients, 1342 (74.3%) underwent immediate operation within 12 hours after hospital arrival, whereas 463 (25.7%) underwent delayed operation within 12 to 24 hours. There were no significant differences in open conversion, operative time, perforation, postoperative complications, and readmission between the 2 groups. Length of hospital stay was significantly greater (3.7 ± 1.7 days) and medical costs were also greater [$2346.30 ± $735.30 (US dollars)] in the delayed group than in the immediate group [3.1 ± 1.9 days; P = 0.000 and $2257.80 ± $723.80 (US dollars); P = 0.026]. Delayed appendectomy is safe for patients with acute nonperforated appendicitis.Key words: Delayed appendectomy, Immediate appendectomy, Nonperforated appendicitisAcute appendicitis is one of the most common acute diseases requiring an emergency operation. Immediate appendectomy is considered the gold-standard treatment for acute appendicitis. It is widely believed that delays in diagnosis and treatment significantly contribute to increased incidences of perforated appendicitis, which result in increased patient morbidity.¹ Nevertheless, in some cases, the appropriate operation has been delayed because of reasons such as lack of fasting time for general anesthesia, unavailability of operating rooms, and overscheduling of operating teams. Recently, some studies have challenged the impact of these delays and standard of care with appendectomy by suggesting that acute appendicitis can either be treated medically^2,3 or operated on electively without increasing morbidity.^4–7 Given these considerations, we used electronic medical records to review 1805 cases of appendectomy for acute appendicitis between January 2007 and February 2012 to verify whether acute nonperforated appendicitis necessitates immediate intervention or can be treated with a semielective operation.     

The contemporary appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children

BackgroundNational, procedure-specific clinical registries are increasingly available in surgery, although data about children have lagged behind. Data related to the surgical management of appendicitis in children have become available recently and can be used to inform patient and family expectations and to identify clinical areas in need of ongoing improvement.MethodsCases of acute, uncomplicated appendicitis in children (<18 years of age) were extracted from the 2017 pediatric appendectomy-targeted file of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Epidemiologic data were generated across 5 domains: (1) patient characteristics/severity, (2) preoperative imaging patterns, (3) characteristics of the operation, (4) pathologic outcomes, and (5) postoperative morbidity and mortality.ResultsThe final sample included 9,507 appendectomies for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis performed at 106 hospitals. The population was predominantly male (60.6%), involving children 6 to 12 years of age (55.3%). Only 2.9% of patients did not have imaging before their appendectomy. Overall, 38.2% received a computed tomography; however, patients transferred with imaging received computed tomography at 3.8 times the rate of those with only local (ie, operating hospital) imaging. Laparoscopy was used in 94.6% of cases, with 1.1% converted to open. Negative appendectomy and complication rates were 3.3% and 2.1%, respectively. Children ≤5 years of age had 2.3 greater odds of negative appendectomy than children 6 to 17 years of age.ConclusionChildren undergoing operation for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis have excellent clinical outcomes, although children ≤5 years of age have an increased risk of negative appendectomy. Despite guidelines against their use, more than one-third of children received a computed tomography before operation, driven predominantly by transferring hospitals.