Failure in the nonoperative management of pediatric ruptured appendicitis: predictors and consequences

Introduction

The initial nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis fails in 15% to 25% of children. These children have complications and increased hospitalization. The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of failure.

Methods

Children with perforated appendicitis treated with antibiotics and intent for nonoperative management over a 4-year period were reviewed. Seventy-five children were identified and included in the study. Failure was defined as undergoing appendectomy before the initially planned interval.

Results

Nine (12%) of the patients required appendectomy sooner than initially planned. Age, presenting symptoms, physical examination findings, and white blood cell (WBC) count were similar in both success and failure groups. Absence of abscess and presence of appendicolith were both predictors of failure in a multivariate analysis, which included the presence of small bowel obstruction. The failed group had a longer median total length of stay (18 days [range, 4-67] vs 8 days [range, 4-31]; P = .002) and underwent 3 times as many computed tomography scans as successes (3 [range, 2-7] vs 1 [range, 0-5]; P < .001).

Conclusion

Lack of abscess and presence of an appendicolith predict failure of nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis in children even when the effect of small bowel obstruction is accounted for. Children with these characteristics may benefit from alternative management strategies.     

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.     

Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children using a clinical practice guideline

Purpose

In October 2000, our institution implemented a clinical practice guideline (CPG) utilizing selective computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound scan (US) for the evaluation of children with suspected appendicitis. The authors sought to determine surgical outcomes and diagnostic accuracy in the CPG period.

Methods

The authors retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients evaluated under the CPG at their institution between January 1 and December 31, 2001. Depending on a patient’s clinical presentation, the CPG recommends immediate surgery or further evaluation with CT or US. CPG patients were identified if they received an appendectomy or a CT or US for suspected appendicitis. Negative appendectomy and perforation rates, as well as admissions for inpatient observation were compared with control patients treated for suspected appendicitis at our hospital in 1997, before frequent utilization of imaging studies.

Results

In the CPG period, 571 patients were evaluated for acute appendicitis, with 272 undergoing an appendectomy. Whereas 513 patients (90%) received a CT or US, only 34 patients (6%) were admitted to the surgical service for serial examinations. Patients with a histologically normal appendix decreased from 27 of 255 (10.6%) in 1997 to 15 of 272 (5.5%) in 2001 (P = .03). Fifty-seven patients (22.2%) in 2001 had a perforated appendix compared with 65 (28.5%) in 1997 (P = .11). The CPG, incorporating clinical judgment and selected imaging, had a sensitivity of 98.8%, a specificity of 95.2%, and positive and negative predictive values of 94.4% and 99.0%, respectively.

Conclusions

A clinical practice guideline selectively utilizing CT and US is highly accurate in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, minimizing the need for inpatient admission for serial examinations.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Effect of subspecialty training on outcome after pediatric appendectomy

Background/Purpose

There have been few studies documenting the effect of subspecialty training on outcomes after appendectomy in children. Some studies have suggested a better outcome in patients managed by pediatric surgeons as compared with general surgeons.

Methods

We studied the effect of subspecialty training on clinical outcome and negative appendectomy rate after pediatric appendectomy. Children less than 19 years in Ontario who underwent appendectomy were identified. Outcomes were compared between pediatric and general surgeons. Subanalyses were conducted for the age groups 0 to 5, 6 to 12, and 13 to 18 years.

Results

Over 8 years, 24,019 children underwent appendectomy with a preoperative diagnosis of appendicitis. Of these, 21,027 had appendicitis. General surgeons performed 81.2% of the operations. Negative appendectomy rates were 8.3% and 13.4% (P < .0001) in the pediatric and general surgeon groups, respectively. Children operated on by pediatric surgeons were younger (10.5 ± 3.6 vs 12.8 ± 3.8; P < .05), more likely to be perforated (36.6% vs 32.0%; P < .0001), and had a longer postoperative stay (3.8 vs 3.0 days; P < .0001). There was no difference between groups with respect to wound infection or readmission rate when age and perforation status were accounted for.

Conclusions

Pediatric surgeons performed significantly fewer negative appendectomies than general surgeons. Although pediatric surgeons kept their patients longer in the hospital, their patients' wound infection and readmission rates were not different from that of the patients of general surgeons.     

Post-operative antibiotic use in nonperforated appendicitis

Background

The appropriate use of preoperative antibiotics in patients undergoing appendectomy for acute appendicitis has been shown to decrease the rate of surgical site infections (SSIs). The benefits of postoperative courses of antibiotics in these patients, however, remain unclear.

Methods

The authors retrospectively reviewed all cases of nonperforated appendicitis performed at their institution over a 10-year period from 1997 to 2007. Patient outcomes were evaluated to include the postoperative development of SSIs, urinary tract infections, diarrhea, and Clostridium difficile infections.

Results

A total of 763 patients who underwent appendectomy for nonperforated appendicitis during the study period were identified. Five hundred seven of these patients had appropriate follow-up data and were the subjects of this study. Comparing patients who did and did not receive postoperative antibiotics, no significant differences in the rates of all SSIs (10% vs 9%, P = .64), superficial SSIs (9.3% vs 5.4%, P = .13), deep SSIs (.3% vs .5%, P = 1.0), organ space SSIs (2.8% vs 2.7%, P = .87), urinary tract infections (.6% vs .5%, P = 1.0), and diarrhea (2.5% vs 1.1%, P = .34) were found between groups.

Conclusions

The use of postoperative antibiotics in patients with nonperforated appendicitis does not decrease the rate of SSIs, while it may increase the cost of care.     

CT scans may not reduce the negative appendectomy rate in children

Background/purpose

Concern about an increased lifetime risk of cancer in children who have undergone a single computed tomography (CT) scan prompted us to review utilization of this diagnostic test in our appendicitis population.

Methods

From 1998 to 2001, the records of 720 children admitted to our hospital with a diagnosis of appendicitis were reviewed for adjunct diagnostic modalities, including ultrasonography (USG) and CT scanning. Negative appendectomy rates were determined by the final pathologic report. Statistical comparisons were made using the χ² test, and significance was assigned at P < .05.

Results

The use of ultrasound scan for diagnosing appendicitis decreased from 20.0% in 1998 to 7.0% in 2001 (P < .01). Conversely, the use of CT scans increased from 17.6% in 1998 to 51.3% in 2001 (P < .001). During this time period the difference in the negative appendectomy rate was not statistically significant (P < 0.20). Of the negative appendectomies, 11 of these patients had a USG interpreted as positive for appendicitis (22.0%), and 9 had a CT scan interpreted as positive (18.0%).

Conclusions

Liberal use of CT scans in diagnosing appendicitis in children has not resulted in a decreased negative appendectomy rate. Potentially harmful radiation exposure should prompt pediatric surgeons to reevaluate the role of CT scanning in the management of children with suspected appendicitis.     

Ultrasound-based decision making in the treatment of acute appendicitis in children

Background/purpose

Imaging techniques are used widely to diagnose appendicitis. However, the negative appendectomy rate remains at about 15%. The authors assessed ultrasound-based decision making in the treatment of acute appendicitis in children.

Methods

The authors prospectively studied 165 consecutive children (3 to 15 years old) evaluated for appendicitis. Diagnosis and treatment were based solely on ultrasound scan findings. Criterion for appendicitis was a diameter exceeding 6 mm. Severity was classified into 4 grades based on the appearance of intramural appendiceal structure. Patients with grades I or II received antibiotic therapy. Patients with grades III or IV underwent appendectomy.

Results

Ultrasound scan diagnosed appendicitis in 93 children (grade I, 7; grade II, 17; grade III, 41; and grade IV, 28). All but 2 patients with grades I or II underwent antibiotic therapy without complication. All grades III or IV patients underwent appendectomy. There was no negative appendectomy among 76 appendectomies during this period. Ultrasound-based prediction of severity was correct in 67 cases (88%). Ultrasonography identified other pathology in 39.

Conclusions

Ultrasonography in children cannot only visualize all inflamed appendices but also predict severity of disease. Treatment based entirely on ultrasound scan identified patients who required surgery for severe appendicitis and permitted successful conservative treatment for mild appendicitis.     

Appendicitis in the child with a ventriculo-peritoneal shunt: a 30-year review

Purpose

Each year, about 270 children are treated at our hospital for appendicitis, and there are 200 ventriculo-peritoneal (VP) shunt procedures. The incidence of primary peritonitis after a VP shunt is 8% to 12%. The purpose of this article is to try and differentiate these 2 entities.

Methods

From 1973 to 2003 inclusive, appendicitis was diagnosed in 8 children with a VP shunt at our hospital; there were 7 boys and 1 girl with 5 acute appendicitis and 3 ruptured appendices. The first case was diagnosed on purely clinical grounds, whereas the last 7 were confirmed by ultrasonography and/or computed tomography.

Results

All 8 had appendectomy and the shunt was exteriorized in the 3 children with a ruptured appendix. There were no postoperative problems, and the 8 children remained well.

Conclusion

Acute appendicitis can and does rarely occur in children with VP shunts; however, in such situations, the correct diagnosis can be confirmed by imaging. The shunt must be temporarily exteriorized if the appendix is ruptured.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Emergent vs urgent appendectomy in children: a study of outcomes

Background

Emergent appendectomy (EA) in children is still considered surgical dogma and continues to be recommended as a standard of care. This study examined whether emergent operation has any outcome advantages over urgent operation.

Methods

The charts of children treated for appendicitis during a recent 28-month period at 2 children's hospitals, where appendectomies are not performed between midnight and 7 am, were reviewed. Outcomes were compared between patients who underwent EA (within 8 hours of presentation) vs those who underwent urgent appendectomy (UA, after 8 hours).

Results

Three hundred sixty-five children met the criteria for the study. One hundred sixty-one (44%) were in the EA group (5.3 ± 2.1 hours), and 204 (56%) were in the UA group (16.8 ± 9.7 hours). The incidence of gangrenous or perforated appendicitis was significantly higher in the EA group (47% vs 36%, P = .04). There were no significant differences between EA and UA in postoperative outcomes, including readmissions (3.7% vs 1.0%, P = .08), wound infections (0.6% vs 2.4%, P = .17), or postoperative abscesses (1.9% vs 1.5%, P = .77). There were no significant differences in average hospital stay or average hospital charges between EA and UA (3.2 days for both, $14,775 vs $14,850), respectively.

Conclusions

Emergent appendectomy in children has no advantages over UA with respect to gangrene and perforation rates, readmissions, postoperative complications, hospital stay, or hospital charges. Performance of a UA at a time convenient to the surgeon should be considered within the standard of care.     

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.     

Which children could benefit from additional diagnostic tools in case of suspected appendicitis?

Background

New diagnostic tools such as ultrasound scan, computed tomography (CT) scan, and diagnostic laparoscopy, have become available for children with suspected appendicitis but should be reserved for equivocal cases. The aim of this study was to develop a scoring system to identify this subgroup of children.

Methods

Patients from 2 different periods (period 1, 99 consecutive children [group 1] and period 2, 62 consecutive children [group 2] with suspected appendicitis) were prospectively evaluated. Variables predicting appendicitis were obtained from group 1. By means of a regression analysis, a scoring system was created and applied to the patients of group 2. Missed appendicitis and negative appendectomy rates obtained by clinical practice were compared with the results that would have been accomplished based on the scoring system. Thereafter, the scoring system was externally validated in a group of children presented at another hospital (group 3, n = 114).

Results

The variables, leukocyte count ≥ 10.10⁹/L (2 points); rebound tenderness (2 points); and temperature ≥ 38°C (1 point) correlated significantly with appendicitis. The scoring system was used to categorize patients into 3 groups: appendicitis unlikely, doubtful appendicitis, and suspected appendicitis. The specificity and sensitivity of the scoring system were, respectively, 85% and 89%. Applying the scoring system would lead to comparable negative appendectomy rates of 8% versus 6% using clinical judgement and a comparable number of performed laparoscopies (26% v 31%). However, it could lead to a lower missed appendicitis rate (1% v 6%) and a lower perforation rate (0% v 11%). External validation showed comparable performed laparoscopies (32%) and missed appendicitis (2%) rates but a higher negative appendectomy rate (19%), probably owing to a lower percentage of appendicitis in hospital (2, 47%) compared with hospital (1, 71%).

Conclusions

Children can be observed if leukocyte count is less than 10.10⁹/L and rebound tenderness is absent; a diagnostic laparoscopy should be performed if one of these is present, and if both are present one could perform an appendectomy.     

In-line image projection accelerates task performance in laparoscopic appendectomy

Background

In laparoscopy, the monitor usually is placed at or above eye level across from the operating surgeon. Position of the endoscopic image at hand level has been shown in a laboratory model to facilitate task performance. The authors tested the hypothesis that in-line image projection reduced operating time for a standardized procedure.

Methods

Children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy were assigned randomly according to video image position: (1) at the top of the laparoscopy tower in front of the surgeon (“overhead”) or (2) on a screen placed on the patient’s abdomen (“in-line”). Operating time was recorded for each operation, and patients were stratified according to severity of appendicitis and training level of the operating surgeon. Statistical analysis was performed using Student’s t, χ² tests, and analysis of variance with post-hoc Fisher test (P < .05. significant).

Results

One hundred eight children, aged 2 to 17 years, underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy during a 26-month period. Fifty-four were assigned to the in-line projection screen and 54 to the overhead monitor. Operating time was significantly shorter (P = .013) when in-line projection was used (46.8 ± 10.2 v. 52.2 ± 15.1 minutes with overhead monitor). By analysis of variance (ANOVA) the only factors that significantly affected operating time were use of in-line projection (P = .030), severity of appendicitis (P = .002), and training level of the operating surgeon (P = .047).

Conclusions

Placing the endoscopic image in the same field as the surgeon’s hands decreases operating time by 10%, even for procedures that, like appendectomy, do not require complex suturing skills. This decrease in operating time occurs independently of the surgeon’s level of proficiency or the degree of difficulty of the operation.     

The influence of advanced radiographic imaging on the treatment of pediatric appendicitis

Purpose

Since 1998, the use of advanced radiographic imaging with computed tomography (CT) and/or diagnostic ultrasound (US) has increased dramatically for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children. This study investigates the impact of this imaging on the evaluation, management, and outcome of pediatric patients who underwent appendectomy for suspected appendicitis.

Methods

Retrospective review of 197 consecutive children with a preoperative diagnosis of acute appendicitis, from January 2002 through May 2004, undergoing appendectomy at a university-affiliated community hospital by pediatric and general surgeons.

Results

Patients were divided into two groups: imaged (n = 106; 54%) and nonimaged (n = 91; 46%). Groups were similar with respect to age, sex, temperature, white blood count, and insurance status. Ninety-seven imaged patients had CT, 6 had US, and 3 had both CT and US. Seventy-one percent of imaging studies were ordered by emergency department physicians and 24% by treating surgeons. Average wait from emergency department triage to operative incision for the imaged and nonimaged groups was 12.1 and 5.4 hours, respectively (P < .0001). Both groups had similar perforation rates (imaged: 15.1%, nonimaged: 14.6%). Negative appendectomy rates were 10.4% (imaged) and 4.4% (nonimaged). Average hospital charges were $11,791 (imaged) and $9360 (nonimaged) (P = .001). Time on antibiotics, complication rates, and length of stay were similar for both groups.

Conclusions

More than half of pediatric patients with suspected appendicitis now undergo advanced imaging and experience a significant delay in surgical treatment with a 26% increase in hospital charges and no clear-cut improvement in diagnostic accuracy nor outcome, when compared with evaluation by the treating surgeons.