RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Appendicectomy is the most frequently performed emergency general surgical procedure. Previous research has highlighted discrepancies between initial intraoperative laparoscopic diagnoses and subsequent histopathology reports following appendicectomy. In the United Kingdom (UK), routine histopathological examination is the established practice, ensuring precise diagnosis of appendiceal specimens. This retrospective analysis aims to compare intraoperative laparoscopic assessments of the appendix with corresponding histopathology findings. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 418 consecutive emergency laparoscopic appendectomies at Peterborough City Hospital in the UK between April 2018 and June 2019 for suspected appendicitis. Intraoperative findings were compared with histopathological examination outcomes using kappa statistics. RESULTS: Of the 418 appendectomies analysed, we found a substantial agreement between surgeons and pathologists (kappa = 0.71, P < 0.001) in detecting overall abnormalities of appendices. This agreement was also high for detecting inflamed appendices (kappa = 0.72, P < 0.001). However, of the six neoplastic lesions confirmed in the pathologists' final report, only two were suspected during laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: While laparoscopic assessments of the appendix demonstrate a statistically significant and improved agreement with histopathological findings in detecting abnormal and inflamed appendices, the ability of surgeons to identify neoplasia appears suboptimal based on our small sample of neoplasia cases. The data strongly support the continued practice of routine histopathological examination following appendicectomy due to its crucial role in avoiding missed diagnoses and ensuring better patient outcomes.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Appendicectomy is the most frequent emergency general surgical procedure. Prior research highlights the importance of histopathology analysis after appendicectomy which is the practice in many countries including the United Kingdom (UK), aiming to prevent any oversight of vital findings and the avoidance of potential delays in patient care. Our primary objective was to audit the extent to which surgeons adhere to the NHS England patient safety guidelines from 2016 when it comes to timely reviewing and effectively communicating histopathology results to patients and/or their general practitioners following appendicectomy procedures. Our secondary objective was to amend practice, if deemed necessary, following the implementation of agreed-upon protocols, with the expected improvements being observable in the second cycle of the audit. METHODS: In our two-cycle audit, we performed a retrospective analysis using online patient records from a single centre in the UK. The initial cycle involved cases of emergency appendectomies carried out consecutively for suspected appendicitis from April 2018 to June 2019. Following the clinical governance meeting and the implementation of recommendations, the second audit cycle covered cases between September 2020 and October 2020. RESULTS: In the first cycle, among 418 laparoscopic appendectomies, 207 (49.52%) and 47 reports (11.24%) were reviewed within a 15-day and a 16-30-day window, respectively, following the online availability of histopathology results. Notably, 116 reports (27.75%) remained unreviewed by surgeons, and only 67 (16.02%) of these reports documented communication with patients and/or their general practitioners. In the second cycle, involving 49 patients, 38 reports (77.55%) were reviewed within the first 15 days, and 10 reports (20.4%) were reviewed between 16-30 days. Among these, 16 reports (32.65%) documented communication with patients and/or their general practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Our adherence to the aforementioned guidance was poor prior to this audit. This two-cycle audit highlighted the need for improvement in the timely review and communication of histopathology reports following appendectomy at our centre. The second cycle showed promising progress, suggesting that changes implemented between the cycles had a positive impact. Nevertheless, continuous efforts may be required to enhance and sustain adherence to these vital patient safety guidelines.