Acute surgical unit improves outcomes in appendicectomy.

BACKGROUND: Few large Australian studies have explored the impact of acute surgical unit (ASU) model in appendicitis. METHODS: An ASU model commenced practice at our institution on 1 August 2012. In this retrospective cohort study, patients undergoing appendicectomy 2.5 years before (Traditional group) or after (ASU group) this date were compared. Primary outcomes were median length of stay, median time from emergency department referral to theatre start and proportion of cases performed in-hours. Secondary outcomes were rates of complications, open appendicectomy, consultant scrubbed for procedure, intensive care unit admission and re-presentation to emergency department within 30 days. RESULTS: After removing those with incomplete data, 1214 patients were enrolled; 465 in the Traditional group and 749 in the ASU group. There were no significant baseline differences between groups. Compared with the Traditional group, ASU patients had similar length of stay (1.81 versus 1.81 days; P = 0.54) and time to theatre (0.59 versus 0.56 days; P = 0.14), but a greater proportion of in-hours operation (72% versus 79%; P = 0.014). The ASU group also experienced fewer complications (9% versus 6%; P = 0.031), fewer primary open (4% versus 1%; P < 0.0001) or conversion-to-open appendicectomies (6% versus 2%; P < 0.0005) and had superior rates of consultant scrubbed in theatre (21% versus 56%; P < 0.00001). Rates of intensive care unit admission (1% versus 1%; P = 0.72) and re-presentation were unchanged (5% versus 5%; P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: In our institution, the introduction of an ASU model was associated with more in-hours operations and safer care for patients undergoing appendicectomy.

Communication and management of incidental pathology in 1,214 consecutive appendicectomies; a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Important incidental pathology requiring further action is commonly found during appendicectomy, macro- and microscopically. We aimed to determine whether the acute surgical unit (ASU) model improved the management and disclosure of these findings. METHODS: An ASU model was introduced at our institution on 01/08/2012. In this retrospective cohort study, all patients undergoing appendicectomy 2.5 years before (Traditional group) or after (ASU group) this date were compared. The primary outcomes were rates of appropriate management of the incidental findings, and communication of the findings to the patient and to their general practitioner (GP). RESULTS: 1,214 patients underwent emergency appendicectomy; 465 in the Traditional group and 749 in the ASU group. 80 (6.6%) patients (25 and 55 in each respective period) had important incidental findings. There were 24 patients with benign polyps, 15 with neuro-endocrine tumour, 11 with endometriosis, 8 with pelvic inflammatory disease, 8 Enterobius vermicularis infection, 7 with low grade mucinous cystadenoma, 3 with inflammatory bowel disease, 2 with diverticulitis, 2 with tubo-ovarian mass, 1 with secondary appendiceal malignancy and none with primary appendiceal adenocarcinoma. One patient had dual pathologies. There was no difference between the Traditional and ASU group with regards to communication of the findings to the patient (p = 0.44) and their GP (p = 0.27), and there was no difference in the rates of appropriate management (p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: The introduction of an ASU model did not change rates of surgeon-to-patient and surgeon-to-GP communication nor affect rates of appropriate management of important incidental pathology during appendectomy.