Retrospective analysis of the incidence of appendiceal neoplasm and malignancy in patients treated for suspected acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis is currently being promoted as treatment option, albeit 0.7-2.5% of appendectomies performed due to suspected acute appendicitis show histologically malignant findings. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of neoplasm and malignancy of the appendix in patients presenting with suspected acute appendicitis in real world setting. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-centre investigation of 457 patients undergoing appendectomy between the years 2017-2020. The patients' demographics, symptoms and diagnosis, intraoperative findings, and histopathological results were analysed. RESULTS: In 3.7% (n = 17) histological analysis revealed neoplasms or malignancies. Median age was 48 years (20-90 years), without sex predominance. Leukocytes (11.3 ± 3.7 G/l) and C-reactive protein (54.2 ± 69.0 mg/l) were elevated. Histological analysis revealed low-grade mucinous appendiceal neoplasia (n = 3), sessile serrated adenoma of the appendix (n = 3), neuroendocrine tumours (n = 7), appendiceal adenocarcinoma of intestinal type (n = 3), and goblet cell carcinoma (n = 1). Additional treatment varied between no treatment or follow-up due to early tumour stage (n = 4), follow-up care (n = 3), additional surgical treatment (n = 8), or best supportive care (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative diagnosis of appendiceal tumours is difficult. Nonoperative management of patients with acute, uncomplicated appendicitis potentially prevents the correct diagnosis of malignant appendiceal pathologies. Therefore, close follow-up or surgical removal of the appendix is mandatory.

Artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: a narrative review.

Artificial intelligence is transforming healthcare. Artificial intelligence can improve patient care by analyzing large amounts of data to help make more informed decisions regarding treatments and enhance medical research through analyzing and interpreting data from clinical trials and research projects to identify subtle but meaningful trends beyond ordinary perception. Artificial intelligence refers to the simulation of human intelligence in computers, where systems of artificial intelligence can perform tasks that require human-like intelligence like speech recognition, visual perception, pattern-recognition, decision-making, and language processing. Artificial intelligence has several subdivisions, including machine learning, natural language processing, computer vision, and robotics. By automating specific routine tasks, artificial intelligence can improve healthcare efficiency. By leveraging machine learning algorithms, the systems of artificial intelligence can offer new opportunities for enhancing both the efficiency and effectiveness of surgical procedures, particularly regarding training of minimally invasive surgery. As artificial intelligence continues to advance, it is likely to play an increasingly significant role in the field of surgical learning. Physicians have assisted to a spreading role of artificial intelligence in the last decade. This involved different medical specialties such as ophthalmology, cardiology, urology, but also abdominal surgery. In addition to improvements in diagnosis, ascertainment of efficacy of treatment and autonomous actions, artificial intelligence has the potential to improve surgeons' ability to better decide if acute surgery is indicated or not. The role of artificial intelligence in the emergency departments has also been investigated. We considered one of the most common condition the emergency surgeons have to face, acute appendicitis, to assess the state of the art of artificial intelligence in this frequent acute disease. The role of artificial intelligence in diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis will be discussed in this narrative review.

The risks of failed nonoperative management of appendicitis in older adults.

BACKGROUND: The consequences of failed nonoperative management of appendicitis in older patients have not been described. METHODS: We used the 2004-2017 National Inpatient Sample to identify acute appendicitis patients managed nonoperatively (<65 years old: 32,469; ≥65 years old: 11,265). Outcomes included morbidity, length of stay (LOS), inpatient costs, and discharge to skilled facilities. Differences were estimated using propensity scores. RESULTS: For patients <65, nonoperative failure was associated with increased morbidity (7 â€‹% [95 â€‹% CI 6.9 â€‹%-8.1 â€‹%]), LOS (3 day [95 â€‹% CI 3-4]), costs ($9015 [95 â€‹% CI $8216- $9446]), and discharges to skilled facilities (1 â€‹% [95 â€‹% CI 0.9 â€‹%-1.6 â€‹%]) compared to successful nonoperative treatment. Patients ≥65 had differences in morbidity (14 â€‹% [95 â€‹% CI 13.6 â€‹%-16.2 â€‹%]), LOS (6 days [95 â€‹% CI 5-6]), costs ($15,964 [95 â€‹% CI $15,181- $17,708]), and discharges to skilled facilities (12 â€‹% [95 â€‹% CI: 10.0 â€‹%-13.3]) compared to nonoperative success. CONCLUSIONS: Nonoperative management of appendicitis should be approached cautiously for older adults.

Is nonoperative management of appendicitis safe and effective in multi-morbid patients?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to (1) compare post-treatment outcomes of operative and nonoperative management of acute appendicitis in multi-morbid patients and (2) evaluate the generalizability of prior clinical trials by determining whether outcomes differ in multi-morbid patients compared to the young and healthy patients who resemble prior clinical trial participants. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample from 2004 to 2017. We included 368,537 patients with acute, uncomplicated appendicitis who were classified as having 0 or 2+ comorbidities. We compared inpatient morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and costs using propensity scores. Unmeasured confounding was addressed with probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 5% of patients without comorbidities were treated nonoperatively versus 20% of multi-morbid patients. Compared to surgery, nonoperative management was associated with a 3.5% decrease in complications (95% confidence interval 3%-4%) for multi-morbid patients, but there was no significant difference for patients without comorbidity. However, nonoperative management was associated with a 1.5% increase in mortality for multimorbid patients (95% confidence interval 1.3%-1.7%). Costs and length of stay were lower for all patients treated with surgery. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that results were robust to the effects of unmeasured confounding. CONCLUSION: Our results raise concerns about the generalizability of clinical trials that compared nonoperative and operative management of appendicitis because (1) those trials enrolled mostly young and healthy patients, and (2) results in multi-morbid patients differ from outcomes in younger and healthier patients.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Compare the Short- and Long-term Outcomes of Non-operative Management With Early Operative Management of Simple Appendicitis in Children After the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Non-operative management (NOM) of simple appendicitis is becoming an increasingly researched treatment option. This systematic review aims to describe the short and long-term failure rates of NOM and the complication rate of appendicectomy in children with simple appendicitis. METHODS: The systematic review was registered a priori (CRD42022322149). Study inclusion criteria are: participants aged ≤ 18 years of age; groups undergoing both NOM and appendicectomy for simple appendicitis; outcomes including one or more of: NOM failure rate at 30 days or 1 year and beyond; study design: RCT or case control study. Four databases were searched and 3 reviewers determined study eligibility and data extraction. Risk of bias was assessed and meta-analysis was performed using Stata. RESULTS: The database search identified 2731 articles, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria; 4 RCTs and 10 case controlled studies. All studies had moderate-serious risk of bias. There were no deaths in either group in any study. Meta-analysis demonstrated a 30 day failure rate of 20 % (95 % CI 11-29 %) and 11 studies reported failure rate at 1 year or beyond at 32 % (95 % CI 25-38 %). Rates of significant complications of appendicectomy was 1 % (95 % CI 0-1 %). CONCLUSIONS: Non-operative management of simple appendicitis in children is safe, with moderate early success. The failure rate increases over time, resulting in eventual appendicectomy in a third of the children diagnosed with appendicitis. These data will enable clinicians to have an informed discussion with children and their parents about their treatment options for simple appendicitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

High Incidence of Appendiceal Neoplasms in the Elderly: A Critical Concern for Non-Surgical Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Appendiceal neoplasms (ANs) are rare tumors that are often discovered incidentally during histopathological examinations. The increasing incidence of ANs is a critical issue in the non-operative management of acute appendicitis. This study aimed to document the temporal trends over a 12-year period by analyzing the clinical presentation, imaging findings, and histopathological features of ANs. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Health records of patients who underwent appendectomy from 2011 to 2022 were examined. Demographic and clinical data, laboratory results, imaging findings, and histopathological features were documented. The characteristics of both ANs and non-neoplastic cases were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 22,304 cases were identified, of which 330 (1.5%) were diagnosed with ANs. The odds ratio for ANs increased with age, with the highest odds ratio observed in patients aged 70 or older. Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis showed that age and appendiceal diameter were significant predictors of ANs. An optimal age cut-off point of 28.5 years was determined, yielding a sensitivity of 72% and a specificity of 64%. For appendiceal diameter, the optimal cut-off was found to be 9.5 mm, exhibiting a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 56%. CONCLUSION: Although the incidence of ANs remains relatively low, a steady increase has been observed over the past decade. The increasing rate of ANs raises concerns regarding non-surgical management options. The results of this study highlight the importance of considering ANs as a potential diagnosis in older patients and in patients with an appendix diameter greater than 9.5 mm. These findings may have implications for treatment and management.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics Associated With the Failure of Nonoperative Management of Uncomplicated Appendicitis in Children: Secondary Analysis of a Nonrandomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The factors associated with the failure of nonoperative management of appendicitis and the differences in patient-reported outcomes between successful and unsuccessful nonoperative management remain unknown. Objectives: To investigate factors associated with the failure of nonoperative management of appendicitis and compare patient-reported outcomes between patients whose treatment succeeded and those whose treatment failed. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a planned subgroup secondary analysis conducted in 10 children's hospitals that included 370 children aged 7 to 17 years with uncomplicated appendicitis enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial between May 1, 2015, and October 31, 2018, with 1-year follow-up comparing nonoperative management with antibiotics vs surgery for uncomplicated appendicitis. Statistical analysis was performed from November 1, 2019, to February 12, 2022. Interventions: Nonoperative management with antibiotics vs surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Failure of nonoperative management and patient-reported outcomes. The relative risk (RR) of failure based on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics was calculated. Patient-reported outcomes were compared based on the success or failure of nonoperative management. Results: Of 370 patients (34.6% of 1068 total patients; 229 boys [61.9%]; median age, 12.3 years [IQR, 10.0-14.6 years]) enrolled in the nonoperative group, treatment failure occurred for 125 patients (33.8%) at 1 year, with 53 patients (14.3%) undergoing appendectomy during initial hospitalization and 72 patients (19.5%) experiencing delayed treatment failure after hospital discharge. Higher patient-reported pain at presentation was associated with increased risk of in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.0-4.4]) but not delayed treatment failure (RR, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.7-2.3]) or overall treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.0-2.2]). Pain duration greater than 24 hours was associated with decreased risk of delayed treatment failure (RR, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-1.0]) but not in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.5-2.7]) or treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.4-1.2]). There was no increased risk of treatment failure associated with age, white blood cell count, sex, race, ethnicity, primary language, insurance status, transfer status, symptoms at presentation, or imaging results. Health care satisfaction at 30 days and patient-reported, health-related quality of life at 30 days and 1 year were not different. Satisfaction with the decision was higher with successful nonoperative management at 30 days (28.0 vs 27.0; difference, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.01-2.0]) and 1 year (28.1 vs 27.0; difference, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.2-2.0]). Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis suggests that a higher pain level at presentation was associated with a higher risk of initial failure of nonoperative management and that a longer duration of pain was associated with lower risk of delayed treatment failure. Although satisfaction was high in both groups, satisfaction with the treatment decision was higher among patients with successful nonoperative management at 1 year. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02271932.

Avoiding appendectomy with an ultrasound probe.

Acute appendicitis is common in patients with right lower quadrant pain and affects all gender and age groups. Because clinical diagnosis of patients with right lower quadrant pain remains a challenge to emergency physicians and surgeons, imaging is of major importance. Ultrasound has well-established direct and indirect signs for diagnosing acute appendicitis and revealing the presence of an appendicolith. Appendectomy, which can be either open or laparoscopic, constitutes the basic treatment. However, the need for an appendectomy is debatable, particularly in high-risk patients. We report the case of a 42-year-old woman with no relevant medical history who was sent to the emergency department by her family physician with right lower quadrant pain of 18 hours' duration. Using ultrasound, the emergency physicians identified, inside the appendix, a 0.6cm appendiceal faecolith, migration of which was eventuated by manipulation of the ultrasound probe. The patient was then successfully treated non-operatively without any antibiotic prescription. Despite its rarity, migration of an appendiceal faecolith is possible. When migration of an appendicolith is perhaps actualised spontaneously or by ultrasound probe manipulation, the likelihood of an appendectomy decreases dramatically. This hypothesis provides patients who present an appendiceal faecolith with an alternative treatment approach that will lead to the avoidance of surgery, minimise morbidity and reduce hospitalisation costs.

Association of treatments for acute appendicitis with pregnancy outcomes in the United States from 2000 to 2016: Results from a multi-level analysis.

BACKGROUND: Open appendectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy, and non-surgical treatment are three options to treat acute appendicitis during pregnancy. Previous studies on the association of different treatment methods for acute appendicitis with pregnancy outcomes have been limited by small sample sizes and residual confounding, especially with respect to hospital-level factors. This study aimed to investigate the association of treatment method for acute appendicitis with pregnancy outcomes using a multi-level analysis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on a large electronic health records database in the United States during the period 2000 to 2016. All pregnancies diagnosed with acute appendicitis and treated in participating hospitals during the study period were included. We conducted multi-level hierarchical logistic regression to analyze both individual- and hospital-level factors for abortion, preterm labor, and cesarean section. RESULTS: A total of 10,271 acute appendicitis during pregnancy were identified during the study period. Of them, 5,872 (57.2%) were treated by laparoscopic appendectomy, 1,403 (13.7%) by open appendectomy, and 2,996 (29.2%) by non-surgical treatment. Compared with open appendectomy, both laparoscopic appendectomy (adjusted OR, 0.6, 95% CI, 0.4, 0.9) and non-surgical treatment (adjusted OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7) showed a decreased risk of preterm labor. Other important individual-level determinants of adverse pregnancy outcomes included maternal age, gestational hypertension, and anemia during pregnancy, the hospital-level determinant included the number of beds. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with open appendectomy, both laparoscopic appendectomy and non-surgical treatment may be associated with a lower risk of preterm labor, without increased risks of abortion and cesarean section.

Modern Management of the Appendix: So Many Options.

Nonoperative management (NOM) of acute appendicitis is becoming more popular, especially in resource-strapped locations, to minimize hospital system costs. In uncomplicated cases of appendicitis, NOM can effectively treat the patient. It does carry a 39.1% risk of recurrence in 5 years, and operative management (OM) does not increase morbidity or risk of complication, so the authors recommend laparoscopic OM for uncomplicated appendicitis. For complicated cases of appendicitis, the authors recommend initial NOM with interval appendectomy in all patients. All appendicitis patients should undergo surveillance endoscopy if older than 40 years to rule out a contributing neoplasm.

Management of Postoperative Complications Following Common Pediatric Operations.

This review discusses complications unique to pediatric surgical populations. Here the authors focus primarily on five of the most common procedures performed in children: appendectomy, central venous catheterization, pyloromyotomy, gastrostomy, and inguinal/umbilical hernia repair.

Antibiotics as first-line alternative to appendicectomy in adult appendicitis: 90-day follow-up from a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Uncomplicated acute appendicitis can be managed with non-operative (antibiotic) treatment, but laparoscopic appendicectomy remains the first-line management in the UK. During the COVID-19 pandemic the practice altered, with more patients offered antibiotics as treatment. A large-scale observational study was designed comparing operative and non-operative management of appendicitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate 90-day follow-up. METHODS: A prospective, cohort study at 97 sites in the UK and Republic of Ireland included adult patients with a clinical or radiological diagnosis of appendicitis that either had surgery or non-operative management. Propensity score matching was conducted using age, sex, BMI, frailty, co-morbidity, Adult Appendicitis Score and C-reactive protein. Outcomes were 90-day treatment failure in the non-operative group, and in the matched groups 30-day complications, length of hospital stay (LOS) and total healthcare costs associated with each treatment. RESULTS: A total of 3420 patients were recorded: 1402 (41 per cent) had initial antibiotic management and 2018 (59 per cent) had appendicectomy. At 90-day follow-up, antibiotics were successful in 80 per cent (1116) of cases. After propensity score matching (2444 patients), fewer overall complications (OR 0.36 (95 per cent c.i. 0.26 to 0.50)) and a shorter median LOS (2.5 versus 3 days, P < 0.001) were noted in the antibiotic management group. Accounting for interval appendicectomy rates, the mean total cost was €1034 lower per patient managed without surgery. CONCLUSION: This study found that antibiotics is an alternative first-line treatment for adult acute appendicitis and can lead to cost reductions.

Impact of implementing a fast-track protocol and standardized guideline for the management of pediatric appendicitis.

Background: In 2017, a provincial guideline was created to fast track and standardize care for pediatric appendicitis in Alberta. We conducted a study to determine the impact of implementation of the guideline at our institution on length of stay (LOS), antibiotic stewardship efforts and costs. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of the charts of all patients younger than 18 years of age who underwent appendectomy at our institution in 2 periods: before guideline implementation (Dec. 1, 2016, to May 31, 2017) and after implementation (Dec. 1, 2017, to May 31, 2018). We compared LOS, duration of antibiotic therapy, 30-day postdischarge complication rates and variable cost between the 2 cohorts. Results: Of the 276 total appendectomy procedures performed, 185 were for simple appendicitis (81 before guideline implementation and 104 after implementation), and 91 were for complicated appendicitis (44 and 47, respectively). The median LOS was shorter in the postimplementation cohort for both simple and complicated appendicitis (15.5 h [interquartile range (IQR) 12-19 h] v. 17.0 h [IQR 13-22 h], p = 0.03; and 3.0 d [IQR 2-4 d] v. 3.0 d [IQR 3-5 d], p = 0.05, respectively). Patients with complicated appendicitis had fewer antibiotic days after guideline implementation; the difference was statistically significant for patients without diffuse peritoneal contamination or abscess formation (p = 0.02). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to 30-day rates of complications, including emergency department visits, readmission and surgical site infections. After guideline implementation, the average variable cost per patient was reduced by $230, equating to a total average annual cost savings of $75 842 for our institution. Conclusion: The implementation of a provincial guideline aimed at standardizing care in pediatric appendicitis at our institution was associated with shortened LOS, improved antibiotic stewardship efforts and reduced cost of care. Other institutions may replicate our model of a standardized pathway in the management of pediatric appendicitis in an effort to improve the quality of patient care and reduce health care costs.

Contexte: En 2017, des lignes directrices provinciales ont vu le jour en Alberta afin d'accélérer et de normaliser les soins pédiatriques pour appendicite. Notre étude visait à déterminer l'effet de leur application, par notre établissement, sur la durée du séjour, la gestion des antibiotiques et les coûts des soins. Méthodes: Nous avons examiné de façon rétrospective le dossier de tous les patients de moins de 18 ans ayant subi une appendicectomie à notre établissement avant l'application des lignes directrices (entre le 1er décembre 2016 et le 31 mai 2017) et après (entre le 1er décembre 2017 et le 31 mai 2018). Les données relatives à la durée du séjour, à la durée de l'antibiothérapie, au taux de complications 30 jours après le congé et aux coûts variables ont été comparées entre les 2 groupes. Résultats: Des 276 appendicectomies totales effectuées, 185 concernaient une appendicite simple (81 avant l'application des lignes directrices et 104 après), et 91, une appendicite compliquée (44 avant l'application et 47 après). La durée médiane du séjour était plus courte dans le groupe postapplication, tant pour l'appendicite simple (15,5 h [écart interquartile (EI) 12­19 h] c. 17,0 h [EI 13­22 h]; p = 0,03) que pour l'appendicite compliquée (3,0 j [EI 2­4 j] c. 3,0 j [EI 3­5 j]; p = 0,05). Les patients qui présentaient une appendicite compliquée avaient une antibiothérapie moins longue après l'application des lignes directrices; la différence était statistiquement significative chez les patients sans contamination péritonéale diffuse ou abcès (p = 0,02). Aucune différence n'a été observée entre les cohortes en ce qui a trait au taux de complications à 30 jours, qui comprenait les consultations à l'urgence, les réadmissions et les infections du site opératoire. L'application des lignes directrices a permis de réduire les coûts variables par patient de 230 $, ce qui représente une économie annuelle moyenne de 75 842 $ pour notre établissement. Conclusion: L'application des lignes directrices provinciales visant à normaliser les soins pédiatriques pour appendicite a été associée, dans notre établissement, à une réduction de la durée du séjour, à l'amélioration de la gestion des antibiotiques et à une diminution des coûts des soins. D'autres établissements pourraient reproduire ce modèle de soins normalisés pour améliorer la qualité et réduire les coûts.

National survey on the treatment of acute appendicitis in Spain during the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on Spanish hospitals, which have had to allocate all available resources to treat these patients, reducing the ability to attend other common pathologies. The aim of this study is to analyze how the treatment of acute appendicitis has been affected. METHOD: A national descriptive study was carried out by an online voluntary specific questionnaire with Google Drive™ distributed by email by the Spanish Association of Surgeons (AEC) to all affiliated surgeons currently working in Spain (5203), opened from April 14th to April 24th. RESULTS: We received 337 responses from 170 centers. During the first month of the pandemic, the incidence of acute appendicitis decreased. Although conservative management increased, the surgical option has been the most used in both simple and complicated appendicitis. Despite the fact that the laparoscopic approach continues to be the most widely used in our services, the open approach has increased during this pandemic period. CONCLUSION: Highlight the contribution of this study in terms of knowledge of the status of the treatment of acute appendicitis during this first month of the pandemic, being able to serve for a better possible organization in future waves of the pandemic and a reorganization of current protocols and management of acute appendicitis in a pandemic situation.

Global attitudes in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 pandemic: ACIE Appy Study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical strategies are being adapted to face the COVID-19 pandemic. Recommendations on the management of acute appendicitis have been based on expert opinion, but very little evidence is available. This study addressed that dearth with a snapshot of worldwide approaches to appendicitis. METHODS: The Association of Italian Surgeons in Europe designed an online survey to assess the current attitude of surgeons globally regarding the management of patients with acute appendicitis during the pandemic. Questions were divided into baseline information, hospital organization and screening, personal protective equipment, management and surgical approach, and patient presentation before versus during the pandemic. RESULTS: Of 744 answers, 709 (from 66 countries) were complete and were included in the analysis. Most hospitals were treating both patients with and those without COVID. There was variation in screening indications and modality used, with chest X-ray plus molecular testing (PCR) being the commonest (19·8 per cent). Conservative management of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis was used by 6·6 and 2·4 per cent respectively before, but 23·7 and 5·3 per cent, during the pandemic (both P < 0·001). One-third changed their approach from laparoscopic to open surgery owing to the popular (but evidence-lacking) advice from expert groups during the initial phase of the pandemic. No agreement on how to filter surgical smoke plume during laparoscopy was identified. There was an overall reduction in the number of patients admitted with appendicitis and one-third felt that patients who did present had more severe appendicitis than they usually observe. CONCLUSION: Conservative management of mild appendicitis has been possible during the pandemic. The fact that some surgeons switched to open appendicectomy may reflect the poor guidelines that emanated in the early phase of SARS-CoV-2.

ANTECEDENTES: Las estrategias quirúrgicas están siendo adaptadas en presencia de la pandemia de la COVID-19. Las recomendaciones del tratamiento de la apendicitis aguda se han basado en la opinión de expertos, pero hay muy poca evidencia disponible. Este estudio abordó este aspecto a través de una visión de los enfoques mundiales de la cirugía de la apendicitis. MÉTODOS: La Asociación de Cirujanos Italianos en Europa (ACIE) diseñó una encuesta electrónica en línea para evaluar la actitud actual de los cirujanos a nivel mundial con respecto al manejo de pacientes con apendicitis aguda durante la pandemia. Las preguntas se dividieron en información basal, organización del hospital y cribaje, equipo de protección personal, manejo y abordaje quirúrgico, así como las características de presentación del paciente antes y durante de la pandemia. Se utilizó una prueba de ji al cuadrado para las comparaciones. RESULTADOS: De 744 respuestas, se habían completado 709 (66 países) cuestionarios, los datos de los cuales se incluyeron en el estudio. La mayoría de los hospitales estaban tratando a pacientes con y sin COVID. Hubo variabilidad en las indicaciones de cribaje de la COVID-19 y en la modalidad utilizada, siendo la tomografía computarizada (CT) torácica y el análisis molecular (PCR) (18,1%) las pruebas utilizadas con más frecuencia. El tratamiento conservador de la apendicitis complicada y no complicada se utilizó en un 6,6% y un 2,4% antes de la pandemia frente a un 23,7% y un 5,3% durante la pandemia (P < 0.0001). Un tercio de los encuestados cambió la cirugía laparoscópica a cirugía abierta debido a las recomendaciones de los grupos de expertos (pero carente de evidencia científica) durante la fase inicial de la pandemia. No hubo acuerdo en cómo filtrar el humo generado por la laparoscopia. Hubo una reducción general del número de pacientes ingresados con apendicitis y un tercio consideró que los pacientes atendidos presentaban una apendicitis más grave que las comúnmente observadas. CONCLUSIÓN: La pandemia ha demostrado que ha sido posible el tratamiento conservador de la apendicitis leve. El hecho de que algunos cirujanos cambiaran a una apendicectomía abierta podría ser el reflejo de las pautas deficientes que se propusieron en la fase inicial del SARS-CoV2.