Pathological Assessment of the Appendix in Appendectomies Performed in Children.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is known as the most common diagnosis of acute abdomen leading to surgery. Therefore, timely diagnosis is of special importance. This study was conducted with the aim of pathological assessment of the appendix in appendectomies performed in children to determine the rate of negative appendectomies and the predictors of negative appendectomy and to evaluate the paraclinical tools used in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional descriptive study. All children who underwent appendectomy at Shahid Motahari Hospital in Urmia from March 2021 to March 2022 were examined. The required data including demographic, paraclinical, and final pathology characteristics were collected and recorded. The investigated cases were classified into positive and negative appendectomy categories for comparison. RESULTS: Among 234 pathology samples of the appendix, 22 cases were related to accidental appendectomy. In addition, 11.3% of cases were negative appendectomy and 88.7% were positive appendectomy. The age range of 8 to 14 years and male gender were associated with a lower negative appendectomy rate (both P<0.001). Inflammatory (49.5%) and gangrenous appendicitis (30.2%) were the most commonly reported histopathologies. Sonography had a sensitivity of 84%, a specificity of 79%, and an overall diagnostic accuracy of 83%. CONCLUSION: A relatively significant number of accidental and negative appendectomies are performed. More careful investigation and the use of expectant and medical treatment instead of surgery, especially in females and young children, can be effective in improving diagnostic accuracy and preventing negative appendectomies.

Did the severity of appendicitis increase during the COVID-19 pandemic?

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the severity of appendicitis during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, as patients with appendicitis may procrastinate seeking medical attention during the pandemic. METHODS: Information on patients with appendicitis who were treated at the Taipei City Hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020) was retrieved. Patients who were diagnosed with appendicitis and treated at the same hospital from January 1, 2019 to July 1, 2019 were designated as the control group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess changes in the severity of appendicitis (at a 2-week interval) between the two groups. RESULTS: We identified 307 (study group: 149; control group: 158) consecutive patients with appendicitis. The mean age was 46.2 +- 19.8 years. Between the two groups, there were no significant differences in age, sex, comorbidity, surgery type (laparoscopic or open appendectomy) or surgery time. The number of patients in the study group decreased between January 29, 2020 and April 21, 2020, which paralleled the period of spikes in the confirmed COVID-19 cases and restricted daily activities. The percentage of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis (excluding mild appendicitis or normal appendix) in the study group increased between February 26 and March 10, as well as between April 8 and April 21. In the multivariate regression analysis, the odds of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis increased in three bi-weeks for the study group but not in the control group. CONCLUSION: The severity of acute appendicitis might increase during the COVID-19 pandemic, because patients with mild appendicitis (or abdominal pain) may hesitate to seek help.

Twenty-four hour versus extended antibiotic administration after surgery in complicated appendicitis: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent investigations noted noninferiority in short-course antimicrobial treatments following source control in abdominal infections. We set out to investigate noninferiority of a short and fixed (24 hours) antibiotic administration compared to extended treatment after source control in complicated appendicitis in a prospective single-center open-label randomized controlled trial. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, all consecutive adult patients (age, ≥ 18 years) with complicated appendicitis including gangrenous appendicitis, perforated appendicitis, and appendicitis with periappendicular abscess between May 2016 and February 2018 were randomly allocated to antibacterial therapy limited to 24 hours (short) vs. >24 hours (extended) administration after appendectomy. Primary outcomes included composite postoperative complications and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (HLOS). Follow-up analysis at 1 month was conducted per intention and per protocol. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled with 39 and 41 cases allocated to the short and the extended therapy group, respectively. Demographic profile and disease severity was similar between the study groups. Overall rate of complications was 17.9% and 29.3% in the short and extended group, respectively (p = 0.23). Mean CCI did not differ between the study groups (p = 0.29). Hospital length of stay was significantly reduced in the short therapy group (61 ± 34 hours vs. 81 ± 40 hours, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: In the current prospective randomized investigation, the short (24 hours) antibiotic administration following appendectomy did not result in a worse primary outcome in complicated appendicitis. The short interval administration resulted in a significant reduction in HLOS with a major cost-saving and antibacterial stewardship perspective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV.

Active observation versus interval appendicectomy after successful non-operative treatment of an appendix mass in children (CHINA study): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite a scarcity of supporting evidence, most surgeons recommend routine interval appendicectomy after successful non-operative treatment of an appendix mass in children. We aimed to compare routine interval appendicectomy with active observation. METHODS: We enrolled participants in the CHildren's INterval Appendicectomy (CHINA) study, a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled study at 19 specialist paediatric surgery centres, 17 of which were in the UK, one in Sweden, and one in New Zealand. 106 children aged 3-15 years were assigned (1:1) by weighted minimisation to interval appendicectomy or active observation with minimisation for age, trial centre, sex, and presence of a faecolith on imaging. Eligible children had acute appendicitis with an appendix mass and were successfully treated without appendicectomy or other surgical intervention. Children were excluded from the study if they had coexisting gastrointestinal disease or had a substantial coexisting medical condition or immune defect. Because of the nature of the interventions, blinding was not possible. The primary outcome was the proportion of children developing histologically proven recurrent acute appendicitis or a clinical diagnosis of recurrent appendix mass within 1 year of enrolment after successful non-operative treatment of appendix mass (active observation group) and incidence of severe complications related to interval appendicectomy. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number 93815412. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2011, and Dec 31, 2014, we randomly assigned 106 patients, 52 patients to interval appendicectomy and 54 to active observation. Two children in the interval appendicectomy group were withdrawn due to withdrawal of consent; two in the active observation group were withdrawn because they became ineligible after allocation. Six children under active observation had histologically proven recurrent acute appendicitis. Three children in the interval appendicectomy group had severe complications. Thus, the proportion of children with histologically proven recurrent acute appendicitis under active observation was 12% (95% CI 5-23) and the proportion of children with severe complications related to interval appendicectomy was 6% (95% CI 1-17). INTERPRETATION: More than three-quarters of children could avoid appendicectomy during early follow-up after successful non-operative treatment of an appendix mass. Although the risk of complications after interval appendicectomy is low, complications can be severe. Adoption of a wait-and-see approach, reserving appendicectomy for those who develop recurrence or recurrent symptoms, results in fewer days in hospital, fewer days away from normal daily activity, and is cheaper than routine interval appendicectomy. These high-quality data will allow clinicians, parents, and children to make an evidence-based decision regarding the justification for interval appendicectomy. FUNDING: BUPA Foundation.

Measurement error in CT assessment of appendix diameter.

BACKGROUND: Appendiceal diameter continues to be cited as an important criterion for diagnosis of appendicitis by computed tomography (CT). OBJECTIVE: To assess sources of error and variability in appendiceal diameter measurements by CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved review of imaging and medical records, we reviewed CTs performed in children <18 years of age between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2010. Appendiceal diameter was measured in the axial and coronal planes by two reviewers (R1, R2). One year later, 10% of cases were remeasured. For patients who had multiple CTs, serial measurements were made to assess within patient variability. Measurement differences between planes, within and between reviewers, within patients and between CT and pathological measurements were assessed using correlation coefficients and paired t-tests. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-one CTs performed in 519 patients (mean age: 10.9 ± 4.9 years, 50.8% female) were reviewed. Axial and coronal measurements were strongly correlated (r = 0.92-0.94, P < 0.0001) with coronal plane measurements significantly larger (P < 0.0001). Measurements were strongly correlated between reviewers (r = 0.89-0.9, P < 0.0001) but differed significantly in both planes (axial: +0.2 mm, P=0.003; coronal: +0.1 mm, P=0.007). Repeat measurements were significantly different for one reviewer only in the axial plane (0.3 mm difference, P<0.05). Within patients imaged multiple times, measured appendix diameters differed significantly in the axial plane for both reviewers (R1: 0.5 mm, P = 0.031; R2: 0.7 mm, P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Multiple potential sources of measurement error raise concern about the use of rigid diameter cutoffs for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis by CT.

A prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis (APPAC trial).

BACKGROUND: Although the standard treatment of acute appendicitis (AA) consists of an early appendectomy, there has recently been both an interest and an increase in the use of antibiotic therapy as the primary treatment for uncomplicated AA. However, the use of antibiotic therapy in the treatment of uncomplicated AA is still controversial. METHODS/DESIGN: The APPAC trial is a randomized prospective controlled, open label, non-inferiority multicenter trial designed to compare antibiotic therapy (ertapenem) with emergency appendectomy in the treatment of uncomplicated AA. The primary endpoint of the study is the success of the randomized treatment. In the antibiotic treatment arm successful treatment is defined as being discharged from the hospital without the need for surgical intervention and no recurrent appendicitis during a minimum follow-up of one-year (treatment efficacy). Treatment efficacy in the operative treatment arm is defined as successful appendectomy evaluated to be 100%. Secondary endpoints are post-intervention complications, overall morbidity and mortality, the length of hospital stay and sick leave, treatment costs and pain scores (VAS, visual analoque scale). A maximum of 610 adult patients (aged 18-60 years) with a CT scan confirmed uncomplicated AA will be enrolled from six hospitals and randomized by a closed envelope method in a 1:1 ratio either to undergo emergency appendectomy or to receive ertapenem (1 g per day) for three days continued by oral levofloxacin (500 mg per day) plus metronidazole (1.5 g per day) for seven days. Follow-up by a telephone interview will be at 1 week, 2 months and 1, 3, 5 and 10 years; the primary and secondary endpoints of the trial will be evaluated at each time point. DISCUSSION: The APPAC trial aims to provide level I evidence to support the hypothesis that approximately 75-85% of patients with uncomplicated AA can be treated with effective antibiotic therapy avoiding unnecessary appendectomies and the related operative morbidity, also resulting in major cost savings.

Gangrenous appendicitis in children: a prospective evaluation of definition, bacteriology, histopathology, and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: The definition and treatment of gangrenous appendicitis are not agreed upon. We performed a prospective study in children to evaluate an objective definition of gangrenous appendicitis, as well as associated bacteriology, histopathology, and outcomes. METHODS: Five staff pediatric surgeons prospectively enrolled patients in the study at the time of appendectomy if the following five criteria were met: gray or black discoloration of the appendiceal wall; absence of fecalith outside the appendix; absence of visible hole in the appendix; absence of gross purulence or fibrinous exudate remote from the appendix; and absence of intraoperative appendiceal leak. Peritoneal fluid was cultured, and a standard histopathologic review was undertaken. Persistence of fever (>37.5°C) and ileus was documented daily. Patients were continued postoperatively on ampicillin, gentamicin, and metronidazole until they tolerated diet, manifested a 24-h afebrile period, and had a normal leukocyte count. Hospital stay, readmissions, and infectious complications were recorded. The study took place over a 12-mo period. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were enrolled, representing 17% of all patients with appendicitis treated during the year. Average age was 10.8 ± 3.5 y. Peritoneal cultures were positive in 53% of cases. Gangrene was documented histologically in 61% of specimens. Hospital stay was 3.2 ± 1.1 d. There were no postoperative infectious complications or readmissions related to the disease. Neither culture results nor histologic gangrene had a statistically significant effect on hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: An objective definition of gangrenous appendicitis is reproducible and has good histopathologic association. Recovery from gangrenous appendicitis is not influenced by culture or pathology results, and postoperative complications are rare. Limiting postoperative antibiotics to 24 h in gangrenous appendicitis may significantly decrease the cost of treatment without increasing morbidity.

Competitive edge of laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy: a subgroup comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the advances in laparoscopic instruments and surgical techniques, the use of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been increasing rapidly in recent years. In this retrospective analysis, we aimed to determine the competitive edge of LA versus open appendectomy (OA) in different settings of disease complexity, gender, and age difference. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis at Changhua and Chang-Bing Show-Chwan Memorial Hospitals from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2009 was conducted. Trend and indication of OA and LA were recorded, combined with a comparison of medical costs, complication rates, wound infection rates, and hospital stays in different settings of disease complexity, gender, and age group. RESULTS: A total of 1366 appendicitis patients were enrolled, and the rate of LA use increased rapidly, from 8.1% in 2004 to 90.3% in 2009. The increased use of LA was seen in both the uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis patients and in both gender and age groups (pediatric, adult, and elderly). Compared with OA, LA was associated with a lower complication rate (9.5% versus 5.8%; P = .013), a lower wound infection rate (8.6% versus 4.2%; P = .001), and a shorter hospital stay (4.60 ± 3.64 versus 4.06 ± 1.84 days; P = .001), but a higher mean cost (32,670 ± 28,568 versus 37,567 ± 12,064 New Taiwan dollars). In the subgroup analysis, the patients with complicated appendicitis, female patients, and pediatric and elderly patients benefited from a reduced hospital stay. LA is about 15% more expensive than OA. CONCLUSIONS: LA is as safe and effective as OA in many settings of appendicitis and may be selectively advantageous in patients with complicated appendicitis and in elderly subgroups.

Discordance of the pediatric surgeon's intraoperative assessment of pediatric appendicitis with the pathologists report.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The nature and duration of postoperative treatment in children with appendicitis is largely defined by the surgeon's intraoperative assessment of the degree of disease. Therefore, misclassification of patients could result in either inadequate or excessive duration of treatment. MATERIALS/METHODS: During the execution of an institutional review board-approved multicenter, randomized, prospective, single-blinded trial of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in children, we tracked the attending pediatric surgeon's determination of the degree of appendicitis and compared it to the pathologists report. Postoperative care was determined, per protocol, by the surgeon's intraoperative classification. "Interval" appendectomies were excluded from the analysis. Statistical significance was analyzed using chi(2) analyses. RESULTS: A total of 133 patients were randomized into the open group, whereas 122 randomized to laparoscopy during the first 2 years of the study. The attending pediatric surgeons and pathologists were concordant in the determination of acute appendicitis in 90% of open patients and 93% of laparoscopic patients (P = not significant). When children were classified by the attending surgeon as having complicated appendicitis (gangrenous or ruptured), the concordance rate dropped to 38% and 52%, respectively (P = not significant). When open and laparoscopic patients were combined, the length of postoperative stay (LOS) of concordantly classified acute appendicitis patients was 35 +/- 16 hours. Concordantly classified complicated appendicitis LOS was 118 +/- 61 hours, and discordantly classified complicated appendicitis (pathology = acute) LOS was 85 +/- 41 hours (P = .01). Wound infection rates in the concordant and discordant "complicated" appendicitis groups were 23% and 7%, respectively (P = .05). When the surgeons are grouped as "junior"(n = 2) and "senior" (n = 3), there is a trend toward greater concordance in the latter group (P = .08). CONCLUSIONS: In the 2 institutions studied, the 5 pediatric surgeon's intraoperative classification of appendicitis correlated with the pathologist's reading in a high percentage of those patients labeled "acute" but in only approximately one half of those defined as "complicated." These phenomena are independent of the operative approach but may correlate with surgeon experience. Interventions to improve the timeliness of pathologic diagnosis may improve the accuracy and efficiency of care of pediatric appendicitis.

Access to emergency operative care: a comparative study between the Canadian and American health care systems.

BACKGROUND: Canada provides universal health insurance to all citizens, whereas 47 million Americans are uninsured. There has not been a study comparing access to emergency operative care between the 2 countries. As both countries contemplate changes in health care delivery, such comparisons are needed to guide health policy decisions. The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not there is a difference in access to emergency operative care between Canada and the United States. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis from 2001 to 2005 were identified in the Canadian Institute for Health Information database and the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Severity of appendicitis was determined by ICD-9 codes. Patients were further characterized by age, gender, insurance status, race, and socioeconomic status (SES; income). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the odds of appendiceal perforation at different levels of SES in each country. RESULTS: There were 102,692 Canadian patients and 276,890 American patients with acute appendicitis. In Canada, there was no difference in the odds of perforation between income levels. In the United States, there was a significant, inverse relationship between income level and the odds of perforation. The odds of perforation in the lowest income quartile were significantly higher than the odds of perforation in the highest income bracket (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.24). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that access to emergency operative care is related to SES in the United States, but not in Canada. This difference could result from the concern over the ability to pay medical bills or the lack of a stable relationship with a primary care provider that can occur outside of a universal health care system.

[Assessment of severity assessment and prognosis of pyodestructive abdominal diseases (with editor's comment)].

Leukocytic index of intoxication (LII), number of leukocytes and lymphocytes in blood were compared with clinical symptoms and histological examination of removed organs in patients with acute pyodestructive diseases of abdominal organs. Correlation between LII and inflammation severity was revealed. It is also demonstrated that high LII with low level of lymphocytes is a negative prognostic sign.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of weekday and weeknight or weekend shifts for assessment of appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of appendicitis during a weeknight or weekend shift (after-hours period, AHP) might be more costly and less effective than its assessment on a weekday shift (standard hours period, SHP) because of increased costs (staff premium fees) and perforation risk (longer delays and less experience of fellows). OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to compare the costs and effectiveness of assessing children with suspected appendicitis who required a laparotomy and had US or CT after-hours with those of assessing children during standard hours, and to evaluate the importance of diagnostic imaging (DI) within the overall costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively microcosted resource use within six areas of a tertiary hospital (emergency [ED], diagnostic imaging (DI), surgery, wards, transport, and pathology) in a tertiary hospital. About 41 children (1.8-17 years) in the AHP and 35 (2.9-16 years) in the SHP were evaluated. Work shift effectiveness was measured with a histological score that assessed the severity of appendicitis (non-perforated appendicitis: scores 1-3; perforated appendicitis: score 4). RESULTS: The SHP was less costly and more effective regardless of whether the calculation included US or CT costs only. For a salary-based fee schedule, 733 US dollars were saved per case of perforated appendicitis averted in the SHP. For a fee-for-service payment schedule, 847 dollars were saved. Within the overall budget, the highest costs were those incurred on the ward for both shifts. The average cost per patient in DI ranged from 2 to 5% of the total costs in both shifts. Most perforation cases were found in the AHP (31.7%, AHP vs. 17.1%, SHP), which resulted in higher ward costs for patients in the AHP. CONCLUSION: A higher proportion of severe cases was seen in the AHP, which led to its higher costs. As a result, the SHP dominated the AHP, being less costly and more effective regardless of the fee schedule applied. The DI costs contributed little to the overall cost of the assessment of appendicitis.

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: results of a retrospective comparison in an Israeli hospital.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common conditions requiring surgical intervention. Open appendectomy has been a safe and effective operation for acute appendicitis for more than a century. Recently, several authors proposed that the new technique of laparoscopic appendectomy should be the preferred treatment for acute appendicitis. However, unlike laparoscopic cholecystectomy, LA has not yet gained popularity. OBJECTIVES: To compare open with laparoscopic appendectomy for length of operation, complications, postoperative pain control, length of hospitalization, and hospital costs. METHODS: A sample of 194 patients who underwent OA and LA during 1995 was randomly selected for the study. Patients' demographic data, preoperative laboratory and physical values, histopathologic diagnosis of removed appendix, mean operating time, length of hospitalization, and postoperative pain control and complications were reviewed. RESULTS: Acute appendicitis was confirmed in 66% of patients. The groups were similar demographically (gender and mean age). We could not find any statistical differences in intraoperative and postoperative complications and use of antibiotics. The operative time was longer in the OA group (62.4 vs. 57.3 minutes), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.075). The hospital stay was 2.5 days in the LA group and 2.7 days in the OA group. Higher operative costs were observed in the LA group. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy is comparable to open appendectomy with regard to complications, length of operation, hospital stay, but it is more costly. Laparoscopic appendectomy does not offer any significant benefit over the open approach.

Acute appendicitis during pregnancy: a clinical assessment.

BACKGROUND: Acute appendicitis is the most common non-obstetric reason for laparotomy during pregnancy. The purpose of this study was to analyze the characteristics of the clinical presentations and postoperative outcomes of these patients and their fetuses. METHODS: Patients who underwent appendectomies during pregnancy from July 1991 to June 1997 were retrospectively identified. Their ages, clinical presentations, the severity of the inflammatory change in the appendices, and the postoperative complications of these patients and fetuses were recorded and analyzed. Long-term outcomes were confirmed by telephone contact, when possible. RESULTS: Forty-five pregnant women who underwent appendectomies for suspected acute appendicitis were retrospectively reviewed. The histopathological inflammatory change in the appendix was proven in 35 patients (78%). Sixty-three percent of the patients were multiparous, and 86% were in the first 2 trimesters. In the clinical settings, pain and tenderness in the right lower abdominal quadrant were the most common symptoms and signs in presentation. Perioperative administration of ritodrine had no obvious advantage in the prevention of fetal loss. Appendectomy was performed beyond 36 hours of onset of symptoms in 28% of the patients, among whom one-half had gangrenous or perforated appendices. Only one fetus was spontaneously lost in 32 patients with diseased appendices (3%), excluding 3 patients choosing artificial abortion. There was no maternal death in our series. CONCLUSION: The rate of fetal loss due to surgery for acute appendicitis during pregnancy was low. Delay of operation was pertinent to the more-inflammatory changes of the appendix and to the higher maternal complication rate. Early surgical intervention is essential.

Comparative assessment of CT and sonographic techniques for appendiceal imaging.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a comparative assessment of CT and sonographic techniques used to assess appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis were examined with sonography, unenhanced focused appendiceal CT, complete abdominopelvic CT using IV contrast material, focused appendiceal CT with colonic contrast material, and repeated sonography with colonic contrast material. Each sonogram was videotaped for subsequent interpretation by three radiologists and two sonographers. The mean sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, inter- and intraobserver variability, and diagnostic confidence scores of all observers were used for comparative performance assessments. The three CT examinations were filmed and interpreted separately by four radiologists. Patient discomfort was assessed on a 10-point scale for each radiologic study. Diagnoses were confirmed by pathologic evaluation of resected appendixes or clinical follow-up for a minimum of 3 months after presentation. RESULTS: Twenty-four of the 100 patients had positive findings for acute appendicitis. Both sonographic techniques had high specificity (85-89%) and comparable accuracy (73-75%) but low sensitivity (33-35%) and inter- and intraobserver variability (kappa = 0.15-0.20 and 0.39-0.42, respectively). Unenhanced focused appendiceal CT, abdominopelvic CT, and focused appendiceal CT with colonic contrast material all significantly outperformed sonography (p <0.0001), with sensitivities of 78%, 72%, and 80%; specificities of 86%, 91%, and 87%; and accuracies of 84%, 87%, and 85%, respectively. Abdominopelvic CT gave the greatest confidence in cases with negative findings (p = 0.001), and focused appendiceal CT with colonic contrast material gave the greatest confidence for cases with positive findings (p = 0.02). In terms of inter- and intraobserver variability, focused appendiceal CT with colonic contrast material yielded the highest, and unenhanced focused appendiceal CT the lowest, agreement (interobserver kappa = 0.45 vs. 0.36 and intraobserver kappa = 0.85 vs. 0.76, respectively) (p <0.05). Colonic contrast material was unsuccessfully advanced into the cecum in 18% of patients and leaked in another 24%. Patient discomfort was greatest with focused appendiceal CT using colonic contrast material and least with unenhanced focused appendiceal CT (p <0.05). CONCLUSION: A standard abdominopelvic CT scan is recommended as the initial examination for appendicitis in adult patients. However, focused appendiceal CT with colonic contrast material material should be used as a problem-solving technique in difficult cases.

Macroscopic assessment of the appendix at diagnostic laparoscopy is reliable.

BACKGROUND: Healthy-looking appendixes are often removed at laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis. This practice may have adverse secondary effects. METHODS: We reviewed the literature for the years 1978 to 1998 to analyze the negative appendectomy rates, complication rates, the accuracy of laparoscopic appendix assessment, and the incidence of false negative diagnosis of appendicitis at surgical and gynecological laparoscopy. RESULTS: The respective negative appendectomy rates were 22% and 15% in studies that compared laparoscopic with open appendectomy. The appendix was left in situ in 37% of 4,281 surgical diagnostic laparoscopies. There were instances of missed appendicitis among the 3,367 gynecological diagnostic laparoscopies performed on women for lower abdominal pain, and there were 188 appendectomies in this group. Studies comparing the macroscopic appearance of the appendix at operation with microscopic findings from the excised specimen had a false negative error rate of 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to general opinion, there is no substantial evidence to support the assumption that the macroscopic diagnosis of appendicitis is unreliable. High rates of conflicting diagnoses of excision specimens suggest that endoappendicitis has little clinical significance. At present, negative appendectomy rates are considerably higher for laparoscopic appendectomy than for the open approach. The role of diagnostic laparoscopy in suspected appendicitis should be reconsidered. It may be useful in particular subgroups of patients, but it is no substitute for good clinical judgment. Furthermore, it is not always necessary to perform an incidental appendectomy.

Observer variation in the assessment of the histopathologic diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to determine observer variation in the assessment of the histopathologic diagnosis of acute appendicitis. METHODS: Two consultant pathologists independently evaluated 415 appendectomy specimens (set I). After a consensus conference at which the observers unified the criteria of the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, another 396 appendectomy specimens (set II) were evaluated. To calculate the intra-observer variation, one observer evaluated set II once more. Finally, using the consensus diagnosis as the final diagnosis, the diagnostic accuracy of the surgeon, the primary pathology report, and the two observer evaluations was calculated. RESULTS: In set I no difference was found in the level of agreement on the diagnosis of acute appendicitis versus other diagnoses, and a kappa value of 0.85 was obtained. In set II a kappa value of 0.88 was obtained, which was not significantly different from the kappa value in set I. However, the consensus conference did increase the level of agreement on the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The intra-observer variation was calculated, and a kappa value of 0.88 was obtained. The cases in which the observers disagreed on a positive diagnosis were cases of mild appendicitis. The question remains how many specimens would have shown these changes if all tissue had been developed for microscopy. The observers' diagnoses were the most reliable, and there was a significant decrease in the diagnostic accuracy compared with both the primary pathology report and the surgeon's opinion, the last one being the least accurate. CONCLUSIONS: These observations stress how important it is for the pathologist to discuss the diagnostic criteria of the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and for the surgeon to go back to the patient's record and look up the histopathologic diagnosis.

Incidental appendectomy--yes or no? A retrospective case study and review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: A retrospective review of appendectomies performed at the University of Kansas Medical Center between January 1, 1989, and January 1, 1994, was conducted. In addition, the literature evaluating effectiveness of incidental appendectomy in preventing future operation and morbidity from appendicitis was reviewed. The results of the two reviews were analyzed to formulate guidelines for the appropriateness of performing incidental appendectomy in association with other operative procedures. METHOD: A retrospective review of results of appendectomies performed in 460 patients at the University of Kansas Medical Center with analysis of operative findings, pathology of the removed appendix and operative complications was performed. These results were compared with those of a systematic review of the literature utilizing a Medline search relating to the subject of incidental appendix removal. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-one incidental appendectomies were performed in this study of 460 patients (60%). The procedure was most commonly performed with total abdominal hysterectomy (56%), followed by oophorectomy (15%) and exploratory laparotomy (11%). Morbidity was minimal at all ages. Microscopic pathology was found in 25% of the cases. CONCLUSION: The data from the current survey and literature review support incidental removal of the appendix in the young patient (< 35 years old). In patients 35-50 years old the literature is controversial, and the patient's clinical condition and judgment of the operating surgeon should determine whether incidental appendectomy should be performed. However, routine incidental appendectomy cannot be justified in patients greater than age 50.