Findings in Appendectomies with Enterobius vermicularis Infection: Pinworm Is Not A Cause of Appendicitis

Objective: To evaluate the histopathological findings in appendectomy materials with E. vermicularis infection. Methods: Appendectomy materials with E. vermicularis infection of 24 cases were evaluated for the presence of acute inflammation, congestion, hemorrhage, perforation, lymphoid hyperplasia (LH), necrosis, granuloma, fecalith, obliteration, hyalinization, eosinophilic infiltration and mucosal architectural distortion. Results: The frequency of E. vermicularis among 3222 appendectomies that were scanned for the study was 0.74% (24/3222). Female: male ratio was 1:1 and the median age was 12±9.34 years. The most common findings were LH (100%), and congestion (91.7%) Acute inflammation was found in one third (n=8), with phlegmonous inflammation and/or periappendicitis in 4 of them. The patients with periappendicitis were significantly younger (mean age 4 vs. 14.2 years, p=0.008). Feces was present in the lumen in 79.1% of the patients (fecalith in 25%, soft feces in 29.1% and feces mixed with blood and/or suppuration in 25%). In 6 cases (25%), only E. vermicularis was observed in the lumen, with acute appendicitis in 2 of them. Appendiceal lumen was completely obstructed in 12.5% (n=3), while it seemed narrow due to extensive LH in 3 (12.5%) cases. Fibrous obliteration was seen in 4 patients and it was correlated with age and eosinophil count in lamina propria p<0.05. Conclusion: While E. vermicularis infection appears to be an incidental finding in appendectomies rather than being a cause of appendicitis, it probably stimulates LH which may mimic acute appendicitis clinically.

Incidental Findings in Routine Histopathological Examination of Appendectomy Specimens; Retrospective Analysis of 1970 Patients.

Diseases and tumors of the appendix vermiformis are very rare, except for acute appendicitis. This study aimed to examine rare findings in the histopathologic examinations of specimens of patients undergoing appendectomy due to the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The files of 1970 patients undergoing appendectomy due to the diagnosis of acute appendicitis between March 2012 and March 2016 were retrospectively investigated. Rare findings were found in 59 (3 %) patients, and these were evaluated in detail. Patients' age, gender, pathology reports, and postoperation follow-ups were recorded. The rare histopathological findings of 59 patients were examined. Of these, 31 were female (52.5 %) and 28 were male (47.5 %). The average age was 33.1 ± 18.2 years. The unusual findings were as follows: 16 fibrous obliteration, 11 Enterobius vermicularis, 2 schistosomiasis, 3 appendiceal neuroma, 2 granulomatous appendicitis, 1 Crohn's disease, 3 chronic appendicitis, 1 endometriosis, 2 hyperplastic polyps, 9 mucinous cystadenoma (+mucocele), 8 carcinoid tumors, and 1 lymphoma. All of the malignant tumors were localized in the distal end of the appendix, and all of the patients were treated with appendectomy. Patients with parasitic diseases also underwent anthelmintic treatment, while chemotherapy was administered to the patient with lymphoma. All of the patients diagnosed with malignancy were alive reported no problems at their follow-ups. Although all of the appendectomy samples were normal macroscopically, data from this study suggest that all specimens should be sent for routine investigation.

Unexpected findings in the routine histopathological examinations of appendectomy specimens A retrospective analysis of 1,970 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Diseases and tumors of the appendix vermiformis are very rare, except for acute appendicitis. This study aimed to examine rare findings in the histopathologic examinations of specimens of patients undergoing appendectomy due to the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. METHODS: The files of 1,970 patients undergoing appendectomy due to the diagnosis of acute appendicitis between March 2012 and March 2016 were retrospectively investigated. Rare findings were found in 59 (3%) patients, and these were evaluated in detail. Patients' age, gender, pathology reports, and post-operation follow-ups were recorded. RESULTS: The rare histopathological findings of 59 patients were examined. Of these, 31 were female (52.5%) and 28 were male (47.5%). The average age was 33.1±18.2 years. The unusual findings were as follows: 16 Fibrous obliteration, 11 Enterobius vermicularis, 2 Schistosomiasis, 3 Appendiceal neuroma, 2 Granulomatous appendicitis, 1 Crohn's disease, 3 Chronic appendicitis, 1 Endometriosis, 2 Hyperplastic polyps, 9 Mucinous cystadenoma (+mucocele), 8 Carcinoid tumors and 1 Lymphoma. All of the malignant tumors were localized in the distal end of the appendix and all of the patients were treated with appendectomy. Patients with parasitic diseases also underwent anthelmintic treatment, while chemotherapy was administered to the patient with lymphoma. All of the patients diagnosed with malignancy were alive reported no problems at their follow-ups. CONCLUSION: Although all of the appendectomy samples were normal macroscopically, data from this study suggest that all specimens should be sent for routine investigation. KEY WORDS: Appendicitis, Appendectomy, Carcinoid, Mucocele, Endometriosis.

A Case of Urachal Malacoplakia that Seems Like Urachal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Urachal masses observed in adults should be considered malignant unless they are confuted. It is very difficult to differentiate between malignant or benign lesions, including especially calcified foci and solid areas. CASE REPORT: Our case was a 63-year-old male patient who was diagnosed as Behçet's Disease 26 years ago. Upon clinical examination, he was also diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of prostate. He was examined by computerized tomography to define the stage of prostatic adenocarcinoma. The existence of a hypodense multiseptated cystic lesion with irregular margins and solid areas located between anterosuperior of bladder and umbilicus was reported. Hence, the lesion was evaluated as urachal carcinoma and locally advanced prostate cancer by the urooncology council. Resection of the mass, partial cystectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy were performed as one of the surgical approach options in urachal carcinoma. After pathological examination, the mass was diagnosed as malakoplakia and metastasis of prostate adenocarcinoma was also detected in the right obdurator lymph nodule. In the literature, case reports of urachal malakoplakia are extremely rare. It is also interesting to note the absence of specific clinical symptoms for the urachal mass and the existence of concomitant adenocarcinoma in our case. CONCLUSION: Malakoplakia can only be diagnosed by pathological examination. Particularly, urachal malakoplakia should also be taken into consideration in the differential diagnosis of lesions which include solid areas and are located in the urachus.