Early laparoscopic appendectomy for appendicular mass

Department of Surgery, Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, Gwent, NP20 2UB, Wales, United Kingdom.
Surgical Endoscopy (Impact Factor: 3.31). 01/2003; 16(12):1783-5. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-001-9232-1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The surgical management of acute appendicitis presenting with appendicular mass remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of early laparoscopy and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in the management of appendicular mass.
During a 1-year period, 62 patients underwent LA for suspected appendicitis (n = 50), generalized peritonitis (n = 2), and an appendicular mass (n = 10). Another patient who presented with an appendicular mass was found at laparoscopy to have an ileo-ileal intussusception.
All appendectomies were attempted and completed laparoscopically. Postoperative complications occurred in two patients; there were no deaths. None of the patients treated for an appendicular mass developed complications. There was no difference between the patients who underwent LA during the index admission for an appendicular mass and those who had surgery for non-mass-forming appendices with regard to the operative time (median [interquartile range]: 45 [36-60] vs 40 [25-50] min, p = 0.085) and postoperative hospital stay (median [interquartile range]: 2 [1-2] vs [1-2] days, p = 0.1).
Early LA during the index admission of patients with an appendicular mass is feasible and safe, obviates the need for a second hospital admission, and avoids misdiagnoses.

  • Source
    Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England 01/2005; · 1.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Surgical management of acute appendicitis with appendiceal abscess or phlegmon remains controversial. We studied the results of initial conservative treatment (antibiotics and percutaneous drainage if necessary, with or without interval appendectomy) compared with immediate surgery. Methods: We undertook an observational, retrospective cohort study of patients with a clinical and radiological diagnosis of acute appendicitis with an abscess or phlegmon, treated in our hospital between January 1997 and March 2009. Patients younger than 14, with severe sepsis or with diffuse peritonitis were excluded. A study group of 15 patients with acute appendicitis complicated with an abscess or phlegmon underwent conservative treatment. A control group was composed of the other patients, who all underwent urgent appendectomy, matched for age and later randomized 1:1. The infectious risk stratification was established with the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System (NNIS) index. Dependent variables were hospital stay and surgical site infection. Analysis was with SPSS, with p < 0.05 considered significant. Results: Interval appendectomy was performed in 7 study group patients. Surgical site infection episodes were more frequent in the control group (6 vs. 0, p < 0.001). A greater percentage of high risk patients (NNIS ≥ 2) was identified in the control group (80 vs. 28.7%, p < 0.03), mostly related with contaminated or dirty procedures in this group (p < 0.001). No significant difference between groups was found in hospital stay. Conclusion: Initial conservative treatment should be considered the best therapeutic choice for acute appendicitis with abscess or phlegmon.
    Revista espanola de enfermedades digestivas: organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Patologia Digestiva 11/2010; 102(11):648-652. · 1.32 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While there is consensus on how to treat acute appendicitis, the most suitable treatment for an appendiceal inflammatory mass is still debated. This study compares the outcomes of operative and nonoperative management. We retrospectively evaluated 119 patients (2007-2011) with an appendiceal inflammatory mass, 85 of whom were treated nonoperatively and 34 operatively. Of the nonoperative patients, 69 did not receive interventional treatment and 16 underwent percutaneous drainage of an accompanying abscess; the data for these patients were analyzed separately. Of the noninterventional managed patients, 49 (71.0 %) experienced at least one recurrence and 37 (53.6 %) ultimately needed an acute surgical or radiological intervention. Of the 16 patients who underwent percutaneous drainage, 7 (43.8 %) experienced at least one recurrence and 6 (37.5 %) underwent an acute surgical or (second) percutaneous intervention. None of the operated patients had a recurrence and the incidence of complications was 17.6 %. The incidence of underlying malignant tumor in our study population was 5.9 %. In 35 patients, the definitive diagnosis remained unclear because the patients did not undergo surgery or follow-up colonoscopy after nonoperative treatment. The rate of extensive (ileocecal + hemicolonic) resection in all operated patients was 30.8 %. We conclude that the high rate of recurrence and intervention in the nonoperative group and the high proportion of these patients who did not receive adequate follow-up despite the relatively high rate (5.9 %) of bowel malignancy support the operative management of an appendiceal inflammatory mass. Noninterventional management or a percutaneous intervention should be reserved as a bridge to surgery for patients with a large accompanying abscess or as treatment for patients with significant comorbidity. If nonoperative treatment is chosen, follow-up colonoscopy is mandatory to exclude malignancy.
    Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery 02/2014; 18(4). DOI:10.1007/s11605-014-2460-1 · 2.39 Impact Factor