Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Acute Appendicitis: Still a Surgical Disease? Results from a Propensity Score-Based Outcome Analysis of Conservative Versus Surgical Management from a Prospective Database

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the present study was to compare the outcomes of conservative versus surgical treatment for acute appendicitis.

Background

Although acute appendicitis is a common disease, great debate exists regarding the appropriate management of patients. Conservative treatment has shown positive results in several RCTs, eliciting questions about indications to surgery, therapeutic appropriateness and ethical conduct.

Methods

Data were prospectively collected; a Propensity Score-based matching method was implemented in order to reduce bias arising from characteristics of the patients; a proportion of patients (69 in total) were excluded to obtain two comparable groups of study (1a). Main outcomes of the study were: failure rate, in-hospital length of stay (at first admission and cumulative), post-discharge absence from work. Within the medical group, failure was defined as the necessity for appendectomy after conservative treatment, while it was identified with complications and negative appendectomy within the surgical group (Failure 1). In parallel, an additional definition of failure was proposed (Failure 2) and excluded negative appendectomy from the reasons for failure within the surgical group (5b).

Results

The failure rate for the conservative treatment resulted to be inferior, as compared to the surgical treatment (16.5 vs. 28.4%, OR 0.523 p = 0.019), considering negative appendectomy as a reason for failure. When excluding negative appendectomy from the definition of failure, medical and surgical treatment appeared to perform equally (failure rate: 16.5 vs. 18.3%, OR 1.014 p = 0.965). Patients managed conservatively showed to have a shorter length of stay at first admission than the patients who underwent appendectomy (3.11 vs. 4.11 days, β = −0.628 days, p < 0.0001). A lower number of lost work days after discharge resulted from a conservative approach (6 vs. 14.64 days, β = −8.7 days, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Considering each outcome as part of a wide-angle analysis, the conservative management of acute appendicitis resulted to be safe and effective in the selected group of patients. In terms of failure rate, the medical treatment resulted to perform as effectively as surgical treatment, if negative appendectomy was excluded from failure, or better, when negative appendectomy was included in the definition of failure. A diminished length of stay during the first admission and a reduced number of lost work days were evident with a conservative approach. The comparison between medical and surgical treatment for acute appendicitis requires a change in perspective, from a spare ‘effectiveness analysis’ to a more thorough ‘appropriateness analysis’: in the present study, the conservative treatment showed to address the clinical requirements in terms of therapeutic appropriateness. Although acute appendicitis is considered a ‘surgical disease’, increasing evidence supports the effectiveness and safety of a conservative approach for selected groups of patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ceresoli M, Zucchi A, Allievi N et al (2016) Acute appendicitis: epidemiology, treatment and outcomes-analysis of 16544 consecutive cases. World J Gastrointest Surg 8(10):693

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Stewart B, Khanduri P, Mccord C, Uranues S, Rivera FV, Mock C (2014) Global disease burden of conditions requiring emergency surgery. Br J Surg 101(1):9–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wilms IM, de Hoog DE, de Visser DC, Janzing HM (2011) Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (11):CD008359. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008359.pub2

  4. Sartelli M, Viale P, Catena F et al (2013) WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections. World J Emerg Surg 8(1):3. doi:10.1186/1749-7922-8-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Eriksson S, Granström L (1995) Randomized controlled trial of appendicectomy versus antibiotic therapy for acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 82(2):166–169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Styrud J, Eriksson S, Nilsson I et al (2006) Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment in acute appendicitis. A prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. World J Surg 30(6):1033–1037. doi:10.1007/s00268-005-0304-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hansson J, Körner U, Khorram-Manesh A, Solberg A, Lundholm K (2009) Randomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as primary treatment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients. Br J Surg 96(5):473–481

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vons C, Barry C, Maitre S et al (2011) Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid versus appendicectomy for treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 377(9777):1573–1579

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Salminen P, Paajanen H, Rautio T et al (2015) Antibiotic therapy versus appendectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. JAMA 313(23):2340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F et al (2011) Surgery versus conservative antibiotic treatment in acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dig Surg 28(3):210–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Liu Z-H, Li C, Zhang X-W, Kang L, Wang J-P (2014) Meta-analysis of the therapeutic effects of antibiotic versus appendicectomy for the treatment of acute appendicitis. Exp Ther Med 7(5):1181–1186

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Lobo DN (2012) Safety and efficacy of antibiotics compared with appendicectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 344(1):e2156-e2156. doi:10.1136/bmj.e2156

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sallinen V, Akl EA, You JJ et al (2016) Meta-analysis of antibiotics versus appendicectomy for non-perforated acute appendicitis. Br J Surg. doi:10.1002/bjs.10147

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Louyer-Villermay JB (1824) Observations pour servir a l’histoire des inflammations de l’appendice du caecum. Arch gén de méd Paris 5:246

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fitz R (1886) Perforating inflammation of the vermiform appendix. Am J Med Sci 92:32146

    Google Scholar 

  16. McBurney C (1889) Experience with early operative interference in cases of disease of the vermiform appendix. N Y Med J 50:676–684

    Google Scholar 

  17. Stengel A (1908) Appendicitis. In: Osler W, McCrae T (eds) Modern medicine, vol V. Diseases of the alimentary tract. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia

  18. Coldrey E (1956) Treatment of acute appendicitis. Br Med J 2(5007):1458–1461

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Jones PF (2001) Suspected acute appendicitis: trends in management over 30 years. Br J Surg 88(12):1570–1577

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Andersson RE (2007) The natural history and traditional management of appendicitis revisited: spontaneous resolution and predominance of prehospital perforations imply that a correct diagnosis is more important than an early diagnosis. World J Surg 31(1):86–92. doi:10.1007/s00268-006-0056-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bhangu A, Soreide K, Di Saverio S, Assarsson JH, Drake FT (2015) Acute appendicitis: modern understanding of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 386(10000):1278–1287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01421901

  23. Andersson M, Andersson RE (2008) The appendicitis inflammatory response score: a tool for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis that outperforms the Alvarado score. World J Surg 32(8):1843–1849. doi:10.1007/s00268-008-9649-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosenbaum P, Rubin D (1984) Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc 79(387):516–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. D’Agostino RB (1998) Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 17:2265–2281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Thoemmes F (2012) Propensity score matching in SPSS. arXiv:1201.6385

  27. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Di Saverio S, Sibilio A, Giorgini E et al (2014) The NOTA study (non operative treatment for acute appendicitis): prospective study on the efficacy and safety of antibiotics (amoxicillin and clavulanic acid) for treating patients with right lower quadrant abdominal pain and long-term follow-up of conservatively treated suspected appendicitis. Ann Surg 260(1):109–117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Livingston EH, Woodward WA, Sarosi GA, Haley RW (2007) Disconnect between incidence of nonperforated and perforated appendicitis: implications for pathophysiology and management. Ann Surg 245(6):886–892

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Mason RJ (2008) Surgery for appendicitis: is it necessary? Surg Infect 9(4):481–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Andersson RE (2001) Small bowel obstruction after appendicectomy. Br J Surg 88(10):1387–1391

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Leung TTW, Dixon E, Gill M et al (2009) Bowel obstruction following appendectomy: what is the true incidence? Ann Surg 250(1):51–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Margenthaler JA, Longo WE, Virgo KS et al (2003) Risk factors for adverse outcomes after the surgical treatment of appendicitis in adults. Ann Surg 238(1):59–66

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Xiao Y, Shi G, Zhang J et al (2015) Surgical site infection after laparoscopic and open appendectomy: a multicenter large consecutive cohort study. Surg Endosc 29(6):1384–1393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Blomqvist PG, Andersson RE, Granath F, Lambe MP, Ekbom AR (2001) Mortality after appendectomy in Sweden, 1987–1996. Ann Surg 233(4):455–460

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Livingston EH, Fomby TB, Woodward WA, Haley RW (2011) Epidemiological similarities between appendicitis and diverticulitis suggesting a common underlying pathogenesis. Arch Surg 146(3):308–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sartelli M, Catena F, Ansaloni L et al (2012) Complicated intra-abdominal infections in Europe: a comprehensive review of the CIAO study. World J Emerg Surg 7(1):36. doi:10.1186/1749-7922-7-36

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Flum D (2015) Clinical practice: acute appendicitis—appendectomy or the “antibiotics first” strategy. N Engl J Med 20372:1937–1943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hansson J, Körner U, Ludwigs K, Johnsson E, Jönsson C, Lundholm K (2012) Antibiotics as first-line therapy for acute appendicitis: evidence for a change in clinical practice. World J Surg 36(9):2028–2036. doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1738-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Surgery Unit, Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Piazza OMS 1, 24127, Bergamo, Italy

    Niccolò Allievi, Asaf Harbi, Marco Ceresoli, Giulia Montori, Elia Poiasina, Federico Coccolini, Michele Pisano & Luca Ansaloni

Authors
  1. Niccolò Allievi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asaf Harbi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Ceresoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Giulia Montori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elia Poiasina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Federico Coccolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michele Pisano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Luca Ansaloni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NA performed study design, literature review, statistical analysis, references collection and writing of the paper; AH contributed to data collection, study design, literature review and co-writing of the paper; MC involved in study design, statistical analysis and co-writing of the paper; GM participated in data collection and study design; EP involved in study design and co-writing of the paper; FC and MP performed study design, literature review and co-writing of the paper; LA contributed to study design, literature review, references collection and co-writing of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niccolò Allievi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflict of interests.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 39 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Allievi, N., Harbi, A., Ceresoli, M. et al. Acute Appendicitis: Still a Surgical Disease? Results from a Propensity Score-Based Outcome Analysis of Conservative Versus Surgical Management from a Prospective Database. World J Surg 41, 2697–2705 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4094-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4094-4

Search

Navigation