Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 29, Issue 7, pp 1897–1902 | Cite as

Appendicitis in the modern era: universal problem and variable treatment

  • Lindsay A. Bliss
  • Catherine J. Yang
  • Tara S. Kent
  • Sing Chau Ng
  • Jonathan F. Critchlow
  • Jennifer F. TsengEmail author
Article

Abstract

Background

Acute appendicitis is the second most common gastrointestinal diagnosis mandating urgent operation in the U.S. The current state of adult appendectomy, including patient and hospital characteristics, complications, and predictors for complications, are unknown.

Methods

Retrospective review of U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2003–2011 for appendectomy in ≥18-year-olds was performed. Primary outcomes measures included postoperative complications, length of stay, and patient mortality. Categorical variables were analyzed by χ2, trend analyses by Cochran–Armitage. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for predictors of developing complications.

Results

1,663,238 weighted appendectomy discharges occurred. Over the study period, complications increased from 3.2 to 3.8 % (p < 0.0001), but the overall mortality decreased from 0.14 to 0.09 % (p < 0.0001) and mean LOS decreased from 3.1 to 2.6 days (p < 0.0001). The proportion of laparoscopic appendectomy increased over time, 41.7–80.1 % (p < 0.0001). Patients were increasingly older (≥65 years: 9.4–11.6 %, p < 0.0001), more obese (3.8–8.9 %, p < 0.0001), and with more comorbidities (Elixhauser score ≥3: 4.7–9.8 %, p < 0.0001). After adjustment, independent predictors for postoperative complications included: open surgery (OR 1.5, 95 % C.I. 1.4–1.5), male sex (OR 1.6, 95 % CI 1.5–1.6), black race (vs. white: OR 1.5, 95 % CI 1.4–1.6), perforated appendix (OR 2.8, 95 % CI 2.7–3.0), greater comorbidity (Elixhauser ≥3 vs. 0, OR 11.3, 95 % CI 10.5–12.1), non-private insurance status (vs. private: Medicaid OR 1.3, 95 % CI 1.2–1.4; Medicare OR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.6–1.8), increasing age (>52 years vs. ≤27: OR 1.3; 95 % CI 1.2–1.4), and hospital volume (vs. high: low OR 1.2; 95 % CI 1.1–1.3). Predictors of laparoscopic appendectomy were age, ethnicity, insurance status, comorbidities, and hospital location.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic appendectomy is increasing but is unevenly deployed across patient groups. Appendectomy patients were increasingly older, with more comorbidities and with increasing rates of obesity. Black patients and patients with public insurance had less utilization of laparoscopy and inferior outcomes.

Keywords

Appendectomy Acute appendicitis NIS Laparoscopy Complications 

Notes

Disclosure

Drs. Bliss, Yang, Kent, Critchlow and Tseng and Ms. Ng have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Masoomi H, Mills S, Dolich MO, Ketana N, Carmichael JC, Nguyen NT, Stamos MJ (2011) Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in adults: data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), 2006-2008. J Gastrointest Surg 15:2226–2231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hilli ZA, Prichard RS, Roche-Nagle G, Leader M, McNamara DA, Deasy J (2009) Emergency appendicectomy in the era of laparoscopy: a one-year audit. Ir J Med Sci 178:473–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wilson DG, Bond AK, Ladwa N, Sajid MS, Baig MK, Sains P (2013) Intra-abdominal collections following laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy: an experience of 516 consecutive cases at a district general hospital. Surg Endosc 27:2351–2356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sauerland S, Jaschinski T, Neugebauer EA (2010) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:CD001546. doi: 10.1002/14651858 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). 2007-2009. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville. www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp. Accessed 17 April 2014
  6. 6.
    Houchens RL, Elixhauser A. (2006) Using the HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample to Estimate Trends. (Updated for 1988–2004). HCUP Methods Series Report #2006-05 Online. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and QualityGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lawthers AG, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Peterson LE, Palmer RH, Iezzoni LI (2000) Identification of in-hospital complications from claims data. Is it valid? Med Care 38:785–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    HCUP Comorbidity Software. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/comorbidity/comorbidity.jsp. Accessed 17 April 2014
  9. 9.
    Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM (1998) Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 36(1):8–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    American Census Bureau. (2014) Fact Finder. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed on 17 April 2014
  11. 11.
    Kumar G, Kumar N, Taneja A, Kaleekal T, Tarima S, McGinley E, Jimenez E, Mohan A, Khan RA, Whittle J, Jacobs E, Nanchal R (2011) Nationwide trends of severe sepsis in the 21st century (2000–2007). Chest 140:1223–1231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Varela JE, Nguyen NT (2011) Disparities in access to basic laparoscopic surgery at U.S. academic medical centers. Surg Endosc 25:1209–1214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moazzez A, Mason RJ, Katkhouda N (2013) Thirty-day outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in elderly using ACS/NSQIP database. Surg Endosc 27:1061–1071PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Southgate E, Vousden N, Karthikesalingam A, Markar SR, Black S, Zaidi A (2012) Laparoscopic vs open appendectomy in older patients. Arch Surg 147:557–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scarborough JE, Bennett KM, Pappas TN (2012) Racial disparities in outcomes after appendectomy for acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 204:11–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bliss LA, Yang CJ, Chau Z, Ng SC, McFadden DW, Kent TS, Moser AJ, Callery MP, Tseng JF (2014) Patient selection and the volume effect in pancreatic surgery: unequal benefits? HPB 16:899–906. doi: 10.1111/hpb.12283 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferranti F, Corona F, Siani LM, Stefanuto A, Aguzzi D, Santoro E (2012) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for the treatment of complicated appendicitis. G Chir 33:263–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alvarez C, Voitk AJ (2000) The road to ambulatory laparoscopic management of perforated appendicitis. Am J Surg 179:63–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsay A. Bliss
    • 1
  • Catherine J. Yang
    • 1
  • Tara S. Kent
    • 1
  • Sing Chau Ng
    • 1
  • Jonathan F. Critchlow
    • 1
  • Jennifer F. Tseng
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Surgical Outcomes Analysis & ResearchBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations