Advertisement

Characteristics of Perforated Appendicitis: Effect of Delay Is Confounded by Age and Gender

  • Toms AugustinEmail author
  • Burt Cagir
  • Thomas J. VanderMeer
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

The effect of age and gender on time to perforation in acute appendicitis has not been well characterized. This study examined the relationship between duration of disease and appendiceal perforation in different subgroups of age and gender.

Methods

This study is a retrospective analysis of 380 patients who underwent an appendectomy from January 2000 to June 2005 at a rural teaching hospital.

Results

Factors associated with perforated appendicitis included age, symptom duration, CT scan, and distance from the hospital. Factors associated with increased patient time included age, temperature >101.5 F, and referral from an outside institution. Factors associated with shorter system time included right lower quadrant tenderness, classic or severe presentation, and leading diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Preoperative CT scan increased system time by approximately 3 h. Analyzing symptom duration and time to perforation, males have a higher prevalence of perforated appendicitis compared to females with similar duration of symptoms. In patients older than 55 years of age, 29% had perforated appendicitis at 36 h of symptoms and 67% at 36 to 48 h of symptoms. In a multivariate regression analysis, age greater than 55 years (odds ratio (OR) 3.0, P value 0.007), fever (OR 4.3, P 0.007), and symptom duration more than 24 h (OR 4.1, P 0.001) were significant predictors of perforated appendicitis.

Conclusions

There is an early risk of perforated appendicitis even within the first 36 h of symptoms. This risk appears to be higher in males and patients older than 55 years, a quarter of whom are perforated within the first 36 h of symptom duration. Additionally, perforation in acute appendicitis may be more of a continuous phenomena worsening exponentially with duration of symptoms rather than a threshold phenomenon.

Keywords

Timing Operation Appendectomy Acute appendicitis Perforated appendicitis Delays Waiting time 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Siddharth Bhende MD, Keyur Chavda MD, Anthony Guiffrida, and Catherine Simone for collecting the data for the study.

Disclosure

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Cappendijk VC, Hazebroek FW. The impact of diagnostic delay on the course of acute appendicitis. Arch Dis Child 2000; 83: 64–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eldar S, Nash E, Sabo E et al. Delay of surgery in acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 1997; 173: 194–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Temple CL, Huchcroft SA, Temple WJ. The natural history of appendicitis in adults. A prospective study. Ann Surg 1995; 221: 278–281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    White JJ, Santillana M, Haller JA, Jr. Intensive in-hospital observation: a safe way to decrease unnecessary appendectomy. Am Surg 1975; 41: 793–798.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thomson HJ, Jones PF. Active observation in acute abdominal pain. Am J Surg 1986; 152: 522–525.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kearney D, Cahill RA, O’Brien E et al. Influence of delays on perforation risk in adults with acute appendicitis. Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 51: 1823–1827.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brender JD, Marcuse EK, Koepsell TD, Hatch EI. Childhood appendicitis: factors associated with perforation. Pediatrics 1985; 76: 301–306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yardeni D, Hirschl RB, Drongowski RA et al. Delayed versus immediate surgery in acute appendicitis: do we need to operate during the night? J Pediatr Surg 2004; 39: 464–469; discussion 464–469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Surana R, Quinn F, Puri P. Is it necessary to perform appendicectomy in the middle of the night in children? Bmj 1993; 306: 1168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bachoo P, Mahomed AA, Ninan GK, Youngson GG. Acute appendicitis: the continuing role for active observation. Pediatr Surg Int 2001; 17: 125–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abou-Nukta F, Bakhos C, Arroyo K et al. Effects of delaying appendectomy for acute appendicitis for 12 to 24 hours. Arch Surg 2006; 141: 504–506; discussioin 506–507.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ditillo MF, Dziura JD, Rabinovici R. Is it safe to delay appendectomy in adults with acute appendicitis? Ann Surg 2006; 244: 656–660.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bickell NA, Aufses AH, Jr., Rojas M, Bodian C. How time affects the risk of rupture in appendicitis. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 202: 401–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Franz MG, Norman J, Fabri PJ. Increased morbidity of appendicitis with advancing age. Am Surg 1995; 61: 40–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hui TT, Major KM, Avital I et al. Outcome of elderly patients with appendicitis: effect of computed tomography and laparoscopy. Arch Surg 2002; 137: 995–998; discussion 999–1000.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Augustin T, Bhende S, Chavda K et al. CT scans and acute appendicitis: a five-year analysis from a rural teaching hospital. J Gastrointest Surg 2009; 13: 1306–1312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bixby SD, Lucey BC, Soto JA et al. Perforated versus nonperforated acute appendicitis: accuracy of multidetector CT detection. Radiology 2006; 241: 780–786.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kruskal W, Wallis W. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Amer Statist Assoc 1952; 47: 583–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mann H, Whitney D. On a test of whether one or two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Statist 1947; 18: 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 6: Nonparametric methods. Crit Care 2002; 6: 509–513.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Papaziogas B, Tsiaousis P, Koutelidakis I et al. Effect of time on risk of perforation in acute appendicitis. Acta Chir Belg 2009; 109: 75–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Freund HR, Rubinstein E. Appendicitis in the aged. Is it really different? Am Surg 1984; 50: 573–576.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fillingim RB, King CD, Ribeiro-Dasilva MC et al. Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings. J Pain 2009; 10: 447–485.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Burns RP, Cochran JL, Russell WL, Bard RM. Appendicitis in mature patients. Ann Surg 1985; 201: 695–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    United States Census 2000. [cited January 3, 2009]; Available from: http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html
  26. 26.
    Garfield JL, Birkhahn RH, Gaeta TJ, Briggs WM. Diagnostic pathways and delays on route to operative intervention in acute appendicitis. Am Surg 2004; 70: 1010–1013.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee SL, Walsh AJ, Ho HS. Computed tomography and ultrasonography do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg 2001; 136: 556–562.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    DeArmond GM, Dent DL, Myers JG et al. Appendicitis: selective use of abdominal CT reduces negative appendectomy rate. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2003; 4: 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bratton SL, Haberkern CM, Waldhausen JH. Acute appendicitis risks of complications: age and Medicaid insurance. Pediatrics 2000; 106: 75–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Braveman P, Schaaf VM, Egerter S et al. Insurance-related differences in the risk of ruptured appendix. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 444–449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toms Augustin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Burt Cagir
    • 1
  • Thomas J. VanderMeer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryGuthrie-Robert Packer HospitalSayreUSA

Personalised recommendations