Skip to main content

Morbidity after negative appendectomy: a single-centre experience on 627 cases

Abstract

Introduction

Acute appendicitis is one of the most common causes of abdominal pain in emergency departments worldwide. Despite the improvement in radiological and clinical investigations, negative appendectomy remains a debated topic as well as the optimal strategy for use in cases demonstrating a nonpathological appendix during a procedure for suspected appendicitis. The aim of the present study was thus to analyse clinical outcomes of histologically NA to better elucidate the burden associated with a potentially avoidable procedure.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively analysed a prospectively collected database of all patients undergoing appendectomy for suspected appendicitis. Patients who underwent an elective appendectomy or an appendectomy for other causes than suspected appendicitis or even an appendectomy during the course of another procedure were excluded from the analysis.

Results

Data of 627 patients undergoing an emergency procedure for suspected appendectomy were registered. Of the 627 patients, 533 (85%) were found to have acute appendicitis (378 uncomplicated, 155 severe), while the NA rate was 14.9%. A preoperative CT scan was performed in 148 patients (23.6%), an ultrasound evaluation was conducted in 427 patients (68.1%), and 127 patients (20.3%) underwent no imaging prior to surgical intervention. The large majority of procedures was performed laparoscopically (77.7%) and the median procedure duration was 70 min (range 17–270 min). The cumulative conversion rate (both AA and NA) was 5.7%. Leucocytes were significantly lower in cases of NA, while C-reactive protein (CRP) level was found to be increased fourfold in cases of severe versus uncomplicated appendicitis and NA. An increased use of endoloop in appendiceal stump closure was noted in the NA group (88.3% loop vs. 11.7% stapler), while endostapler usage increased in the severe appendicitis group up to 38.1%. Most patients with NA underwent only preoperative ultrasound (71.3%), with just 8.5% of patients in this group having a CT scan before surgery. Ultrasound sensivity was 0.648 and specificity was 0.438. For CT scan, sensivity was 0.949 and specificity was 0.625. LOS in the NA patient group was comparable to that of patients affected by uncomplicated appendicitis, while patients with severe appendicitis experienced a 2-day-longer median recovery. Complications were significantly higher in the severe appendicitis group but comparable in the other two groups. Surgical site infections were the most frequently reported complications.

Conclusions

Young women are particularly at risk for NA. Increasing the use of preoperative CT and incorporating imaging into the overall assessment of a patient seems to be actually the only way to reduce the incidence of NA without increasing the rates of perforation. Considering the relatively high morbidity after an NA procedure, every surgeon must carefully consider the risk–benefit balance prior to performing an appendectomy during diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected acute appendicitis showing a macroscopically noninflamed appendix.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the united states. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;132:910–25.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Detmer DE. Regional results of acute appendicitis care. JAMA. 1981;246:1318.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. National Surgical Research Collaborative. Multicentre observational study of performance variation in provision and outcome of emergency appendicectomy. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1240–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Flum DR, Koepsell T. The clinical and economic correlates of misdiagnosed appendicitis: nationwide analysis. Arch Surg. 2002;137:799–804 (discussion 804).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Saklad M. Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiology. 1941;2:281–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J, Crockett SD, McGowan CE, Bulsiewicz WJ, Gangarosa LM, Thiny MT, Stizenberg K, Morgan DR, Ringel Y, Kim HP, DiBonaventura MD, Carroll CF, Allen JK, Cook SF, Sandler RS, Kappelman MD, Shaheen NJ. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:1179–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Puylaert JB, Rutgers PH, Lalisang RI, de Vries BC, van der Werf SD, Dörr JP, Blok RA. A prospective study of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:666–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson AD, Zane RD, Schiff GD, Hanson R, Baeyens PF, Khorasani R. Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology. 2010;256:460–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bakker OJ, Go PMNYH, Puylaert JBCM, Kazemier G, Heij HA. Werkgroep richtlijn Diagnostiek en behandeling van acute appendicitis, [Guideline on diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: imaging prior to appendectomy is recommended]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2010;154:A303.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Webb EM, Nguyen A, Wang ZJ, Stengel JW, Westphalen AC, Coakley FV. The negative appendectomy rate: who benefits from preoperative CT? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:861–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McGory ML, Zingmond DS, Nanayakkara D, Maggard MA, Ko CY. Negative appendectomy rate: influence of CT scans. Am Surg. 2005;71:803–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van Rossem CC, Bolmers MDM, Schreinemacher MHF, Bemelman WA, van Geloven AAW, Pinkney TD, Bhangu A. Diagnosing acute appendicitis: surgery or imaging? Colorectal Dis. 2016;18:1129–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wagner PL, Eachempati SR, Soe K, Pieracci FM, Shou J, Barie PS. Defining the current negative appendectomy rate: for whom is preoperative computed tomography making an impact? Surgery. 2008;144:276–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Coursey CA, Nelson RC, Patel MB, Cochran C, Dodd LG, DeLong DM, Beam CA, Vaslef S. Making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: do more preoperative CT scans mean fewer negative appendectomies? A 10-year study. Radiology. 2010;254:460–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nielsen JW, Boomer L, Kurtovic K, Lee E, Kupzyk K, Mallory R, Adler B, Bates DG, Kenney B. Reducing computed tomography scans for appendicitis by introduction of a standardized and validated ultrasonography report template. J Pediatr Surg. 2015;50:144–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. LOCAT Group. Low-dose CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adolescents and young adults (LOCAT): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2:793–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Swank HH, van Rossem CC, van Geloven AA, Kazemier GG, Meijerink JW, Lange JJ, Bemelman WW. Endostapler or endoloops for securing the appendiceal stump in laparoscopic appendectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc. 2013;28:576–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Di Saverio S, Birindelli A, Kelly MD, Catena F, Weber DG, Sartelli M, Sugrue M, De Moya M, Gomes CA, Bhangu A, Agresta F, Moore EE, Soreide K, Griffiths E, De Castro S, Kashuk J, Kluger Y, Leppaniemi A, Ansaloni L, Andersson M, Coccolini F, Coimbra R, Gurusamy KS, Campanile FC, Biffl W, Chiara O, Moore F, Peitzman AB, Fraga GP, Costa D, Maier RV, Rizoli S, Balogh ZJ, Bendinelli C, Cirocchi R, Tonini V, Piccinini A, Tugnoli G, Jovine E, Persiani R, Biondi A, Scalea T, Stahel P, Ivatury R, Velmahos G, Andersson R. WSES Jerusalem guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. World J Emerg Surg. 2016;11:34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sajid MS, Rimple J, Cheek E, Baig MK. Use of endo-GIA versus endo-loop for securing the appendicular stump in laparoscopic appendicectomy: a systematic review. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percus Tech. 2009;19:11–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Antoniou SA, Mavridis D, Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Antoniou GA, Gorter R, Tenhagen M, Koutras C, Pointner R, Chalkiadakis GE, Granderath F-A, Fragiadakis GF, Philalithis AE, Bonjer HJ. Optimal stump management in laparoscopic appendectomy: a network meta-analysis by the Minimally Invasive Surgery Synthesis of Interventions and Outcomes Network. Surgery. 2017;162:994–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lee M, Paavana T, Mazari F, Wilson TR. The morbidity of negative appendicectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014;96:517–20.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. van den Broek WT, Bijnen AB, de Ruiter P, Gouma DJ. A normal appendix found during diagnostic laparoscopy should not be removed. Br J Surg. 2001;88:251–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Teh SH, O’Ceallaigh S, Mc JGK, Teh SH, O’Ceallaigh S, Mc JGK. Should an appendix that looks “normal” be removed at diagnostic laparoscopy for acute right iliac fossa pain? Eur J Surg. 2000;166:388–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Phillips AW, Jones AE, Sargen K. Should the macroscopically normal appendix be removed during laparoscopy for acute right iliac fossa pain when no other explanatory pathology is found? Surg Laparosc Endosc Percus Tech. 2009;19:392–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. van Dalen R, Bagshaw PF, Dobbs BR, Robertson GM, Lynch AC, Frizelle FA. The utility of laparoscopy in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in women of reproductive age. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2003;17:1311–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicolò Tamini.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tamini, N., Santurro, L., Chiappetta, M.F. et al. Morbidity after negative appendectomy: a single-centre experience on 627 cases. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 46, 859–864 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-019-01138-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-019-01138-w

Keywords

  • Negative appendectomy
  • Acute appendicits
  • Diagnostic laparoscopy