Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predictors for interval appendectomy in non-operatively treated complicated appendicitis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the incidence rate and identify predictive factors for interval appendectomy after non-operatively treated complicated appendicitis.

Methods

Single-center retrospective cohort study conducted between January 2008 and June 2017. Adult patients with acute appendicitis were identified. Patients with complicated appendicitis initially treated non-operatively were included. Outcomes included abscess rate on imaging, results of additional imaging during follow-up, incidence rate of and surgical indications for interval appendectomy, and outcomes of histological reports.

Results

Of all adult patients with acute appendicitis (n = 1839), 9% (170/1839) was initially treated non-operatively. Median age of these patients was 55 years (IQR 42–65) and 48.8% (83/170) were men. In 36.4% (62/170) of the patients, an appendicular abscess was diagnosed. 62.4% (106/170) did not require subsequent surgery (no interval appendectomy group) and in 37.6% (64/170), an interval appendectomy was performed (interval appendectomy group). Median follow-up was 80 weeks (17–192) and 113 weeks (34–246), respectively. Most frequent reason to perform subsequent surgery was recurrent appendicitis (45% (29/64)). Increasing age was significantly associated with a lower risk of undergoing interval appendectomy (OR 0.7; CI 0.6–0.89); p = 0.002). In the interval appendectomy group, appendicular neoplasm was found in 11% (7/64) of the patients, in contrast to 1.5% (25/1669) of the patients that had acute surgery (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

One out of three patients non-operatively treated for complicated appendicitis required an interval appendectomy. The incidence of appendicular neoplasms was high in these patients compared with those that had acute surgery. Therefore, additional radiological imaging following non-operatively treated complicated appendicitis is recommended.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buckius MT, McGrath B, Monk J, Grim R, Bell T, Ahuja V (2012) Changing epidemiology of acute appendicitis in the United States: study period 1993-2008. J Surg Res 175:185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2011.07.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Andersson RE, Petzold MG (2007) Nonsurgical treatment of appendiceal abscess or phlegmon. Ann Surg 246:741–748. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31811f3f9f

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaminski A, Liu ILA, Applebaum H, Lee SL, Haigh PI (2005) Routine interval appendectomy is not justified after initial nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg 140(9):897–901. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.140.9.897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bakker OJ, Go PM, Puylaert JB, Kazemier G, Heij HA (2010) Richtlijn voor diagnostiek en behandeling van acute appendicitis. Beeldvorming voor appendectomie aanbevolen. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 154:A303

    Google Scholar 

  5. Simillis C, Symeonides P, Shorthouse AJ, Tekkis PP (2010) A meta-analysis comparing conservative treatment versus acute appendectomy for complicated appendicitis (abscess or phlegmon). Surgery 147:818–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2009.11.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mentula P, Sammalkorpi H, Leppäniemi A (2015) Laparoscopic surgery or conservative treatment for appendiceal abscess in adults? A randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 262(2):237–242. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheng Y, Xiong X, Lu J, Wu S, Zhou R, Cheng N (2017) Early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011670.pub2

  8. Darwazeh G, Cunningham SC, Kowdley GC (2016) A systematic review of perforated appendicitis and phlegmon: interval appendectomy or wait-and-see? Am Surg 82(1):11–15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wright GP, Mater ME, Carroll JT, Choy JS, Chung MH (2015) Is there truly an oncologic indication for interval appendectomy? Am J Surg 209:442–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2014.09.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Furman MJ, Cahan M, Cohen P, Lambert LA (2013) Increased risk of mucinous neoplasm of the appendix in adults undergoing interval appendectomy. JAMA Surg 148(8):703–706. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lai HW, Loong CC, Chiu JH, Chau GY, Wu CW, Lui WY (2006) Interval appendectomy after conservative treatment of an appendiceal mass. World J Surg 30:352–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-0128-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. José F, Teixeira R Jr, Dias S et al (2017) Acute appendicitis, inflammatory appendiceal mass and the risk of a hidden malignant tumor: a systematic review of the literature. World J Emerg Surg 12:12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-017-0122-9

  13. Carpenter SG, Chapital AB, Merritt MV, Johnson DJ (2012) Increased risk of neoplasm in appendicitis treated with interval appendectomy: single-institution experience and literature review. Am Surg 78(3):339–343

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Connor SJ, Hanna GB, Frizelle FA (1998) Appendiceal tumors retrospective clinicopathologic analysis of appendiceal tumors from 7,970 appendectomies. Dis Colon Rectum 41:75–80

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Murphy EMA, Farquharson SM, Moran BJ (2006) Management of an unexpected appendiceal neoplasm. Br J Surg 93:783–792. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5385

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fried E, Gurtin ME (2011) Subito copyright regulations. Ultraschall Der Medizin 40(2):154–157. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-815600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Clavien PA, Barkun J, De Oliveira ML et al (2009) The clavien-dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carr NJ, Sobin LH (2010) Tumours of the appendix. In: Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND (eds) WHO Classification of tumours of the digestive system, 4th edn. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours, vol 3. Lyon, France: IARC Press, pp 122–125

  19. Deelder JD, Richir MC, Schoorl T, Schreurs WH (2014) How to treat an appendiceal inflammatory mass: operatively or nonoperatively? J Gastrointest Surg 18:641–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-014-2460-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Enblad M, Birgisson H, Ekbom A, Sandin F, Graf W (2017) Increased incidence of bowel cancer after non-surgical treatment of appendicitis. Eur J Surg Oncol 43(11):2067–2075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2017.08.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ito H, Osteen RT, Bleday R, Zinner MJ, Ashley SW, Whang EE (2004) Appendiceal adenocarcinoma: long-term outcomes after surgical therapy. Dis Colon Rectum 47(4):474–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10350-003-0077-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Clift AK, Frilling A (2017) Neuroendocrine, goblet cell and mixed adeno-neuroendocrine tumours of the appendix: updates, clinical applications and the future. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17474124.2017.1282314

  23. Moertel G, Dockerty B (1965) Carcinoid tumors of the vermiform appendix. Cancer. 21(2):270–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(196802)21:2<270::AID-CNCR2820210217>3.0.CO;2-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fumery M, Dulai PS, Gupta S, Prokop LJ, Ramamoorthy S, Sandborn WJ, Singh S (2017) Incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of colorectal cancer in patients with ulcerative colitis with low-grade dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 15(5):665–674.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2016.11.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. J. de Jonge and M. D. M. Bolmers contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Tergooi Hospital Hilversum, P.O. Box 10016, 1201DA, Hilversum, The Netherlands

    J. de Jonge, M. D. M. Bolmers & A. A. W. van Geloven

  2. Department of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, 22660, 1105AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    G. D. Musters & W. A. Bemelman

  3. Department of Surgery, Maasstad Hospital Rotterdam, 9100, 3007AC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    C. C. van Rossem

Authors
  1. J. de Jonge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. D. M. Bolmers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. D. Musters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. C. van Rossem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. W. A. Bemelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. A. W. van Geloven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Drs de Jonge and Bolmers had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: all authors.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: all authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: all authors.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors.

Statistical analysis: de Jonge, Bolmers.

Administrative, technical, or material support: -

Study supervision: van Geloven, Bemelman.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. de Jonge.

Ethics declarations

Dutch regulations did not require review by the medical ethical board or written informed consent.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The medical ethics committee approved the original study and no informed consent was necessary because of the observational design. Dutch regulations did not require review by the medical ethical board or written informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Jonge, J., Bolmers, M.D.M., Musters, G.D. et al. Predictors for interval appendectomy in non-operatively treated complicated appendicitis. Int J Colorectal Dis 34, 1325–1332 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-019-03303-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-019-03303-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation