Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Province-wide population survey of acute appendicitis in Canada. New twists to an old disease

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study, sponsored and conducted by Le Collège des Médecins du Québec, audited the management of acute appendicitis in the Province of Québec (Population 7.6 million), Canada, over a period of 1 year (April 2002–March 2003).

Methods

A questionnaire was sent to the Health Records Department of all hospitals surgically treating appendicitis in the province. Data from 85 (100%) hospitals were received and reviewed.

Results

During the study period, 7,599 appendectomies were performed, and 5,707 (75%) were selected for study (55% men). The rate of normal and perforated appendix was 5.4% and 15.9% respectively. Median hospital stay for simple and perforated appendicitis was 2.6 and 5.8 days, respectively. At least one imaging procedure was done in 86% of cases (23% computed tomography [CT], 55% ultrasound). Antibiotics were not given in 7% of cases and in 8% of patients with a perforation. Seventeen percent of patients did not receive preoperative or intraoperative doses, and postoperatively, 69% of patients received unnecessary doses. Laparoscopy was used in 35% of cases and was associated with a reduction in postoperative stay for simple (2.6 versus 2.9 days, p < 0.001) and perforated appendicitis (4.6 versus 5.9 days, p = 0.004). A low rate of laparoscopy (<25%) was found in 53% of teaching (University and Affiliated) and 45% of nonteaching institutions. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 9.7% of simple appendicitis and 29.3% of perforated ones (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Although results of this survey are comparable to those of similar published series, a few concerns emerge. Many have to do with patient noncompliance with recommended antibiotic usage for acute appendicitis. Further, although laparoscopy seems to be slowly making its way into the surgical armamentarium, the low rate of laparoscopic appendectomies in teaching hospitals raises the issue of appropriate resident training.

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.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV (1990) The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 132:910–925

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Alvarado A (1986) A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 15:557–564

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD (2004) Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 232:735–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brenner DJ, Elliston CD, Hall EJ, Berdon WE (2001) Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:289–296

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cothren CC, Moore EE, Johnson JL, Moore JB, Ciesla DJ, Burch JM (2005) Can we afford to do laparoscopic appendectomy in an academic hospital? Am J Surg 190:950–954

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Deuthsch A, Leopold GR (1981) Ultrasonic demonstration of the inflamed appendix: case report. Radiology 40:163–164

    Google Scholar 

  7. Duff SE, Dixon AR (2000) Laparoscopic appendectomy: safe and useful for training. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82:388–391

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Emil S, Laberge JM, Mikhail P, Baican L, Flageole H, Nguyen L, Shaw K (2003) Appendicitis in children: a ten-year update of therapeutic recommendations. J Pediatr Surg 38:236–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gale ME, Birnbaum S, Gerzof SG, Sloan G, Johnson WC, Robbins AH (1985) CT appearance of appendicitis and its complications. J Comput Assist Tomogr 9:34–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Guller U, Hervey S, Purves H, Muhlbaier LH, Peterson ED, Eubanks S, Pietrobon R (2004) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy. Outcomes comparison based on a large administrative database. Ann Surg 239:43–52

    Google Scholar 

  11. Helmer KS, Robinson EK, Lally KP, Vasquez JC, Kwong KL, Liu TH, Mercer DW (2002) Standardized patient care guidelines reduce infectious morbidity in appendectomy patients. Am J Surg 183:608–613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Körner H, Söndenaa K, Soreide JA, Andersen E, Nysted A, Lende TH, Kjellevold KH (1997) Incidence of acute nonperforated and perforated appendicitis: age-specific and sex-specific analysis. World J. Surg 21:313–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lones PF (2001) Suspected appendicitis: trends in management over 30 years. Br J Surg 88:1570–1577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. McBurney C (1894) The incision made in the abdominal wall in cases of appendicitis, with a description of the method of operation. Ann Surg 20:38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mouret P (1990) La coelioscopie. Évolution ou révolution? Chirurgie 116:829–832

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mouret P, François Y (1993–1994) Plaidoyer pour l’appendicectomie coelioscopique dans l’appendicite aigue. Chirurgie 119:436–440

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Muhe E (1991) Laparoskopische Cholezystektomie-Spatergebnisse. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl Kongressbd Suppl 416, 423

    Google Scholar 

  18. Paulson EK, Matthew FK, Pappas TN (2003) Suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 348:236–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Poulin EC, Gagné JP, Boushey RP (2006) Advanced laparoscopic skills acquisition: the case of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Clin North Am 86:987–1004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ralls PW, Balfe DM, Bree RL, DiSantis DJ, Glick SN, Levine MS, Megibow AJ, Saini S, Shuman WP, Greene FL, Laine LA, Lillemoe K (2000) Evaluation of acute right lower quadrant pain. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Radiology 215(Suppl):159–166

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sauerland S, Lefering R, Neugebauer EAM Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD001546. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001546.pub2

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr R.C. Grégoire for his critical review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre Hospitalier, Universitaire de Québec, Pavillon Saint-François d’Assise, 10 rue de l’Espinay, Québec, PQ, Canada, G1L 3L5

    J. -P. Gagné

  2. Collège des Médecins du Québec, 2170, boulevard René-Lévesque Ouest, Montréal (Québec), PQ, Canada, H3H 2T8

    M. Billard, R. Gagnon & A. Jacques

  3. Cité de la Santé, 1755, boul. René-Laennec, Laval (Québec), PQ, Canada, H7M 3L9

    M. Laurion

Authors
  1. J. -P. Gagné
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Billard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Gagnon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Laurion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Jacques
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. -P. Gagné.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gagné, J.P., Billard, M., Gagnon, R. et al. Province-wide population survey of acute appendicitis in Canada. New twists to an old disease. Surg Endosc 21, 1383–1387 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9227-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9227-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation