Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Natural History and Traditional Management of Appendicitis Revisited: Spontaneous Resolution and Predominance of Prehospital Perforations Imply That a Correct Diagnosis is More Important Than an Early Diagnosis

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The principle of early exploration on wide indications in order to prevent perforation has been the guiding star for the management of patients with suspected appendicitis for over 100 years, dating back to a time when appendicitis was a significant cause of mortality. Since then there has been a dramatic decrease in mortality due to appendicitis. Emerging evidence calls for a new understanding of the natural history of untreated appendicitis. This motivates a reappraisal of the fundamental principles for the management of patients with suspected appendicitis.

Methods

Analysis of epidemiologic and clinical studies that elucidate the natural history of appendicitis, i.e. the possibility of spontaneous resolution or the risk of progression to perforation, the determinants of the proportion of perforations and mortality, and the consequence of in-hospital delay.

Results

The results presented in a number of studies suggest that spontaneous resolution of appendicitis is common, that perforation can seldom be prevented, that the risk of perforation has been exaggerated and that in-hospital delay is safe. An alternative understanding of the inverse relationship between the proportion of negative explorations and perforation and the increasing proportion of perforation with length of time is presented, mainly explaining these findings by selection due to spontaneous resolution.

Conclusion

Evidence suggests that spontaneous resolution of untreated, non-perforated appendicitis is common and that perforation can rarely be prevented and is associated with a lower increase in mortality than was previously thought. This motivates a shift in focus from the prevention of perforation to the early detection and treatment of advanced appendicitis. In order to minimize mortality, morbidity and costs avoidance of negative appendectomies is more important then preventing perforation. In patients with an equivocal diagnosis where advanced appendicitis is deemed less likely a correct diagnosis is more important than a rapid diagnosis. These patients can safely be managed by active observation with an improved diagnostic work-up under observation, which has consistently shown a low proportion of negative appendectomies without an increase in the proportion of perforations or morbidity. A high proportion of perforations can be explained by selection due to undiagnosed resolving appendicitis. The proportion of perforation is therefore a questionable measure of the quality of the management of patients with suspected appendicitis and should be used with caution.

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

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, Dellinger EP. Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A population-based analysis. JAMA 2001;286:1748–1753

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. McDonald GP, Pendarvis DP, Wilmoth R, Daley BJ. Influence of preoperative computed tomography on patients undergoing appendectomy. Am Surg 2001;67:1017–1021

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Howie JGR. Too few appendectomies? Lancet 1964;I:1240–1242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Andersson R, Hugander A, Thulin A, Nystrom PO, Olaison G. Indications for operation in suspected appendicitis and incidence of perforation. BMJ 1994;308:107–110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Decadt B, Sussman L, Lewis MP, Secker A, Cohen L, Rogers C et al. Randomized clinical trial of early laparoscopy in the management of acute non-specific abdominal pain. Br J Surg 1999;86:1383–1386

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Barber MD, McLaren J, Rainey JB. Recurrent appendicitis. Br J Surg 1997;84:110–112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Heller MB, Skolnick ML. Ultrasound documentation of spontaneously resolving appendicitis. Am J Emerg Med 1993;11:51–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Migraine S, Atri M, Bret PM, Lough JO, Hinchey JE. Spontaneously resolving acute appendicitis: clinical and sonographic documentation. Radiology 1997;205:55–58

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cobben LP, de Van Otterloo AM, Puylaert JB. Spontaneously resolving appendicitis: frequency and natural history in 60 patients. Radiology 2000;215:349–352

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kirshenbaum M, Mishra V, Kuo D, Kaplan G. Resolving appendicitis: role of CT. Abdom Imaging. 2003;28:276–279

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ciani S, Chuaqui B. Histological features of resolving acute, non-complicated phlegmonous appendicitis. Pathol Res Pract 2000;196:89–93

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stengel A. Appendicitis. In: Modern medicine, vol V. Diseases of the alimentary tract. Osler W, McCrae T (eds). Lea & Febiger. Philadelphia, 1908

    Google Scholar 

  13. De Dombal FT. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, 1991, p 109

    Google Scholar 

  14. Velanovich V, Satava R. Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate. Am Surg 1992;58:264–269

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Andersson RE, Hugander A, Thulin AJ. Diagnostic accuracy and perforation rate in appendicitis: association with age and sex of the patient and with appendicectomy rate. Eur J Surg 1992;158:37–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Coran AG, Wheeler HB. Early perforation in appendicitis after age 60. JAMA 1966;197:745–748

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Redmond JM, Smith GW, Wilasrusmee C, Kittur DS. A new perspective in appendicitis: calculation of half time (T(½)) for perforation. Am Surg 2002;68:593–597

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kraemer M, Franke C, Ohmann C, Yang Q. Acute appendicitis in late adulthood: incidence, presentation, and outcome. Results of a prospective multicenter acute abdominal pain study and a review of the literature. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2000;385:470–481

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Pieper R, Forsell P, Kager L. Perforating appendicitis. A nine-year survey of treatment and results. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 1986;530:51–57

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Luckmann R. Incidence and case fatality rates for acute appendicitis in California. A population-based study of the effects of age. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:905–918

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hale DA, Jaques DP, Molloy M, Pearl RH, Schutt DC, d’Avis JC. Appendectomy. Improving care through quality improvement. Arch Surg 1997;132:153–157

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Temple CL, Huchcroft SA, Temple WJ. The natural history of appendicitis in adults. A prospective study. Ann Surg 1995;221:278–281

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Maroju NK, Smile SR, Sistla SC, Narasimhan R, Sahai A. Delay in surgery for acute appendicitis. ANZ J Surg 2004;74:773–776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yardeni D, Hirschl RB, Drongowski RA, Teitelbaum DH, Geiger JD, Coran AG. Delayed versus immediate surgery in acute appendicitis: do we need to operate during the night? J Pediatr Surg 2004;39:464–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Williams N, Bello M. Perforation rate relates to delayed presentation in childhood acute appendicitis. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1998;43:101–102

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Colson M, Skinner KA, Dunnungton G. High negative appendectomy rates are no longer acceptable. Am J Surg 1997;174:723–726

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Koepsell TD, Inui TS, Farewell VT. Factors affecting perforation in acute appendicitis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1981;153:508–510

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Eldar S, Nash E, Sabo E, Matter I, Kunin J, Mogilner JG et al. Delay of surgery in acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 1997;173:194–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Pittman-Waller VA, Myers JG, Stewart RM, Dent DL, Page CP, Gray GA et al. Appendicitis: why so complicated? Analysis of 5755 consecutive appendectomies. Am Surg 2000;66:548–554

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Williams N, Bello M. Perforation rate relates to delayed presentation in childhood acute appendicitis. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1998;43:101–102

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Walker SJ, West CR, Colmer MR. Acute appendicitis: does removal of a normal appendix matter, what is the value of diagnostic accuracy and is surgical delay important? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1995;77:358–363

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Howie JG. Death from appendicitis and appendicectomy. An epidemiological survey. Lancet 1966; 2:1334–1337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Blomqvist PG, Andersson RE, Granath F, Lambe MP, Ekbom AR. Mortality after appendectomy in Sweden, 1987–1996. Ann Surg 2001;233:455–460

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Graff L, Radford MJ, Werne C. Probability of appendicitis before and after observation. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20(5):503–507

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Andersson RE, Hugander A, Ravn H, Offenbartl K, Ghazi SH, Nystrom PO et al. Repeated clinical and laboratory examinations in patients with an equivocal diagnosis of appendicitis. World J Surg 2000;24(4):479–485

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Neutra RR. Appendicitis: decreasing normal removals without increasing perforations. Med Care 1978;16(11):956–961

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Jones PF. Suspected acute appendicitis: trends in management over 30 years. Br J Surg 2001;88(12):1570–1577

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. White JJ, Santillana M, Haller JA Jr. Intensive in-hospital observation: a safe way to decrease unnecessary appendectomy. Am Surg 1975;41(12):793–798

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Jones PF. Active observation in management of acute abdominal pain in childhood. Br Med J 1976;2(6035):551–553

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Antoine M, Askenasi R, Ansay J, Van de Stadt J. Appendicite aiguë: bénèfice d’une attitude attentiste. Acta Chir Belg 1984;84(4):203–206

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Nauta RJ, Magnant C. Observation versus operation for abdominal pain in the right lower quadrant. Roles of the clinical examination and the leukocyte count. Am J Surg 1986;151(6):746–748

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Thomson HJ, Jones PF. Active observation in acute abdominal pain. Am J Surg 1986;152(5):522–525

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Dolgin SE, Beck AR, Tartter PI. The risk of perforation when children with possible appendicitis are observed in the hospital. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992;175(4):320–324

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Senbanjo RO. Management of patients with equivocal signs of appendicitis. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1997;42(2):85–88

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Bachoo P, Mahomed AA, Ninan GK, Youngson GG. Acute appendicitis: the continuing role for active observation. Pediatr Surg Int 2001;17(2–3):125–128

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Kirby CP, Sparnon AL. Active observation of children with possible appendicitis does not increase morbidity. ANZ J Surg 2001;71(7):412–413

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, County Hospital Ryhov, SE, 551 85, Jönköping, Sweden

    Roland E. Andersson PhD, MD

Authors
  1. Roland E. Andersson PhD, MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roland E. Andersson PhD, MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andersson, R.E. The Natural History and Traditional Management of Appendicitis Revisited: Spontaneous Resolution and Predominance of Prehospital Perforations Imply That a Correct Diagnosis is More Important Than an Early Diagnosis. World J. Surg. 31, 86–92 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-006-0056-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-006-0056-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation