Periappendiceal fluid collection on preoperative computed tomography can be an indication for interval appendectomy: a retrospective study
-
Published:2022-05-31
Issue:1
Volume:17
Page:
-
ISSN:1749-7922
-
Container-title:World Journal of Emergency Surgery
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:World J Emerg Surg
Author:
Kanaka Shintaro,Mizutani Satoshi,Yokoyama Yasuyuki,Matsutani Takeshi,Chihara Naoto,Katsuno Akira,Takata Hideyuki,Nakata Ryosuke,Mishima Keisuke,Wada Yudai,Shimizu Takao,Yamagiwa Ryo,Haruna Takahiro,Nakamura Yuka,Hamaguchi Akira,Taniai Nobuhiko,Yoshida Hiroshi
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The treatment strategies for acute appendicitis, such as emergency appendectomy (EA), interval appendectomy (IA), and repeating nonoperative management (NOM), are controversial. In this study, we examined the preoperative factors that can be used to distinguish which patients should undergo IA.
Methods
We retrospectively identified 902 patients who underwent surgery for appendicitis in our hospital from January 2010 to December 2021. Of these patients, 776 were included in this study. The patients were divided into two groups: those with a periappendiceal fluid collection (PAFC) on preoperative computed tomography (PAFC-positive group, n = 170) and those without a PAFC (PAFC-negative group, n = 606). In each group, we compared patients who underwent EA and IA.
Results
In the PAFC-positive group, patients who underwent EA had a significantly higher postoperative complication rate than those who underwent IA (40.5% vs. 24.0%, p = 0.037). In the multivariate analysis, only the presence of PAFC was significantly associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications (odds ratio, 7.11; 95% confidence interval, 2.73–18.60; p < 0.001). The presence of PAFC alone was not significantly associated with an increased risk of IA or NOM failure (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.19–11.7; p = 0.71). The rate of neoplasia on pathologic examination was significantly higher in the PAFC-positive than PAFC-negative group (7.6% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001); the rate of carcinoma was also higher in the PAFC-positive group (2.4% vs. 0.17%, p = 0.02).
Conclusions
The presence of PAFC on preoperative computed tomography was found to be a risk factor for postoperative complications but not IA or NOM failure. It was also correlated with neoplasia as the etiology of appendicitis. Therefore, PAFC positivity is useful as an indication for IA.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Emergency Medicine,Surgery
Reference24 articles.
1. Saverio SD, Podda M, Simone BD, Ceresoli M, Augustin G, Gori A, Boermeester M, Sartelli M, Coccolini F, Tarasconi A, Angelis N, Weber DG, Tolonen M, Birindelli A, Biffl W, Moore EE, Kelly M, Soreide K, Kashuk J, Broek RT, Gomes CA, Sugrue M, Davies RJ, Damaskos D, Leppäniemi A, Kirkpatrick A, Peitzman AB, Fraga GP, Maier RB, Coimbra R, Chiarugi M, Sganga G, Pisanu A, Angelis GL, Tan E, Goor HV, Pata F, Carlo ID, Chiara O, Litvin A, Campanile FC, Sakakushev B, Tomadze G, Demetrashvili Z, Latifi R, Zidan FA, Romeo O, Lohse HS, Baiocchi G, Costa D, Rizoli S, Balogh ZJ, Bendinelli C, Scalea T, Ivatury R, Velmahos G, Andersson R, Kluger Y, Ansaloni L, Catena F. Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines. World J Emerg Surg. 2020;15:27. 2. Lin HA, Tsai HW, Chao CC, Lin SF. Periappendiceal fat-stranding models for discriminating between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a diagnostic and validation study. World J Emerg Surg. 2021;16:52. 3. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13. 4. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Mallow Transplant. 2013;48:452–8. 5. Kurd AA, Mizrahi I, Siam B, Kupietzky A, Hiller N, Beglaibter N, Eid A, Mazeh H. Outcomes of interval appendectomy in comparison with appendectomy for acute appendicitis. J Surg Res. 2018;225:90–4.
|
|