title: Resource utilization and outcomes from percutaneous drainage and interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with abscess. Evaluation of early surgical management of complicated appendicitis by appendicular mass. Long-Term Outcome of Mesocolic and Pelvic Diverticular Abscesses of the Left Colon: A Prospective Study of 73 Cases Prospective evaluation of nonsurgical versus surgical management of appendiceal mass. Conservative approach versus urgent appendectomy in surgical management of acute appendicitis with abscess or phlegmon. Influence of Risk Factors on the Safety of Ileocolic Anastomosis in Crohn’s Disease Surgery Comparison of therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage with antibiotics versus antibiotics alone in the treatment of periappendiceal abscess Appendiceal mass: conservative therapy followed by interval laparoscopic appendectomy. Is early laparoscopic appendectomy feasible in children with acute appendicitis presenting with an appendiceal mass? A prospective study. Is a long delay necessary before appendectomy after appendiceal mass formation? A preliminary report. Initial laparoscopic appendectomy versus initial nonoperative management and interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with abscess: a prospective, randomized trial. Treatment of appendiceal mass: prospective, randomized clinical trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE Given the perceived technical dem and s of laparoscopic appendectomy and the expected postoperative morbidity in patients with a well-defined abscess , initial percutaneous drainage has become an attractive option in this patient population . This strategy allows for a laparoscopic appendectomy to be performed in an elective manner at the convenience of the surgeon . However , the medical burden on the patient and on the quality of patient outcomes has not been described in the literature . Therefore , we audited our experience with initial percutaneous drainage followed by laparoscopic interval appendectomy to evaluate the need for a prospect i ve trial . METHODS After institutional review board approval , a retrospective chart review was performed on all children who presented with perforated appendicitis and a well-defined abscess and were treated by initial percutaneous aspiration/drainage followed by interval appendectomy between January 2000 and September 2006 . Continuous variables are listed with st and ard deviation . RESULTS There were 52 patients with a mean age of 9.0 + /- 3.9 years and weight of 34.4 + /- 18.8 kg . The  mean duration of symptoms at presentation was 8.4 + /- 7.6 days . Percutaneous aspiration only was performed in 2 patients . The mean volume of fluid on initial aspiration/drain placement was 76.3 + /- 81.1 mL. The mean time to appendectomy was 61.9 + /- 25.2 days . The laparoscopic approach was used in 49 patients ( 94.2 % ) , of which one was converted to an open operation . The mean length of hospitalization after interval appendectomy was 1.4 + /- 1.4 days . A recurrent abscess developed in 17.3 % of the patients . Six patients ( 11.5 % ) required another drainage procedure . The mean total charge to the patients was $ 40,414.02 . There were 4 significant drain complications ( ileal perforation , colon perforation , bladder perforation , and buttock/thigh necrotizing abscess ) . The child with the ileal perforation after drain placement is the only patient who failed initial nonoperative therapy . CONCLUSIONS The use of initial percutaneous aspiration/drainage of periappendiceal abscess followed by interval appendectomy is an effective approach . However , this management poses complication risks and uses considerable re sources . Therefore , this strategy should be compared with early operation in a prospect i ve trial AIM This prospect i ve study was done to evaluate the feasibility and safety of immediate appendicectomy in the presence of appendicular mass . METHODS A prospect i ve , nonr and omized study was conducted over 46 consecutive patients ( mean age : 24 ± 8.76 years ) presenting with an appendicular mass over a 4-year period . They were subjected for immediate appendicectomy within 24 h of admission . RESULTS The appendix was identified and removed in all 46 patients at operation . Peri-appendiceal abscesses were present in 25 % ( 11 of 46 ) . There was difficulty with adhesolysis and localization of the appendix in 10%(4 ) of patients . Superficial wound infection had occurred in 8(17 % ) while deep wound infection had occurred in 9%(4 ) patients . The mean hospital stay was 3 ± 0.25 day . No major complications had occurred . CONCLUSIONS Early surgical intervention in patients with an appendicular mass  is feasible , safe and avoids the consequences of the misdiagnosis and mistreatment of other surgical pathologies PURPOSE The aim of of this study was to evaluate prospect ively the long-term outcome of mesocolic and pelvic diverticular abscesses of the left colon . METHODS Between October 1986 and October 1997 , a total of 465 patients urgently admitted to our hospital with a suspected diagnosis of acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis had a CT scan .  Of 76 patients ( 17 percent ) who had an associated mesocolic or pelvic abscess , 3 were lost to follow-up . The remaining 73 patients ( 45 with a mesocolic abscess and 28 with a pelvic abscess ) were followed for a median of 43 months . RESULTS of the 45 patients with a mesocolic abscess , 7 ( 15 percent ) required surgery during their first hospitalization versus 11 ( 39 percent ) of the 28 patients with a pelvic abscess ( P = 0.04 ) . At the end of follow-up , 22 ( 58 percent ) of the 38 patients with a mesocolic abscess who had successful conservative treatment during their first hospitalization did not need surgical treatment vs. 8 ( 47 percent ) of the 17 who had a pelvic abscess . Altogether , 51 percent of the patients with a mesocolic abscess had surgical treatment versus 71 percent of those with a pelvic abscess ( P = 0.09 ) . CONCLUSIONS Considering the poor outcome of pelvic abscess associated with acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis , percutaneous drainage followed by secondary colectomy seems justified . Mesocolic abscess by itself is not an absolute indication for colectomy PURPOSE Prospect i ve evaluation was undertaken of surgical findings , complications , morbidity , and hospital stay between initial nonsurgical management versus early surgical intervention of an appendicular mass . METHODS A prospect i ve , nonr and omized study was conducted of 82 consecutive patients ( mean age , 6.9 + /- 3.3 years ) presenting with an appendicular mass over a 5-year period . They were categorized as group 1 , 58.5 % ( 48 of 82 ) nonsurgically managed and an interval appendectomy performed at a mean period of 8.6 + /- 4.6 weeks and group 2 , 41.5 % ( 34 of 82 ) appendectomy at presentation . RESULTS An appendix was identified in all 82 patients in both groups at operation . In-group 1 , recurrent episodes of abdominal pain necessitated interval appendectomy in 39.6 % ( 19 of 48 ) patients at a mean 4.3 + /- 0.8 versus 11.5 + /- 3.7 weeks in 60.4 % ( 29 of 48 ) who underwent scheduled interval appendectomy .  Periappendiceal abscesses present at interval appendectomy in group 1 was ( 38 of 48 ) 79.2 % versus 100 % ( 34 of 34 ) at appendectomy in group 2 . Adhesions at interval appendectomy  in group 1 was 81.3 % ( 39 of 48 ) versus 100 % ( 34 of 34 ) at appendectomy in group 2 . In-group 1 , superficial wound infection was observed in 0 versus 4 wound infections in group 2 . Overall morbidity rate between group 1 and group 2 was statistically significant ( P < .05 ) . Total mean hospital stay in group 1 was 13.2 + /- 1.5 versus 4.8 + /- 0.4 days in group 2 . Of the 48-interval appendectomy specimens , 37 of 48 ( 77 % ) appendices had a patent lumen , and 11 of 48 ( 23 % ) showed fibrosis and obliteration of appendicular lumen . There was no correlation ( r = 0.22 ) between the histopathologic findings and the interval between abscess treatment and interval appendectomy . CONCLUSIONS Early surgical intervention was beneficial over nonoperative management in this cohort of patients . Interval appendectomy is recommended after nonsurgical management of an appendicular mass BACKGROUND Surgical management of acute appendicitis with appendiceal abscess or phlegmon remains controversial . We studied the results of initial conservative treatment ( antibiotics and percutaneous drainage if necessary , with or without interval appendectomy ) compared with immediate surgery . METHODS We undertook an observational , retrospective cohort study of patients with a clinical and radiological diagnosis of acute appendicitis with an abscess or phlegmon , treated in our hospital between January 1997 and March 2009 . Patients younger than 14 , with severe sepsis or with diffuse peritonitis were excluded . A study group of 15 patients with acute appendicitis complicated with an abscess or phlegmon underwent conservative treatment . A control group was composed of the other patients , who all underwent  urgent appendectomy  , matched for age and later r and omized 1:1 . The infectious risk stratification was established with the National Nosocomial Infections Surveillance System ( NNIS ) index . Dependent variables were hospital stay and surgical site infection . Analysis was with SPSS , with p < 0.05 considered significant . RESULTS Interval appendectomy  was performed in 7 study group patients . Surgical site infection episodes were more frequent in the control group ( 6 vs. 0 , p < 0.001 ) . A greater percentage of high risk patients ( NNIS ≥ 2 ) was identified in the control group ( 80 vs. 28.7 % , p < 0.03 ) , mostly related with contaminated or dirty procedures in this group ( p < 0.001 ) . No significant difference between groups was found in hospital stay . CONCLUSION Initial conservative treatment should be considered the best therapeutic choice for acute appendicitis with abscess or phlegmon BACKGROUND : Ileocecal resection is the most commonly performed operation in patients with Crohn ’s disease . Anastomotic-associated complications , with their associated morbidity , are the most feared risks of surgery . OBJECTIVE : This study aim ed to assess the influence of a variety of putative risk factors in a homogenous group of patients undergoing first or subsequent surgery for Crohn ’s disease to quantify the cumulative risk for anastomotic-associated complications . DESIGN AND PATIENTS : All patients undergoing ileocecal or ileocolic resections for Crohn ’s disease from 2000 to 2010 were studied with the use of a prospect i ve data base . Demographics , operative details , possible risk factors , and anastomotic-associated complications were recorded . Patients having strictureplasties , multiple resections , or subtotal colonic resections were excluded from analysis . Statistical analysis was by univariate analysis ( Mann-Whitney U test ) and binary logistic regression . OUTCOMES : An anastomotic-associated complication was defined as a proven anastomotic leak , postoperative fistulation , or intra-abdominal abscess formation . RESULTS : Two hundred seven patients ( 109 female ) with a median age of 35 years ( range , 13 - 75 years ) were identified . One hundred seventy-three underwent primary anastomosis , 94 as an emergency procedure . Fifty-three had laparoscopic ( 5 converted ) procedures . Nineteen of 173 anastomotic complication events ( 11 % ) were recorded . Steroid usage ( OR 2.67 , 95 % CI 1.0 - 7.2 ) and the presence of preoperative abscess formation ( OR 3.4 , 95 % CI 1.2 - 9.8 ) were identified as independent predictors of anastomotic-associated complications . In the absence of both steroids and intra-abdominal abscess , the risk of anastomotic complications was 6 % , which increased to 14 % if either risk factor was present . When both risk factors were present , complication rates reached 40 % . CONCLUSION : Steroid usage and preoperative abscess were associated with higher rates of anastomotic complications following ileocolic resection for Cohn ’s disease . When both risk factors are present , it is best to avoid primary anastomosis Background The present study was design ed to compare the therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage with antibiotics versus antibiotics alone in the treatment of appendicitis complicated by periappendiceal abscess . Methods In a prospect i ve study , 50 patients with acute appendicitis complicated by periappendiceal abscess ≥ 3 cm in size were r and omly assigned to two groups . The first group received treatment with ultrasound guided-percutaneous drainage and i.v . antibiotics ( ampicillin , cefuroxime , and metronidazole ) , and the other group received antibiotics only .  Patient ’s baseline characteristics , duration of hospital stay , and treatment outcome and complications were analyzed . Results Appendectomy was avoided in 16/25 patients in the drainage group and 2/25 patients in the non-drainage group during follow-up with RR of 0.39 ( 95 % CI = 0.22–0.62 ; p < 0.05 ) . One patient in the drainage group and 8 patients in the non-drainage group underwent surgery in the first month after the beginning of treatment . Eight patients in the drainage group and 15 in the non-drainage group underwent interval appendectomy . There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding patient demographics , abscess size , and pretreatment clinical symptoms . Hospital stay up to the subsidence of clinical and sonographic signs was significantly shorter ( p < 0.001 ) in the drainage group , with a mean difference of 6.4 days ( 95 % CI = 5.0–7.9 ; p < 0.05 ) . Conclusions Percutaneous drainage with antibiotics is a safe and effective way of treating acute perforated appendicitis . The recurrence rate for these patients is relatively low , and very often interval appendectomy is not required . For patients with periappendiceal abscess ≥ 3 cm in diameter , antibiotic therapy alone is insufficient and the recurrence rate is high BACKGROUND Current therapy of patients with appendiceal abscess or phlegmon is in evolution . Controversial areas include initial conservative therapy , drainage of periappendiceal abscesses , and the role of interval appendectomy . OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of conservative therapy and of interval laparoscopic appendectomy ( ILA ) . PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with signs and symptoms of acute appendicitis and a palpable right lower quadrant mass were included . Abscess/phlegmon was documented with ultrasound or computerized tomography . After initial therapy with antibiotics , patients were discharged to home . ILA was performed 6 to 12 weeks later . RESULTS Twelve patients were included . Four patients had phlegmonous appendicitis and eight had an abscess , but only four had percutaneous drainage . All patients improved without surgical exploration and were subjected to ILA . ILA was successful in 11 of 12 patients ; a median hospital postoperative stay of 1 day was required , and no perioperative morbidity was encountered . All patients returned to routine activities within 2 weeks of surgery . CONCLUSIONS 1 ) Initial conservative management of patients with appendiceal abscess/phlegmon is prudent , safe , and effective . 2 ) Interval laparoscopic appendectomy can be performed safely and effectively BACKGROUND The management of an appendiceal mass remains controversial with 2 schools of thought ; early surgical intervention vs nonoperative management with or without interval appendectomy . The aim is to determine the role and safety of early laparoscopic appendectomy ( LA ) in children with acute appendicitis presenting with an appendiceal mass . METHODS This is a prospect i ve study of 88 consecutive pediatric patients who underwent attempted LA for suspected acute appendicitis at KK Women 's and Children 's Hospital , Singapore , between May and October 2003 . RESULTS A total of 88 patients with a mean age of 10 + /- 3 years ( range , 3 - 16 years ) underwent LA for an appendiceal mass ( n = 22 ) , simple appendicitis ( n = 36 ) , other complicated ( gangrenous or perforated ) appendicitis ( n = 23 ) , and a normal appendix ( n = 7 ) . There were 7 conversions to  open appendicectomy  , 3 of which occurred in patients with an appendiceal mass . There were no perioperative or postoperative mortalities . Morbidity occurred in only one patient who underwent LA for perforated appendicitis . He had prolonged sepsis that resolved after 2 weeks of intravenous antibiotics . None of the patients with an appendiceal mass developed complications . Patients who underwent early LA for an appendiceal mass had a statistically significant ( P < .05 ) longer operating time ( median , 103 minutes ; interquartile range , 90 - 151 minutes , vs median , 87 minutes ; interquartile range , 71 - 112 minutes ) , prolonged time to ambulation ( median , 2.0 days ; interquartile range , 2 - 2.5 days , vs median , 1.0 days ; interquartile , 1 - 2 days ) , increased time to resumption of diet ( median , 4 days ; interquartile , 3 - 5 days , vs median , 2 days ; interquartile , 2 - 3 days ) , and longer postoperative stay ( median , 6.0 days ; interquartile , 5.5 - 6.5 days , vs median , 4.0 days ; interquartile , 3 - 5.5 days ) compared with patients presenting with appendicitis without mass formation . However , there was no statistical difference in these parameters when LA for an appendiceal mass was compared with LA for other complicated appendicitis ( perforated and gangrenous ) . CONCLUSION Although early LA for an appendiceal mass is a technically dem and ing procedure , it can be performed safely in children with minimal morbidity and mortality . In an era where patients ' dem and for " key-hole " surgery is rising , early LA is a safe and viable option in the management of children with an appendiceal mass . It also offers the advantage of avoiding misdiagnoses and the need for a second hospitalization The st and ard treatment for an appendiceal mass is conservative therapy followed by appendectomy after 6 to 10 weeks . With the advent of antibiotics design ed to prevent the growth of anaerobes , early appendectomy can now be carried out without complication . The authors studied 56 patients with appendiceal mass formation , 26 ( group A ) treated conventionally and 30 ( group B ) treated by early appendectomy .  In group B , the infection rate was 17 % , the mean operating time was 38.7 minutes , the mean hospital stay was 15 days and there was an early return to work . The corresponding parameters for group A were an infection rate of 8 % , a mean operating time of 35.2 minutes , a hospital stay of 19.1 days and a late return to work . Furthermore , 15 % of the patients in group A had a recurrent acute episode during the waiting period . Overall , early appendectomy appears to be a safe and cost-effective treatment for appendiceal mass formation INTRODUCTION Perforated appendicitis is a common condition in children , which , in a small number of patients , may be complicated by a well-formed abscess . Initial nonoperative management with percutaneous drainage/aspiration of the abscess followed by intravenous antibiotics usually allows for an uneventful interval appendectomy . Although this strategy has become well accepted , there are no published data comparing initial nonoperative management ( drainage/interval appendectomy ) to appendectomy upon presentation with an abscess . Therefore , we conducted a r and omized trial comparing these 2 management strategies . METHODS After internal review board approval ( # 06 11 - 164 ) , children who presented with a well-defined abdominal abscess by computed tomographic imaging were r and omized on admission to laparoscopic appendectomy or intravenous antibiotics with percutaneous drainage of the abscess  ( when possible ) , followed by interval laparoscopic appendectomy approximately 10 weeks later . This was a pilot study with a sample size of 40 , which was based on our recent volume of patients presenting with appendicitis and abscess . RESULTS On presentation , there were no differences between the 2 groups regarding age , weight , body mass index , sex distribution , temperature , leukocyte count , number of abscesses , or greatest 2-dimensional area of abscess in the axial view . Regarding outcomes , there were no differences in length of total hospitalization , recurrent abscess rates , or overall charges . There was a trend toward a longer operating time in patients undergoing initial appendectomy ( 61 minutes versus 42 minutes mean , P = .06 ) . CONCLUSIONS Although initial laparoscopic appendectomy trends toward a requiring longer operative time , there seems to be no advantages between these strategies in terms of total hospitalization , recurrent abscess rate , or total charges BACKGROUND Appendiceal mass may be treated in several ways . However , no r and omized trial has been conducted to find the best option . OBJECTIVE To compare the three most commonly used methods for treating appendiceal mass . METHODS Over a three-year period , 60 consecutive patients with appendiceal mass were r and omly allocated to three groups : Group A -- initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendectomy six weeks later ; Group B -- appendectomy as soon as appendiceal mass resolved using conservative means ; Group C -- conservative treatment alone . Short-term outcome measures included operative time , operative difficulty , postoperative complications , length of hospital stay , and duration of time away from work . Long-term outcome measures were : number of hospital visits made , presence of severe incisional pain , scar appearance , and patients with recurrent appendicitis . RESULTS Baseline characteristics were comparable in the three groups . In patients in Group A , operative time was less , adhesions were encountered less frequently , the incision had to be extended less often and post-operative complications were fewer , as compared to Group B. Patients in Group C had the shortest hospital stay and duration of work-days lost ; only 2 of 20 patients in this group developed recurrent appendicitis during a follow-up period of 24 - 52 ( median 33.5 ) months . CONCLUSION Of the three treatment modalities compared , conservative treatment without subsequent appendectomy appears to be the best
target: Operation with appendectomy for appendiceal mass carries a high risk of complications compared with conservative treatment or drainage .
  Drainage may lower the risk of treatment failure but entails a risk of complications .
background: INTRODUCTION The treatment strategy for appendiceal mass is controversial , ranging from operation or image-guided drainage to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics .
  The aim of this study was to assess the various treatment modalities with respect to complications and treatment failure .