Management of Appendicitis Presenting with Abscess or Mass

Jeong-Ki Kim; Seungbum Ryoo; Heung-Kwon Oh; Ji Sun Kim; Rumi Shin; Eun Kyung Choe; Seung-Yong Jeong; Kyu Joo Park

doi:10.3393/jksc.2010.26.6.413

Articles

Page Path: HOME > J Korean Soc Coloproctol > Volume 26(6); 2010 > Article

Original Article Management of Appendicitis Presenting with Abscess or Mass: Jeong-Ki Kim, Seungbum Ryoo, Heung-Kwon Oh, Ji Sun Kim, Rumi Shin, Eun Kyung Choe, Seung-Yong Jeong, Kyu Joo Park; Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology 2010;26(6):413-419.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2010.26.6.413
Published online: December 31, 2010

Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Correspondence to: Kyu Joo Park, M.D. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 28 Yeongeon-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul 110-749, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2072-2901, Fax: +82-2-766-3975, kjparkmd@plaza.snu.ac.kr

• Received: July 24, 2010 • Accepted: October 12, 2010

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next

5,287 Views
61 Download
24 Crossref
30 Scopus

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Acknowledgments
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ARTICLE INFORMATION
REFERENCES

Abstract

Purpose
Management strategy in acute appendicitis patients initially presenting with abscess or mass is surrounded with controversy. This study was performed to identify the outcomes of management for this condition.
Methods
We retrospectively analyzed prospectively registered 76 patients (male:female = 39:37; mean age, 50.8 years) with appendicitis presenting with abscess or mass over a 9-year period at the Seoul National University Hospital. Patients were divided into three groups (emergency operation group, delayed operation group, and follow-up group), and clinical characteristics and outcomes of treatment were investigated.
Results
Twenty-eight patients (36.8%) underwent an emergency operation. Of the remaining 48 patients, 20 (41.7%) were initially treated with conservative management through the use of antibiotics only; the other 28 (58.3%) with and additional ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage of the abscess. Twenty-six (54.2%) patients underwent planned operations after conservative management, and 22 (45.8%) were followed without surgery (median duration, 37.8 month), of which 3 (13%) underwent an appendectomy due to recurrent appendicitis (mean of 56.7 days after initial attack). There were no statistical differences in types of operation performed (appendectomy or ileocecectomy), postoperative complications, and postoperative hospital stay among the patients who underwent emergency operations, delayed operations and operations for recurrence during follow-up.
Conclusion
Although the recurrence rate was relatively low after conservative management for appendicitis patients presenting with abscess or mass, there was no difference in surgical outcome between the emergent, elective, or recurrent groups. Our results indicate that proper management of appendicitis with abscess or mass can be selected according to surgeon's preference.
Keywords: Appendicitis; Abscess; Mass; Treatment outcome

INTRODUCTION

Appendicitis is the most common cause of pain requiring surgery. Fitz et al. described and diagnosed appendicitis in 1886 for the first time, and McBurney performed an appendectomy in 1894 for the first time. Since then, the appendectomy has been established as the standard treatment for appendicitis [1]. Nevertheless, 2-7% of appendicitis patients do not have simple appendicitis, but have appendicitis that manifest itself with complex features such as an abscess in the periappendix, right lower quadrant masses due to acute inflammation in connective tissues, etc. [2-4]. When emergency surgery is performed on such cases, due to inflammation in a wide area within the abdominal cavity, adhesion of the intestines, sepsis after surgery, fluid collection within the abdominal cavity, and re-surgery for adhesion of the intestines, healing of surgical wounds has been shown to be delayed substantially [5-7]. Therefore, recently, for patients suspected of having appendicitis associated with an abscess in the periappendix, instead of traditional emergency surgery, the trend has been to perform conservative treatments, for example, ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage and antibiotic treatments first and subsequently to perform an interval appendectomy after a certain time: nonetheless, until now, standard treatment protocols have not been established, so this issue is still controversial [2, 6, 8]. In addition, in regard to the interval appendectomy being always required because of the risk of recurrence of appendicitis after conservative treatments, recently the recurrence rate has been reported not to be high, approximately 7%, in several studies; thus, after successful conservative treatments, an interval appendectomy is not always necessary [9-12].

We conducted this study to evaluate the outcomes by dividing appendicitis patients associated with abscess in the vicinity or a mass in the right lower abdomen into three groups: one that underwent emergency surgery, a second that underwent early conservative treatments followed by elective surgery, and a third that underwent conservative treatments and follow-up observation only.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on 76 patients diagnosed as having acute appendicitis by physical examination and abdominal computed tomography (CT) at the Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, from January 1998 to February 2008. Patients who underwent emergency surgery were defined as the emergency surgery group (Group 1). Patients treated with conservative management through the use of antibiotics with or without ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage were defined as the conservative treatment group, which was subdivided into the interval surgery group whose patients underwent surgery at a certain time after the initial treatments (Group 2A) and the ambulatory follow-up observation group whose patients underwent ambulatory follow-up observation continuously (Group 2B).

The clinical characteristics of patients, the type of surgery, and the follow-up observation were analyzed based on electronic medical records. The follow-up observation period was from the day of the first visit to the most recent visit to our outpatient clinic. As clinical characteristics, the gender of the patients, age, major symptoms, the duration of pain prior to admission, body temperature at the time of admission, heart beat, the number of leukocytes, the presence or absence of an abscess or masses in the periappendix and size, and associated chronic diseases were assessed. In regard to treatments, whether emergency surgery was performed, whether percutaneous drainage was performed, and whether interval surgery was performed after the initial conservative treatments were assessed. In the ambulatory follow-up observation group, recurrence and surgery during the ambulatory follow-up observation period were assessed. Regarding patients who underwent surgery, the period from the onset of symptoms to the day of operation, surgical methods, operation time, the postsurgical hospitalization period, and postsurgical complications were analyzed.

For statistical analysis, the SPSS ver. 17.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used. For statistical validation, the student t-test, Pearson's chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test were performed. P < 0.05 was determined to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 50.8 years, and the ratio of males to females was 39:37. Among them, the emergency surgery group included 28 patients (36.8%) and the conservative treatment group included 48 patients (63.2%) (Fig. 1). During the period, the number of patients who underwent an appendectomy at our hospital was 2,203 patients, and our subjects accounted for approximately 3.4% of all appendicitis patients.

Clinical characteristics of the emergency operation group (Group 1)

The mean age of the emergency operation group (n = 28) was 47.6 years, and the ratio of males to females was 18:10. The major symptom was pain (21 patients, 75%), and the interval from the onset of symptoms to hospital visit was an average 6.8 days. In addition, nausea and vomiting were associated with 5 patients (17.8%), fever with 1 patient (3.6%), and a mass in the right lower abdomen with 1 patient (3.6%). On the physical examination performed at the time of admission, the body temperature was an average 37.1℃, and the heart beat was an average 87.5 beats/minute. On the blood test, the number of leucocytes was an average 13,253.8/mm². In CT or ultrasonography, an abscess in the periappendix was noted in 26 patients (93%) and a mass in 2 patients (7%), and the size of abscess was an average 4.9 cm (range, 3.0 to 6.1 cm). Patients with underlying diseases were 7 (25.0%):4 (14.3%) with hypertension, as well as cardiac diseases and 1 (3.6%) each with diabetes, chronic renal failure, and liver cirrhosis.

Clinical characteristics of the conservative management group (Group 2)

The average age of the conservative management group (n = 48) was 52.7 years, and the ratio of males to females was 21:27. As major symptoms, abdominal pain was associated with 43 patients (89.5%), which was most prevalent, and the average period from the onset of symptoms to the hospital visit was 9.7 days. In addition, fever was associated with 3 patients (6.3%), and abdominal distention with 2 patients (4.2%). At the time of admission, on physical examination, the body temperature was an average 36.7℃, and the heart beat was an average 85.7 beats/minute. On the blood test, the number of leucocytes was an average 13,201.3/mm². On CT or ultrasonography, 45 (93.7%) patients were diagnosed as having an abscess in the periappendix, and 3 (6.3%) were diagnosed as having a masses; the abscess size was an average 4.4 cm (range, 2.5 to 7.5 cm). Of the 19 (39.5%) patients with underlying diseases, 7 (14.6%) patients had hypertension and cardiac diseases, 7 (14.6%) patients had diabetes, 4 (8.3%) patients had ongoing tuberculosis and other chronic respiratory diseases, and 1 (2%) patient had liver cirrhosis. The clinical characteristics of the conservative management and the emergency operation groups were not statistically different (Table 1).

Analysis of the patient group requiring surgery after conservative management (Group 2A)

Among patients treated with conservative management in the initial period, 20 patients (41.7%) were treated with only antibiotics, and 28 patients (58.3%) were treated with antibiotics in parallel with ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage. Interval surgery after conservative management was performed on 26 patients (54.2%, interval surgery group), and 22 patients (45.8%) underwent only follow-up observation with no intention to undergo interval surgery. The mean age of the interval surgery group (26 pts.) was 49.2 years, and the ratio of males to females was 11:15. The period from the onset of symptoms to hospital visit was an average 9.7 days. At the time of admission, the body temperature was 36.5℃, and the heart beat was an average 84.5 times/minute. On the blood test, the number of leucocytes was an average 13,847.3/mm², the size of the abscess was an average 4.6 cm (range, 3 to 5.5 cm). Six patients (24%) were treated with antibiotics only, and 20 patients (76%) were treated with antibiotics combined with ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage. Interval surgery was performed after an average of 18 days (range, 5 to 64 days) from the time of initiation of conservative management. Seventeen patients (65.4%) had symptoms that improved and, thus, underwent a planned operation after a certain period (average, 17 days), 4 (15.4%) patients underwent surgery because of the complication of the formation of fistulas after ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage, 3 patients (11.5%) had diseases that required surgical treatments and underwent surgery for that disease and for appendicitis simultaneously, and 2 patients (7.7%) underwent surgery because appendiceal tumor lesions were suspected (Table 2). In 3 patients with associated diseases requiring surgical treatments, in the case of gastric cancer, a subtotal gastrectomy was performed, in the case of uterine cancer, a hysterectomy was performed, and in the case of diverticulosis of the right colon, a right hemicolectomy was performed.

Comparison of the results of surgery in the emergency surgery group (Group 1) with the interval surgery group (Group 2A)

Surgery was determined according to the inflammation level at the time of surgery. In the interval surgery after conservative management group (n = 26), a simple appendectomy was performed on 19 patients (73%), an iliocecectomy was performed on 6 patients (23%), and a right colectomy was performed on 1 patient (4%). The interval from the onset of initial symptoms to the day of surgery was an average 26 days, the operation time was an average 88 minutes, and the postsurgical hospitalization period was an average 9.0 days. Postsurgical complications developed in 4 patients (15.3%): wound infection in 3 cases, and adhesion of intestine in 1 case. In the emergency surgery group, a simple appendectomy was performed on 24 patients (83%), an iliocecectomy was performed on 4 patients (14%), and a right hemicolectomy was performed on 1 patient (3%). The operation time was an average 104.8 minutes, and the postsurgical hospitalization period was an average 9.4 days. Postsurgical complications developed in 3 patients (10%): surgical wound infection in 2 cases and death due to sepsis in 1 case. When the emergency surgery group and the interval surgery group were compared, surgical methods, operation time, postsurgical complications, and the postsurgical hospitalization period were not statistically significantly different (Table 3).

Analysis of the ambulatory follow-up observation group without planned interval surgery after conservative management (Group 2B)

The mean age of the group that only underwent ambulatory follow-up observation without interval surgery after conservative management (n = 22) was 56.7 years, and the ratio of males to females was 10:12. The interval from the onset of symptoms to hospital visit was an average 9.7 days. At the time of admission, the body temperature was an average 36.6℃, and the heart beat was an average 86.9 beats/minute. On the blood test, the number of leucocytes was an average 12,438.7/mm², and the size of the abscess was an average 5.3 cm (range, 2.5 to 7 cm). In 14 patients (64%), only antibiotic treatments were performed, and in the remaining 8 patients (36%), ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage was additionally performed. When the interval surgery group (Group 2A) and the ambulatory follow-up observation group (Group 2B) were compared, gender, age, the duration of pain prior to admission, body temperature, heart beat, number of leucocytes, and size of the abscess were not statistically significant; nonetheless, in the interval surgery group, the number of patients who underwent ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage was significantly higher (P = 0.005) (Table 4).

The mean follow-up observation period of the ambulatory follow-up observation group was an average 37.8 months (range, 1 to 82.2 months). Surgery was performed on 3 patients (13.6%, Group 2C) for recurrent appendicitis. The period after conservative management to the recurrence of symptoms was an average 42.3 days, and the interval from the onset of the initial symptoms to the day of surgery was an average 56.7 days. In all 3 patients, a simple appendectomy was performed, the operation time was an average 75.0 minutes, and the postsurgical hospitalization period was an average 8.6 days. As postsurgical complications, surgical wound infection occurred in 1 patient (33%). When the interval surgery group and the recurrence surgery group were compared, surgical method, operation time, postsurgical complications, and postsurgical hospitalization time were not statistically significant (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

In acute appendicitis patients, the proportion of cases associated with an abscess or a tumor in the periappendix has been reported to be approximately 2% to 7%. When emergency surgery is performed in such patients, the incidence of complications is reported to be up to 26% [12, 13]. If surgery is performed under the condition that inflammation due to appendicitis has spread to adjacent areas, the inflammation may have spread over a wide area. In addition, because of edema and the vulnerability of the adjacent small intestine and large intestine, secondary fistulas, etc., may have developed. Furthermore, in emergency surgeries, the approach to the appendix is difficult due to inflamed tissues, and surgery may be technically difficult due to deformation of anatomical structures and location. For such cases, instead of completing surgery after a simple appendectomy, cases requiring a simultaneous iliocecectomy in areas with inflammation and adhesion or a right colectomy are not rare [6, 8-12]. In addition, in cases with the possibility of tumors, lesions cannot be assessed accurately because of inflammation in the periappendix; thus, an en-bloc resection and extended lymphadenectomy may not be sufficient [14]. Nonetheless, the advantages of performing emergency surgery are that frequent follow-ups and tests are not required in comparison with conservative managements and that re-hospitalization after a certain time for the planned surgery is not required [15, 16].

Nonetheless, in recent numerous studies, in appendicitis associated with abscess and/or mass, after conservative managements, high success rates of 76% to 97% and low incidences of complications have been reported; thus, performing non-surgical treatments, such as antibiotic treatments and ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage, during the initial period have been proven to be effective and safe [6, 17-20]. Brown et al. [21] conducted studies on the incidence of complications after non-surgical treatments in patients with an abscess in the periappendix, and the results showed that the incidence of complications in patients who underwent conservative managements was 15%, and it was 58% in the group that underwent surgical treatments, which was very high. In our study, among the total 76 patients, conservative managements were performed on 48 patients (63.2%), and in 44 of those patients (91.7%), symptoms could be improved successfully by early conservative management. The remaining four patients (5.3%) required surgery due to the formation of enteric fistulas after ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage. Similarly, between the group that underwent interval surgery after conservative managements and the group that underwent emergency surgery, treatment outcomes, such as the frequency of an enterectomy, operation time, complications, postsurgical hospitalization period, etc. were not statistically different. Therefore, in our study, similar to the results of other previous studies, early conservative management of appendicitis associated with an abscess or mass was confirmed to be safe. The incidence of postsurgical complications between the two groups was not different. Nonetheless, in the emergency surgery group, one liver cirrhosis patient (child B) with uncontrollable ascites died of hepatic failure associated with sepsis 18 days after surgery, which could be considered as a finding suggesting the possibility of the development serious complications due to the spread of inflammation during emergency surgery.

The necessity of interval surgery after the improvement of symptoms through initial conservative management for appendicitis associated with an abscess or mass is still controversial. The recurrence rate after non-surgical treatments has been reported to vary from 5% to 37%. In studies showing relatively high recurrence rates, interval surgery to remove the risk of recurrence was suggested [18, 21-23]. However, in a random prospective study conducted by Kumar and Jain [24], the recurrence rate of appendicitis in the group that underwent only observation without surgery after conservative management was 10%, and the total hospitalization period was shortest. In addition, in recent studies, low recurrence rates have been reported, with recurrence being most prevalent within 2 years of the development of initial symptoms, after which recurrence rates decreased [6, 14, 25]. Thus, even for conservative management only, the recurrence rate of appendicitis is not high, and the incidence of complications has been shown to be approximately 12-23% in patients who underwent interval surgery performed after inflamed areas had been reduced; thus, intensive follow-up observation without interval surgery might be useful [6, 26]. In addition, reports indicate that if recurrence of appendicitis is detected early by intensive follow-up observation for a certain time after conservative management and is treated surgically, it can be treated safely [13]. In our study, in 22 patients out of 48 patients (36.8%), only follow-up observation was performed without interval surgery. Appendicitis recurred in 3 of those 22 patients (13.6%), and a simple appendectomy was performed. When the recurrence surgery group and the interval surgery group were compared, surgical method, operation time, complications, and postsurgical hospitalization period were not statistically different. This confirmed that with intensive follow-up observation after conservative management, recurrence of appendicitis could be detected early and surgical treatments could be administered safely. We performed numerous emergency surgeries and interval surgeries after conservative management during the early phase of our study; nonetheless, with the accumulation of clinical experience with low recurrence rates, toward the late phase of the research period, continuous follow-up observation was performed without surgery in many cases. Thus, the frequencies of ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage for the two groups were significantly different (76% vs. 36%, P = 0.005). Particularly, among 3 patients of the ambulatory follow-up observation group who underwent surgery because of recurrence, ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage was performed in 2 patients.

In patients with an abscess in the periappendix, by the results of pathological tests after surgical treatments, approximately 12% were diagnosed as having different diseases, such as Crohn's disease, tumors, etc.; thus, it has been proposed that interval surgery be required in all patients [6, 8, 14, 17, 27]. Nonetheless, it is thought that for patients with a familial cancer history of such diseases and patients in the high-risk group older than 40 years, such disease could be detected immediately after the acute inflammation phase or during the follow-up observation period by regular colonoscopy, barium enema, ultrasonography, or computed tomography, and through this, more appropriate treatment protocols could be established [28, 29]. In our study, during the ambulatory follow-up observation period, a barium enema was performed on 18 patients, and colonoscopy was performed on 3 patients. Among the 18 patients experiencing a barium enema, a tumor lesion in the appendix was suspected in 1 patient and diverticulosis in the right large intestine was suspected in 1 patient. A tumor lesion was suspected by colonoscopic examnation in 1 patient; thus, interval surgery was performed. Pathohistological tests on 2 patients who underwent interval surgery for suspicious tumor lesions showed benign mucous cysts.

Our study confirmed that appendicitis associated with an abscess or mass could be treated safely and effectively by initially using conservative managements. In addition, it also confirmed that even in cases involving only ambulatory follow-up observation without interval surgery after conservative managements, the recurrence rate was not high, recurrence of appendicitis was detected early, and surgical treatments could be performed safely. Therefore, as treatment for appendicitis associated with an abscess or mass, the decision whether to perform initial emergency surgery or to perform conservative managements, and if conservative managements are performed, whether to perform interval surgery after a certain period or to perform only the ambulatory follow-up observation depends on the surgeon's overall evaluation of the clinical features of the individuals.

Acknowledgments

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The major content of this study was presented orally at the 60th annual congress of the Korean surgical society (Seoul Coex, November 11-14, 2009) and received the best oral presentation award funded by Roche.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

REFERENCES

1. Kirkwood KS, Maa J. In: Sabiston DC, Townsend CM,The appendix. editors. Sabiston textbook of surgery: the biological basis of modern surgical practice. 2008.18th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier; p. 1333–1347.
2. Bradley EL 3rd, Isaacs J. Appendiceal abscess revisited. Arch Surg 1978;113:130–132. PMID: 626573.Article PubMed
3. Arnbjornsson E. Management of appendiceal abscess. Curr Surg 1984;41:4–9. PMID: 6697761.PubMed
4. Bagi P, Dueholm S. Nonoperative management of the ultrasonically evaluated appendiceal mass. Surgery 1987;101:602–605. PMID: 3554578.PubMed
5. Shipsey MR, O'Donnell B. Conservative management of appendix mass in children. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1985;67:23–24. PMID: 3966781.PubMed PMC
6. Willemsen PJ, Hoorntje LE, Eddes EH, Ploeg RJ. The need for interval appendectomy after resolution of an appendiceal mass questioned. Dig Surg 2002;19:216–220. PMID: 12119525.Article PubMed
7. Kang YM, Lee MS, Park KK, Song OP, Park HJ. Cecectomy with primary anastomosis in severly complicated appendicitis. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 1995;11:265–268.
8. Mosegaard A, Nielsen OS. Interval appendectomy: a retrospective study. Acta Chir Scand 1979;145:109–111. PMID: 463439.PubMed
9. Hurme T, Nylamo E. Conservative versus operative treatment of appendicular abscess: experience of 147 consecutive patients. Ann Chir Gynaecol 1995;84:33–36. PMID: 7645908.PubMed
10. Ein SH, Shandling B. Is interval appendectomy necessary after rupture of an appendiceal mass? J Pediatr Surg 1996;31:849–850. PMID: 8783121.Article PubMed
11. Karaca I, Altintoprak Z, Karkiner A, Temir G, Mir E. The management of appendiceal mass in children: is interval appendectomy necessary? Surg Today 2001;31:675–677. PMID: 11510601.Article PubMed
12. Tingstedt B, Bexe-Lindskog E, Ekelund M, Andersson R. Management of appendiceal masses. Eur J Surg 2002;168:579–582. PMID: 12699091.Article PubMed
13. Erdogan D, Karaman I, Narci A, Karaman A, Cavusoglu YH, Aslan MK, et al. Comparison of two methods for the management of appendicular mass in children. Pediatr Surg Int 2005;21:81–83. PMID: 15614511.Article PubMed
14. Poon RT, Chu KW. Inflammatory cecal masses in patients presenting with appendicitis. World J Surg 1999;23:713–716. PMID: 10390592.Article PubMed
15. Foran B, Berne TV, Rosoff L. Management of the appendiceal mass. Arch Surg 1978;113:1144–1145. PMID: 708234.Article PubMed
16. Samuel M, Hosie G, Holmes K. Prospective evaluation of nonsurgical versus surgical management of appendiceal mass. J Pediatr Surg 2002;37:882–886. PMID: 12037755.Article PubMed
17. Skoubo-Kristensen E, Hvid I. The appendiceal mass: results of conservative management. Ann Surg 1982;196:584–587. PMID: 7125745.Article PubMed PMC
18. Gillick J, Velayudham M, Puri P. Conservative management of appendix mass in children. Br J Surg 2001;88:1539–1542. PMID: 11683755.Article PubMed
19. Lai HW, Loong CC, Chiu JH, Chau GY, Wu CW, Lui WY. Interval appendectomy after conservative treatment of an appendiceal mass. World J Surg 2006;30:352–357. PMID: 16479354.Article PubMed
20. Jordan JS, Kovalcik PJ, Schwab CW. Appendicitis with a palpable mass. Ann Surg 1981;193:227–229. PMID: 7469557.Article PubMed PMC
21. Brown CV, Abrishami M, Muller M, Velmahos GC. Appendiceal abscess: immediate operation or percutaneous drainage? Am Surg 2003;69:829–832. PMID: 14570357.Article PubMed PDF
22. Friedell ML, Perez-Izquierdo M. Is there a role for interval appendectomy in the management of acute appendicitis? Am Surg 2000;66:1158–1162. PMID: 11149589.Article PubMed PDF
23. Bufo AJ, Shah RS, Li MH, Cyr NA, Hollabaugh RS, Hixson SD, et al. Interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 1998;8:209–214. PMID: 9755912.Article PubMed
24. Kumar S, Jain S. Treatment of appendiceal mass: prospective, randomized clinical trial. Indian J Gastroenterol 2004;23:165–167. PMID: 15598997.PubMed
25. Kaminski A, Liu IL, Applebaum H, Lee SL, Haigh PI. Routine interval appendectomy is not justified after initial nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg 2005;140:897–901. PMID: 16175691.Article PubMed
26. Oliak D, Yamini D, Udani VM, Lewis RJ, Arnell T, Vargas H, et al. Initial nonoperative management for periappendiceal abscess. Dis Colon Rectum 2001;44:936–941. PMID: 11496072.Article PubMed
27. Kim JP, Son CM. Review of the pathology and differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 2003;19:211–215.
28. Nitecki S, Assalia A, Schein M. Contemporary management of the appendiceal mass. Br J Surg 1993;80:18–20. PMID: 8428281.Article PubMed
29. Andersson RE, Petzold MG. Nonsurgical treatment of appendiceal abscess or phlegmon: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2007;246:741–748. PMID: 17968164.Article PubMed

Fig. 1

Management of appendicitis presenting with abscess or mass.

PCD, percutaneous drainage.

Table 1

Comparison of clinical characteristics between the emergency operation and the conservative management groups

Group 1, emergency operation group; Group 2, conservative management group.

Table 2

Indications for delayed operation

PCD, percutaneous drainage.

Table 3

Comparison of surgical outcomes between the emergency operation and the delayed operation groups

Values are presented as number (%) or mean ± SD.

Group 1, emergency operation group; Group 2A, delayed operation group.

Table 4

Comparison of clinical characteristics between the delayed operation and the follow-up groups

Group 2A, delayed operation group; Group 2B, follow-up group.

PCD, percutaneous drainage.

Table 5

Comparison of surgical outcomes between the delayed operation and the operation-for-recurrence subgroup of the follow-up group

Values are presented as number (%) or mean ± SD.

Group 2A, delayed operation group; Group 2C, operation-for-recurrence group.

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Study on the Curative Effect of Different Treatment Methods on 122 Cases of Periappendiceal Abscess
哲魁刘
Advances in Clinical Medicine.2024; 14(03): 85. CrossRef
Early Surgical Management of Appendicular Mass: Evaluation of Surgical Outcome in Selected Private and Government Hospitals, Bangladesh
Jahangir Sarwar, Abul Shamsuddin, Sirajam Munira
Clinical Medicine Research.2024; 13(3): 33. CrossRef
Failure to Significantly Reduce Radiation Exposure in Children with Suspected Appendicitis in the United States
Charbel Chidiac, Oussama Issa, Alejandro V. Garcia, Daniel S. Rhee, Mark B. Slidell
Journal of Pediatric Surgery.2024; : 161701. CrossRef
Intra-abdominal abscesses: Microbiological epidemiology and empirical antibiotherapy
F. Méchaï, A. Kolakowska, E. Carbonnelle, O. Bouchaud, C. Tresallet, F. Jaureguy
Infectious Diseases Now.2023; 53(1): 104604. CrossRef
Upfront appendectomy vs interval appendectomy in acute appendicitis with mass formation in pediatric age group: Little difference in major outcome
Hussam Widatella, Ahmed Abdulmanan, Ibraheem Abdelraheem, Fadi Atwan, Sri Paran
Journal of Pediatrics & Neonatal Care.2023; 13(2): 137. CrossRef
Diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis
Ryan Lamm, Sunjay S. Kumar, Amelia T. Collings, Ivy N. Haskins, Ahmed Abou-Setta, Nisha Narula, Pramod Nepal, Nader M. Hanna, Dimitrios I. Athanasiadis, Stefan Scholz, Joel F. Bradley, Arianne T. Train, Philip H. Pucher, Francisco Quinteros, Bethany Slate
Surgical Endoscopy.2023; 37(12): 8933. CrossRef
Thigh and iliopsoas abscess as a rare presentation of perforated mucinous appendix carcinoma. A case report
Pedro Osácar, Darío Ramallo, Luisina Elizalde
International Journal of Surgery Case Reports.2022; 96: 107293. CrossRef
Early versus delayed (interval) appendicectomy for the management of appendicular abscess and phlegmon: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Akinfemi A. Akingboye, Fahad Mahmood, Shafquat Zaman, Jenny Wright, Fatima Mannan, Ali Yasen Y. Mohamedahmed
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery.2021; 406(5): 1341. CrossRef
Potential Benefit of Nonsurgical Management to Periappendicular Abscess
Chris Li, Dean Owyang
JAMA Surgery.2019; 154(9): 882. CrossRef
Potential Benefit of Nonsurgical Management to Periappendicular Abscess—Reply
Paulina Salminen, Jari Mällinen, Tero Rautio
JAMA Surgery.2019; 154(9): 883. CrossRef
Clinical outcomes of single‐site laparoscopic interval appendectomy for severe complicated appendicitis: Comparison to conventional emergency appendectomy
Masaaki Miyo, Shoichiro Urabe, Satoshi Hyuga, Tomo Nakagawa, Toshiya Michiura, Nobuyasu Hayashi, Kazuo Yamabe
Annals of Gastroenterological Surgery.2019; 3(5): 561. CrossRef
Comparison of treatment methods of appendiceal mass and abscess: A prospective Cohort Study
Zaza Demetrashvili, George Kenchadze, Irakli Pipia, Kakhi Khutsishvili, David Loladze, Eka Ekaladze, Giorgi Merabishvili, George Kamkamidze
Annals of Medicine and Surgery.2019; 48: 48. CrossRef
MANAGEMENT OF APPENDICULAR LUMP AT TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL
Ishfaq Ahmad Gilkar, Umer Mushtaq, Javid Ahmad Peer, Bilal Ahmed Mir, Yaqoob Hassan, Waseem Ahmad Dar
Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare.2019; 6(3): 135. CrossRef
CLINICAL STUDY AND MANAGEMENT OF APPENDICULAR LUMP
Farooq Ahmed, Ravindra G Devani, Mohammed Moinuddin, Mohd. Ashfaq Ahmed
Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare.2018; 5(11): 997. CrossRef
The evolving management of the appendix mass in the era of laparoscopy and interventional radiology
James Forsyth, Konstantinos Lasithiotakis, Mark Peter
The Surgeon.2017; 15(2): 109. CrossRef
Management of intra-abdominal infections: recommendations by the WSES 2016 consensus conference
Massimo Sartelli, Fausto Catena, Fikri M. Abu-Zidan, Luca Ansaloni, Walter L. Biffl, Marja A. Boermeester, Marco Ceresoli, Osvaldo Chiara, Federico Coccolini, Jan J. De Waele, Salomone Di Saverio, Christian Eckmann, Gustavo P. Fraga, Maddalena Giannella,
World Journal of Emergency Surgery.2017;[Epub] CrossRef
Minimally Invasive Treatment for Appendiceal Mass Formed After Acute Perforated Appendicitis
Enver Zerem, Suad Kunosić, Almin Handanagić, Dženan Jahić, Dina Zerem, Omar Zerem
Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques.2017; 27(3): 132. CrossRef
Therapeutic Consideration of Periappendiceal Abscess: an Evaluation of Non-surgical Treatment Followed by Minimally Invasive Interval Appendectomy
Yeong-Soo Jo, Song-Soo Yang, Yeong-Chul Im, Dong-Jin Park, Gyu-Yeol Kim
The Journal of Minimally Invasive Surgery.2017; 20(4): 129. CrossRef
The management of intra-abdominal infections from a global perspective: 2017 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections
Massimo Sartelli, Alain Chichom-Mefire, Francesco M. Labricciosa, Timothy Hardcastle, Fikri M. Abu-Zidan, Abdulrashid K. Adesunkanmi, Luca Ansaloni, Miklosh Bala, Zsolt J. Balogh, Marcelo A. Beltrán, Offir Ben-Ishay, Walter L. Biffl, Arianna Birindelli, M
World Journal of Emergency Surgery.2017;[Epub] CrossRef
Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015
Ramon R. Gorter, Hasan H. Eker, Marguerite A. W. Gorter-Stam, Gabor S. A. Abis, Amish Acharya, Marjolein Ankersmit, Stavros A. Antoniou, Simone Arolfo, Benjamin Babic, Luigi Boni, Marlieke Bruntink, Dieuwertje A. van Dam, Barbara Defoort, Charlotte L. Dei
Surgical Endoscopy.2016; 30(11): 4668. CrossRef
Challenges in uncomplicated acute appendicitis
Fernando Resende, Ana Beatriz Almeida, José Costa Maia, Renato Bessa Melo
Journal of Acute Disease.2016; 5(2): 109. CrossRef
Management of Appendiceal Mass and Abscess. An 11-Year Experience
Zaza Demetrashvili, Giorgi Kenchadze, Irakli Pipia, Eka Ekaladze, George Kamkamidze
International Surgery.2015; 100(6): 1021. CrossRef
The role of current methods of X-ray diagnosis in caseof intraabdominal suppurative conplications caused bu colonic diseases
A. M. Karsanov, A. A. Kul'chiev, T. R. Karaev, I. P. Kokaev, V. V. Vahotskij
Khirurgiya. Zhurnal im. N.I. Pirogova.2015; (5): 75. CrossRef
2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections
Massimo Sartelli, Pierluigi Viale, Fausto Catena, Luca Ansaloni, Ernest Moore, Mark Malangoni, Frederick A Moore, George Velmahos, Raul Coimbra, Rao Ivatury, Andrew Peitzman, Kaoru Koike, Ari Leppaniemi, Walter Biffl, Clay Cothren Burlew, Zsolt J Balogh,
World Journal of Emergency Surgery.2013;[Epub] CrossRef

PubReader

Cite this Article

Cite this Article: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Management of Appendicitis Presenting with Abscess or Mass

J Korean Soc Coloproctol. 2010;26(6):413-419. Published online December 31, 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2010.26.6.413

XML Download

Figure

Management of Appendicitis Presenting with Abscess or Mass

Fig. 1 Management of appendicitis presenting with abscess or mass.PCD, percutaneous drainage.

Fig. 1

Management of Appendicitis Presenting with Abscess or Mass

Table 1

Comparison of clinical characteristics between the emergency operation and the conservative management groups

Group 1, emergency operation group; Group 2, conservative management group.

Table 2

Indications for delayed operation

PCD, percutaneous drainage.

Table 3

Comparison of surgical outcomes between the emergency operation and the delayed operation groups

Values are presented as number (%) or mean ± SD.

Group 1, emergency operation group; Group 2A, delayed operation group.

Table 4

Comparison of clinical characteristics between the delayed operation and the follow-up groups

Group 2A, delayed operation group; Group 2B, follow-up group.

PCD, percutaneous drainage.

Table 5

Comparison of surgical outcomes between the delayed operation and the operation-for-recurrence subgroup of the follow-up group

Values are presented as number (%) or mean ± SD.

Group 2A, delayed operation group; Group 2C, operation-for-recurrence group.

Table 1 Comparison of clinical characteristics between the emergency operation and the conservative management groups

Group 1, emergency operation group; Group 2, conservative management group.

Table 2 Indications for delayed operation

PCD, percutaneous drainage.

Table 3 Comparison of surgical outcomes between the emergency operation and the delayed operation groups

Values are presented as number (%) or mean ± SD.

Group 1, emergency operation group; Group 2A, delayed operation group.

Table 4 Comparison of clinical characteristics between the delayed operation and the follow-up groups

Group 2A, delayed operation group; Group 2B, follow-up group.

PCD, percutaneous drainage.

Table 5 Comparison of surgical outcomes between the delayed operation and the operation-for-recurrence subgroup of the follow-up group