Consideraciones actuales concernientes al tratamiento del plastrón apendicular / Current Considerations Concerning Treatment of Appendiceal Plastron

Introducción: El plastrón apendicular es una tumoración inflamatoria constituida por el apéndice inflamado, vísceras adyacentes y epiplón mayor. Puede contener o no pus (absceso/flemón). Objetivo: Precisar si está indicada la apendicectomía de urgencia o de intervalo en los pacientes con plastrón y/o absceso apendicular sometidos a tratamiento no quirúrgico inicial. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión en las bases de datos bibliográficas Web of Science, PubMed, Medline y Lilacs, mediante el motor de búsqueda Google académico. Se seleccionaron 28 artículos en inglés y español; 20 (71,2 por ciento) correspondieron al quinquenio 2016-20 y el 96,4 por ciento de autores extranjeros. Desarrollo: El estándar actual es el tratamiento no quirúrgico inicial del plastrón y el drenaje percutáneo del absceso. La apendicectomía de intervalo tiene un beneficio mínimo y puede conducir a un aumento de los costos, estancia hospitalaria, antibioticoterapia intravenosa y de la morbilidad. Se debe realizar un seguimiento cuidadoso en enfermos con riesgo de enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal o cáncer de colon, sin importar qué opción se elija (operación de intervalo u observación). Conclusiones: La apendicectomía de urgencia no es recomendable porque el componente inflamatorio la hace técnicamente difícil, puede necesitar una colectomía y aumentar la morbilidad, aunque actualmente, la apendicectomía laparoscópica de urgencia puede ser más rentable y segura. La decisión posterior de la apendicectomía a intervalos sigue siendo discutible. El intervalo recomendado varía entre 6 y 8 semanas, tres y seis meses después de la normalización clínico humoral(AU)

Introduction: Appendiceal plastron is an inflammatory tumor made up of inflamed appendix, adjacent viscera and greater omentum. It may or may not contain pus (abscess/phlegmon). Objective: To specify whether emergency or interval appendectomy is indicated in patients with appendicular abscess and/or plastron who had undergone initial nonsurgical treatment. Methods: A review was carried out in the bibliographic databases Web of Science, PubMed, Medline and Lilacs, using the search engine Google Scholar. Twenty-eight articles were selected, in English and Spanish; twenty (71.2 percent) corresponded to the quinquennium 2016-20, while 96.4 percent were written by foreign authors. Development: The current standard is the initial nonsurgical treatment of the plastron and percutaneous drainage of the abscess. Interval appendectomy has minimal benefits and can lead to increased costs, hospital stay, intravenous antibiotic therapy and morbidity. Patients at risk for inflammatory bowel disease or colon cancer should be carefully followed up, regardless of which option is chosen (interval operation or observation). Conclusions: Emergency appendectomy is not recommended because the inflammatory component makes it technically difficult; it may require colectomy and increase morbidity, although currently, emergency laparoscopic appendectomy may be more profitable and safer. The subsequent decision for interval appendectomy remains debatable. The recommended interval varies from six to eight weeks, three and six months after clinical-humoral normalization(AU)

Therapeutic Consideration of Periappendiceal Abscess: an Evaluation of Non-surgical Treatment Followed by Minimally Invasive Interval Appendectomy

PURPOSE: Periappendiceal abscess (PAA) is a severe complicated appendicitis with high morbidity. Non-surgical treatment followed by interval appendectomy (IA) is associated with lower complication rate compared with emergency surgery (ES) and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can be done more often. The purpose of this study is to assess the incidence and factors predictive of complications of surgery for PAA and to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of IA as a treatment policy to increase MIS. METHODS: Retrospectively, we reviewed 171 patients undergoing surgery for PAA between 2011 and 2016 at Ulsan University Hospital. The incidence and influence of different factors were assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: In 171 patients, 28 (16.4%) developed postoperative complications, which included; wound complications (7.6%), intra-abdominal abscess (4.1%) and ileus (2.9%). In both analyses, only ES was independently associated with postoperative complications; (Relative risk, 15.0; 95% Confidence interval, 2.4~92.5). Comparing the IA and ES groups revealed that operative time, complication rate, laparoscopic approach, postoperative hospitalization, postoperative antibiotic use and bowel resection rate were significantly different. The postoperative complication rate of patients with PAA in ES group was 28.7%, which was statistically higher than that of IA group (3.6%). Especially, MIS rate was more than 9-times greater in the IA group (98.8% vs. 10.3%, p<0.001). Although the IA group required additional hospitalization, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in total length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Morbidity was high for patients who had emergency surgery for PAA. ES was the only factor associated with postoperative morbidity. IA can reduce the postoperative complication rate and allowed MIS to be used more often as a useful treatment policy for PAA.

Advantages of Interval Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Periappendiceal Abscess

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic appendectomy is a common procedure for treatment of appendicitis. However, in some complicated cases, like periappendiceal abscess, deciding on treatment options is very challenging. Early appendectomy or interval appendectomy may be possible, but remains controversial. METHODS: We prospectively studied the advantages of interval appendectomy in 21 patients with periappendiceal abscess using a laparoscopic method versus 14 patients with immediate initial laparotomy. RESULTS: In the interval appendectomy group (INT group), in periappendiceal abscess, use of a laparoscopic method was advantageous in terms of operation time (p<0.001), less fasting time (p<0.001), and fewer postoperative complications (p=0.032). However, the total cost in the INT group was 1,686,000+/-940,000 South Korean won (KRW) compared with 1,506,000+/-322,000 KRW in the early appendectomy group (EAR group) (p=0.007) because patients in the INT group required two hospital visits. The total length of hospital stay postoperatively, was 7.31+/-2.726 days in the INT group, compared with 9.21+/-3.378 days in the EAR group (p=0.537). CONCLUSION: We recommend interval appendectomy as the preferable approach for the periappendiceal abscess, as it can result in more favorable postoperative surgical outcomes, fewer complications, and less antibiotic usage.

Advantages of Interval Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Periappendiceal Abscess

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic appendectomy is a common procedure for treatment of appendicitis. However, in some complicated cases, like periappendiceal abscess, deciding on treatment options is very challenging. Early appendectomy or interval appendectomy may be possible, but remains controversial. METHODS: We prospectively studied the advantages of interval appendectomy in 21 patients with periappendiceal abscess using a laparoscopic method versus 14 patients with immediate initial laparotomy. RESULTS: In the interval appendectomy group (INT group), in periappendiceal abscess, use of a laparoscopic method was advantageous in terms of operation time (p<0.001), less fasting time (p<0.001), and fewer postoperative complications (p=0.032). However, the total cost in the INT group was 1,686,000+/-940,000 South Korean won (KRW) compared with 1,506,000+/-322,000 KRW in the early appendectomy group (EAR group) (p=0.007) because patients in the INT group required two hospital visits. The total length of hospital stay postoperatively, was 7.31+/-2.726 days in the INT group, compared with 9.21+/-3.378 days in the EAR group (p=0.537). CONCLUSION: We recommend interval appendectomy as the preferable approach for the periappendiceal abscess, as it can result in more favorable postoperative surgical outcomes, fewer complications, and less antibiotic usage.

The Necessity of a Routine Interval Appendectomy Necessary in Adults?: Initial Experience

PURPOSE: The traditional management of a periappendiceal abscess or a perforated appendicitis has been initial conservative treatment, followed by an interval appendectomy (IA). However, the necessity of the interval appendectomy has been questioned by an increasing number of studies recently. The purpose of this study was to clarify the role of conservative treatment, instead of IA, in managing a perforated appendicitis or a periappendiceal abscess after successful initial conservative treatment. METHODS: We prospectively studied 26 out of 80 patients who had been admitted for a perforated appendicitis or a periappendiceal abscess to Chonbuk National University Hospital from March 2005 to December 2007. These 26 patients were initially treated by using conservative treatment instead of surgery. We analyzed these 26 patients' progression and prognosis after treatment. The IAs were conducted at intervals of 6 to 12 wk after colonoscopy when the patient wanted an operation. RESULTS: Twenty-three out of 26 (88.5%, 23/26) patients were improved after initial conservative treatment. Only 3 patients who were not improved were managed surgically. Four out of 23 patients who were relieved by conservative treatment underwent an IA voluntarily at intervals of 6 to 12 wk. Of the remaining 19 patients without IA, 1 patient (5%, 1/19) suffered a recurrence after 6 mo, and an appendectomy was performed. Eighteen (78%, 18/23) patients without an IA have shown no recurrence for 15 mo, and they are still being followed up. CONCLUSION: We conclude that a routine IA after successful initial conservative treatment for a perforated appendicitis or a periappendiceal abscess seems unnecessary. Those patients should undergo colonoscopy to detect any underlying diseases and to rule out coexistent colorectal cancer.