Can interval appendectomy be justified following conservative treatment of perforated acute appendicitis?

BACKGROUND: There continues to be controversy about the necessity of interval appendectomy for delayed presentation of acute appendicitis. While recent studies suggest that the risk of recurrent disease is small, the risk of interval appendectomy is also small and does provide histologic identification and usually definitive treatment of the right lower quadrant inflammatory process. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of medical records gathered from 2002 to 2007 at a major teaching hospital of 986 adult patients over the age of 13 with appendicitis were analyzed. Forty-six patients (5%) were found to have right lower quadrant abscess or phlegmon, and were managed with intravenous antibiotics. Some patients also underwent percutaneous drainage. These patients were then readmitted 6 to 26 wk later for an elective laparoscopic interval appendectomy. RESULTS: There were 19 males and 27 females with an average age of 43 y. Ninety-four percent of the appendectomies were completed laparoscopically; 16% of patients were found to have a normal or obliterated appendix on pathologic evaluation and likely did not benefit from interval appendectomy. On the other hand, 84% of patients had persistent acute appendicitis, chronic appendicitis, evidence of inflammatory bowel disease, or neoplasm identified, and likely benefited from surgical appendectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Interval appendectomy provides diagnostic and therapeutic benefit to patients who present with a right lower quadrant abdominal inflammatory focus, and should be carefully considered in all adult patients.

Management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: related duodenal perforations.

BACKGROUND: As the performance of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), has increased since 1968, so has the incidence of duodenal perforations. The frequency of ERCP use varies among hospitals and depends on the availability of trained endoscopists, equipment, and facilities. METHODS: A retrospective review of ERCP-related perforations to the duodenum was conducted to identify their incidence, optimal management, and clinical outcome. Charts were reviewed for the following data: ERCP indication, clinical presentation, diagnostic methods, time to diagnosis and treatment, type of injury, management, length of hospital stay, and clinical outcome. RESULTS: From April 1999 to February 2008, 4,358 ERCP were performed, 15 of which (0.34%) resulted in perforation to the duodenum. Only four of the perforations were discovered during ERCP, with another eight requiring computed tomography or abdominal radiography for diagnosis. Surgery was performed for 13 of the patients (87%), and 2 patients died (15%). One patient was managed conservatively with a successful outcome. Nine patients underwent surgery within 24 h after the ERCP, with only one patient undergoing surgery after 24 h. The overall mortality rate was 20% (3 of 15 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical and radiographic features can be used to determine the surgical or conservative treatment of ERCP-related duodenal perforations, whereas patient age and intraoperative findings can determine the final outcome and morbidity or mortality. The interval between the perforation and the operation is of great significance. The mortality rate increases dramatically with late surgical management (>24 h). An algorithm for the selective management of ERCP-induced duodenal perforations is proposed.

Evolving management of colonoscopic perforations.

BACKGROUND: Perforations of the large bowel during diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopy are a rare but significant complication. Their treatment has evolved over the last decade, but there are still no specific guidelines for their optimal management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review of 105,786 consecutive colonoscopies performed in a 21-year period allowed assessment of the medical records in all patients treated at our institution for colonoscopic perforation. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients suffered perforation (perforation rate 0.033%) during colonoscopy from January 1986 to October 2007 (14 men, 21 women; mean age 69.4 years). Twenty-four of the perforations occurred during diagnostic colonoscopy, whereas 11 during therapeutic colonoscopy. Twenty-three (66%) of the patients underwent operative treatment and 12 (34%) were managed nonoperatively. The average length of stay was 15.2 days, and there was one death (2.9% 30-day mortality rate) among the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Perforations from diagnostic colonoscopy usually are large enough to warrant surgical management, whereas perforations from therapeutic colonoscopy usually are small, leading to successful nonoperative treatment. Over the last decade, the surgical treatment of colonoscopic perforations has evolved, as there has been a trend that favors primary repair versus bowel resection with successful outcome. Careful observation and clinical care adherent to strict guidelines for patients treated nonoperatively is appropriate in order to minimize morbidity and mortality and identify early those who may benefit from operation. Each treatment, however, has to be individualized according to the patients' comorbidities and clinical status, as well as the specific conditions during the colonoscopy that lead to the perforation.