{"title":"成人穿孔性阑尾炎的现代治疗方法:手术还是等待?","authors":"Caitlin A. Fitzgerald MD , Caroline Kernell BS , Valeria Mejia-Martinez BS , Giselle Peng BS , Heba Zakaria BS , Michelle Zhu BS , Dale Butler MD , Brandon Bruns MD, MBA","doi":"10.1016/j.sopen.2024.07.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The optimal management of perforated appendicitis remains controversial. Many studies advocate for antibiotics and an interval appendectomy whereas others suggest that performing an appendectomy at the time of presentation decreases post-operative morbidity. Confounding this argument further are the patients who fail non-operative management and end up requiring surgery during their initial hospitalization. This study aims to determine if early operative intervention should be considered for perforated appendicitis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a retrospective review of all patients who underwent an appendectomy (both laparoscopic or open) for perforated appendicitis between 2015 and 2020 at our institution.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 271 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Of this group, 250 patients underwent an immediate appendectomy whereas the remaining 21 patients underwent a trial of non-operative management and eventually required an appendectomy during their initial admission. When comparing the immediate versus delayed operative groups, there were no differences in demographic data including age and gender, and no differences in various imaging findings including AAST Grade IV or V appendicitis. Operatively, patients in the delayed group had a longer operative time (83.1 ± 32.9 vs. 64.1 ± 26.2, <em>p</em> = 0.01), were more likely to require an open operation (23.8 % vs. 2.8 %, <em>p</em> < 0.0001), and were more likely to have a drain placed intra-operatively (42.9 % vs 14.4 %, <em>p</em> = 0.004). While there were no differences in 30-day readmission rates, patients in the delayed group had a significantly longer hospital length of stay than patients in the immediate group (9.4 ± 7.4 vs. 3.1 ± 3.3, <em>p</em> = 0.008).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Patients undergoing an immediate appendectomy for perforated appendicitis can discharge from the hospital sooner and demonstrate no increase in post-operative morbidity suggesting that surgeons can initially manage this disease process in an operative fashion.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74892,"journal":{"name":"Surgery open science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024001052/pdfft?md5=657efceb1c297f7262f0371da08ba08e&pid=1-s2.0-S2589845024001052-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The contemporary management of perforated appendicitis in adults: To operate or wait?\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin A. Fitzgerald MD , Caroline Kernell BS , Valeria Mejia-Martinez BS , Giselle Peng BS , Heba Zakaria BS , Michelle Zhu BS , Dale Butler MD , Brandon Bruns MD, MBA\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sopen.2024.07.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The optimal management of perforated appendicitis remains controversial. Many studies advocate for antibiotics and an interval appendectomy whereas others suggest that performing an appendectomy at the time of presentation decreases post-operative morbidity. Confounding this argument further are the patients who fail non-operative management and end up requiring surgery during their initial hospitalization. This study aims to determine if early operative intervention should be considered for perforated appendicitis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This was a retrospective review of all patients who underwent an appendectomy (both laparoscopic or open) for perforated appendicitis between 2015 and 2020 at our institution.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 271 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Of this group, 250 patients underwent an immediate appendectomy whereas the remaining 21 patients underwent a trial of non-operative management and eventually required an appendectomy during their initial admission. When comparing the immediate versus delayed operative groups, there were no differences in demographic data including age and gender, and no differences in various imaging findings including AAST Grade IV or V appendicitis. Operatively, patients in the delayed group had a longer operative time (83.1 ± 32.9 vs. 64.1 ± 26.2, <em>p</em> = 0.01), were more likely to require an open operation (23.8 % vs. 2.8 %, <em>p</em> < 0.0001), and were more likely to have a drain placed intra-operatively (42.9 % vs 14.4 %, <em>p</em> = 0.004). While there were no differences in 30-day readmission rates, patients in the delayed group had a significantly longer hospital length of stay than patients in the immediate group (9.4 ± 7.4 vs. 3.1 ± 3.3, <em>p</em> = 0.008).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Patients undergoing an immediate appendectomy for perforated appendicitis can discharge from the hospital sooner and demonstrate no increase in post-operative morbidity suggesting that surgeons can initially manage this disease process in an operative fashion.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74892,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgery open science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024001052/pdfft?md5=657efceb1c297f7262f0371da08ba08e&pid=1-s2.0-S2589845024001052-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgery open science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024001052\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery open science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024001052","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目标穿孔性阑尾炎的最佳治疗方法仍存在争议。许多研究主张使用抗生素并进行间隔性阑尾切除术,而另一些研究则认为在患者发病时进行阑尾切除术可降低术后发病率。非手术治疗失败并最终需要在最初住院期间进行手术的患者进一步加剧了这一争论。本研究旨在确定是否应考虑对穿孔性阑尾炎进行早期手术干预。方法这是一项回顾性研究,研究对象为2015年至2020年间在我院因穿孔性阑尾炎接受阑尾切除术(腹腔镜或开腹)的所有患者。其中,250 名患者立即进行了阑尾切除术,而其余 21 名患者在入院初期接受了非手术治疗试验,最终需要进行阑尾切除术。在比较立即手术组和延迟手术组时,人口统计学数据(包括年龄和性别)没有差异,各种影像学检查结果(包括 AAST IV 级或 V 级阑尾炎)也没有差异。手术方面,延迟手术组患者的手术时间更长(83.1 ± 32.9 vs. 64.1 ± 26.2,p = 0.01),更有可能需要开腹手术(23.8 % vs. 2.8 %,p < 0.0001),更有可能在术中放置引流管(42.9 % vs. 14.4 %,p = 0.004)。结论因阑尾炎穿孔而立即接受阑尾切除术的患者可以更快出院,术后发病率也没有增加,这表明外科医生最初可以通过手术来处理这种疾病。
The contemporary management of perforated appendicitis in adults: To operate or wait?
Objectives
The optimal management of perforated appendicitis remains controversial. Many studies advocate for antibiotics and an interval appendectomy whereas others suggest that performing an appendectomy at the time of presentation decreases post-operative morbidity. Confounding this argument further are the patients who fail non-operative management and end up requiring surgery during their initial hospitalization. This study aims to determine if early operative intervention should be considered for perforated appendicitis.
Methods
This was a retrospective review of all patients who underwent an appendectomy (both laparoscopic or open) for perforated appendicitis between 2015 and 2020 at our institution.
Results
A total of 271 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Of this group, 250 patients underwent an immediate appendectomy whereas the remaining 21 patients underwent a trial of non-operative management and eventually required an appendectomy during their initial admission. When comparing the immediate versus delayed operative groups, there were no differences in demographic data including age and gender, and no differences in various imaging findings including AAST Grade IV or V appendicitis. Operatively, patients in the delayed group had a longer operative time (83.1 ± 32.9 vs. 64.1 ± 26.2, p = 0.01), were more likely to require an open operation (23.8 % vs. 2.8 %, p < 0.0001), and were more likely to have a drain placed intra-operatively (42.9 % vs 14.4 %, p = 0.004). While there were no differences in 30-day readmission rates, patients in the delayed group had a significantly longer hospital length of stay than patients in the immediate group (9.4 ± 7.4 vs. 3.1 ± 3.3, p = 0.008).
Conclusions
Patients undergoing an immediate appendectomy for perforated appendicitis can discharge from the hospital sooner and demonstrate no increase in post-operative morbidity suggesting that surgeons can initially manage this disease process in an operative fashion.