Interval Appendectomy Research Articles

Drain Failure in Intra-Abdominal Abscesses Associated with Appendicitis.

Previous studies have suggested that percutaneous drainage and interval appendectomy is an effective treatment for appendicitis with associated abscess. Few studies to date have analyzed risk factors for failed drain management. We hypothesized that older patients with more co-morbidities would be at higher risk for failing conservative treatment. The 2010-2014 editions of the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) were queried for patients with diagnoses of peri-appendiceal abscesses. Minors and elective admissions were excluded. We identified patients who underwent percutaneous drainage and defined drain failure as undergoing a surgical operation after drainage but during the same inpatient visit to assess for factors associated with failure of drainage alone as a treatment. After univariable analysis, binomial logistic regression was used to assess for independent risk factors. Frequencies were analyzed by χ2 and continuous variables by Student's t-test. A total of 2,209 patients with appendiceal abscesses received drains; 561 patients (25.4%) failed conservative management and underwent operative intervention. On univariable analysis, patients who failed conservative management were younger, more likely to be Hispanic, have more inpatient diagnoses, and to have undergone drainage earlier in the hospital course. Multivariable regression demonstrated that the number of diagnoses, female sex, and Hispanic race were predictive of failure of drainage alone. Older age, West and Midwest census regions, and later drain placement were predictive of successful treatment with drainage alone. Failure was associated with more charges and longer hospital stay but not with a higher mortality rate. Approximately a quarter of patients will fail management of appendiceal abscess with percutaneous drain placement alone. Risk factors for failure are patient complexity, female sex, earlier drainage, and Hispanic race. Failure of drainage is associated with higher total charges and longer hospital stay; however, no change in the mortality rate was noted.

Does size matter? Correlation of ultrasound findings in children without clinical evidence of acute appendicitis.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether children with a positive ultrasound (US) for acute appendicitis but a negative clinical picture developed appendicitis requiring definitive management. After obtaining IRB approval, we conducted a retrospective review of patients ≤17years who presented with possible acute appendicitis between April 1st, 2014, and December 31st, 2015. We included patients with a US suggestive of acute appendicitis based on size criteria but without concerning clinical features. Patients were discharged from the emergency department (ED) or admitted for observation. Variables included demographic data, US characteristics, clinical findings, length of follow-up, and appendectomy. Of the 31 patients identified, 45% were male and average age was 11.3yrs. On US, the average maximal diameter of the appendix was 6.93mm. The median length of follow-up was 16.8 months, including 10 returns to the ED by 9 patients. Three of these underwent immediate laparoscopic appendectomy, while one had interval appendectomy. There were no cases of perforated appendicitis, and only 2 cases demonstrated pathology consistent with appendicitis. These findings demonstrate that it is safe to consider conservative measures such as observation or discharge in children with a positive US for appendicitis based on size criteria but a negative clinical picture. 4.

A retrospective study on patients with appendicular mass after successful conservative treatment and to assess the need for interval appendicectomy

Background: Appendicular mass is one sequelae in unoperated cases of acute appendicitis which are managed conservatively followed by interval appendicectomy (IA). Currently the need for IA has been questioned due to low risk of recurrence.Methods: Data of all AM patients from 2005 to 2010 were collected and revised the following parameters: age, sex, length of hospital stay, symptoms and signs, total leucocyte count and USG. Those who developed similar pain and those who underwent emergency appendicectomy were considered as recurrence. Patients were grouped as: 1-patients who developed RIF pain,2-asymptomatic patients,3-patients who developed recurrent a/c appendicitis,4-patients who did not developed recurrent a/c appendicitis.Results: Of the 93 patients, 12 patients underwent IA. Average duration between mass resolution and recurrence is 4.16 months. 14.8% patients had recurrent similar abdominal pain, and only 7.4% patients had recurrent acute appendicitis. Length of hospital stay had a statistically significant correlation with recurrence. The mean TC in the group with recurrent acute appendicitis was 12,500 and asymptomatic group who had a mean TC of 10678.28 which was statistically significant.Conclusions: Conservative treatment is successful for majority of appendicular masses. A routine IA seems unnecessary. Asymptomatic patients can be followed up without IA. Most of the recurrences occur within the first 3 to 6 months. Length of hospital stay and total leucocyte count influenced the recurrence. IA may be considered in those who are prone for recurrence.

Is an interval appendectomy still necessary in perforated appendicitis with inflammatory mass/abcess

We reviewed our experience in non-operative management without an interval appendectomy (IA), for patients who presented with perforated appendicitis with an abcess or inflammatory mass from November 2012 to November 2017 retrospectively. The data included age, sex, duration of symptoms, presence of appendicolith/ abcess on CT imaging, WBC and CRP levels, antibiotic treatment, fever at presentation, percutan drainage procedure and complications, recurrent abscess, total length of hospitalization, follow-up period. A total of 32 patients were treated with nonoperative management during the study period. Nonoperative management without an IA was successful in 31 patients (96%). Study patients included were admitted to the surgical ward for observation. The mean age of the patients was 9.74±3.55 years. 19 male and 13 female patients were included in the study. The mean duration of symptoms was 8.75±4.69 days. The mean number of Ct scans was 1.21±0.42 per patient. Percutan drainage was performed in 10 patients. The mean of WBC levels at presentation was 19030.00±7192.24 cells/μL and CRP levels was 156.61±94.23 mg/dl. Intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam (Tazosin®, Pfizer, New York, NY) were given 400 mg/kg/day in four divided doses. Diet were started to the patients who were afebrile and had diminished abdominal pain during observation. The mean length of hospitalization was 13.03±5.82 days. The mean duration of follow-up period 34.65±20.48 months. Nonoperative management without IA is a preferable choice for perforated appendicitis with abcess or mass.

A Case of Appendiceal Metastasis from Ovarian Cancer Diagnosed by Laparoscopic Interval Appendectomy

症例は81歳，女性．3日前より続く心窩部痛を主訴に当院を受診．腹部CTにて虫垂内部の糞石とその周囲に32mm大の腫瘤影を認め，急性虫垂炎による限局性腹膜炎および腹腔内膿瘍の診断で抗菌薬投与を開始した．保存的加療によって炎症は沈静化し，画像検査で膿瘍の縮小を認めたため，腹腔鏡下待機的虫垂切除術（laparoscopic interval appendectomy）の方針とした．手術所見では，虫垂は右卵巣と強固に癒着していたが，明らかな腫瘍性病変は認めなかった．病理組織学的検査で，虫垂粘膜に病変を認めなかったが，漿膜下層に腺癌を認め，免疫染色の結果から卵巣癌虫垂転移と診断した．高齢者の急性虫垂炎では，転移性虫垂腫瘍の存在を念頭に置く必要がある．

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

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

Outcomes of complicated appendicitis: Is conservative management as smooth as it seems?

BackgroundThis study characterized the failure rate of non-operative management (NOM) for complicated appendicitis (CA; perforation, abscess, phlegmon), and compared outcomes among patients undergoing acute appendectomy (AA), elective interval appendectomy (EIA), and unplanned appendectomy after failing to improve with NOM. MethodsAdults treated at one facility between 2007 and 2014 were retrospectively studied. ResultsNinety-five patients presented with CA. Sixty individuals underwent AA. The remaining 35 patients initially underwent NOM: 14 underwent EIA, nine (25.7%) failed NOM, 12 never underwent surgery.All patients failing NOM had an open operation with most (55.6%) requiring bowel resection. AA and EIA were comparable in surgical approach, bowel resection and post-operative readmission. However, AA demonstrated a lower incidence of bowel resection (3.3% vs 17.1%, P = 0.048) when compared to all patients initially undergoing NOM. ConclusionsDue to the high incidence of failed NOM and the morbidity associated with failure, AA may be appropriate for CA.

Acute appendicitis.

Acute appendicitis is the most common reason for abdominal surgery in children. Luminal obstruction of the appendix progresses to suppurative inflammation and perforation, which causes generalised peritonitis or an appendix mass/abscess. Classical features include periumbilical pain that migrates to the right iliac fossa, anorexia, fever, and tenderness and guarding in the right iliac fossa. Atypical presentations are particularly common in preschool children. A clinical diagnosis is possible in most cases, after a period of active observation if necessary; inflammatory markers and an ultrasound scan are useful investigations when the diagnosis is uncertain. Treatment is by appendicectomy after appropriate fluid resuscitation, analgesia and intravenous antibiotics. Laparoscopic appendicectomy is better than open appendicectomy in most cases because it is associated with less postoperative pain and a shorter hospital stay, but recovery after acute appendicitis is mostly dictated by whether the appendix was perforated or not. Management of the appendix mass remains controversial and not all affected children need an interval appendicectomy. This article discusses tips and pitfalls in diagnosis and addresses many of the controversies that surround the management of this condition.

Management of Pediatric Perforated Appendicitis: Comparing Outcomes Using Early Appendectomy Versus Solely Medical Management.

There is controversy regarding whether children with perforated appendicitis should receive early appendectomy (EA) versus medical management (MM) with antibiotics and delayed interval appendectomy. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of children with perforated appendicitis who receive EA versus MM. Case review of consecutive children <18 years of age with perforated appendicitis who received either EA or MM during an 8-year period. Criteria for hospital discharge included patient being afebrile for at least 24 hours, pain-free and able to tolerate oral intake. Of 203 patients diagnosed with perforated appendicitis, 122 received EA and 81 received MM. All received parenteral antibiotic therapy initiated in the emergency department and continued during hospitalization. There were no significant differences between groups in mean patient age, mean complete blood count total white blood cells count, gender distribution, rates of emergency department fever or rates of intra-abdominal infection (abscess or phlegmon) identified on admission. Compared with patients receiving MM, those receiving EA experienced significantly fewer (1) days of hospitalization, parenteral antibiotic therapy and in-hospital fever; (2) radiographic studies, percutaneous drainage procedures and placement of central venous catheters performed; (3) post admission intra-abdominal complications and (4) unscheduled repeat hospitalizations after hospital discharge. Only 1 EA-managed patient developed a postoperative wound infection. Children with perforated appendicitis who receive EA experience significantly less morbidity and complications versus those receiving MM. The theoretical concern for enhanced morbidity associated with EA management of perforated appendicitis is not supported by our analysis.

High Incidence of Neoplasm Found after Interval Appendectomy for Complicated Appendicitis

Relihan, Kathleen M. MD; Safcsak, Karen; Ibrahim, Joseph A. MD, FACS; Cheatham, Michael L. MD; Havron, William S. III MD, FACS Author Information

A study on right iliac fossa mass

Background: Patients with mass in the right iliac fossa may confront the surgeon, pediatrician or gynecologist. Thus, thorough understandings of the anatomy and pathological process that may occur within the abdomen are essential for an accurate diagnosis and plan of treatment. The objective of this study was to interpret aetiopathology, clinical presentation, differential diagnosis and management of mass in the right iliac fossa.Methods: A total of 60 cases with mass in the right iliac fossa (RIF) were included in the study. Investigations like colonoscopy and CT scan were done. All the cases underwent right hemicolectomy followed by chemotheraphy. Other cases like psoas abscess, non-hodgkins lymphoma, Meckels diverticulum and intussusception were diagnosed and treated.Results: During this study period, a total number of 36 cases of appendicular mass and 10 cases of appendicular abscess were encountered. In this study 10 cases of appendicular abscess were encountered and treated by extraperitoneal drainage, 4 cases of ileocaecal kochs were encountered. Patients presented with constitutional symptoms like pain, fever, weight loss etc. Right hemicolectomy was done, specimens after operative procedures were examined microscopically and histopathological diagnosis. 3 cases of carcinoma caecum and 3 cases of carcinoma ascending colon were seen. Contrast enema was done which showed filling defect and mucosal irregularities.Conclusions: This study showed that appendicular mass is the commonest pathology in right iliac fossa amongst all and conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy is the best mode of treatment. Carcinoma of the colon and ileocaecal tuberculosis is the other two common causes for mass in the right iliac fossa. These cases also carry a good prognosis, if properly diagnosed and treated. The other rare causes of mass in the right iliac fossa are intussusception, psoas abscess and Non Hodgkins lymphoma.

Retrospective Study of Conservative Management of Appendicular Lump

Introduction: Appendicitis is very common surgical emergency and incidence of appendicular lump is about 2-6%. There are different approaches for management of appendicular lump among which most common and widely accepted approach is managing lump conservatively with interval appendicectomy 6 weeks after resolution of inflammation. The aim of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of the conservative management in appendicular lump.&#x0D; Materials and methods: Retrospective study of the 43 patients admitted with a diagnosis of appendicular lump from March 2015 to February 2016 at Nepalgunj medical college, Nepalgunj were carried out.&#x0D; Result: Out of 204 patients of appendicitis 43(21.07%) patients were found to have appendicular lump. Age ranged from 6 to 81yrs old. Appendicitis was found to be common at the age range of 21 to 30 years (44.18%).patient reported after 3 to 8 days of Onset of symptoms but most of the patients reported at 5 to 6 days of onset of symptoms. Among 43 patients, 40 patients (93.01%) managed successfully with conservative management. Only three patients (6.97%) developed complications. Out of these conservatively managed, 18(41.86%) underwent interval appendicectomy, 19(44.18%) patients lost to follow up,3(6.97%) had recurrent appendicitis.&#x0D; Conclusion: Our study concluded that most of the appendicular lumps can be managed conservatively with few complications, which can be managed with immediate intervention.

Early appendectomy reduces costs in children with perforated appendicitis

BackgroundPerforated appendicitis can be managed with early appendectomy, or nonoperative management followed by interval appendectomy. We aimed to identify the strategy with the lowest health care utilization and cost. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all children ≤18 years old with perforated appendicitis admitted to a single institution between January 2009 and March 2016. After excluding immunosuppressed patients and transfers from outside hospitals, we grouped the remaining patients by early or interval appendectomy. Cost accounting data were obtained from our institutional database. The primary outcome was total hospital cost over 2 y from initial admission for appendicitis. Other outcomes analyzed included initial admission costs, number of admissions, emergency room and clinic visits, percutaneous procedures, cross-sectional and overall imaging studies, and length of stay. ResultsA total of 203 children with perforated appendicitis were identified. After exclusion of immunosuppressed patients and outside hospital transfers, 94 patients were included in the study. Thirty-nine underwent early appendectomy and 55 initial nonoperative management; of these, 54 underwent elective interval appendectomy. Five of 55 patients (9%) failed initial nonoperative management and required earlier-than-planned appendectomy. Total cost over 2 y was significantly lower with early appendectomy than initial nonoperative management ($19,300 ± 14,300 versus $26,000 ± 17,500; P = 0.05). Early appendectomy resulted in fewer hospital admissions, clinic visits, invasive procedures, and imaging studies. ConclusionsEarly appendectomy results in lower hospital costs and less health care utilization compared with initial nonoperative management with elective interval appendectomy. A prospective study will shed more light on this question and can assess the role of nonoperative management without interval appendectomy in children with perforated appendicitis.

Delayed appendicectomy in patients with non-perforated acute appendicitis

Background: Appendicitis remains one of the most common diseases encountered by the surgeon in practice. Appendicectomy is the most common urgent or emergency general surgical operation performed. Emergency appendicectomy is believed to be the standard treatment protocol for patients with acute appendicitis. This study was conducted to verify whether acute non-perforated appendicitis requires immediate surgery or can be delayed to be taken up on elective basis.Methods: This is a retrospective study of all the cases undergoing appendicectomy for acute appendicitis over the period of January 2016 to December 2016 in K. R. hospital, Mysuru, Karnataka, India. The cases were divided into two comparison groups: emergency group (operated within 12 hours of admission) and delayed group (operated between 12-72 hours). Parameters like age, sex, duration of symptoms, total leucocytes count, temperature, haemoglobin, radiological investigations, operative procedure, operative time, length of hospital stay, length of post-operative stay were collected and the end points for comparison were: Operative time, perforation rate, post-operative complication, length of hospital stay, readmission rate. Cases of perforated appendicitis in preoperative diagnosis, interval appendicectomy and appendicectomy done in association with other abdominal conditions were excluded from the study.Results: During this one-year period 283 patients have undergone appendicectomy. Out of this 189 (66.8%) patients have undergone surgery within 12 hours of admission and 94 (33.2%) have undergone surgery between 12 to 72 hours of admission. There was no significant difference between the two groups in operative time, per operative perforation rate, post-operative complication rate, readmission rate. Length of the hospital stay was greater in delayed group as compared to emergency group. But there was no significant difference between the post-operative length of hospital stay.Conclusions: Acute appendicitis can be treated surgically in a delayed elective basis without increasing morbidity.

Early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess.

Appendiceal phlegmon and abscess account for 2% to 10% of acute appendicitis. People with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess usually need an appendicectomy to relieve their symptoms and avoid complications. The timing of appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess is controversial. To assess the effects of early versus delayed appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmon or abscess, in terms of overall morbidity and mortality. We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to 23 August 2016), Embase Ovid (1974 to 23 August 2016), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to 23 August 2016), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) (1978 to 23 August 2016). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal (23 August 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (23 August 2016) for ongoing trials. We included all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials, irrespective of language, publication status, or age of participants, comparing early versus delayed appendicectomy in people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess. Two review authors independently identified the trials for inclusion, collected the data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses using Review Manager 5. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included two randomised controlled trials with a total of 80 participants in this review. 1. Early versus delayed open appendicectomy for appendiceal phlegmonForty participants (paediatric and adults) with appendiceal phlegmon were randomised either to early appendicectomy (appendicectomy as soon as appendiceal mass resolved within the same admission) (n = 20), or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval appendicectomy six weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. There was no mortality in either group. There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of using either early or delayed open appendicectomy onoverall morbidity (RR 13.00; 95% CI 0.78 to 216.39; very low-quality evidence), the proportion of participants who developed wound infection (RR 9.00; 95% CI 0.52 to 156.91; very low quality evidence) or faecal fistula (RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 69.52; very low quality evidence). The quality of evidence for increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in the early appendicectomy group (MD 6.70 days; 95% CI 2.76 to 10.64, and MD 5.00 days; 95% CI 1.52 to 8.48, respectively) is very low quality evidence. The trial reported neither quality of life nor pain outcomes. 2. Early versus delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for appendiceal abscessForty paediatric participants with appendiceal abscess were randomised either to early appendicectomy (emergent laparoscopic appendicectomy) (n = 20) or to delayed appendicectomy (initial conservative treatment followed by interval laparoscopic appendicectomy 10 weeks later) (n = 20). The trial was at high risk of bias. The trial did not report on overall morbidity or complications. There was no mortality in either group. We do not have sufficient evidence to determine the effects of using either early or delayed laparoscopic appendicectomy for outcomes relating to hospital stay between the groups (MD -0.20 days; 95% CI -3.54 to 3.14; very low quality of evidence). Health-related quality of life was measured with the Pediatric Quality of Life Scale-Version 4.0 questionnaire (a scale of 0 to 100 with higher values indicating a better quality of life). Health-related quality of life score measured at 12 weeks after appendicectomy was higher in the early appendicectomy group than in the delayed appendicectomy group (MD 12.40 points; 95% CI 9.78 to 15.02) but the quality of evidence was very low. This trial reported neither the pain nor the time away from normal activities. It is unclear whether early appendicectomy prevents complications compared to delayed appendicectomy for people with appendiceal phlegmon or abscess. The evidence indicating increased length of hospital stay and time away from normal activities in people with early open appendicectomy is of very low quality. The evidence for better health-related quality of life following early laparoscopic appendicectomy compared with delayed appendicectomy is based on very low quality evidence. For both comparisons addressed in this review, data are sparse, and we cannot rule out significant benefits or harms of early versus delayed appendicectomy.Further trials on this topic are urgently needed and should specify a set of criteria for use of antibiotics, percutaneous drainage of the appendiceal abscess prior to surgery and resolution of the appendiceal phlegmon or abscess. Future trials should include outcomes such as time away from normal activities, quality of life and the length of hospital stay.

Minimally Invasive Treatment for Appendiceal Mass Formed After Acute Perforated Appendicitis.

The optimal treatment for appendiceal mass formed after appendiceal rupture due to acute appendicitis is surrounded with controversy. The treatment strategy ranges from open surgery (emergency or interval appendectomy), laparoscopic appendectomy, and image-guided drainage, to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics. Nonsurgical treatment (including conservative and drainage treatment), followed by interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence, is the traditional management of these patients. The need for interval appendectomy after a successful conservative or/and image-guided drainage treatment, has recently been questioned as the risk of recurrence is relatively small. Several authors consider that even in cases involving only ambulatory follow-up observation, without interval surgery after conservative management, the recurrence rate and risks of missing underlying pathologies were not high. This article evaluates the minimally invasive treatment modalities in the management of appendiceal mass, risk of undetected serious disease, and the need for interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence.

Nonoperative management of appendicitis in children.

The aim of this review is to summarize the recent literature investigating nonoperative management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and highlight recent data establishing its safety and efficacy. Recent studies and clinical trials have demonstrated the efficacy of nonoperative treatment of both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, defined as perforated appendicitis with or without formed abscess or phlegmon. Nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis has been reported to be effective in approximately 71-94% of cases. In complicated appendicitis, treatment with antibiotics alone or antibiotics with interval appendectomy has been shown to be a well tolerated and reasonable treatment alternative. Appendicitis is one of the most common surgical diagnoses in children. The standard of care for many years has been surgical appendectomy; however, it carries with it risks including bleeding, wound complications, injury to surrounding structures, and the potential need for reoperation. Nonoperative management of both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in children is well tolerated and efficacious in select populations.

A survey of management of appendiceal mass among surgeons: what is best practice?

Background: An appendix mass is the result of a walled-off perforation of the appendix which localizes, resulting in a mass and it is encountered in up to 7% of patients presenting with acute appendicitis. The management of such problem is controversial. Immediate appendectomy may be technically demanding. Traditionally, management of these patients is conservative followed by interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence. However, the need for interval appendectomy has recently been questioned due to relatively small risk of recurrence. Also, there is still debate on adopting conservative management regarding the recurrence rate, the complication rate of interval appendectomy, and the potential for underlying malignancy. Our aim was to assess the preferred approach and current practice for management of acute appendix mass among surgeons in Al Taif Saudi Arabia.Methods: A questionnaire for the practice of surgeons in dealing with appendicular mass was designed and distributed to 21 consultants and 45 specialists.Results: 14.3% of consultant and 53.3% of specialist practiced the conservative management without routine interval appendectomy. Also, 14.3% and 26.7% of them respectively preferred immediate appendectomy while 71.4% of consultants and 20.0% of specialists did routine interval appendectomy. Most of the surgeons prefer to adopt the open method in immediate appendectomy while laparoscopic approach is the main adopting procedure for interval appendectomy. 57% of consultants stated risk of recurrence as the reason for performing interval appendectomy while, 53.4% of specialists would perform it to out-ruling neoplasm.Conclusions: Surgeons prefer to carry conservative approach with an interval appendectomy in management of appendix mass and laparoscopic approach for interval appendectomy. However immediate appendectomy and conservative management without interval appendectomy was preferred in other studies, which increase the necessity for national guidelines to be considered for management of this clinical condition.

Is Interval Appendectomy Necessary for Appendicular Phlegmon? A Prospective Study

Appendectomy is accepted as the standard treatment of acute appendicitis, but in complicated cases, the treatment of choice is not straightforward. In this prospective study, we compared failure rate, complications, and recurrence rate of three different approaches to complicated appendicitis. In a 5-year prospective cohort study, patients with appendicular phlegmon were studied in three groups based on the treatment protocols. Group A included patients who underwent an appendectomy; patients of group B were treated by interval appendectomy; and in group C, conservative management was performed without interval appendectomy. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 11.5. In total, 3896 patients with acute appendicitis were admitted, and 127 patients with complicated appendicitis were treated. Fifty-four patients were excluded from the study. Differences in age, gender, weight, and duration of symptoms were not statistically significant in the three groups. In group A (N = 23), appendectomy was impossible in 4 patients and 5 patients experienced complications. In group B (N = 24), two patients underwent exploration and appendectomy. In another two patients, a recurrent episode of acute appendicitis with mild signs and symptoms occurred after discharge from the hospital. In group C (N = 25), three patients experienced a recurrent appendicitis. Interval appendectomy is not indicated in all patients and continuous non-operative management may be appropriate in some patients. As the epidemiology of colorectal cancer and inflammatory bowel diseases is different in Iran, we recommend other researchers to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis on colon and appendicular neoplasms workup after non-operative management of complicated appendicitis.

P066: Outcomes of non-operative versus operative management in pediatric acute uncomplicated appendicitis

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to look at outcomes of pediatric patients with early, acute appendicitis who were treated with non-operative management (NOM) with antibiotics. Primary outcomes were subsequent appendectomy or Emergency Department (ED) visits. Methods: The method used for this study was a retrospective chart review of children under the age of 18, looking at outcomes of those who received non-operative management (NOM) for early acute appendicitis between April 2014-April 2015. The inclusion criteria included: (a) Age 0-17, (b) US or CT suggested acute uncomplicated appendicitis (c) Final diagnosis of appendicitis during April 2014-2015. Outcomes that were investigated were repeat ED visits and need for subsequent appendectomy. Results: Data extracted from the EMR found 209 charts with an ED diagnosis of appendicitis. Two charts (.9%) were excluded as they were duplicates. Sixty-seven patients (32%) were excluded after appendicitis was ruled out. One hundred and forty patients (67%) had a final diagnosis of appendicitis, 124 patients (88.6%) were taken directly to the operating room for appendectomy, 16 patients (11.4%) were treated with antibiotics instead of operative management. Three patients who received non-operative management had complex appendicitis, 13 had acute uncomplicated appendicitis. Six patients out of 13 (46%) were successfully treated with antibiotics with no repeat visits to the ED or Pediatric Surgery for appendectomy, 7 patients (54%) required appendectomy after initial treatment with antibiotics. Two patients who underwent appendectomy after initial NOM had no evidence of clinical appendicitis, one patient was taken to the OR based on parent preference and one patient had an episode of abdominal pain that prompted an interval appendectomy four weeks post the episode of abdominal pain. Conclusion: Treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis with NOM remains a management option in the pediatric population. Further studies and long term follow up are required to better identify appropriate patients for non-operative management versus operative management.