metricas
covid
Buscar en
Cirugía Española (English Edition)
Toda la web
Inicio Cirugía Española (English Edition) Therapeutic management of inflammatory appendiceal masses
Información de la revista
Vol. 102. Núm. 1.
Páginas 58-60 (enero 2024)
Vol. 102. Núm. 1.
Páginas 58-60 (enero 2024)
Scientific letter
Acceso a texto completo
Therapeutic management of inflammatory appendiceal masses
Manejo terapéutico de las masas inflamatorias de origen apendicular
Visitas
107
Sofía Mansilla
Autor para correspondencia
quirurgicab@hc.edu.uy

Corresponding author.
, Andrés Pouy, Noelia Brito, Nicolás Muniz, Ricardo Misa
Clínica Qurúrgica B, Hospital de Clínicas, Universidad de la República, Montevideo, Uruguay
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Texto completo
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Figuras (1)
Tablas (1)
Table 1. Clinical characteristics and therapeutic management.
Texto completo

Acute appendicitis (AA) is a common acute surgical condition.1,2 Its natural evolution includes parietal perforation with either diffuse peritonitis or omental-visceral block and a localized inflammatory/infectious process.3 These evolved forms are called inflammatory appendiceal masses (IAM),3–5 which also includes appendiceal abscess and phlegmon. At our medical center, 456 adult patients with acute appendicitis (AA) were treated from 2019 to 2021, 12 of whom (3%) presented IAM (see Table 1). The majority were obese (n = 8) women (n = 9), with difficult semiology for both the clinician and surgeon in terms of surgical management. Three presented psychiatric pathology, which made the anamnesis difficult and partially explains the delayed diagnosis. The most frequent presentation was pain in the right iliac fossa, fever and a palpable mass. The median time of evolution was 11.5 days. Seven patients had had previous consultations, and 3 had been prescribed antibiotics.

Table 1.

Clinical characteristics and therapeutic management.

Sex  Age  BMI >30  Symptoms  Evolution  Treatment  Approach/Procedure 
19  Yes  Pain in RIF + Fever + Mass  ATB  – 
45  No  Pain in RIF + Fever + Mass  15  Percutaneous  – 
65  Yes  Pain in RIF + Fever + Mass  30  ATB  – 
35  Yes  Pain in RIF + Fever + Mass  Surgery  LaparoscopicSurgical drainage 
40  Yes  Pain in RIF + Fever  30  ATB  – 
55  No  Pain in RIF + Fever  Surgery  ConversionRight colectomy 
44  Yes  Pain in RIF + Fever + Mass  15  Percutaneous  – 
45  Yes  Pain in RIF + Fever  Surgery  Conversion Right colectomy 
75  Yes  Pain in RIF  15  Surgery  ConversionSurgical drainage 
45  Yes  Pain in RIF + Fever  15  Surgery  ConversionAppendectomy 
42  No  Pain in RIF  Surgery  LaparoscopicAppendectomy 
34  No  Pain in RIF + Fever + Mass  Surgery  LaparoscopicAppendectomy 

BMI, body mass index; F, female; M, male; RIF, right iliac fossa; ATB, antibiotics.

The diagnosis was confirmed by computed tomography (CT). The ability to identify the appendix is an element to consider in the therapeutic decision-making process. Pneumoperitoneum or free fluid suggestive of macroperforation rule out conservative management. CT is highly valuable for diagnosing elderly patients given the increased prevalence of neoplastic pathology.6 Even with CT, there will always be a group of patients in whom the diagnosis will not be clear. Tekin et al., in their study of 98 patients with a clinical and CT diagnosis of IAM, later excluded 4 after video-assisted colonoscopy provided the diagnoses of colon cancer, diverticulitis and Crohn’s disease. In these cases, the common denominator was the lack of response to therapeutic measures.5

Therapeutic management is controversial,1,3,4 and publications in the literature provide context while also sparking debate. Therapeutic management options range from antibiotic therapy alone to image-guided percutaneous drainage and/or surgical drainage, either with or without appendectomy. Initial treatment may include systematic surgery or conservative management.

In the 7 patients treated surgically, the results were discouraging.

Appendectomy was performed in 3 patients: 2 laparoscopic, and one with subsequent conversion. Patient 4 required conversion, but the appendix still could not be identified. The evolution of all 4 patients was torpid, with residual collections and hospitalization for more than 7 days.

In the 5th patient, it was impossible to identify the cecal appendix, so we opted for drain placement. The patient’s progress was poor, requiring reoperation for drainage of an intra-abdominal collection. She was discharged 15 days after surgery.

Patients 6 and 7 required conversion and extended visceral resection (right colectomy) due to intraoperative suspicion of a cecal tumor. In one case, the suspicion was confirmed by pathology, while in the other the specimen was negative for malignancy.

Conservative management was described by Ochsner4,7 and consisted of antibiotic therapy, either alone or associated with percutaneous drainage, and elective appendectomy (EA) in certain cases. It is indicated in patients in whom surgery must be deferred for reasons of situational context (war, high seas, absence of a surgeon). Currently, the strategy is also used an alternative to undertaking a demanding surgery in a hostile inflammatory locoregional environment, which may be further complicated by the risk of not being able to identify the appendix and the need for conversion or extended resections. The advent of conservative management has been closely linked to the development of percutaneous needle aspiration techniques.3,4 This therapeutic strategy was chosen in 5 patients and providing good evolution; in 2, percutaneous drainage was also performed (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Abscessed IAM: (A) diagnostic CT scan; (B) ultrasound image to guide percutaneous needle aspiration; (C) ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle aspiration and collection of pus; (D) CT image 15 days after antibiotic/percutaneous treatment.

(0.44MB).

The choice of therapeutic strategy is decided by the surgeon based on the clinical presentation and CT findings. The days of evolution would seem to play a fundamental role.4,6 In the Deelder et al. study, the evolution time was identified as the only statistically significant difference between the initial surgical treatment group versus the conservative treatment group (5.4 days vs. 8.3, respectively).4 Another element is the surgeon's judgment, which is as significant as it is intangible. Some authors suggest that, in patients in whom the pathological appendix is identified on CT, the approach tends to be surgical at the outset.6 Most authors agree that conservative treatment requires a longer and more patient follow-up for the surgeon. Nevertheless, surgery may present the same prolonged hospitalization due to its morbidity.4

After successful conservative treatment, the diagnostic assessment should be completed with VCC in patients over the age of 40 years of age, and a CT scan should be ordered for follow-up of the evolution.1–3 Ochsner’s treatment regimen culminates with elective appendectomy (EA),8 which is indicated in patients with uncertain diagnoses or recurring symptoms. Recurrence ranges from 6% to 20% with differentials from 3% to 17% associated with a higher age group.1,2,5,9 In the reported experience, EA was indicated in a patient due to recurrence and persistence of a pathological CT scan after the pathology study had ruled out malignant disease. The guidelines do not recommend systematic EA in patients under 40 years of age (Level of evidence 1B).1

References
[1]
S. Di Saverio, M. Podda, Simone B. De, M. Ceresoli, G. Augustin, A. Gori, et al.
Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines.
World J Emerg Surg, 15 (2020), pp. 1-42
[2]
M. Wagner, D.J. Tubre, J.A. Asensio, I. Ahmed, D. Deakin, S.L. Parsons, et al.
Evolution and current trends in the management of acute appendicitis.
J Gastrointest Surg., 34 (2018), pp. 1005-1023
[3]
R.E. Andersson, M.G. Petzold.
Nonsurgical treatment of appendiceal abscess or phlegmon: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ann Surg., 246 (2007), pp. 741-748
[4]
J.D. Deelder, M.C. Richir, T. Schoorl, W.H. Schreurs.
How to treat an appendiceal inflammatory mass: operatively or nonoperatively?.
J Gastrointest Surg., 18 (2014), pp. 641-645
[5]
A. Tekin, H.C. Kurtoglu, I. Can, S. Oztan.
Routine interval appendectomy is unnecessary after conservative treatment of appendiceal mass.
Color Dis., 10 (2007), pp. 465-468
[6]
P. Fugazzola, M. Ceresoli, V. Agnoletti, F. Agresta, B. Amato, P. Carcoforo, et al.
The SIFIPAC/ WSES/SICG/ SIMEU guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis in the elderly.
World J Emerg Surg., 15 (2020), pp. 1-15
[7]
H. Bailey.
The Oschner-Sherren (delayed) treatment of acute appendicitis: indications and technique.
Br Med J., (1930), pp. 140-143
[8]
D.E. Deakin, I. Ahmed.
Interval appendicectomy after resolution of adult inflammatory appendix mass - it is necessary?.
[9]
T.S. Helling, D.F. Soltys, S. Seals.
The American Journal of Surgery Operative versus non-operative management in the care of patients with complicated appendicitis.
Copyright © 2023. AEC
Descargar PDF
Opciones de artículo
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos

Quizás le interese:
10.1016/j.cireng.2022.09.030
No mostrar más