Open Access, Peer-reviewed
pISSN 2288-6575
eISSN 2288-6796
    Ann Surg Treat Res. 2017 Aug;93(2):88-97. English.
    Published online Jul 28, 2017.
    https://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2017.93.2.88
    Copyright © 2017, the Korean Surgical Society
    Original Article

    Meaningful standard of reference for appendiceal perforation: pathology, surgery, or both?

    Hyuk Jung Kim,1 Mi Sung Kim,2 Ji Hoon Park,3 Soyeon Ahn,4 Yousun Ko,5,6 Soon-Young Song,7 Ji Young Woo,8 Kyoung Ho Lee,3,6 and Low-dOse Computed Tomography for Appendicitis Trial (LOCAT) Group
      • 1Department of Radiology, Daejin Medical Center, Bundang Jesaeng General Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
      • 2Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
      • 3Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
      • 4Division of Statistics, Medical Research Collaborating Center, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
      • 5Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea.
      • 6Program in Biomedical Radiation Sciences, Department of Transdisciplinary Studies, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
      • 7Department of Radiology, Hanyang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
      • 8Department of Radiology, Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
    • Corresponding Author: Mi Sung Kim. Department of Radiology, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 29 Saemunan-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03181, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2001-1031, Fax: +82-2-2001-1030, Email: misung70@gmail.com
    Received November 11, 2016; Revised March 06, 2017; Accepted March 15, 2017.

    Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research is an Open Access Journal. All articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Abstract

    Purpose

    This retrospective study was aimed to determine if appendiceal perforation identified pathologically but not surgically is clinically meaningful.

    Methods

    The study consists of 2 parts. First, we reviewed 74 studies addressing appendiceal perforation published in 2012 and 2013. Second, in a cross-sectional study, we classified 1,438 adolescents and adults (mean age, 29.3 ± 8.4 years; 785 men) with confirmed appendicitis as “nonperforation” (n = 1,083, group 1), “pathologically-identified perforation” (n = 55, group 2), “surgically-identified perforation” (n = 202, group 3), or “pathologically- and surgically-identified perforation” (n = 98, group 4). The 4 groups were compared for the frequency of laparoscopic appendectomy and the length of hospital stay using multivariable logistic regression analyses.

    Results

    The reference standard for appendiceal perforation was frequently missing or inconsistent in the previous studies. Laparoscopic appendectomies were less frequent in groups 3 (52.5%, P = 0.001) and 4 (65%, P = 0.040) than in group 1 (70.7%), while group 2 (73%, P = 0.125) did not significantly differ from group 1. Median hospital stays were 2.9, 3.0, 5.1, and 6.0 days for groups 1–4, respectively. Prolonged hospital stay (≥3.7 days) was more frequent in groups 3 (77.7%, P < 0.001) and 4 (89%, P < 0.001) than in group 1 (23.4%), while group 2 (35%, P = 0.070) did not significantly differ from group 1.

    Conclusion

    We recommend using surgical rather than pathologic findings as the reference standard for the presence of appendiceal perforation in future investigations.

    Keywords
    Appendicitis; Perforation

    INTRODUCTION

    Acute appendicitis is the most common cause of acute abdominal pain requiring surgery. The most important complication of appendicitis is appendiceal perforation, which is associated with serious morbidities and even mortality [1].

    Clear definition of appendiceal perforation has several clinical implications. First, appendiceal perforation rate (the proportion of perforation cases out of all appendicitis cases), together with negative appendectomy rate (the proportion of removal of noninflamed appendices out of all appendectomies), has been traditionally regarded as an important metric for the quality of care in patients with suspected appendicitis [2]. Although several studies [3] questioned the relevance of appendiceal perforation rate as a quality metric by suggesting that most perforations occur before patient hospital visit, this debate does not essentially diminish the importance of clear definition of perforation. Second, appendiceal perforation rate has been also used as a surrogate index for the quality of general acute care in studies measuring ethnic and socioeconomic disparities [4, 5]. Third, preoperative knowledge of appendiceal perforation can critically alter the treatment plan. Several randomized controlled trials [6, 7] have recently suggested the feasibility of nonoperative treatment for appendicitis. For such nonoperative treatment to be truly successful, it is important to preoperatively discriminate uncomplicated appendicitis cases from perforated or gangrenous cases. In addition, perforated appendicitis is a relative contraindication for minimally invasive appendectomy procedures particularly at the hand of less experienced surgeons [8, 9], due to the risk of postoperative intraabdominal abscess formation, although experienced surgeons would more accept laparoscopic approach regardless of the presence of perforation.

    However, the definition of appendiceal perforation has surprisingly been missing or inconsistent in many of previous studies addressing appendiceal perforation rate [5] or preoperative diagnoses of appendicitis [10]. The ambiguity may partly explain the wide range of reported appendiceal perforation rates (16%–39%) as summarized by Birnbaum and Wilson [11]. St Peter et al. [12] even stated that “all retrospective data published on perforated appendicitis are unreliable” because of the poor definition of perforation. In particular, previous studies have rarely clarified whether appendiceal perforation indicated gross perforation with periappendiceal abscess or generalized peritonitis, or included also microperforation with localized peritonitis of minimal extent. While the former can be identified during surgery, the latter is likely identifiable only via microscopic examination of the appendectomy specimen [13, 14]. We hypothesized that the former is associated with the surgical approach or with the patient's prognosis, while the latter is not so.

    The purpose of this study was to retrospectively determine whether appendiceal perforation identified pathologically but not surgically is associated with the use of laparoscopic appendectomy or with the length of hospital stay in adolescents and young adults, and to establish a clinically meaningful reference standard for appendiceal perforation for future studies addressing appendiceal perforation rate or preoperative diagnosis of appendiceal perforation.

    METHODS

    Study overview

    The Institutional Review Boards of all investigating sites (Bundang Jesaeng General Hospital, Myongji Hospital, Hanyang University Hospital, Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Soonchunhyang University Bucheon Hospital, Samsung Medical Center, Korea University Guro Hospital, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, and Korea University Ansan Hospital) approved this study (Supplementary Table 1) and waived patient informed consent for review of patients' medical records. Our study had 2 components. First, to reveal the ambiguity in the definition of appendiceal perforation in previous studies, we extensively reviewed articles addressing appendiceal perforation published in 2012–2013. Second, we performed a retrospective study including 1,438 adolescents and young adults with confirmed appendicitis in 11 hospitals in 2011. The patients were classified as follows: nonperforation (group 1), perforation identified pathologically but not surgically (group 2), perforation identified surgically but not pathologically (group 3), and perforation identified both pathologically and surgically (group 4). We compared the 4 groups in terms of the use of laparoscopic appendectomy and the length of hospital stay associated with appendectomy.

    Literature review

    Two radiologists (with 12 and 14 years of experience, respectively) and 1 epidemiologist jointly searched the MEDLINE database (Supplementary Table 2) and identified 839 articles seemingly addressing appendiceal perforation from January 2012 through December 2013. The 2 radiologists reviewed the articles and extracted the data. Their disagreements were resolved by consensus. By screening the titles and abstracts, the radiologists excluded 686 articles. Fourteen additional articles were excluded because the full texts were not available in English. After reviewing the full texts, 65 articles were further excluded because they included less than 50 patients with confirmed appendiceal perforation (n = 32), did not report the number of patients with confirmed appendiceal perforation (n = 28), or were review articles (n = 5). The remaining 74 articles were finally included in our literature review (Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 3). The two radiologists extracted the following information: name of the first author, number of subjects with appendiceal perforations, number of subjects with confirmed appendicitis, appendiceal perforation rate, standard of reference for appendiceal perforation, and descriptor defining appendiceal perforation.

    Fig. 1
    Flowchart of the literature search results.

    Retrospective study

    Database

    The data in our retrospective study were extracted from a database of a recent cross-sectional study [15] aimed at measuring the computed tomography utilization rate and negative appendectomy rate in patients with appendicitis in metropolitan Seoul, Korea, which was conducted by the Low-dOse Computed Tomography for Appendicitis Trial (LOCAT) group. The database included adolescents and adults undergoing nonincidental appendectomy in 2011 at 11 hospitals in metropolitan Seoul. Data were collected from medical records as well as from questionnaires and interviews of site investigators by 2 study coordinators (2 radiologists with 1 and 13 years of experience, respectively) in conjunction with site investigators from November 2012 through April 2013. Eight tertiary and 3 secondary hospitals with a median bed number of 800 (range, 554–1,950) participated in the formation of the database (Supplementary Table 1). All hospitals were located in metropolitan Seoul, and accounted for 18% of the 63 hospitals having 300 or more beds in metropolitan Seoul [16] where 40,000 appendectomies are performed annually from a total population of 21 million [17] . The site investigators searched hospital information systems to identify patients who visited the Emergency Departments and then underwent appendectomy, cecectomy, or ileocecectomy. In this study, cecectomy and ileocecectomy as well as simple appendectomy performed were collectively termed nonincidental appendectomy, if the surgical procedure was aimed at the treatment of presumptive appendicitis. In all sites, appendectomy was the treatment of choice for appendicitis. None of the site attempted non-operative treatment for appendicitis during the study period.

    The database included 2,495 consecutive patients aged 15 years or older who underwent appendectomy. We excluded cases of 45 years or older (n = 808), incidental appendectomy (n = 154), negative appendectomy (n = 65), pregnancy (n = 20), interval appendectomy following percutaneous abscess drainage (n = 9), or missing pathology report (n = 1). The presence of appendicitis was based on clear documentation of appendicitis or neutrophil infiltration in the appendiceal wall in pathology reports [18]. If neutrophilic collection is confined to the mucosa, the diagnosis was based on the documentation of mucosal ulcerations [19]. We empirically chose the lower age threshold of 15 years, reflecting the typical practice pattern of the 11 sites in grouping patient age for choosing imaging study for suspected appendicitis. We excluded the older patients, with an arbitrary threshold of 45 years, because the database had limited information on their comorbidities, which could be important confounders or effect modifiers of the study hypothesis [20]. Therefore, our retrospective study finally included the remaining 1,438 adolescents and young adults (mean age, 29.3 ± 8.4 years; 785 men [29.2 ± 8.7 years] and 653 women [29.3 ± 8.2 years]) with confirmed appendicitis (Fig. 2). They were deemed as rarely having serious comorbidities. According to the pathologic reports, the study sample included 22 patients with appendiceal diverticulitis and four with appendiceal neoplasms, which were complicated by appendicitis. The study sample accounted for 6.2% of total appendectomies in patients 15–44 years of age in the metropolitan Seoul in the same period [17].

    Fig. 2
    Patient flow diagram. Group 1, nonperforation; group 2, perforation identified pathologically but not surgically; group 3, perforation identified surgically but not pathologically; group 4, perforation identified both pathologically and surgically.

    Appendiceal perforation

    Two radiologists classified the 1,438 patients into groups 1–4 according to the surgical or pathologic documentations of appendiceal perforation. Pathologically identified perforation was defined as a clear documentation of perforation or observation of an appendiceal wall defect due to transmural necrosis [13, 14] in pathologic reports based on either gross examination of the specimen or histopathological examination of tissue sections. Surgically identified perforation was defined as a clear documentation of perforation, or observation of spilled appendiceal contents, abscess, obvious peritonitis, or appendiceal wall defect in surgical records [21]. If there was no clear mention of perforation in the pathologic report or surgical record, the patient was regarded as not having pathologically or surgically identified perforation, respectively.

    Endpoints

    The retrospective study had 2 endpoints: the use of laparoscopic appendectomy and the length of hospital stay. The former is an important issue in surgical planning [8] and the latter is an important outcome measure in patients undergoing appendectomy [22]. Small number of open conversions following initial laparoscopic approach were counted as open appendectomies. The length of hospital stay was defined as the interval from the induction of anesthesia for appendectomy to hospital discharge. A prolonged hospital stay was defined as 3.7 days (89 hours) or longer with the threshold based on the 75th percentile value in group 1 [23].

    Statistical analysis

    The number of patients eligible for the present study determined the sample size. All analyses were planned after the formation of the original study database [15] but before the selection of the present study sample. The chi-square tests were used for the comparison of baseline characteristics among the four groups.

    The 4 groups were compared for the use of laparoscopic appendectomy using the Bonferroni adjustment and for the length of hospital stay using the Kruskal-Wallis test with post hoc Dunn pairwise comparisons. Multivariable as well as univariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the association between the 4 groups and the use of laparoscopic appendectomy or the length of hospital stay. Covariates included age, sex, body mass index, time of presentation at the emergency department, time to appendectomy, and mode of surgical approach [24]. Generalized estimating equations were used to adjust for clustering effects by site, and thereby to prevent an inflation of type I error. The use of the generalized estimating equations would help to estimate the average trend across the sites by taking into consideration the site heterogeneity. Nine cases with missing data in body mass index were not included in the multivariable analyses. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata ver. 13.0 (StataCorp LP., College Station, TX, USA).

    RESULTS

    Literature review

    The results of the 74 selected studies are summarized in Table 1. Twenty-five studies (34%) used International Classification of Disease code-9 or -10 for the patient inclusion. Thirty studies (41%) did not clarify the reference standard for appendiceal perforation. Of the remaining 44 studies, 23 (31%), 10 (14%), 7 (9%), and 4 (5%) used surgical, pathologic, either surgical or pathologic, and both surgical and pathologic findings, respectively, as the reference standard.

    Table 1
    Results of the literature review

    The reported appendiceal perforation rate ranged from 5.8% to 62% in 59 of the 74 included studies. In the remaining 15 studies, appendiceal perforation rate was not reported or could not be calculated from the reported data. In the studies using surgical, pathologic, and either surgical or pathologic findings as the reference standard, appendiceal perforation rate range was 13.2%–62%, 8.5%–38.6%, and 13.7%–60.5%, respectively.

    Forty-five of the 74 studies (61%) did not clarify the descriptor defining appendiceal perforation. In the remaining 29 studies, a variety of descriptors were used (Supplementary Table 3). For the surgical or pathologic definition of appendiceal perforation, 10 studies used “perforation” as the sole descriptor without further clarification and 16 studies used “perforation” as one of the descriptors.

    Appendiceal perforation

    Of the 1,438 patients included in the study, 1,083 (75.3%), 55 (3.8%), 202 (14.0%), and 98 (6.8%) were classified into groups 1–4, respectively (Table 2). Overall, 355 (24.7%) had perforation documented in pathologic reports or surgical records. Fifteen patients had to undergo cecectomy (n = 12) or ileocecectomy (n = 3) instead of simple appendectomy for the following reasons. In 14 patients who were classified into groups 3 (n = 4) and 4 (n = 10), the surgeons considered the inflammation was too extensive to be treated with simple appendectomy. In 1 patient who was classified into groups 2, the surgeon chose to convert to cecectomy due to severe cecal edema and adhesion.

    Table 2
    Patient characteristics

    Use of laparoscopic appendectomy

    Overall, the laparoscopic approach was used in 976 of the 1,438 patients (67.9%); this included 70.7% (766 of 1,083), 73% (40 of 55), 52.5% (106 of 202), and 65% (64 of 98) of the patients in groups 1–4, respectively. Using the Bonferroni adjustment, group 1 significantly differed from group 3 (P < 0.001) but not from group 2 (P = 0.871) or 4 (P = 0.310). No significant differences were observed for the remaining pairwise comparisons (P = 0.010–0.450). The data for each investigating site are available in the Supplementary Table 4.

    In the univariable logistic regression analyses, group 3 was significantly associated with lower use of laparoscopic appendectomy. Age (25–34 years), male, and time to appendectomy (6–12 hours) were significantly associated with higher use; however, the differences between the subgroups were small (Table 3). In the multivariable analysis adjusted for clustering effects by site, the use of laparoscopic appendectomy was less frequent in groups 3 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6–0.9; P = 0.001) and 4 (AOR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6–1.0; P = 0.040) than in group 1, but was not significantly different between groups 1 and 2 (AOR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6–1.1; P = 0.125) (Table 3). The covariates significantly associated with higher use of laparoscopic appendectomy in the multivariable analysis were male and time to appendectomy (6–12 hours). The results of the analyses unadjusted for clustering effects by site are available in the Supplementary Table 5.

    Table 3
    Use of laparoscopic appendectomy adjusted for clustering effects by site

    Length of hospital stay

    Overall, the median length of hospital stay was 3.1 days (interquartile range, 2.6–4.5 days). The median length of the hospital stay (interquartile range) for groups 1–4 was 2.9 (2.5– 3.7), 3.0 (2.1–4.5), 5.1 (3.8–6.6), and 6.0 days (4.7–7.5 days), respectively (P < 0.001). In the pairwise comparisons, groups 3 and 4 significantly differed from groups 1 or 2 (P = 0.138), whereas no significant difference was observed between groups 1 and 2 (P = 0.138) or groups 3 and 4 (P = 0.068) (Fig. 3). The length of the hospital stay at each investigating site is summarized in the Supplementary Table 6.

    Fig. 3
    Length of hospital stay. Group 1, nonperforation; group 2, perforation identified pathologically but not surgically; group 3, perforation identified surgically but not pathologically; group 4, perforation identified both pathologically and surgically. The middle lines in the boxes denote medians, and the upper and lower margins in the boxes represent the upper and lower quartiles, respectively. The ends of the vertical lines indicate 1.5 times the interquartile range. The crosses indicate outliers.

    In the univariable logistic regression analyses, groups 2–4 and open appendectomy were significantly associated with prolonged hospital stay. Age (25–34 or 35–44 years) was significantly associated with the prolonged hospital stay; however, the differences were small (Table 4). In the multivariable analysis adjusted for clustering effects by site, prolonged hospital stay was more frequent in groups 3 (77.7%; AOR, 9.5; 95% CI, 6.7–13.4; P < 0.001) and 4 (89%; AOR, 23.6; 95% CI, 12.8–43.5; P < 0.001) than in group 1 (23.4%), but was not significantly different between groups 1 and 2 (35%; AOR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0–3.1; P = 0.070). The covariates significantly associated with the prolonged hospital stay in the multivariable analysis were age (35–44 years) and open appendectomy. Similar results were found in analyses unadjusted for clustering effects by site (Supplementary Table 7).

    Table 4
    Length of hospital stay

    DISCUSSION

    In our results from the 11 sites, discrepancies often occurred between surgical and pathologic findings in regard to the presence of appendiceal perforation in the individual patients. Of the 1,438 patients included in our study, 55 appendiceal perforations were identified in pathologic examination but not during surgery (group 2), and 202 appendiceal perforations were identified during surgery but not in the pathologic examination (group 3). In determining appendiceal perforation, surgeons' inspections during appendectomy can be limited [19], particularly in cases with extensive inflammation [25]. Pus can be present on the serosal surface of the inflamed appendix even in the absence of perforation, which can result in a false-positive confirmation of perforation [25]. On the other hand, pathologic evaluation can be often limited in demonstrating appendiceal perforation which was evident during surgery [12]. This can be partly attributable to the fact that microscopic examination may miss tiny perforations not included in tissue samples.

    It should be noted that what our data suggests is simple association between “laparoscopic approach” and “surgically identified perforation” as surgical identification of appendiceal perforation can be established only after the decision as to the use of laparoscopic approach. Our study was not aimed to propose an individualized management plan by the type of appendiceal perforation. Instead, the motivation for our study was to establish a clinically relevant reference standard for appendiceal perforation for future studies addressing appendiceal perforation rate or preoperative diagnosis of appendiceal perforation. From the literature review, we found a profound inconsistency and ambiguity with regard to the reference standard and descriptor of appendiceal perforation in the previous studies. This may partly explain the wide range of appendiceal perforation rates reported in the studies. Without a consistent and clinically-relevant reference standard for perforation, any data on appendiceal perforation rate or on the treatment of perforated appendicitis would not be truly meaningful.

    Our results from the 11 sites indicate that surgical findings are more clinically meaningful than pathologic findings as the reference standard, as surgically identified perforation was significantly associated with the less use of laparoscopic appendectomy and associated with longer hospital stay, while pathologically-identified perforation was not so. These results corroborate the hypothesis by St Peter et al. [12] who stated that pathologic evaluation is less useful than surgeons' observation in identifying perforation. Based on our findings, we recommend not counting pathologically-identified perforation cases (group 2 in our study) as appendiceal perforation in an investigation wherein appendiceal perforation is measured as an endpoint as it was originally meant to be. In term of the practice of individual patients, whether or not group 2 is called as perforation should depend on the clinical context.

    Some variations may have existed across as well as within the investigating sites in terms of the criteria or descriptor used for surgical or pathologic diagnosis of appendiceal perforation. It has been suggested to use appendiceal wall defect or spilled fecalith as the descriptors defining appendiceal perforation [12], as this definition can sensitively predict the development of postoperative intra-abdominal abscess. On the basis of our literature review and of our experiences from other studies [13, 26, 27], we recommend that appendiceal perforation should be determined based on the observation of spilled appendiceal contents, abscess, obvious peritonitis, or appendiceal wall defect observed during surgery. Further studies are needed to establish and standardize the descriptors defining appendiceal perforation.

    In regard to the use of laparoscopic appendectomy, we found that the regression model specification and the strength of association were changed if the adjustment for the clustering effects was not considered. This implies some intracluster correlation within site and some heterogeneity across the sites. Our results obtained using the generalized estimating equations represent average trends across the sites by accounting for the clustering effects due to the heterogeneity. The rate of laparoscopic appendectomy varied from 25.8% to 98% across the sites. Specifically, 2 sites used laparoscopic approach less frequently than the remaining sites, probably due to limited availability of laparoscopic surgeons and surgeons' reluctance for laparoscopic approach.

    In regard to the length of hospital stay, the results of our regression analyses were consistent regardless of the adjustment of the clustering effects. Our results showed that older age and open appendectomy were associated with prolonged hospital stay, corroborating previous study results [28]. The absolute lengths of hospital stay in our results may be longer than those in other countries [29], which may be associated with the generous reimbursement policy of Korean national medical insurance system in regard to hospitalization cost [30].

    Our study had limitations. First, the investigating sites were teaching hospitals that voluntarily participated in the original study. It is unclear if our results can be generalized to other hospitals. Second, we empirically chose the age window of 15–44 years for the inclusion of adolescents and young adults. Our results may not be generalized to patients with other ages. Furthermore, other hospitals may use different age thresholds in grouping patient age for choosing imaging study for suspected appendicitis. Third, as our database was originally formed for another study [15], we did not have individual patient data of comorbidities, postoperative complications such as intra-abdominal abscess, or preoperative CT findings.

    In conclusion, we found a profound inconsistency and ambiguity with regard to the reference standard and descriptor of appendiceal perforation in the previous studies. Our study of adolescents and young adults with appendicitis shows that surgically identified appendiceal perforation is associated with the less use of laparoscopic appendectomy and with longer hospital stay, while pathologically identified perforation is not so. We recommend using surgical rather than pathologic findings as the reference standard for the presence of appendiceal perforation in future investigations on appendiceal perforation rate or preoperative diagnosis of perforation.

    SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

    Supplementary Tables can be found via https://www.astr.or.kr/src/sm/astr-93-88-s001.pdf.

    Supplementary Table 1

    Investigating sites and site investigators

    Click here to view.(56K, pdf)

    Supplementary Table 2

    PubMed search

    Click here to view.(53K, pdf)

    Supplementary Table 3

    Articles addressing appendiceal perforation in 2012 and 2013

    Click here to view.(118K, pdf)

    Supplementary Table 4

    Use of laparoscopic appendectomy by site

    Click here to view.(50K, pdf)

    Supplementary Table 5

    Use of laparoscopic appendectomy: results of univariable and multivariable analyses unadjusted for clustering effects by site

    Click here to view.(58K, pdf)

    Supplementary Table 6

    Length of hospital stay by site

    Click here to view.(57K, pdf)

    Supplementary Table 7

    Prolonged hospital stay: results of univariable and multivariable analyses unadjusted for clustering effects by site

    Click here to view.(60K, pdf)

    REFERENCES

    Click here to view.(2M, pdf)

    Notes

    CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    The organization of the LOCAT Group is available in Supplementary Table 1. The authors thank the Medical Research Collaborating Center at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital for statistical analyses and Prof. Roland E. Andersson for his insightful comments for the study. This research was supported by grants of the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital Research Fund (04-2011-004) and the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI13C0004 & HI15C1052).

    References

      1. Luckmann R. Incidence and case fatality rates for acute appendicitis in California. A population-based study of the effects of age. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:905–918.
      1. Velanovich V, Satava R. Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications for quality assurance. Am Surg 1992;58:264–269.
      1. Andersson R, Hugander A, Thulin A, Nystrom PO, Olaison G. Indications for operation in suspected appendicitis and incidence of perforation. BMJ 1994;308:107–110.
      1. Braveman P, Schaaf VM, Egerter S, Bennett T, Schecter W. Insurance-related differences in the risk of ruptured appendix. N Engl J Med 1994;331:444–449.
      1. Ponsky TA, Huang ZJ, Kittle K, Eichelberger MR, Gilbert JC, Brody F, et al. Hospital- and patient-level characteristics and the risk of appendiceal rupture and negative appendectomy in children. JAMA 2004;292:1977–1982.
      1. Salminen P, Paajanen H, Rautio T, Nordstrom P, Aarnio M, Rantanen T, et al. Antibiotic therapy vs appendectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: The APPAC Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2015;313:2340–2348.
      1. Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Lobo DN. Safety and efficacy of antibiotics compared with appendicectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2012;344:e2156.
      1. Horstmann R, Tiwisina C, Classen C, Palmes D, Gillessen A. Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: which factors influence the decision between the surgical techniques? Zentralbl Chir 2005;130:48–54.
      1. Gorter RR, Eker HH, Gorter-Stam MA, Abis GS, Acharya A, Ankersmit M, et al. Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4668–4690.
      1. Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Pooler BD, Bruce RJ. Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:789–796.
        W-291.
      1. Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR. Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 2000;215:337–348.
      1. St Peter SD, Sharp SW, Holcomb GW 3rd, Ostlie DJ. An evidence-based definition for perforated appendicitis derived from a prospective randomized trial. J Pediatr Surg 2008;43:2242–2245.
      1. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, Kim S, Lee YJ, Kim KP, et al. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1596–1605.
      1. Ahn S. LOCAT group. LOCAT (low-dose computed tomography for appendicitis trial) comparing clinical outcomes following low- vs standard-dose computed tomography as the first-line imaging test in adolescents and young adults with suspected acute appendicitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014;15:28.
      1. Park JH. LOCAT Group. Diagnostic imaging utilization in cases of acute appendicitis: multi-center experience. J Korean Med Sci 2014;29:1308–1316.
      1. Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service. Hospital survey [Internet]. Wonju: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service; 2014 [cited 2015 June 27].
        Available from: http://www.hira.or.kr/main.do.
      1. National Health Insurance Service. 2014 Statistics on major surgeries in Korea [Internet]. Wonju: National Health Insurance Service; 2015 [cited 2016 July 23].
        Available from: http://www.nhis.or.kr/menu/retriveMenuSet.xx?menuId=F3326.
      1. Rosai J. Rosai and Ackerman's surgical pathology (10th ed) St. Louis (MO): Mosby; 2011:Appendix. p. 714-8.
      1. Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Noffsinger AE, Stemmermann GN, Lantz PE, Isaacson PG. In: Gastrointestinal pathology: an atlas and textz. 3rd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. pp. Non-neoplastic diseases of the appendix. p. 497-524.
      1. Andersson MN, Andersson RE. Causes of short-term mortality after appendectomy: a population-based case-controlled study. Ann Surg 2011;254:103–107.
      1. Maa J, Kirkwood KS. The appendix. In: Townsend CM, Beauchamp RD, Evers BM, Mattox KL, editors. Sabiston textbook of surgery: the biological basis of modern surgical practice. 19th ed. Philadelphia(PA): Elsevier/Saunders Inc; 2012. pp. 1279-1293.
      1. Yeh CC, Wu SC, Liao CC, Su LT, Hsieh CH, Li TC. Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis is more favorable for patients with comorbidities, the elderly, and those with complicated appendicitis: a nationwide population-based study. Surg Endosc 2011;25:2932–2942.
      1. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology 2007;18:805–835.
      1. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA. Mortality among patients admitted to hospitals on weekends as compared with weekdays. N Engl J Med 2001;345:663–668.
      1. Park CS, Chang MS, Park IA, Kim YI, Choe G. Pathologic analysis of 2159 cases of appendix. Korean J Pathol 2000;34:39–49.
      1. Kim SY, Lee KH, Kim K, Kim TY, Lee HS, Hwang SS, et al. Acute appendicitis in young adults: low- versus standard-radiation-dose contrast-enhanced abdominal CT for diagnosis. Radiology 2011;260:437–445.
      1. Kim MS, Park HW, Park JY, Park HJ, Lee SY, Hong HP, et al. Differentiation of early perforated from nonperforated appendicitis: MDCT findings, MDCT diagnostic performance, and clinical outcome. Abdom Imaging 2014;39:459–466.
      1. Tiwari MM, Reynoso JF, Tsang AW, Oleynikov D. Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic and open appendectomy in management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis. Ann Surg 2011;254:927–932.
      1. Barrett ML, Hines AL, Andrews RM. Trends in rates of perforated appendix, 2001-2010. HCUP Statistical Brief #159. July 2013 [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project; 2017 [cited 2015 May 8].
        Available from: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb159.pdf.
      1. Kim KH, Lee SC, Lee SK, Choi BJ, Jeong W, Kim SJ. Does Korea's current diagnosis-related group-based reimbursement system appropriately classify appendectomy patients? Ann Surg Treat Res 2016;91:66–73.
    Cited by
    Crossref 7
    Google Scholar 
    PubMed Central 2
    MeSH Terms
    Adolescent
    Adult
    Appendectomy
    Appendicitis
    Cross-Sectional Studies
    Humans
    Length of Stay
    Logistic Models
    Pathology*
    Retrospective Studies
    Metrics
    Share
    Links to
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 3

    Tables
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 4

    PERMALINK