590
Views
30
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Perforation risk in pediatric appendicitis: assessment and management

, &
Pages 135-145 | Published online: 26 Oct 2018

Abstract

Perforated appendicitis, as defined by a visible hole in the appendix or an appendicolith free within the abdomen, carries significant morbidity in the pediatric population. Accurate diagnosis is challenging as there is no single symptom or sign that accurately predicts perforated appendicitis. Younger patients and those with increased duration of symptoms are at higher risk of perforated appendicitis. Elevated leukocytosis, bandemia, high C-reactive protein, hyponatremia, ultrasound, and CT are all useful tools in diagnosis. Distinguishing patients with perforation from those without is important given the influence of a perforation diagnosis on the management of the patient. Treatment for perforated appendicitis remains controversial as several options exist, each with its indications and merits, illustrating the complexity of this disease process. Patients may be managed non-operatively with antibiotics, with or without interval appendectomy. Patients may also undergo appendectomy early in the course of their index hospitalization. Factors known to predict failure of non-operative management include appendicolith, leukocytosis greater than 15,000 white blood cells per microliter, increased bands, and CT evidence of disease beyond the right lower quadrant. In this review, the indications and benefits of each treatment strategy will be discussed and an algorithm to guide treatment decisions will be proposed.

Statement of the problem

Epidemiology

Appendicitis is the most common disease process requiring urgent surgery in pediatric patients.Citation1Citation8 It is one of the most common reasons for pediatric hospital admissions, responsible for 60,000–80,000 admissions annually in the USA.Citation2,Citation9,Citation10 It is estimated that the lifetime risk of developing appendicitis is 7% in girls and 9% in boys,Citation9,Citation11 with a lifetime risk of appendectomy of 23.1% for females and 12.0% for males.Citation11

Pathophysiology

Appendicitis exists as a spectrum of disease from simple inflammation to perforation with local contamination to perforation with extensive contamination. The primary etiology is thought to be obstruction of the appendiceal lumen from a variety of factors including lymphoid hyperplasia, appendicolith, foreign body, parasites, or malignancy.Citation5,Citation9,Citation12,Citation13 The obstruction of the lumen leads to distension of the appendix as it continues to secrete mucus and bacteria proliferate. This distension continues, resulting in impairment of lymphatic and venous drainage from the appendix and ultimately limiting arterial supply as well. As the disease progresses, appendiceal tissue undergoes necrosis and then perforates.Citation9,Citation12 Although the natural progression of disease results in perforation, not all patients follow this progression and some will resolve spontaneously.Citation9,Citation12,Citation14

Nomenclature

While describing appendicitis as a disease spectrum, it is also often described with a multitude of classifications.Citation15 Acute, uncomplicated, complicated, advanced, purulent, perforated, gangrenous, necrotic, contained perforation, free perforation, and peritonitis are mentioned throughout the literature. In a study where a diagnosis of appendicitis severity was made on photographs compared to objective criteria, surgeons displayed considerable variability in diagnosis and poor agreement on which patients were perforated.Citation16 The lack of evidence to support each individual classification and abundance of terms likely results in a high degree of redundancy with multiple terms used to describe the same entity.Citation15 Holcomb and St Peter proposed defining perforated appendicitis as a hole in the appendix or an appendicolith in the abdomen, resulting in the dichotomous classification of appendicitis as perforated or non-perforated.Citation15 A common, objective definition is critical to allow for comparing outcomes across different centers.Citation15,Citation17 This definition was validated prospectively and found useful for identifying patients at risk for developing postoperative abscess.Citation17 This is the definition for perforated appendicitis that will be used in this paper.

Who is at risk?

Pediatric perforated appendicitis rates are often quoted at ~30% with a range from 20% to 74%, but can be much higher for younger children.Citation6,Citation11,Citation13,Citation18Citation27 Younger children have less ability to articulate their symptoms, and a retrospective study found perforation rates nearly 100% in patients less than 1-year-old and 69% in 5-year-olds.Citation24 Higher perforation rates have been linked to pre-hospital factors such as race, social class, and insurance status.Citation19,Citation20,Citation27,Citation28 Perforated appendicitis rates were found to be higher in AsianCitation19 and black childrenCitation19,Citation27 compared to white children. Children without insurance and children with public insurance also had higher perforation rates compared to privately insured children.Citation19,Citation27,Citation28 Frequently associated with barriers to health care access, a longer duration of symptoms has been associated with higher perforated appendicitis rates.Citation5,Citation10,Citation20,Citation21,Citation24Citation26,Citation29,Citation30 Perforated appendicitis has also been associated with the presence of an appendicolith.Citation5,Citation20,Citation31

Morbidity of pediatric perforated appendicitis

The presence of perforation plays an important role in in patient morbidity.Citation5,Citation15Citation19,Citation22,Citation24,Citation25,Citation29,Citation30,Citation32 Perforated appendicitis has been associated with elevated postsurgical complications.Citation19,Citation22,Citation25,Citation30 Ponsky et al noted the risk of developing an intra-abdominal abscess, wound infection, or postoperative ileus was 39% vs 8% in perforated vs non-perforated appendicitis.Citation19 Other complications include the development of pelvic collections and higher rates of readmissions.Citation25 Longer length of stay (LOS) has also been associated with perforated compared to non-perforated appendicitis.Citation18,Citation22,Citation24,Citation25

Part of the morbidity of perforated appendicitis stems from its difficulty to diagnose, resulting in delays to appropriate treatment.Citation4 Treatment for acute and perforated appendicitis differ.Citation4,Citation6,Citation7,Citation9,Citation10,Citation33 Management of perforated appendicitis is much more complex with a myriad of treatment options and multiple controversies surrounding various aspects of each option.Citation6,Citation15

Diagnostic challenges

As children do not often manifest the classic presentation of appendicitis, correctly diagnosing perforated appendicitis poses additional challenges.Citation4,Citation12,Citation34 Misdiagnosis of appendicitis has been observed in 15%–28% of patients in the emergency department.Citation34,Citation35 Pediatric patients may present with atypical and nonspecific symptoms,Citation5,Citation9 and young children have difficulty vocalizing their symptoms.Citation9 There is no single symptom or sign reliable in predicting perforation.Citation25 Experienced pediatric surgeons showed higher aptitude at diagnosing appendicitis.Citation5,Citation21,Citation36 They have been shown to distinguish non-appendicitis, acute appendicitis, and perforated appendicitis at 96.8%, 93.5%, and 93.5% accuracy, respectively.Citation5,Citation21

Patient history

Younger patients are at increased risk of perforated appendicitis.Citation9,Citation10,Citation20,Citation24Citation26 This follows an inverse linear relationship with patients less than 1-year-old who have rates of perforated appendicitis as high as 100%,Citation24 children less than 5 years old 69%–74%,Citation20,Citation24 and children over 8 years old 30%–40%.Citation20 Although being less than 5 years old is commonly associated with higher perforation rates than slightly older children,Citation10,Citation20,Citation24 other studies have noticed a significant difference in perforation rates when using other age cutoffs such as 9-year-olds.Citation25

Consistently throughout the literature, a longer duration of symptoms has been associated with perforated appendicitis in both adults and children.Citation5,Citation10,Citation21,Citation24,Citation26,Citation29,Citation30,Citation37 This ranges from symptoms being present for 24 hours,Citation10 36 hours,Citation20,Citation29 or greater than 48 hours.Citation5,Citation21,Citation25 In an adult study, presence of symptoms greater than 36 hours showed significantly increased risk for perforation, and this risk was seen to steadily increase over 12-hour increments.Citation29 Within the pediatric literature, there is a general trend that the increased symptom duration means increased risk of perforation, but there is not a consensus on a time cutoff amongst studies when this risk of perforation is significantly higher.Citation5,Citation10,Citation20,Citation21,Citation24Citation26,Citation30

Signs and symptoms that present with perforated appendicitis vary between studies. AnorexiaCitation5 and emesisCitation5,Citation26 have been associated with perforated appendicitis, but these are nonspecific. Generalized pain, diffuse tenderness, and peritoneal signs are more commonly present in perforated appendicitis compared to acute appendicitis,Citation5,Citation21,Citation24,Citation25 but their presence does not definitively diagnose perforated appendicitis. Similarly, patients who are more febrile have a higher risk of perforated appendicitis, but the specific temperatures of “more febrile” vary between studies.Citation5,Citation25,Citation26,Citation30

Laboratory markers

Laboratory markers such as leukocytosis, bandemia, C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and hyponatremia can also aid in the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. Leukocytosis is the most frequently cited laboratory marker associated with perforation.Citation5,Citation9,Citation10,Citation21,Citation30,Citation38 Some authors state the presence of leukocytosis is predictive,Citation10,Citation30,Citation38 while others qualify that it should be markedly elevated to signify perforation.Citation5,Citation9,Citation21 BandemiaCitation5,Citation26 and elevated ESR (greater than 25 mm/hCitation5,Citation25) have also been shown to be predictive of perforated appendicitis.

CRP has been looked at as a sole predictor of perforation or in combination with leukocytosis.Citation5,Citation30,Citation38 Gosain et al found both CRP and leukocytosis to be univariate predictors of perforated appendicitis, but only leukocytosis greater than 19,400 cells per microliter was a multivariate predictor of perforation.Citation5 Although Siddique et al found leukocytosis a better predictor than CRP for acute appendicitis, the sensitivity for diagnosing both acute and perforated appendicitis increased when leukocytosis and CRP were combined.Citation30 Beltrán et al found leukocytosis and CRP, either alone or in combination, useful in diagnosing acute appendicitis.Citation38 Combining the two results or utilizing them individually leads to poor sensitivity for diagnosing perforated appendicitis, but improved specificity.Citation38

Hyponatremia has been observed as a strong independent predictor of complicated appendicitis in children.Citation10 Pham et al found significantly higher rates (P<0.01) of hyponatremia in complicated appendicitis (63% vs 33%, P<0.01) compared to non-complicated appendicitis. After increased duration of symptoms, it was the second strongest predictor of complicated appendicitis (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.0–4.9, P<0.01).Citation10 Hyponatremia has been documented as predictor of perforated appendicitis in the adult population.Citation39,Citation40 The concept of hyponatremia as a predictor of disease severity is not unique to appendicitis. Hyponatremia has been well documented as a predictor of mortality in necrotizing soft tissue infectionsCitation41,Citation42 and a useful diagnostic tool in delineating necrotizing vs non-necrotizing soft tissue infections.Citation43 It has also been implicated as a predictor of gangrenous cholecystitis,Citation10,Citation44 ischemic bowel in small bowel obstruction,Citation45 and perforated colonic pathology in elderly patients undergoing emergency general surgery operations.Citation10,Citation40

Imaging

Imaging is an important adjunct to the diagnosis of appendicitis, but it is not always mandatory and the diagnostic accuracy is not 100%.Citation7 Imaging modalities include plain radiography, ultrasound (US), CT, and MRI. Most authors advocate for selective imaging when the diagnosis is uncertain given the risks, benefits, costs, and time delay to surgery associated with imaging.Citation9,Citation46Citation48 Staged imaging protocols have also been recommended to minimize the risks of contrast and radiation to pediatric patients.Citation9,Citation46Citation48

Plain radiography has limited benefit in diagnosing appendicitis and plays a minimal role in distinguishing non-perforated vs perforated appendicitis.Citation9 Findings associated with appendicitis include lumbar scoliosis and obliteration of the psoas shadow.Citation9 An appendicolith, which is associated with but not diagnostic of perforated appendicitis, is observed on 10%–20% of films in patients with appendicitis.Citation9,Citation24 Plain radiography may be more useful in other disease processes when suspicion for appendicitis is low.Citation9,Citation12

US is a favored imaging modality given its low risk profile. It is recommended as the first imaging modality in patients with atypical symptoms and often as the first imaging study in staged imaging protocols.Citation9,Citation46Citation49 US provides the benefits of being performed at the bedside, is noninvasive, does not require contrast, and has no radiation exposure.Citation5,Citation9,Citation12 It has the drawbacks of being operator dependent, requires patient cooperation which can be challenging in young children, lacks sensitivity in early appendicitis, and is less accurate in obese patients.Citation5,Citation9,Citation12 A normal appendix must be visualized to rule out appendicitis.Citation9 Sensitivity is usually greater than 80%, and specificity is greater than 90% for non-perforated appendicitis.Citation5,Citation9 In perforated appendicitis, this decreases to a sensitivity of 35% and specificity of 98%.Citation25

CT is often thought to be more accurate than US in perforated appendicitis.Citation9,Citation12,Citation46,Citation47 It is a second choice imaging modality when US is inconclusive for acute appendicitis,Citation9,Citation47Citation49 but a first choice imaging modality in perforated appendicitis.Citation46 It is not operator dependent, but it may require sedation and has the risk of ionizing radiation, possibly resulting in future malignancy.Citation5,Citation9,Citation12,Citation46 Sensitivity and specificity approach 95% for acute appendicitis,Citation5,Citation9,Citation12,Citation50 but this is lower in perforated appendicitis.Citation9,Citation51 When 200 CT scans of perforated appendicitis were reviewed by junior and senior surgical residents, two staff interventional radiologists, and four attending pediatric surgeons, accuracy was 72% with sensitivity of 62% and specificity of 81%.Citation51 Findings on CT associated with perforated appendicitis include the presence of an abscess, appendicolith, and extraluminal air.Citation5

MRI is advocated by some for its benefits of being extremely accurate and lack of radiation.Citation9,Citation52Citation57 Although an older study found MRI comparable to US in diagnosing perforated appendicitis,Citation58 newer studies promote its accuracy,Citation53Citation55 including the ability to differentiate acute from perforated appendicitis.Citation52 Several of these studies have also shown excellent accuracy without using contrast.Citation53,Citation55 Critics mention factors such as availability, time, and cost making MRI impractical for widespread application in pediatrics.Citation9,Citation56 Yet, recent advances in MRI techniques such as open MRI negate the need for sedation and make it much more accessible.

Management

The optimal treatment for perforated appendicitis remains controversial and complex.Citation4,Citation6,Citation18,Citation19,Citation22,Citation23,Citation32,Citation59Citation61 Although most authors concur on the importance of fluid resuscitation and antibiotics, one study in 1980 reported minimal morbidity with close observation and no administration of antibiotics for pediatric patients who present with greater than 5 days of symptoms with a palpable mass and no generalized peritonitis.Citation59 Current standard of care and practice guidelines advocate for the early initiation of antibiotics in treatment algorithms.Citation32,Citation62Citation65 After initiation of antibiotics, treatment options diverge into operative management or non-operative management with or without interval appendectomy. Although there continues to be extensive debate regarding the merits of each treatment option, this review will highlight the indications for each option and propose an algorithm to assist with treatment decisions.

Antibiotic regimen

A multitude of antibiotic regimens exist from the classic triple antibiotic regimen to effective dual and single agent regimens. Triple antibiotic therapy consists of ampicillin, gentamicin, and clindamycin or metronidazole for usually 10–14 days.Citation4,Citation9,Citation15,Citation66Citation71 This regimen was found to be effective, relatively inexpensive, and have minimal morbidity.Citation15,Citation66 Due to concerns for cost,Citation15,Citation66 complexity of multiple daily doses,Citation15 and need for blood to monitor gentamicin nephrotoxicity,Citation15 alternative regimens were pursued. The most commonly described alternative regimen involves once daily dosing of ceftriaxone and metronidazole.Citation4,Citation15,Citation63,Citation65,Citation68,Citation71Citation73 This regimen was found to be superior to triple antibiotic therapy in terms of lower postoperative temperatures, decreased postoperative abscess rate, shorter LOS, and reduced costs.Citation15,Citation65,Citation68 Alternative dual antibiotic regimensCitation65,Citation67,Citation73 and single antibiotic regimensCitation4,Citation15,Citation65,Citation66,Citation73 have also been well described with good efficacy and similar benefits of shorter LOS and reduced cost.Citation65,Citation71,Citation73

Non-operative management: early studies

The non-operative approach to appendicitis was advocated in as early as 1901 by Ochsner.Citation59,Citation74 It took many decades before similar literature was published for pediatric patients with perforated appendicitis.Citation59,Citation69,Citation75,Citation76 In most of these studies, perforation was described as an appendiceal mass.Citation59,Citation75,Citation76 Janik et al published one of the first articles where 37 pediatric patients presenting with more than 5 days of symptoms, leukocytosis, and a focal appendiceal mass without signs of peritonitis received closer observation in the hospital and no antibiotics. Eighty-one percent of the patients (31 children) clinically improved in 5–22 days. The remaining 19% had recurrence or worsening of symptoms requiring abscess drainage in 2–10 days. There were no fatalities and only one child had recurrent symptoms prior to receiving interval appendectomy. They concluded nonoperative management with close observation was safe in selected patients and that interval appendectomy can be performed as late as 20 weeks after symptom resolution.Citation59 Powers et al also advocated for the safety of non-operative management in perforated appendicitis where patients were treated with triple antibiotic therapy and closely followed until interval appendectomy.Citation69 Appendectomy was recommended if there was no clinical improvement in 12–24 hours or if there was recurrence of symptoms, specifically fever or abdominal pain.Citation69 A similar success rate of greater than 80% for non-operative management was observed by Skoubo-Kristensen and Hvid.Citation75 Over 10 years, 193 adult and pediatric patients were treated. In 23 patients (12%) operation was needed in the initial period, and of the 170 patients successfully treated, 12 recurred (7.1%). The patients who underwent interval appendectomy had a low rate of operative complications (3.4%) for small bowel obstruction, wound infections, and abscess.Citation75 Bagi and Dueholm also noted successful treatment of 40 adult and pediatric patients with an appendiceal mass with antibiotics and percutaneous drainage if an abscess was visualized.Citation76 The main conclusions of these early publications focused on safety, efficacy, and viability of non-operative management in perforated appendicitis.

Non-operative management: benefits

Success of non-operative management has been well documented in numerous studies.Citation61,Citation70,Citation77Citation93 Some studies specify the presence of a mass or discrete abscess in the description of perforated appendicitis and non-operative management.Citation77Citation88 Successful treatment has been seen with drainageCitation76,Citation81,Citation87,Citation94Citation96 and no drainageCitation77,Citation88,Citation97 of abscesses. Other studies highlight the success of non-operative management and do not make a distinction regarding the presence of mass or discrete abscess.Citation61,Citation70,Citation89Citation93 Documented benefits include decreased morbidity,Citation68,Citation70,Citation80,Citation81,Citation86,Citation89,Citation90,Citation96,Citation98 shorter LOS,Citation70,Citation84,Citation99 lower costs,Citation71,Citation84,Citation89 improved quality of life,Citation71 and fewer days off.Citation71

Patient morbidity has many manifestations and can range in severity from mild to severe. The most commonly noted source of morbidity with early appendectomy is increased postoperative complications.Citation70,Citation80,Citation86,Citation90,Citation96,Citation98,Citation100 These may be infectious in nature such as wound infections,Citation70,Citation98,Citation100 abscess development,Citation70,Citation90,Citation98,Citation100 and unspecified infectious complications.Citation86,Citation96,Citation98 Other types of complications may include bowel obstruction,Citation98,Citation100 reoperation,Citation98,Citation100 and readmission.Citation6,Citation30 Mortality is very rare in pediatric perforated appendicitis.Citation6 Multiple studies noted shorter LOS, another manifestation of decreased morbidity, with non-operative management.Citation70,Citation84,Citation99 Shorter LOS likely contributed to the decreased costs associated with non-operative management.Citation71,Citation84,Citation89 Additional cost saving comes from the complete avoidance of an operation when patients are treated with antibiotics alone.Citation71

Non-operative management: drainage controversy

Within non-operative management, the role of abscess drainage remains controversial. Described as early as 1986, Bagi and Dueholm noted the benefits of percutaneous drainage.Citation76 Of the 31 patients noted to have an abscess on US, 17 underwent percutaneous drainage. Sixteen (94%) of the percutaneously drained patients had symptom resolution with few complications and minimal late sequelae.Citation76 St Peter et al randomized 40 pediatric patients to either early appendectomy (n=20) or non-operative management with abscess drainage (n=20).Citation95 The non-operative cohort had eleven drains placed; three patients had abscess aspiration but no drain placement, and six had no drain as the abscess was felt to be inaccessible by interventional radiology.Citation95 The non-operative group had a significantly faster return to oral intake and fewer health care visits.Citation95 One of the largest studies to date regarding abscess drainage is by Luo et al.Citation87 While most studies have cohorts of less than 40 patients undergoing drainage,Citation76,Citation77,Citation81,Citation94Citation96 Luo’s study had 1,225 pediatric patients where 150 (12.2%) underwent drainage and 1,075 (87.8%) received only antibiotics and no drainage.Citation87 Although the patients with drainage had a longer LOS, significantly lower recurrence, decreased rate of interval appendectomy, and fewer complications following interval appendectomy were observed.Citation87 Older patients 13–18 years old had significantly lower need for interval appendectomy compared to two younger cohorts of 7–12 years old and 6 years old or younger.Citation87 Multiple additional studies have supported the role of abscess drainageCitation81,Citation94,Citation96 with benefits of symptomatic improvementCitation81,Citation94 and decreased postoperative complications.Citation96

Although multiple studies are overall in favor of drainage,Citation76,Citation81,Citation87,Citation94Citation96 downsides such as technical failure,Citation81,Citation94 increased LOS,Citation87 readmission,Citation81 increased imaging,Citation95,Citation97 and increased number of physician visitsCitation95 are described in these studies. Hoffmann et al advocated that treatment without drainage was safe and effective.Citation77 They followed 37 patients where 28 were treated with observation alone and 19 underwent immediate operation. The observation group was admitted for a median of 10 days (range 1–36 days) and had no in-hospital complications. After discharge, one patient developed recurrent appendicitis and another patient developed a recurrent abscess. In contrast, the immediate operation group had a slightly shorter median hospital stay (8 days, range 4–36 days) but significantly more complications (n=10).Citation77 Keckler et al raised numerous concerns with percutaneous drainage including procedural complications, persistent symptoms, recurrent abscess, multiple CT scans, numerous office visits, and increased financial burden.Citation88 One of the largest retrospective reviews critical of drain placement was by Gasior et al.Citation97 Two-hundred seventeen pediatric patients with perforated appendicitis and an abscess greater than 5 cm2 were included; 160 had a drain placed and 57 either had aspiration with no drain placement or no procedure at all. The patients with drains had larger abscesses, more CT scans, and more total health care visits. After correcting for abscess size, the patients with drains still received more CT scans and total health care visits. There was no difference in total number of antibiotic days, complications, or recurrence rates.Citation97 They proposed that abscesses under 20 cm2 could be treated with antibiotics alone, but that additional randomized studies are needed to validate this threshold.Citation97

Non-operative management: role for interval appendectomy

The necessity of interval appendectomy has recently been questioned by several authors.Citation61,Citation83,Citation84,Citation92,Citation99,Citation101Citation106 Early studies of non-operative management routinely included interval appendectomy,Citation59,Citation69,Citation75,Citation89 and this trend has continued for several decades.Citation49,Citation64,Citation78,Citation79,Citation81,Citation82,Citation86,Citation88,Citation90,Citation95,Citation96,Citation100,Citation107,Citation108 Proponents of interval appendectomy cite low morbidityCitation70,Citation85,Citation91,Citation109 and decreased risk of appendicitis recurrence.Citation85,Citation109,Citation110 An additional benefit is the removal of undiagnosed pathology such as carcinoid, appendiceal duplication, Meckel’s diverticulum, and malignancy.Citation6,Citation85,Citation100,Citation109 The inflammatory reaction in perforated appendicitis was thought by many surgeons to lead to appendiceal fibrosis and the obliteration of the appendiceal lumen, ultimately preventing the development of future episodes of appendicitis.Citation109 This theory was disproven on examination of interval appendectomy specimens.Citation91,Citation100,Citation109,Citation111 The rate of obliterated lumens ranged from 0% to 16%, demonstrating patients remain at risk for recurrent appendicitis.Citation91,Citation100,Citation109 St. Peter and Snyder noted a 1%–3% annual risk of recurrent appendicitis and that interval appendectomy may be indicated when a child has 60–80 years of life expectancy.Citation100 Recent practice guidelines for perforated appendicitis echo this sentiment and advocate for interval appendectomy given the risk of recurrence remains 8%–15%.Citation64,Citation71

Critics of interval appendectomy question its necessity in all patientsCitation61,Citation84,Citation101,Citation103,Citation104,Citation106 and some propose a more selective approach.Citation83,Citation99 The low risk of appendicitis recurrence is a frequent rationale against routine interval appendectomy.Citation101,Citation102,Citation104 Hall et al found that 80% of patients do not need an interval appendectomy; five interval appendectomies needed to be performed for one patient to benefit from avoiding appendicitis recurrence.Citation101 They noted that interval appendectomy would treat less than 1% of missed carcinoid diagnoses and there remains a small, but real risk of complication at 3%.Citation101 Other critics observed a higher risk of complications, up to one-third of patients undergoing interval appendectomy.Citation92,Citation102,Citation112 Increased costs,Citation84,Citation102,Citation105,Citation112 longer LOS,Citation104 and difficulty with repeat operationCitation106 are other arguments against performing interval appendectomy.

Predicting failure of non-operative management

Appropriately selecting patients for non-operative management is essential to its success. A substantial number of studies have commented on various factors that are predictive of success and/or failure of non-operative management.Citation33,Citation71,Citation83,Citation89,Citation92Citation94,Citation96,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103,Citation107,Citation109,Citation110,Citation113Citation116 The presence of an appendicolith has been implicated in increased risk of recurrent appendicitis and failure of non-operative management.Citation33,Citation71,Citation100,Citation103,Citation109,Citation110,Citation115 Although this is the most commonly cited reason for failure of non-operative management, Talishinskiy et al found appendicolith was not predictive of non-operative failure in their retrospective review of 64 cases of pediatric perforated appendicitis.Citation93 Zhang et al found that most appendicoliths resolve and that the presence of a persistent appendicolith was more predictive of failing non-operative management.Citation83 Nazarey et al reviewed 105 pediatric perforated appendicitis cases managed non-operatively and found the combination of an appendicolith plus leukocytosis greater than 15,000 white blood cells (WBC) per microliter was associated with treatment failure.Citation92 Bandemia has been associated with non-operative failure in several studies,Citation93,Citation99,Citation100,Citation107,Citation116 particularly when the percentage of bands exceeds 15%.Citation93,Citation100,Citation107 Extensive disease on imaging has also been associated with failure of non-operative management, but several different definitions of extensive disease have been utilized.Citation94,Citation96,Citation99,Citation100,Citation113,Citation114,Citation116 CT with findings outside the right lower quadrantCitation100,Citation113,Citation116 and large or poorly defined abscessCitation94,Citation96,Citation114 are common definitions. Free peritoneal fluid on imaging is another definition used as well.Citation99 The presence of a bowel obstruction has also been linked with failure of non-operative management.Citation89,Citation93,Citation99 Clinical definitions of a bowel obstruction include symptoms being present for greater than 72 hoursCitation89 or the need for a nasogastric tube within the first day or two of admission.Citation99 The literature is mixed on other factors such as symptom durationCitation92,Citation93,Citation114 and the presence or absence of an abscessCitation93,Citation96,Citation115 at predicting who will fail non-operative management. Whyte et al looked at 58 patients who underwent non-operative management of CT-proven perforated appendicitis and found that fever after 24 hours of treatment was associated with increased risk of failure.Citation116 The importance of continued evaluation and assessment of the patient’s response to non-operative management cannot be emphasized enough. If patients fail to improve with conservative measures, appendectomy should be pursued.Citation4,Citation116

Operative management: early appendectomy

Many surgeons and studies advocate for early appendectomy in the setting of perforated appendicitis.Citation4,Citation6,Citation15,Citation22,Citation23,Citation32,Citation64,Citation71,Citation93,Citation95,Citation100,Citation103,Citation108,Citation112,Citation117Citation120 The best quality of evidence is found in two separate randomized trials.Citation6,Citation95 St Peter et al performed a pilot study with 40 patients aged 7–18 years with a diagnosis of perforated appendicitis with an abscess that were randomized to early appendectomy (n=20) and non-operative management that consisted of intravenous antibiotics, percutaneous drainage when feasible, and interval appendectomy (n=20).Citation95 Both cohorts were similarly matched in patient characteristics such as age, weight, body mass index (BMI), WBC, maximum temperature, and maximum axial area of abscess in cm.Citation2 The early appendectomy group trended toward longer operating times, but this was not significant. The early appendectomy group did have fewer health care visits and less CT scans, but no difference in total charges. Aside from faster time to oral intake, the non-operative group did not demonstrate improved outcomes compared to the early appendectomy group.Citation95 Blakely et al performed a randomized trial of 131 patients less than 18 years old with a diagnosis of perforated appendicitis without a mass or well-formed abscess.Citation6 Sixty-four patients were randomized to early appendectomy within 24 hours of admission, and 67 were randomized to non-operative management with antibiotics and interval appendectomy. The cohorts were similarly matched for age, sex, race, duration of symptoms, admission WBC, CT scan completed at initial assessment, presence of an intra-abdominal abscess, and intensive care unit admission. The only significant difference between the groups was a higher emergency department temperature in the interval appendectomy group (38.4°C vs 38.0°C). The early appendectomy group experienced significantly fewer adverse events and decreased time away from normal activities.Citation6

Multiple studies have demonstrated decreased morbidity in early appendectomy compared to non-operative management with or without interval appendectomy.Citation6,Citation22,Citation23,Citation93,Citation100,Citation108,Citation118Citation120 Decreased complications and adverse events such as intra-abdominal abscess, small bowel obstruction, need for total parenteral nutrition, and central line related adverse events have been seen with early appendectomy.Citation6,Citation22,Citation93,Citation118 Decreased number of proceduresCitation22,Citation23,Citation100 and fewer imaging studiesCitation22,Citation23,Citation93,Citation95 are other benefits. Health care utilization is less with early appendectomy with decreased LOS,Citation22,Citation93,Citation100,Citation108,Citation119 fewer days of intravenous antibiotics,Citation22,Citation119 less doctor visits,Citation23,Citation95,Citation119 and decreased subsequent hospital admissions.Citation22,Citation23,Citation118,Citation119 Patient-centered outcomes such as decreased recovery time,Citation6,Citation108 improved patient quality of life at 3 months,Citation120 and decreased parental stress at 3 monthsCitation120 have also been documented.

Proponents of early appendectomy also point to the associated financial benefits.Citation23,Citation32,Citation64,Citation100,Citation108,Citation112,Citation118,Citation119 Some of these financial benefits stem from increased health care utilization seen with interval appendectomy in terms of increased LOS, increased readmissions, and increased complications.Citation112,Citation119,Citation121 In an analysis of Blakely et al’s randomized controlled trial, Myers et al examined the hospital costs of both cohorts.Citation112 Early appendectomy was associated with lower costs due to fewer complications and a smaller number of unplanned readmissions. Patients who experienced adverse events in the trial had double the costs of those who did not have an adverse event.Citation112

Treatment algorithm

Although the diagnosis and management of perforated appendicitis remains complex and controversial, guidelines exist and have been demonstrated to both improve patient outcomes and decrease resource utilization.Citation31,Citation32,Citation62Citation64 Although clinician experience is the best tool in making an accurate diagnosis,Citation5,Citation21,Citation36 laboratory studies and selective imaging should be utilized to assist in diagnosis. After a diagnosis of perforated appendicitis is made, all patients should be placed nil per os and started on appropriate broad-spectrum IV antibiotics.

Patients with hemodynamic instability and/or diffuse peritonitis should proceed to appendectomy after aggressive resuscitation. Patients with an early presentation and symptoms of less than 5–7 days should also proceed to the operating room. Patients who are hemodynamically stable, without diffuse peritonitis, and have a delayed presentation of 5–7 days or greater are candidates for non-operative management. If an abscess is present and amenable to drainage, this should be pursued. It is important to be mindful of which patients are at increased risk of failing non-operative management. Close observation, evaluation, and assessment should continue. If the patient fails to improve within 24–48 hours, non-operative management should be abandoned and appendectomy pursued.

In patients managed with appendectomy or with nonoperative management, antibiotics should be continued while the patient remains admitted. Although a 5-day course of IV antibiotics is recommended, the duration should be based on clinical criteria.Citation65 Intravenous antibiotics should be continued until patients are afebrile for 24 hours, are tolerating a diet, and their pain remains well-controlled. At this point, patients may be discharged. The role of oral antibiotics for an outpatient after discharge is debated, but current recommendations are for a total duration of 7 days, particularly if the patient is discharged prior to 5 days of IV antibiotics.Citation65 Patients managed non-operatively should be followed closely in the outpatient setting, be counseled on the signs and symptoms of recurrent appendicitis, and advised to return promptly should such symptoms arise. After completing non-operative management, patients should undergo interval appendectomy.

Conclusion

Although diagnosis of perforated appendicitis is challenging, it remains important in guiding management of patients. No single symptom or sign is predictive of acute appendicitis, but patients at increased risk include socially and economically disadvantaged, those without private health insurance, minorities, and younger patients. Diagnostic clues include longer duration of symptoms, diffuse peritoneal signs, elevated fevers, markedly elevated leukocytosis, bandemia, elevated CRP, hyponatremia, and ESR greater than 25 mm/h. Imaging, especially US and CT, are useful adjuncts but not always necessary. The best diagnostic indicator remains physician experience and expertise as pediatric surgeons have greater than 90% accuracy in distinguishing non-appendicitis, acute appendicitis, and perforated appendicitis.

Management options include non-operative management with antibiotics and no interval appendectomy, nonoperative management with interval appendectomy, and early appendectomy during index hospitalization. Non-operative management has been demonstrated to be safe and efficacious in appropriately selected patients. Risk factors for failing non-operative management include the presence of an appendicolith, leukocytosis greater than 15,000 WBC per microliter, increased bands, and CT evidence of extensive disease. Critics note increased imaging, number of health care visits, cost, and complications are associated with nonoperative management. There is a paucity of randomized trials. Pooled results from two randomized trials comparing non-operative management with interval appendectomy found early appendectomy was associated with decreased time away from normal activities, fewer adverse events, lower costs, fewer health care visits, and a smaller number of imaging studies. Patients remain on intravenous antibiotics until they are afebrile with stable vital signs, well-controlled pain, and tolerating a regular diet. There continues to be debate regarding the optimal duration of antibiotics once a patient is discharged to home.

Following treatment guidelines and an algorithm simplifies complex management decisions and improves patient outcomes. Perforated appendicitis remains challenging to diagnose and complex to manage. Most data are retrospective and from single institution studies. More multi-institutional, randomized trials are needed to further evaluate the safety, efficacy, and indications of the various treatment options.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  • CurranTJMuenchowSKThe treatment of complicated appendicitis in children using peritoneal drainage: Results from a public hospitalJ Pediatr Surg19932822042088437082
  • SivitCJSiegelMJApplegateKENewmanKDWhen Appendicitis Is Suspected in ChildrenRadiographics2001211247262 questionnaire 288–29411158659
  • GutherySLHutchingsCMichael DeanJHoffCNational estimates of hospital utilization by children with gastrointestinal disorders: analysis of the 1997 kids’ inpatient databaseJ Pediatr2004144558959415126991
  • MorrowSENewmanKDCurrent management of appendicitisSemin Pediatr Surg2007161344017210481
  • GosainAWilliamsRFBlakelyMLDistinguishing acute from ruptured appendicitis preoperatively in the pediatric patientAdv Surg2010441738520919515
  • BlakelyMLWilliamsRDassingerMSEarly vs interval appendectomy for children with perforated appendicitisArch Surg2011146666066521339413
  • SvenssonJHallNEatonSPierroAWesterTA review of conservative treatment of acute appendicitisEuropean Journal of Pediatric Surgery2012220318519422767171
  • SvenssonJFPatkovaBAlmströmMNonoperative treatment with antibiotics versus surgery for acute nonperforated appendicitis in children: a pilot randomized controlled trialAnn Surg20152611677125072441
  • AshcraftKWHolcombGWMurphyJPOstlieDJAshcraft’s Pediatric Surgery6th edLondon; New YorkSaunders/Elsevier2014
  • PhamX-BDSullinsVFKimDYFactors predictive of complicated appendicitis in childrenJ Surg Res20162061626627916376
  • AddissDGShafferNFowlerBSTauxeRVThe epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United StatesAm J Epidemiol199013259109252239906
  • BrunicardiFCAndersenDKBilliarTRDunnDLHunterJGSchwartz’s Principles of Surgery10th edNew YorkMcGraw-Hill Education2014
  • Abes¸MPetikBKazilSNonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis in childrenJ Pediatr Surg20074281439144217706511
  • AnderssonREThe natural history and traditional management of appendicitis revisited: spontaneous resolution and predominance of prehospital perforations imply that a correct diagnosis is more important than an early diagnosisWorld J Surg2007311869217180556
  • HolcombGSt. PeterSCurrent management of complicated appendicitis in childrenEuropean Journal of Pediatric Surgery2012220320721222767174
  • PonskyTAHafiMHeissKDinsmoreJNewmanKDGilbertJInterobserver variation in the assessment of appendiceal perforationJournal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques200919s1s15s1819371148
  • St. PeterSDSharpSWHolcombGWOstlieDJAn evidence-based definition for perforated appendicitis derived from a prospective randomized trialJ Pediatr Surg200843122242224519040944
  • NewmanKPonskyTKittleKAppendicitis 2000: variability in practice, outcomes, and resource utilization at thirty pediatric hospitalsJ Pediatr Surg200338337237912632352
  • PonskyTAHospital- and patient-level characteristics and the risk of appendiceal rupture and negative appendectomy in childrenJAMA2004292161977198215507583
  • BrenderJDMarcuseEKKoepsellTDHatchEIChildhood appendicitis: factors associated with perforationPediatrics19857623013064022704
  • WilliamsRFBlakelyMLFischerPEDiagnosing ruptured appendicitis preoperatively in pediatric patientsJ Am Coll Surg2009208581982519476843
  • BonadioWRebillotKUkwuomaOSaracinoCIskhakovAManagement of Pediatric Perforated Appendicitis: Comparing Outcomes Using Early Appendectomy Versus Solely Medical ManagementPediatr Infect Dis J2017361093794126669739
  • ChurchJTKleinEJCarrBDBruchSWEarly appendectomy reduces costs in children with perforated appendicitisJ Surg Res201722011912429180172
  • NanceMLAdamsonWTHedrickHLAppendicitis in the young child: A continuing diagnostic challengePediatr Emerg Care200016316016210888451
  • PengY-SLeeH-CYeungC-YSheuJ-CWangN-LTsaiY-HClinical criteria for diagnosing perforated appendix in pediatric patientsPediatr Emerg Care200622747547916871105
  • NelsonDSBatemanBBolteRGAppendiceal perforation in children diagnosed in a pediatric emergency departmentPediatr Emerg Care200016423323710966339
  • BarrettMLHinesALAndrewsRMTrends in Rates of Perforated Appendix, 2001–2010: Statistical Brief #159Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical BriefsRockville (MD)Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US)2006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK169006/Accessed May 27, 2018
  • SardaSShortHLHockenberryJMMccarthyIRavalMVRegional variation in rates of pediatric perforated appendicitisJ Pediatr Surg20175291488149128259382
  • BickellNAAufsesAHRojasMBodianCHow time affects the risk of rupture in appendicitisJ Am Coll Surg2006202340140616500243
  • SiddiqueKBaruahPBhandariSMirzaSHarinathGDiagnostic accuracy of white cell count and C-reactive protein for assessing the severity of paediatric appendicitisJRSM Short Rep20112759621847441
  • StringelGAppendicitis in children: A systematic approach for a low incidence of complicationsThe American Journal of Surgery198715466316353425808
  • WillisZIDugganEMBucherBTEffect of a Clinical Practice Guideline for Pediatric Complicated AppendicitisJAMA Surg20161515e16019427027263
  • MinneciPCSulkowskiJPNacionKMFeasibility of a nonoperative management strategy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in childrenJ Am Coll Surg2014219227227924951281
  • RothrockSGSkeochGRushJJJohnsonNEClinical features of misdiagnosed appendicitis in childrenAnn Emerg Med199120145501984727
  • ChangY-JChaoH-CKongM-SHsiaS-HYanD-CMisdiagnosed acute appendicitis in children in the emergency departmentChang Gung Med J201033555155720979706
  • KosloskeAMLoveCLRohrerJEGoldthornJFLaceySRThe diagnosis of appendicitis in children: outcomes of a strategy based on pediatric surgical evaluationPediatrics20041131293414702443
  • LinC-JChenJ-DTiuC-MCan ruptured appendicitis be detected preoperatively in the ED?Am J Emerg Med2005231606615672340
  • BeltránMAAlmonacidJVicencioAGutiérrezJCrucesKSCumsilleMAPredictive value of white blood cell count and C-reactive protein in children with appendicitisJ Pediatr Surg20074271208121417618882
  • KimDYNassiriNde VirgilioCAssociation Between Hyponatremia and Complicated AppendicitisJAMA Surg2015150991191226222325
  • KäserSAFurlerREvequozDCMaurerCAHyponatremia is a specific marker of perforation in sigmoid diverticulitis or appendicitis in patients older than 50 yearsGastroenterol Res Pract201320131146289123476637
  • YaghoubianAde VirgilioCDauphineCLewisRJLinMUse of admission serum lactate and sodium levels to predict mortality in necrotizing soft-tissue infectionsArch Surg2007142984084617875838
  • WallDBde VirgilioCBlackSKleinSRObjective criteria may assist in distinguishing necrotizing fasciitis from nonnecrotizing soft tissue infectionThe American Journal of Surgery200017911720
  • WongC-HKhinL-WHengK-STanK-CLowC-OThe LRINEC (Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis) score: A tool for distinguishing necrotizing fasciitis from other soft tissue infections*Crit Care Med20043271535154115241098
  • FalorAEZobelMKajiANevilleAde VirgilioCAdmission variables predictive of gangrenous cholecystitisAm Surg201278101075107823025944
  • O’LearyMPNevilleALKeeleyJAKimDYde VirgilioCPluradDSPredictors of Ischemic Bowel in Patients with Small Bowel ObstructionAm Surg2016821099299427779991
  • RussellWSSchuhAMHillJGClinical practice guidelines for pediatric appendicitis evaluation can decrease computed tomography utilization while maintaining diagnostic accuracyPediatr Emerg Care201329556857323611916
  • Garcia PeñaBMCookEFMandlKDSelective Imaging Strategies for the Diagnosis of Appendicitis in ChildrenPediatrics20041131242814702442
  • Garcia PenaBMTaylorGAFishmanSJMandlKDCosts and effectiveness of ultrasonography and limited computed tomography for diagnosing appendicitis in childrenPediatrics2000106467267611015507
  • HansenLWDolginSETrends in the Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric AppendicitisPediatr Rev2016372525826834224
  • PeñaBMGTaylorGALundDPMandlKDEffect of computed tomography on patient management and costs in children with suspected appendicitisPediatrics1999104344044610469767
  • FraserJDAguayoPSharpSWAccuracy of computed tomography in predicting appendiceal perforationJ Pediatr Surg201045123123520105609
  • RosenbaumDGAskinGBeneckDMKovanlikayaADifferentiating perforated from non-perforated appendicitis on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imagingPediatr Radiol201747111483149028578474
  • MartinJFMathisonDJMullanPCOteroHJSecondary imaging for suspected appendicitis after equivocal ultrasound: time to disposition of MRI compared to CTEmerg Radiol201825216116829249008
  • DibbleEHSwensonDWCartagenaCBairdGLHerliczekTWEffectiveness of a Staged US and Unenhanced MR Imaging Algorithm in the Diagnosis of Pediatric AppendicitisRadiology201828631022102929156146
  • KimJRSuhCHYoonHMPerformance of MRI for suspected appendicitis in pediatric patients and negative appendectomy rate: A systematic review and meta-analysisJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging201847376777828815859
  • SchulzTBennekJSchneiderJPMRI-guided pediatric interventionsRofo2003175121673168114661139
  • SchulzTTröbsRBSchneiderJPPediatric MR-guided interventionsEur J Radiol2005531576615607853
  • LeeuwenburghMMWiezerMJWiardaBMOPTIMAP study groupAccuracy of MRI compared with ultrasound imaging and selective use of CT to discriminate simple from perforated appendicitisBr J Surg20141011e147e15524272981
  • JanikJSEinSHShandlingBSimpsonJSStephensCANonsurgical management of appendiceal mass in late presenting childrenJ Pediatr Surg19801545745767411371
  • ChenCBotelhoCCooperAHibberdPParsonsSKCurrent practice patterns in the treatment of perforated appendicitis in childrenJ Am Coll Surg2003196221222112595049
  • LópezJJDeansKJMinneciPCNonoperative management of appendicitis in childrenCurr Opin Pediatr201729335836228306630
  • RobinsonJRAvritscherEBCGayJCMeasuring the Value of a Clinical Practice Guideline for Children With Perforated AppendicitisAnn Surg2017266119520027501175
  • KnottEMGasiorACOstlieDJHolcombGWSt PeterSDDecreased resource utilization since initiation of institutional clinical pathway for care of children with perforated appendicitisJ Pediatr Surg20134861395139823845636
  • SlusherJBatesCAJohnsonCWilliamsCDasguptaRvon AllmenDStandardization and improvement of care for pediatric patients with perforated appendicitisJ Pediatr Surg20144961020102524888855
  • LeeSLIslamSCassidyLDAbdullahFArcaMJAntibiotics and appendicitis in the pediatric population: an American Pediatric Surgical Association Outcomes and Clinical Trials Committee Systematic ReviewJ Pediatr Surg201045112181218521034941
  • FishmanSJPelosiLKlavonSLO’RourkeEJPerforated appendicitis: Prospective outcome analysis for 150 childrenJ Pediatr Surg200035692392610873036
  • RodriguezJCBucknerDSchoenikeSGomez-MarinOOiticicaCThompsonWRComparison of two antibiotic regimens in the treatment of perforated appendicitis in pediatric patientsIntJournal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics2000381049249911073291
  • St. PeterSDLittleDCCalkinsCMA simple and more cost-effective antibiotic regimen for perforated appendicitisJ Pediatr Surg20064151020102416677904
  • PowersRJAndrassyRJBrennanLPWeitzmanJJAlternate approach to the management of acute perforating appendicitis in childrenSurg Gynecol Obstet198115244734757209777
  • VaneDWFernandezNRole of Interval Appendectomy in the Management of Complicated Appendicitis in ChildrenWorld J Surg2006301515416369706
  • RenteaRMSt. PeterSDPediatric AppendicitisSurg Clin North Am20179719311227894435
  • HurstALOlsonDSommeSOnce-Daily Ceftriaxone Plus Metronidazole Versus Ertapenem and/or Cefoxitin for Pediatric AppendicitisJ Pediatric Infect Dis Soc201761576426703242
  • Guillet-CarubaCCheikhelardAGuilletMBacteriologic epidemiology and empirical treatment of pediatric complicated appendicitisDiagn Microbiol Infect Dis201169437638121396532
  • OchsnerAJThe cause of diffuse peritonitis complicating appendicitis and its prevention: Chairman’s address, delivered before the section on surgery and anatomy, at the fifty-second annual meeting of the A. M. A., at St. Paul, Minn., June 4–7, 1901J Am Med Assoc1901XXXVI2517471754
  • Skoubo-KristensenEHvidIThe appendiceal mass: results of conservative managementAnn Surg198219655845877125745
  • BagiPDueholmSNonoperative management of the ultrasonically evaluated appendiceal massSurgery198710156026053554578
  • HoffmannJRolffMLomborgVFranzmannMUltraconservative management of appendiceal abscessJ R Coll Surg Edinb199136118202037992
  • GillickJVelayudhamMPuriPConservative management of appendix mass in childrenBr J Surg200188111539154211683755
  • GuidaEPederivaFGraziaMDPerforated appendix with abscess: Immediate or interval appendectomy? Some examples to explain our choiceInt J Surg Case Rep201512151825985296
  • ErdoğanDIbrahimKaramanNarcıAComparison of two methods for the management of appendicular mass in childrenPediatr Surg Int2005212818315614511
  • RoachJPPartrickDABrunyJLAllshouseMJKarrerFMZieglerMMComplicated appendicitis in children: a clear role for drainage and delayed appendectomyAm J Surg2007194676977318005769
  • EmilSDuongSAntibiotic therapy and interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in children: a selective approachAm Surg200773991792217939427
  • ZhangH-LBaiY-ZZhouXWangW-LNonoperative Management of Appendiceal Phlegmon or Abscess with an Appendicolith in ChildrenJournal of Gastrointestinal Surgery201317476677023315049
  • Fawkner-CorbettDJawaidWBMcpartlandJLostyPDInterval appendectomy in children clinical outcomes, financial costs and patient benefitsPediatr Surg Int201430774374624874344
  • OwenAMooreOMarvenSRobertsJInterval Laparoscopic Appendectomy in ChildrenJournal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques200616330831116796448
  • FuruyaTInoueMSugitoKEffectiveness of Interval Appendectomy After Conservative Treatment of Pediatric Ruptured Appendicitis with AbscessIndian J Surg201577S31041104427011507
  • LuoC-CChengK-FHuangC-STherapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage and factors for performing an interval appendectomy in pediatric appendiceal abscessBMC Surg20161617227756361
  • KecklerSJTsaoKSharpSWOstlieDJHolcombGWSt. PeterSDResource utilization and outcomes from percutaneous drainage and interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with abscessJ Pediatr Surg200843697798018558168
  • BufoAJShahRSLiMHInterval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in childrenJ Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A1998842092149755912
  • HenryMCGollinGIslamSMatched analysis of nonoperative management vs immediate appendectomy for perforated appendicitisJ Pediatr Surg2007421192417208535
  • IqbalCWKnottEMMortellaroVEFitzgeraldKMSharpSWSt. PeterSDInterval appendectomy after perforated appendicitis: what are the operative risks and luminal patency rates?J Surg Res2012177112713022482752
  • NazareyPPStylianosSVelisETreatment of suspected acute perforated appendicitis with antibiotics and interval appendectomyJ Pediatr Surg201449344745024650475
  • TalishinskiyTLimbergJGinsburgHKuenzlerKFisherJTomitaSFactors associated with failure of nonoperative treatment of complicated appendicitis in childrenJ Pediatr Surg20165171174117626882869
  • McneeleyMFVoNJPrabhuSJVergnaniJShawDWPercutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal abscess in children with perforated appendicitisPediatr Radiol201242780581222246413
  • St. PeterSDAguayoPFraserJDInitial laparoscopic appendectomy versus initial nonoperative management and interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with abscess: a prospective, randomized trialJ Pediatr Surg201045123624020105610
  • WeberTRKellerMABowerRJSpinnerGVierlingKIs delayed operative treatment worth the trouble with perforated appendicitis is children?Am J Surg2003186668568914672780
  • GasiorACMarty KnottEOstlieDJSt. PeterSDTo drain or not to drain: an analysis of abscess drains in the treatment of appendicitis with abscessPediatr Surg Int201329545545823344151
  • SimillisCSymeonidesPShorthouseAJTekkisPPA meta-analysis comparing conservative treatment versus acute appendectomy for complicated appendicitis (abscess or phlegmon)Surgery2010147681882920149402
  • FawleyJGollinGExpanded utilization of nonoperative management for complicated appendicitis in childrenLangenbecks Arch Surg2013398346346623269520
  • St. PeterSDSnyderCLOperative management of appendicitisSemin Pediatr Surg201625420821127521710
  • HallNJJonesCEEatonSStantonMPBurgeDMIs interval appendicectomy justified after successful nonoperative treatment of an appendix mass in children? A systematic reviewJ Pediatr Surg201146476777121496553
  • DarwazehGCunninghamSCKowdleyGCA Systematic Review of Perforated Appendicitis and Phlegmon: Interval Appendectomy or Wait-and-See?Am Surg2016821111526802841
  • GonzalezDODeansKJMinneciPCRole of non-operative management in pediatric appendicitisSemin Pediatr Surg201625420420727521709
  • PuapongDLeeSLHaighPIKaminskiALiuILApplebaumHRoutine interval appendectomy in children is not indicatedJ Pediatr Surg20074291500150317848238
  • RavalMVLautzTReynoldsMBrowneMDollars and sense of interval appendectomy in children: a cost analysisJ Pediatr Surg20104591817182520850626
  • TanakaYUchidaHKawashimaHMore than one-third of successfully nonoperatively treated patients with complicated appendicitis experienced recurrent appendicitis: Is interval appendectomy necessary?J Pediatr Surg201651121957196127666007
  • KogutKABlakelyMLSchroppKPThe association of elevated percent bands on admission with failure and complications of interval appendectomyJ Pediatr Surg200136116516811150458
  • LiuZFYuJCHsiehHFLinCHPerforated appendicitis: urgency or interval surgery?Zentralbl Chir2007132653954118098082
  • MazziottiMVMarleyEFWinthropALFitzgeraldPGWaltonMLangerJCHistopathologic analysis of interval appendectomy specimens: support for the role of interval appendectomyJ Pediatr Surg19973268068099200074
  • EinSHLangerJCDanemanANonoperative management of pediatric ruptured appendix with inflammatory mass or abscess: presence of an appendicolith predicts recurrent appendicitisJ Pediatr Surg200540101612161516226993
  • GahukambleDBGahukambleLDSurgical and pathological basis for interval appendicectomy after resolution of appendicular mass in childrenJ Pediatr Surg200035342442710726681
  • MyersALWilliamsRFGilesKHospital cost analysis of a prospective, randomized trial of early vs interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis in childrenJ Am Coll Surg2012214442743422342789
  • LevinTWhyteCBorzykowskiRHanBBlitmanNHarrisBNonoperative management of perforated appendicitis in children: can CT predict outcome?Pediatr Radiol200737325125517186230
  • NadlerEPReblockKKVaughanKGMezaMPFordHRGainesBAPredictors of outcome for children with perforated appendicitis initially treated with non-operative managementSurg Infect200454349356
  • AprahamianCJBarnhartDCBledsoeSEVaidYHarmonCMFailure in the nonoperative management of pediatric ruptured appendicitis: predictors and consequencesJ Pediatr Surg200742693493817560197
  • WhyteCLevinTHarrisBHEarly decisions in perforated appendicitis in children: lessons from a study of nonoperative managementJ Pediatr Surg20084381459146318675635
  • JordanJSKovalcikPJSchwabCWAppendicitis with a palpable massAnn Surg198119322272297469557
  • DugganEMMarshallAPWeaverKLA systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials comparing early versus interval appendectomy for children with perforated appendicitisPediatr Surg Int201632764965527161128
  • DennettKVTracySFisherSTreatment of perforated appendicitis in children: what is the cost?J Pediatr Surg20124761177118422703790
  • SchurmanJVCushingCCGareyCLLaituriCASt PeterSDQuality of life assessment between laparoscopic appendectomy at presentation and interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis with abscess: analysis of a prospective randomized trialJ Pediatr Surg20114661121112521683209
  • LiuJJBellamyGRMccormickMPatient bypass behavior and critical access hospitals: implications for patient retentionJ Rural Health2007231172417300474