International Journal of Medical and Dental Sciences

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

A Clinicopathological Study of Acute Appendicitis in Eastern India


Affiliations
1 Department of Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
 

Background:Appendicitis is the most commonly performed emergency abdominal surgery. An accurate and timely diagnosis of acute appendicitis remains a challenge.

Objective: This study was performed to determine and correlate between the clinical patterns of acute appendicitis, laboratory and ultrasound findings and pathology found in appendicectomy specimens to help timely diagnosis and reduce negative appendicectomy rate.

Methods: This is a cross sectional study, detailed history and clinical examination of the patient was carried out at the time of admission. Operative findings along with any complications as well as histopathological findings were recorded. Patients were followed up for one month for any complications.

Results: A total of 125 patients were treated for appendicitis during this period with a male female ratio of 1:1.36. Most common age group was the 2nd decade with mean age being 20 years, while most common symptom was abdominal pain. Ultrasonography showed evidence of acute appendicitis in 85.6% and leucocytosis in 66.4% cases. Although only 5.6% of appendices grossly appeared normal during surgery, histopathology showed 14.4% to be normal. Wound sepsis (24.8%) was the most common post-operative complication.

Conclusion: Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in our setting is still based on high index of suspicion following clinical evaluation. Combining this with laboratory findings and ultrasound scan has yielded an acceptable negative appendicectomy rate. We advocate routine use of ultrasound along with clinical evaluation and laboratory tests for the timely diagnosis of acute appendicitis and an early surgical intervention to prevent complications.


Keywords

Appendicitis, Vermiform Appendix, Appendicectomy, Clinicopathological Evaluation.
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Lewis FR, Holcroft JW, Boey J, Dunphy E. Appendicitis. A critical review of diagnosis and treatment in 1,000 cases. Arch Surg 1975 May;110(5):677-84.

  • Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, Dellinger EP. Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A populationbased analysis. JAMA 2001 Oct 10;286(14):1748-53.

  • Marudanayagam R, Williams GT, Rees BI. Review of the pathological results of 2660 appendicectomy specimens. J Gastroenterol 2006;41:745-9.

  • Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 1990 Nov;132(5):91025.

  • I Chamisa. A Clinicopathological Review of 324 Appendices Removed for Acute Appendicitis in Durban, South Africa: A Retrospective Analysis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2009 Nov;91(8):688-92.

  • Singhal R , Angmo N , Somaiah N , Majumdar H , Chaturvedi KU. A retrospective review of the histopathology and clinicopathologic correlates of appendices removed from patients of acute appendicitis. Minerva Chirurgica 2007;62(1):11-8.

  • Subedi N, Dangol US, Adhikary MB, Pudasaini S, Baral R. Acute appendicitis: a 2- year review of clinical presentation and histopathology. Journal of Pathology of Nepal 2011;1:104-7.

  • John H, Neff U, Kelemen M. Appendicitis diagnosis today: clinical and ultrasonic deductions. World J Surg 1993 MarApr;17(2):243-9.

  • Mason JH, Byrne MP, Gaw FC. Surgery of the vermiform appendix. Surg Clin North Am 1977;57:1303-15.

  • Colson M, Skinner KA, Punnington G. High negative appendicectomy rates are no longer acceptable. Am J Surg 1997;174:723-6.

  • Ronald Lee Nichols. Preventing Surgical Site Infections. Clin Med Res 2004 May;2(2):115-8.

  • Hahler B. Surgical wound dehiscence. Medsurg Nurs 2006 Oct;15(5):296-300.


Abstract Views: 377

PDF Views: 137




  • A Clinicopathological Study of Acute Appendicitis in Eastern India

Abstract Views: 377  |  PDF Views: 137

Authors

N. M. P. Ekka
Department of Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
P. R. Singh
Department of Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Ranchi, Jharkhand, India
V. Kumar
Department of Surgery, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

Abstract


Background:Appendicitis is the most commonly performed emergency abdominal surgery. An accurate and timely diagnosis of acute appendicitis remains a challenge.

Objective: This study was performed to determine and correlate between the clinical patterns of acute appendicitis, laboratory and ultrasound findings and pathology found in appendicectomy specimens to help timely diagnosis and reduce negative appendicectomy rate.

Methods: This is a cross sectional study, detailed history and clinical examination of the patient was carried out at the time of admission. Operative findings along with any complications as well as histopathological findings were recorded. Patients were followed up for one month for any complications.

Results: A total of 125 patients were treated for appendicitis during this period with a male female ratio of 1:1.36. Most common age group was the 2nd decade with mean age being 20 years, while most common symptom was abdominal pain. Ultrasonography showed evidence of acute appendicitis in 85.6% and leucocytosis in 66.4% cases. Although only 5.6% of appendices grossly appeared normal during surgery, histopathology showed 14.4% to be normal. Wound sepsis (24.8%) was the most common post-operative complication.

Conclusion: Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in our setting is still based on high index of suspicion following clinical evaluation. Combining this with laboratory findings and ultrasound scan has yielded an acceptable negative appendicectomy rate. We advocate routine use of ultrasound along with clinical evaluation and laboratory tests for the timely diagnosis of acute appendicitis and an early surgical intervention to prevent complications.


Keywords


Appendicitis, Vermiform Appendix, Appendicectomy, Clinicopathological Evaluation.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18311/ijmds%2F2016%2F100596