Research Paper Effectiveness of conservative management of uncomplicated acute
appendicitis: A single hospital based prospective study
Mumtaz KH. Alnaser a, Qays A. Hassan b, *, Laith N. Hindosh a
a
Department of Surgery, Al-Kindy College of Medicine, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq b Section of Radiology,
Department of Surgery, Al-Kindy College of Medicine, University of Baghdad, Baghdad, Iraq
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 8 November 2017 Received in revised form 19 November 2017 Accepted 19 November 2017 Available
online 6 December 2017
Keywords: Acute appendicitis Conservative treatment Surgery Antibiotics
a b s t r a c t
Background: Acute appendicitis is one of the commonest causes of acute abdomen. There is a wide discussion and controversy
on the surgical and nonsurgical treatment of acute uncomplicated appen- dicitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the
efficacy and outcomes of the conservative management of selected cases of acute appendicitis with an antibiotic first plan.
Patients and methods: This was a single hospital-based prospective study with a duration of 25 months. Patients with clinical and
radiological features of acute appendicitis presenting within 72 h of the beginning of abdominal pain with Alvarado score 5 were
included. The patients received a therapeutic dose of broad-spectrum antibiotics and symptomatic treatment. The follow-up
period was 6 months. Results: 90 patients were evaluated, 54 (60%) patients were female and 36 (40%) patients were male with
mean age 34.4 years. Conservative treatment was successful in 68 (75.6%) patients and failed in 22 (24.4%) patients. No
mortality recorded in this study. The main complications which occurred in those patients who failed to respond to conservative
treatment were perforated appendicitis (3 patients), appendicular abscess (3 patients) and appendicular mass (4 patients).
Conclusion: Majority of cases of the first attack of uncomplicated acute appendicitis can be treated successfully by conservative
treatment. However, conservative treatment demands precise communi- cation, close monitoring and follow-up to recognize
failure which needs to be treated immediately by surgery. © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Surgical Associates Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction
Acute appendicitis is one of the most common surgical emer- gencies seen in general surgery practice. Complications can be
severe and include perforation and generalized peritonitis. Currently, ap- pendectomy has been the primary treatment, even in
cases of un- confirmed diagnosis, given the low incidence of major complications. However, in 15e30% of cases the appendix is
found to be free of disease upon resection [1,2]. Appendectomy can result in many complications such as surgical wound
infection, intestinal obstruc- tion due to adhesions, pneumonia, and tubal infertility in females.
Non-operative treatment of an uncomplicated acute appendi- citis has safety implications. But delaying surgery may increase
the risk of perforated appendicitis, intra-abdominal abscesses, and localized or diffuse peritonitis.
Surgery may be associated with a longer hospital stay and higher costs compared with nonoperative management with an-
tibiotics, but delayed treatment and a perforated appendix may worsen morbidity, duration of sick leave and costs. However,
nonoperative management with antibiotics may be a cost-effective alternative to surgery in a large percentage of patients without
increasing the risk and may reduce hospital stay and costs in both developed and third world countries [3].
There is considerable discussion regarding the application of conservative treatment compared with surgical treatment in
selected cases of acute appendicitis, as few studies have addressed this issue to date [4,5].
The idea of application of conservative treatment on selected cases of acute appendicitis is not new. In 1908 Alfred Stengel
wrote: “Treated in a purely medical or temporary manner, the great ma- jority of patients with appendicitis recovery” [6].
Other reports state that immediate appendectomy can be
* Corresponding author. Baghdad University, Al-Kindy College of Medicine, Al-Nahdha Square, 10071, Baghdad, Iraq.
avoided for at least 24 h without increasing morbidity if antibiotics are administered [7,8]. Other authors suggest that
appendectomy
E-mail address:
[email protected] (Q.A. Hassan).
may not be necessary for the majority of patients with acute
International Journal of Surgery Open 10 (2018) 1e4
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Surgery Open
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijso
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijso.2017.11.007 2405-8572/© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Surgical Associates Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
without uncomplicated appendicitis, as the condition resolves spontane-
the need for surgical intervention and no
appendicitis ously without the need for a surgical procedure in many patients
during a follow-up of 6 months. and in others may be
treatable with antibiotics alone [9]. This
Failure of conservative treatment was divided into
two sections. approach has many advantages, including high success and low
First, treatment failure which indicates a lack of
clinical improve- recurrence rates, reduced morbidity and mortality, less pain,
ment, necessitating appendectomy while attempting
conservative shorter hospitalization and sick leave, and reduced costs [10].
treatment in the admitted patient. Second, recurrence
which in- The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of con-
dicates repeated symptoms or disease within the
follow-up period servative treatment in uncomplicated acute appendicitis using
of 6 months in an earlier successfully conservatively
managed antibiotic as a first treatment plan and to assess the treatment
patient. failure.
2.1. Statistical analysis 2. Patients and methods
Statistical package for social science version 20 (SPSS
20) was This study was carried out in our hospital from January 2015 to
used for both data entry and data analysis. Discrete
variable pre- December 2016. A total of 90 patients were enrolled in this study
sented as number (%). Chi-square test (or fisher exact
test when based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Informed consent for
appropriate) used to test the significance of association
for the all patients, as well as ethical approval for the study from the
discrete variable. p-value of <0.05 were considered
significant. hospital scientific committee, were obtained. All patients above 16 years of age with a history of pain in right iliac
fossa for less than
3. Results 72 h and clinically diagnosed as the first
attack of appendicitis with Alvarado score 5 (Table 1) were included in this study. Ultrasound
In this study, 90 cases of uncomplicated acute
appendicitis were of abdomen and pelvis was done for all patients to confirm the
included and managed conservatively. 54 (60%)
patients were fe- clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis and to exclude the possi-
male and 36 (40%) patients were male. Mean age was
34.4 year and bilities of other intraabdominal pathologies. The specificity and
range between 16 and 60 years. Table 2 show the age
distribution of sensitivity of ultrasound in our institution to diagnose acute
the study. The maximum number of patients (40%)
belonged to age appendicitis was 86.6% and 86.5% according to recent study done by
group 20e29 years. Al-Marzooq et al. [11].
Sixty (66.7%) patients presented with signs and
symptoms of Exclusion criteria included recurrent appendicitis, patients
acute appendicitis to the hospital with time interval 24
h, 18 (20%) presented with complicated appendicitis such as perforation, ab-
patients presented with time interval 24e48 h and 18
(20%) pa- scess, mass on clinical examination or radiological reports, those
tients presented with time interval 48e72 h as shown in
Table 3. who are lost during follow-up and patients unwilling for conser-
In the 90 patients who were managed
conservatively for un- vative management, patients with a medical disease such as dia-
complicated acute appendicitis, conservative treatment
was suc- betes mellitus and hypertension, immunocompromised patients,
cessful in 68 (75.6%) patients with no treatment failure
or recurrence pregnancy and allergy to antibiotics.
in the follow-up period of 6 months. However, in the
remaining 22 All patients meeting the inclusion criteria then admitted to the
(24.4%) patients, conservative treatment was failed.
Treatment fail- hospital and received intravenous antibiotics (cefotaxime 1 g twice
ure during initial admission was seen in 10 patients
(11.1%) whereas daily and metronidazole infusion 500 mg/100 ml 3 times per day)
recurrence was seen in 12 patients (13.3%) cases who
were suc- for at least 24 h. During this time patients received intravenous
cessfully managed during primary admission (Table
4). fluids, no oral intake with 6 hourly charts for (temperature, blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate and local abdominal
sign). Patients whose signs and symptoms had improved discharged home at the next morning and informed to continue with oral
antibiotics (ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice a day and metronidazole 500 mg three times a day) for a total of 10 days. In patients
whose clinical condition had not improved and did not respond to con- servative treatment or worsened were operated by
appendectomy. Patients were told to contact immediately if pain recurs, vomiting and fever had occurred. Follow-up at the end of
treatment for six months was done. Patients were told to inform us if they under- went an operation in somewhere else.
Successful conservative treatment was defined as being dis- charged from the hospital following the resolution of symptoms
Table 1 Alvarado score.
Score
Symptoms Migratory RIF pain 1 Anorexia 1 Nausea and vomiting 1 Signs Tenderness (RIF) 2 Rebound tenderness 1 Elevated
temperature 1 Laboratory Leukocytosis 2 Shift to left 1 Total 10
Table 2 Age distribution of the study.
Age (years) No. of patients (%) Mean age
19 6 (6.6) 17 20e29 36 (40) 26 30e39 24 (27) 34 40e49 18 (20) 42 50e60 6 (6.6) 53 Total 90 (100) 34.4
Table 3 Number of the patients according to the duration of presenting symptoms.
Hours of attack of appendicitis No. of the patients (%)
24 h 60 (66.7) 24e48 h 18 (20) 48e72 h 12 (13.3) Total 90 (100)
Table 4 Outcomes of conservative treatment.
Outcome No. of the patients (%)
Successful 68 (75.6) Treatment failure 10 (11.1) Recurrence 12 (13.3)
M.KH. Alnaser et al. / International Journal of Surgery Open 10 (2018) 1e4 2
Out of 22 patients who failed to respond to conservative treat- ment, 10 patients were operated after 2 days of treatment, 5 pa-
tients were operated after completion of treatment course after 10 days and 7 patients were operated during the follow-up period
of 6 months as shown in Table 5.
In the operated patients, 12 patients had acute suppurative appendicitis, 3 patients had perforated appendix, 3 patients had an
appendicular abscess and 4 patients had an appendicular mass.
Our results showed that the gender, the age and the duration of attacks of appendicitis had no significant association effects
with the outcomes of the conservative treatment as illustrated in Table 6.
4. Discussion
Acute appendicitis is one of the commonest causes of acute abdomen. Although appendectomy has been regarded as the gold-
standard, conservative management with antibiotics is gaining more and more acceptance. There are many advantages of con-
servative treatment (i.e. antibiotic treatment) over surgical treat- ment. Antibiotics give the chance to treat acute appendicitis
when surgical means are not readily accessible particularly in developing countries and isolated areas. Conservative treatment is
associated with less cost effect balanced to surgery [12]. Antibiotic treatment can reduce the mortality and morbidity risk
associated with surgery.
In the present study, 68 patients (75.6%) out of 90 patients were treated with the conservative method and 10 patients (11.1%)
failed to respond to conservative treatment and had been operated and further 12 patients (13.3%) show recurrence of
appendicitis during the follow-up period. So a total of 22 patients were failed to respond and the failure rate was 24.4%. In a
similar study done in Sahlgrenska University Hospital (between May 2009 and February 2010) involving 442 patients show that
342 patients (77.4%) treated conservatively successfully and 100 patients (22.6%) failed to respond to conservative treatment
[13], which nearly resemble our study results. Another study which was done in the surgical department of GMERS Medical
College, Gandhinagar between years 2011e2013, that involve a sample of 30 patients undergoing con- servative management
show that 21 patients (70%) treated conservatively successfully and 9 patients (30%) failed to respond conservatively [14]. These
results nearly resemble our results. Our
M.KH. Alnaser et al. / International Journal of Surgery Open 10 (2018) 1e4 3
study results also agree with a recent study done in India in 2016 by Gedam PS. Et al which involved 71 patients and showed a
suc- cessful rate 74.65%, treatment failure rate 14.08% and recurrence rate 13.11 [15].
We used third generation cephalosporin and metronidazole in all our patients treated conservatively. This was same as used in
most randomized control trials. Similar results were found by Vons C et al. using amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid [16] and
Turhan et al. using ampicillin plus gentamycin [17].
Our results show that the gender distribution, the difference in the age groups and the difference in time of presenting illness
had no significant effect on the outcomes of conservative treatment of acute appendicitis.
5. Conclusions
This study evaluated conservative treatment in uncomplicated acute appendicitis and was conducted in a single-based hospital
for a period of 2 years. Conservative treatment can be applied safely in the majority of cases of the first attack of uncomplicated
acute appendicitis, therefore, avoiding appendectomy and its associated morbidity and mortality. However, conservative
treatment requires close monitoring and repeated re-evaluation of the clinical condi- tion of the patients to recognize a failure in
improvement of clinical status, which needs to be treated immediately by surgery. Treat- ment failure on initial admission as well
as the short-term recur- rence after conservative treatment is low and acceptable.
Ethical approval
The ethical approval for the study from the hospital scientific committee was obtained. The relevant Judgement’s reference
number is 111/2015 (Alkindy Teaching Hospital).
Funding
None.
Author contribution
Mumtaz KH and Qays A. contributed towards conceptualization of study design. Mumtaz KH & Laith N. were involved in
data abstraction and analysis. Qays A. & Laith N. involved in preparation of the manuscript. Mumtaz KH and Qays A. reviewed
and edited subsequent drafts and provided valuable feedback. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for
submission.
Conflicts of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Guarantor
Qays A. Hassan.
Research registration number
Research registry 3244.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijso.2017.11.007.
Table 5 Appendectomies after trial of conservative treatment.
Time of interval appendectomy No. of the patients (n 1⁄4 22)
Surgery after 48 h of treatment 10 Appendectomy after 10 days of treatment 5 Appendectomy within 6 months 7
Table 6 Outcomes of conservative treatment according to the gender and age distribution and duration of attacks of appendicitis.
Variables Outcomes of conservative treatment p-value
Success Failure
Gender Male 26 (72.2%) 10 (27.8%) 0.72
Female 42 (77.8%) 12 (22.2%) Age group 20 4 (66.7%) 2 (33.3%) 0.84
21e30 33 (91.7%) 3 (8.3%) 31e40 18 (75%) 6 (25%) 41e50 10 (55.5%) 8 (44.5%) 51e60 3 (50%) 3 (50%) Hours of attack
of appendicitis
24 h 52 (86.7%) 8 (13.3%) 0.085 24e48 h 11 (61.1%) 7 (38.9%) 48e72 h 4 (33.3%) 8 (66.7%)
References
[1] Malik AA, Bari SU. Conservative management of acute appendicitis.
J Gastrointest Surg 2009;13:966e70. [2] Andersson RE. The natural history and traditional management of appendicitis
revisited: spontaneous resolution and predominance of prehospital perfora- tions imply that a correct diagnosis is more important
than an early diagnosis. World J Surg 2007;31:86e92. [3] Subramanian A, Liang MK. A 60-year literature review of stump
appendicitis:
the need for a critical view. Am J Surg 2012;203:503e7. [4] Ansaloni L, Catena F, Coccolini F, Ercolani G, Gazzotti F,
Pasqualini E, et al. Surgery versus conservative antibiotic treatment in acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
of randomized controlled trials. Dig Surg 2011;28:210e21. [5] Styrud J, Eriksson S, Nilsson I, Ahlberg G, Haapaniemi S,
Neovius G, et al. Ap- pendectomy versus antibiotic treatment in acute appendicitis. A prospective multicenter randomized
controlled trial. World J Surg 2006;30(6):1033e7. [6] Ingraham AM, Cohen ME, Bilimoria KY, Ko CY, Hall BL, Russell TR, et
al. Effect of delay to operation on outcomes in adults with acute appendicitis. Arch Surg 2010;145:886e92. [7] Shindoh J, Niwa
H, Kawai K, Ohata K, Ishihara Y, Takabayashi N, et al. Pre- dictive factors for negative outcomes in initial non-operative
management of suspected appendicitis. J Gastrointest Surg 2010;14(2):309e14. [8] Liu K, Fogg L. Use of antibiotics alone for
treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgery 2011;150:673e83. [9] Mason RJ.
Surgery for appendicitis: is it necessary? Surg Infect Larchmt
2008;9(4):481e8.
M.KH. Alnaser et al. / International Journal of Surgery Open 10 (2018) 1e4 4
[10] Sakorafas GH, Mastoraki A, Lappas C, Sampanis D, Danias N, Smyrniotis V, et al. Conservative treatment of acute
appendicitis: heresy or an effective and acceptable alternative to surgery? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;23(2): 121e7. [11]
Al-Marzooq TJ, Hassan QA, Majeed GH, Manea AH, Abboud AH. The diagnostic accuracy of sonography with graded
compression to image acute appendicitis compared to histopathologic results. J Diagn Med Sonogr 2017. https://
doi.org/10.1177/8756479317712196. [12] Hansson J, Korner U, Khorram-Manesh A, Solberg A, Lundholm K. Randomized
clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as primary treat- ment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients. Br J
Surg 2009;96(5): 473e81. [13] Hansson J, K ̈orner U, Ludwigs K, Johnsson E, J ̈onsson C, Lundholm K. Antibi- otics as
first-line therapy for acute appendicitis: evidence for a change in clinical practice. World J Surg 2012;36(9):2028e36. [14]
Vaishnav U, Chauhan H. Evaluation of conservative management of acute
appendicitis in tertiary care hospital. IAIM 2016;3(2):41e4. [15] Gedam BS, Gujela A, Bansod PY, Akhta M. Study of
conservative treatment in
uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Int Surg J 2017;4(4):1409e16. [16] Vons C, Barry C, Maitre S, Pautrat K, Leconte M,
Costaglioli B, et al. Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid versus appendicectomy for treatment of acute uncom- plicated appendicitis:
an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011;377(9777):1573e9. [17] Turhan AN, Kapan S, Kutukcu
E, Yigitbas H, Hatipoglu S, Aygun E. Comparison of operative and non operative management of acute appendicitis. Ulus
Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2009 Sep;15(5):459e62.