Meaningful standard of reference for appendiceal perforation: pathology, surgery, or both?open access
- Authors
- Kim, Hyuk Jung; Kim, Mi Sung; Park, Ji Hoon; Ahn, Soyeon; Ko, Yousun; Song, Soon-Young; Woo, Ji Young; Lee, Kyoung Ho
- Issue Date
- Aug-2017
- Publisher
- KOREAN SURGICAL SOCIETY
- Keywords
- Appendicitis; Perforation
- Citation
- ANNALS OF SURGICAL TREATMENT AND RESEARCH, v.93, no.2, pp.88 - 97
- Indexed
- SCIE
SCOPUS
KCI
- Journal Title
- ANNALS OF SURGICAL TREATMENT AND RESEARCH
- Volume
- 93
- Number
- 2
- Start Page
- 88
- End Page
- 97
- URI
- https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/151871
- DOI
- 10.4174/astr.2017.93.2.88
- ISSN
- 2288-6575
- 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.
- Files in This Item
-
- Appears in
Collections - 서울 의과대학 > 서울 영상의학교실 > 1. Journal Articles
![qrcode](https://api.qrserver.com/v1/create-qr-code/?size=55x55&data=https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/151871)
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.