Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / @xirurgi_2025 / @xirurgi_2025 - 279 - файл
.pdf
LARGE BOWEL
https://t.me/med1917
277
preparation is generally recommended within the first 24 hours of
admission for patients with LGIB.
If the patient is not stable enough for endoscopic evaluation,
radiologic evaluation or surgical intervention should be considered
as an alternative. Colonoscopy should also be deferred if there is suspicion for active diverticulitis as this reportedly increases the risk of
perforation. Other procedural risks include mucosal injury and the
general risks of anesthesia/sedation.
Computed Tomographic Angiography
Computed tomographic angiography (CTA) is an important diagnostic tool for the evaluation of active LGIB. The study is performed
using intravenous contrast timed such that active arterial extravasation from a vessel into the lumen of the small bowel can be visualized
on a multidetector helical CT scanner. Extravasation of intravenous
contrast into the lumen of the bowel, or an active “blush,” constitutes
a positive finding (Fig. 3). This study has a sensitivity close to 90%
and can detect bleeding rates as low as 0.3 mL/min to 0.5 mL/min.
Localization accuracy is as high as 97% in patients with high transfusion requirements and/or hemodynamic instability. Unfortunately,
CTA has a relatively low specificity of 85%.
CTA is widely available, fast, minimally invasive, and does not
require any bowel preparation or oral contrast administration. As
a result, it is very useful in hemodynamically unstable patients who
do not have time to undergo bowel preparation before intervention
and are transiently responding to resuscitation. CTA is also useful in
identifying other causes of LGIB such as ischemic colitis and can be
used to evaluate the small bowel. Disadvantages include the requisite for active hemorrhage at the time of the study, possible allergic
reaction to intravenous contrast, radiation exposure, difficulty with
precise localization of a small-intestinal source, and lack of direct
therapeutic application.
Nuclear Scintigraphy with Technetium-99m
Like CTA, nuclear scintigraphy allows for radiographic location of
LGIB and is purely a diagnostic test. The patient’s red blood cells are
tagged with the radiotracer Technetium-99m (
into the patient followed by sequential imaging. Nuclear scintigraphy
is a far more sensitive test than CTA as it can detect bleeding rates as
FIG. 3 Active extravasation of contrast in the hepatic flexure of a patient
with lower gastrointestinal bleeding identified by CTA. (Courtesy Michael F
Petroziello, MD, Roswell Park Cancer Institute Hospital, Buffalo, NY.)
99m
Tc) and re-injected
low as 0.1 mL/min. An important advantage of this study is its ability to detect bleeding occurring up to 24 hours after tracer injection
as the radio-labeled red blood cells remain detectable. The half-life
99m
of
Tc allows for sequential imaging several times in a 24-hour
period.
Despite the high sensitivity rates, nuclear scintigraphy results in
false localization rates approaching 25% have been reported, making
it less accurate than CTA. This study is best suited as a screening
tool for hemodynamically stable patients with scant, intermittent
bleeding and not for definitive localization. Arteriography is generally warranted in the event of a positive study for localization and
possible therapeutic intervention. Surgical intervention, particularly
segmental resection, should not be guided by the results of nuclear
scintigraphy.
Angiography
Angiography offers the advantages of accurate localization and the
opportunity for therapeutic intervention, and it is a particularly
useful option in patients with unstable vital signs requiring ongoing blood transfusions. Appropriate indications include copious
bleeding precluding colonoscopic evaluation and positive extravasation on CTA or nuclear scintigraphy. For the latter, angiography
further localizes the source of bleeding and potentially allows for
hemorrhage control. These patients require little to no sedation, and
access is usually obtained through the femoral artery. Fluoroscopic
visualization is used to identify extravasation following selective
mesenteric arterial cannulation and injection of contrast material.
Angiography can detect bleeding at rates as low as 0.5 mL/min and
has a high sensitivity for LGIB. Overall, it is a better test for patients
with profuse, active bleeding than for those with scant, intermittent
bleeding.
Embolization can be attempted for patients with positive localization during angiography. Super subselection with microcatheters and
microcoil embolization are preferred when possible. Embolization,
including highly selective embolization, is clinically successful in
the majority of cases, with demonstrated bleeding resolution rates
of 75% to 90%, depending on the location (Fig. 4). Other therapeutic options include intraarterial infusion with vasopressin, a
potent vasoconstrictor, which is effective in substantially decreasing
bleeding. These maneuvers may eliminate the need for emergent
operation and facilitate continued resuscitation followed by surgical intervention under more controlled circumstances. For cases
of venous bleeding, embolization of the venous system is possible,
though not frequently undertaken.
Many have advocated for the preferential use of angiography in
frail patients with severe comorbidities for whom an emergent operation would carry a prohibitively high mortality. Angiography is usually reserved for hemodynamically unstable patients or patients with
a continued transfusion requirement. Unfortunately, the rebleeding
rate is not insignificant and approaches 20% in some studies. Potential risks of angiography include bowel ischemia, contrast allergy or
nephropathy, the risks of sedation, pseudoaneurysm, hematoma,
and other vascular complications at the access site. Table 2 outlines
and compares salient characteristic features of the various radiologic
diagnostic and treatment options.
For patients with intermittent, obscure LGIB that has not been
identified via other methods, provocative angiography is a technique
that can be utilized. During this procedure, a therapeutic dose of
anticoagulant is administered with the goal of provoking the bleeding lesion into an active hemorrhage so it can be captured on angiography. The lesion is then embolized in the same fashion as described
previously. Systemic anticoagulation is usually achieved with heparin
and followed by incremental and selective transcatheter injection of
urokinase and a vasodilator, such as nicardipine. Multiple studies
have shown that this procedure has an acceptable risk profile, including minimal risk of bleeding complications from the anticoagulant.

278 MANAGEMENT OFLOWER GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING
https://t.me/med1917
Ai
BCiD
ii ii
Ei ii iiFi
FIG. 4 Bleeding at the hepatic flexure of the colon secondary to diverticulosis in two patients. Multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) and volume-rendered 3D
reconstruction of arterial-phase CT images reveal arterial bleeding from the peripheral branch of the right colic artery (A and B) and the middle colic artery
(C and D). Pre- and postembolization images demonstrate extravasation of contrast from the involved vessels and resolution of bleeding, respectively (E and
F). (From Tsurukiri J, Ueno M, Kaneko N. Bleeding at the hepatic flexure of the colon secondary to diverticulosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:e11–e12.)
TABLE 2 Radiologic Imaging Tests for Evaluation of Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding with Their Associated
Characteristics
Bleeding Detection Rate
Study Invasive Procedure
(mL/min)
Localization Intervention
CTA – 0.3–0.5 + –
NS – 0.1 – –
Angiography + 0.5 + +
CTA, Computed tomographic angiography; NS, nuclear scintigraphy.
Nearly one-third of patients with a previously unidentified source
of LGIB have a source identified with provocative angiography.
Bleeding lesions can be treated by embolization or surgical resection.
Resection is the preferred treatment for hypervascular neoplasms
and can be useful for selected patients with angiodysplasia. If surgical
resection is being considered and no mass lesion is identified at the
time of selective arteriography, a microcatheter should be left in the
feeding artery. The patient should be brought to the operating room
in an expeditious fashion for surgical exploration. Injection of the
catheter with blue dye will allow for visualization of the involved
segment and can be used to guide the extent of resection.
Capsule Endoscopy
Although the majority of LGIB is colonic in origin, some cases of
obscure bleeding originate from the small bowel. Capsule endoscopy
is a useful modality for the subset of patients who have persistent
bleeding and negative endoscopic evaluations of the colon and foregut. The patient swallows a pill-sized capsule that contains a small
camera. The camera takes intermittent photographs as it travels
through the patient’s GI tract, and the photos are retrieved after the
capsule is returned. The images are reviewed carefully to determine
the source of bleeding. Capsule endoscopy is therefore best suited
for hemodynamically normal patients who have chronic GI bleeding with a suspected small intestinal source. Diagnostic accuracy
is good with sensitivities and specificities of approximately 90%
and 95%, respectively. Diagnostic yield is improved in patients with
acute bleeding and in those taking anticoagulants. The procedure
is noninvasive and has an overall low complication rate; however,
complications may include battery failure, capsule retention, and
bowel perforation. Other disadvantages include the lack of potential for localization or therapeutic intervention. Patients may be
administered a test capsule made of absorbable material before the
Capacity for

LARGE BOWEL
https://t.me/med1917
279
actual pill camera if the patient is at high risk for a retained capsule.
Surgical intervention is required for retained capsules but may result
in accurate identification and treatment of the bleeding pathology in
rare circumstances.
Double Balloon Enteroscopy
Similar to capsule endoscopy, double balloon enteroscopy allows
for visualization of the small bowel. The study is performed under
anesthesia/sedation. An endoscope is utilized with the addition of
an overtube. Both the endoscope and overtube have balloons at
their distal aspects. The procedure begins like any other endoscopy,
and the endoscope is advanced into the proximal small bowel. The
overtube balloon is then inflated and the overtube retracted, thus
pulling the small bowel toward the endoscope and allowing the
latter to advance further into the small bowel. To pass further, the
endoscope’s balloon is inflated, and the overtube’s balloon deflated
advancing it forward to meet the endoscope. This tedious process
allows the endoscope to advance though the small bowel as a result
of retraction of the overtube.
Hemodynamically stable
Frequently, patients have already undergone CTA or capsule endoscopy to identify an area of interest. The major advantages over capsule
endoscopy include the potential for therapeutic intervention and tissue
sampling. In addition, double balloon endoscopy can be performed via
the transoral or transanal routes. Disadvantages include the risk of bowel
perforation and the risks associated with anesthesia as well as prolonged
duration of the procedures, often lasting 60 to 90 minutes.
Management Algorithm for LGIB
Further management of the patient presenting with LGIB depends
on the results of the aforementioned localization studies. A treatment algorithm is proposed to guide management for these complex
patients (Fig. 5). We recommend colonoscopy as a first-line test for
stable patients with mild or moderate LGIB. Many of these patients
will have diverticular bleeding, and this has been shown to resolve
spontaneously in 80% of cases, with most patients receiving fewer
than 4 units of blood. This is irrespective of colonoscopic intervention. Up to one-third of spontaneously resolving diverticular bleeds
Lower Gl Bleeding
Hemodynamically unstable
Occult LGIB
Outpatient
Colonoscopy
No
Consider alternate studies:
CTA if active bleeding
Nuclear scinigraphy if intermittent
EGD if upper GI source likely
Provoked angiography
Capsule endoscopy
Source
identified?
Moderate LGIB
Transfuse as
indicated
Urgent
colonoscopy
YES
Treat source
all studies negative
YES
YES
TRANSIENT
Resuscitate:
Tranfuse as indicated
Correct coagulopathy
Responsive to blood
products?
Stat CTA
IR consultation
Source
identified?
No
Surgery
No
FIG. 5 Algorithm for the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. CTA, Computed tomography angiography; EGD, endoscopy; GI, gastrointestinal; IR,
interventional radiology LGIB, lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

280 MANAGEMENT OFLOWER GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING
https://t.me/med1917
will recur within 6 to 12 months. Other forms of LGIB will also
spontaneously resolve at high rates, including angiodysplasias, the
most common cause of obscure LGIB. These may also recur at rates
nearing 50% within 1 year. Although observation and serial hemoglobin monitoring may be an acceptable monitoring plan in some
patients, therapeutic intervention with endoscopic or interventional
techniques is preferred by surgeons whenever possible.
In patients with massive LGIB or moderate LGIB with instability, emergent CTA should be performed if the patient transiently
responds to blood transfusion. Early notification of the interventional
radiology team for possible angiography with embolization is crucial
in the critically ill patient, and CTA can be bypassed altogether if
the patient is increasingly unstable with minimal response to blood
transfusion. Emergent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) should
be considered if an upper GI source is suspected based on the history
and physical examination. Aggressive resuscitation in a critical care
setting along with reversal of coagulopathy and appropriate transfusion should be performed concurrently.
Emergent surgical intervention is a last resort in the management of LGIB because of high mortality rates but can be necessary
and life-saving for some patients. Consequently, it is important for
surgeons to be involved in the management of these patients early in
their treatment as patients can decompensate quickly, leaving only a
small window of opportunity for optimization. In general, emergent
surgery is reserved for hemodynamically unstable patients or for
those who have undergone failed interventions.
SURGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Indications
Improvements in endoscopic and interventional radiology hemostatic techniques during recent years has resulted in a decreased role
for emergent surgical intervention in patients with LGIB. Current
indications for emergency surgical management are limited to failure
of nonoperative intervention with a confirmed or presumed source
and ongoing bleeding or hemodynamic instability, particularly in
patients who have received transfusion of more than 6 units of blood
products. In a hemodynamically stable patient, nonurgent surgical
intervention may also be warranted in select cases, such as malignancy, bleeding hemorrhoids, or Meckel’s diverticulum.
Operative Technique
Operative planning relies heavily on localization of the bleeding
source and stability of the patient. For most patients with a presumed
colonic source, surgical options include either a segmental resection
or a subtotal colectomy. For patients with bleeding that cannot be
controlled endoscopically, one consideration is to have the endoscopist tattoo the segment to facilitate intraoperative identification,
which is an otherwise a difficult task.
Localization of the bleeding lesion before surgery is helpful to
prevent excess mortality from a subtotal colectomy. In most studies,
the mortality from this procedure approaches 40%, whereas segmental resection carries only a 20% mortality risk. Additionally, localization ensures that rebleeding from an unresected lesion is prevented.
In contrast with the mortality risk, subtotal colectomy carries only a
4% risk of rebleeding, whereas segmental resection has a close to 20%
risk. These risks and benefits should be considered on an individual
basis with the understanding that the primary goal of surgery is to
provide immediate control of the bleeding. If there is any question at
all about localization, the surgeon should strongly consider performing a subtotal colectomy.
Patients requiring emergent colectomy for acute LGIB are at high
risk for morbidity and mortality, with close to 60% suffering complications such as respiratory or renal failure. The surgeon should have
a low threshold to perform a damage-control operation and delay
formal closure of the abdomen. This will allow for ongoing resuscitation of the patient and monitoring for ongoing bleeding in a critical
care setting. Temporarily packing the abdomen with laparotomy
sponges can be considered for coagulopathic patients with diffuse
hemorrhage from surgical surfaces to minimize time in the operating
room. The patient can be returned to the operating room in 24 to 48
hours for reexploration and formal closure. The decision whether to
create an ostomy or reconstruct the GI tract with an anastomosis can
be made at that time. Since an anastomotic leak can be catastrophic,
the creation of an anastomosis at the time of initial emergent surgery
in the setting of coagulopathy and hemodynamic instability should
be discouraged.
CONCLUSION
LGIB is a heterogeneous disease state consisting of a broad differential diagnosis with a range of severity. Owing to this complexity,
a thorough history and physical examination is most important to
narrow the differential diagnosis and proceed through a thoughtful
diagnostic algorithm. Resuscitation, correction of coagulopathy, and
blood transfusion are the cornerstones of management of LGIB and
are often the only therapeutic maneuvers necessary given that most
patients presenting with LGIB will spontaneously resolve. Endoscopic and interventional radiology procedures should be the initial
localization and therapeutic modalities for most patients with LGIB
depending on the clinical status of the patient. Surgery is reserved for
a small subset of patients with continued hemodynamic instability or
failure of less-invasive techniques, but it can be life-saving. Surgeons
should be actively engaged in the management of patients with LGIB
and should be prepared to intervene in the rare circumstance that
this becomes necessary.
S u g g e S t e d R e a d i n g S
Gralnek IM, Neeman Z, Strate LL. Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. N
Engl J Med. 2017;376:1054–1063.
Jacovides CL, Nadolski G, Allen SR, etal. arteriography for lower gastroin-
testinal hemorrhage: role of preceding abdominal computed tomographic
angiogram in diagnosis and localization. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:650–656.
Lau JYW, Yu Y, Tang RSY, etal. Timing of endoscopy for acute upper gastro-
intestinal bleeding. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1299–1308.
Oakland K, Chadwick G, East JE, etal. Diagnosis and management of acute
lower gastrointestinal bleeding: guidelines from the British Society of
Gastroenterology. Gut. 2019;68:776–789.
Oakland K, Jairath V, Uberoi R, etal. Derivation and validation of a novel
risk score for safe discharge after acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a
modelling study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2:635–643.

LARGE BOWEL
Cecum
https://t.me/med1917
281
Appendicitis:
Diagnosis and
Management
Elaa Mahdi, MD, MPH, and Walter Pegoli Jr., MD
ppendicitis continues to be one of the most common causes of
the acute surgical abdomen treated by general surgeons. The
A
global incidence of appendicitis ranges from 100 to 150 per 100,000
persons per year, with a lifetime risk of 7% to 10%. In the United
States, there are about 400,000 cases diagnosed each year, of which
16% to 40% are perforated. The pathogenesis of appendicitis remains
unclear, with the thought being that obstruction of the appendiceal
lumen results in inflammation and bacterial infection. The diagnosis is made on patient history, physical examination, laboratory
tests, and various imaging modalities. Traditionally, treatment has
included the initiation of antibiotics followed by surgical resection
of the appendix. However, recent studies have demonstrated efficacy
for the treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis using antibiotics
alone. In this chapter, we discuss the pathophysiology, diagnostic
workup, and most recent recommendations regarding management
of patients with appendicitis.
ANATOMY OF THE APPENDIX
The appendix is an approximately 9 cm long and 0.6 cm wide vermiform or “worm-shaped” hollow viscus structure originating from
the terminal cecum, where the three taenia coli converge. Upon
completion of normal antenatal rotation of the intestine, the cecum
and appendix are typically found in the right lower quadrant (RLQ).
However, their location can be varied in patients with nonrotation
or malrotation of their intestines. Although the base of the appendix always emanates from the cecum, the location of the tip of the
appendix is often more variable (Fig. 1). It can be found retrocecal,
subcecal, pelvic, preileal, or postileal, accounting for the diversity of
presenting signs and symptoms. The blood supply to the appendix
and mesoappendix is from the appendiceal artery, a branch off the
ileocolic artery.
Taenia
coli
0.5%
Postileal
1% Preileal
PATHOLOGY OF ACUTE APPENDICITIS
The etiology of acute appendicitis is thought to be caused by obstruction of the appendiceal lumen. The most common cause of luminal
obstruction is mechanical obstruction from a fecalith or appendicolith.
Other causes include lymphoid hyperplasia, parasitic infections, neoplasm, or a foreign body. If left untreated, the ongoing obstruction
results in a cycle of increased bacterial overgrowth, mucus production,
inflammation, and venous congestion. The subsequent distension of the
normally narrow-caliber appendix causes stretching of the visceral afferent nerve fibers, resulting in the vague periumbilical abdominal pain that
is often described as one of the first symptoms. Similarly, distension of
the appendix can result in nausea and vomiting early in the course of the
disease. The increasing congestion eventually leads to obstruction of arterial inflow, resulting in ischemia, with progression to necrosis, gangrene,
and eventually perforation with or without abscess formation. Organisms
isolated in patients with acute appendicitis include Escherichiacoli, Bac-
teroidesfragilis, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, and
Pseudomonas aeruginosa. In cases of gangrenous or perforated appen-
dicitis, E. coli and Bacteroides spp. are found in a majority of patients.
Knowing the most common bacterial culprits helps guide antibiotic
management in the treatment of appendicitis, especially if a nonoperative
approach is chosen or postoperative antibiotics are required.
CLINICAL PRESENTATION AND
DIAGNOSTIC WORKUP
History and Physical Examination
The diagnosis of appendicitis has typically been a clinical diagnosis based on history and physical examination. Patients will often
complain of a vague onset of symptoms including anorexia, malaise,
and epigastric or periumbilical abdominal pain/discomfort. This
will typically progress to nausea and/or vomiting associated with
abdominal pain that migrates to the RLQ. Findings on physical
examination include fever, tachycardia, RLQ tenderness, guarding,
and percussion tenderness. The tenderness usually is most intense at
McBurney’s point, which is located one-third of the distance between
the right anterior superior iliac spine and the umbilicus. The patient
may exhibit a positive Rovsing’s sign, which is defined as palpation
of the left lower quadrant (LLQ) resulting in RLQ pain. Additionally,
physical examination findings will differ based on the location of
the appendiceal tip and the degree of inflammation. A patient with
a retrocecal appendix may not present with RLQ pain, but will have
a positive psoas sign when extension of the right hip produces pain.
A patient with a pelvic appendix may have an obturator sign, when
internal rotation of the right hip causes pain. However, recent data
suggest that although these signs are specific, they are not very sensitive for diagnosing acute appendicitis (Tables 1 and 2). Multiple
TABLE 1 Clinical Signs and Symptoms of Acute
Appendicitis
64%
Retrocecal
FIG. 1 Variations in the positions of the vermiform appendix.
Terminal ileum
2% Pelvic
32% Subcecal
History Onset of vague abdominal discomfort, cramp-
ing, nausea, progressing to right lower
quadrant pain, with associated anorexia,
vomiting, and general malaise
Physical
examination
Laboratory
examination
Diagnostic
imaging
Right lower quadrant tenderness, voluntary
and involuntary guarding, fever, tachycardia,
occasionally palpable mass
Leukocytosis, No bacteria on urinalysis, nega-
tive pregnancy testing
Distended fluid-filled appendix with surrounding
inflammation, perforation, abscess, fecalith

282 APPENDICITIS: DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT
https://t.me/med1917
TABLE 2 Clinical Examination Operating
Characteristics for Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis
Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%)
Rovsing’s sign 30–68 58–91
Obturator sign 21–34 79–96
Psoas sign 16–39 50–95
TABLE 3 Pediatric Appendicitis Score Variables
Sign/Symptom Score
Nausea/vomiting 1
Anorexia 1
Fever (≥38.0 C) 1
Migration of pain 1
Leukocytosis (WBC >10,000 mm3) 1
Neutrophilia (>75%) 1
Right lower quadrant pain 2
Tenderness with hopping/coughing/percussion 2
Tota l 10
WBC, White blood cell.
clinical scoring systems have been developed to aid in the diagnosis
of appendicitis. The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) and
the Alvarado score are used in adults, with the AIR found to have the
superior performance. In children, the Pediatric Appendicitis Score
(PAS) was developed to help identify patients with appendicitis using
eight signs, symptoms, and laboratory values often associated with
appendicitis (Table 3).
However, even when a patient presents with the “classic” signs
and symptoms of appendicitis, a broad differential diagnosis including inflammatory bowel disease, urinary stones, Meckel’s diverticulitis, and other potential etiologies should also be considered.
Laboratory Examination
On laboratory examination, patients are typically found to have a
leukocytosis (>10,000 cells/mm
and elevated markers of inflammation such as C-reactive protein
(CRP). Although these are nonspecific findings of appendicitis,
a normal laboratory value for them is less likely to be indicative
of appendicitis. A urinalysis should be obtained to evaluate for a
possible urologic source. Of note, sterile pyuria can result from the
proximity of an inflamed appendix to the bladder.
3
), a left shift (>75% neutrophilia),
Diagnostic Imaging
Different imaging modalities can be used to assist in the diagnosis
of acute appendicitis, depending on patient age, body habitus, and
risk of radiation exposure. In the pediatric patient, ultrasound (US)
remains the initial imaging study of choice. It is easy to perform,
inexpensive, and does not expose patients to harmful radiation.
However, it is user-dependent and has limited visualization in
obese patients. The overall specificity is 83% and sensitivity is 78%.
Ultrasound findings typically include a distended, noncompressible
appendix >6 mm in diameter with hypervascularity on Doppler
studies (Fig. 2). Computed tomography (CT) is the most widely used
study in the adult population. It is quick, not user-dependent, and
has a specificity of 90% and sensitivity of 94%. However, it is more
expensive than US and exposes patients to ionizing radiation. Of
note, when used in children, low-dose radiation techniques should
be utilized. Findings typically include a distended, fluid-filled appendix, periappendiceal fat stranding, and appendicoliths when present
(Fig. 3). It can also demonstrate free fluid, abscess, phlegmon, and
other findings associated with complicated appendicitis. In addition, colitis, diverticulitis, inflammatory bowel disease, gynecologic
pathology, and other maladies in the differential diagnoses can be
elucidated by CT. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is gaining popularity as an imaging modality in children and in pregnant women.
The diagnostic accuracy is similar to CT, without the exposure to
ionizing radiation. However, it is associated with increased cost compared with CT. In their meta-analysis of second-line imaging after
equivocal initial US, Eng et al. reported pooled MRI sensitivities and
specificities of 97.4% and 97.1% in children, and 89.9% and 93.6% in
adults, respectively. MRI is a viable alternative to CT in children or
pregnant women with inconclusive findings on US.
MANAGEMENT OF ACUTE APPENDICITIS
The management of acute appendicitis has continued to evolve
over time. Whereas the diagnosis of acute appendicitis would have
traditionally meant the initiation of antibiotics and an emergent trip
to the operating room, more recently the trend has been to delay
surgical intervention until convenient for up to 24 hours. Some
practitioners are now even managing patients with uncomplicated
appendicitis nonoperatively using antibiotics alone.
Once the diagnosis of appendicitis has been made, patients
should be resuscitated with intravenous crystalloid fluids (if necessary) and started on broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics
with gram-negative and anaerobic coverage as some of the most
common organisms associated with acute appendicitis are E. coli,
B. fragilis, and K. pneumoniae. Popular broad-spectrum antibiotics
include piperacillin-tazobactam, ampicillin-sulbactam, and imipenem-cilastatin. Alternative antibiotics include ceftriaxone-metronidazole or cefoxitin. Cameron et al. compared the effectiveness
of extended-spectrum antibiotics (piperacillin-tazobactam) versus
narrow-spectrum antibiotics (cefoxitin or ceftriaxone-metronidazole) on rate of surgical site infections and hospital readmission
rates in children with uncomplicated appendicitis. They found no
difference in the outcomes, supporting the use of narrow-spectrum
antibiotics in an era of increasing incidence of antibiotic-resistant
bacteria. The duration of antibiotic therapy should be dependent
on the severity of disease and whether the patient undergoes an
appendectomy. For those with uncomplicated appendicitis who
undergo appendectomy, antibiotics need not be continued postoperatively. Patients with complicated appendicitis will require a longer course of antibiotic therapy predicated upon extent of disease
and clinical condition.
Timing of Surgery
The diagnosis of uncomplicated appendicitis is no longer considered an acute surgical emergency. Van Dijk et al. found no significantly higher risk for developing complicated appendicitis when
surgery was delayed for up to 24 hours from hospital presentation.
Data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program
(NSQIP) reported similar outcomes, even when appendectomy
was delayed until hospital day 2. However, those who underwent
appendectomy on hospital day 3 had increased 30-day mortality
and major postoperative complications. The WSES Jerusalem 2020
guidelines recommend operating within 24 hours of presentation
in children and adults with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.
In addition, they state that in pregnant patients with equivocal
findings, a short in-hospital delay with repeat abdominal US is
acceptable without a significant increased risk of adverse maternal
or fetal outcomes.

LARGE BOWEL
**
AB
https://t.me/med1917
283
*
A
*
C
FIG. 2 Ultrasound images of appendicitis. (A) Noncompressed appendix
with surrounding free fluid (asterisk). (B) Compressed appendix with failure to
change the luminal diameter compared with the noncompressed appendix in
A. (C) Fecalith with a target appearance. (D) Color Doppler can evaluate for
the presence or absence of blood flow within the wall of an inflamed appendix. (E) Dilated appendix. (Images courtesy Dr. Katherine Kaproth-Joslin.)
B
D
1
+
+
E
*
*
FIG. 3 CT images of appendicitis. (A) Dilated appendix (arrow).(B) Appendicolith (arrow). (Images courtesy Dr. Katherine Kaproth-Joslin.)

284 APPENDICITIS: DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT
https://t.me/med1917
Laparoscopic Appendectomy
The patient is placed in the supine position on the operating table
with the left arm or both arms tucked. A Foley catheter should be
considered if the patient was not confirmed to have voided before
the case. The patient is prepped from the xiphoid process to the
pubis. The abdomen is accessed through the umbilicus either with
an open technique using a Hasson trocar or closed technique with
a Veress needle. For placement of the Veress needle, the umbilicus
is elevated with two towel clips, and an incision is made through the
skin. The Veress needle is inserted perpendicular to the skin and
advanced until two audible clicks as the spring-loaded needle retracts
are appreciated. The first click occurs as the needle transverses the
fascia, and the second click occurs as the needle transverses the
peritoneum. A saline drop test is then performed to confirm entry
into the peritoneal cavity. The abdomen is insufflated with carbon
dioxide until intraabdominal pressure is 12 to 15 mm Hg. The
Veress needle is retracted, followed by either a blind entry with a
12-mm closed conventional trocar or radially expanding trocar versus visual entry with an optical trocar (Optiview, Visiport). For the
Hasson open technique, an incision is made into the infraumbilical
or supraumbilical fold and carried through the subcutaneous tissue.
Dissection is then performed through the subcutaneous tissue with
S-retractors or a Kelly clamp until the rectus fascia is visualized.
Two retention sutures are placed into the fascia on either side of the
midline. With a knife, scissors, or electrocautery, a vertical incision
is made through the fascia elevated with the retention sutures. The
peritoneal cavity is entered bluntly with a Kelly clamp. The Hasson
port is inserted under direct visualization and anchored in place
with the stay sutures. The abdomen is insufflated and inspected
to ensure that no injury occurred during entrance. The placement
of subsequent trocars can be variable, depending on patient size,
age, and pregnancy (Fig. 4). However, our preference is the use of
an umbilical camera port and the working 5-mm ports at the right
upper quadrant and LLQ (see Fig. 4A). A four-quadrant exploration
is first done to quickly rule out other intraabdominal abnormalities
before the patient is placed in reverse Trendelenburg with the right
side up. Atraumatic graspers are used to follow the cecum to the convergence of the taenia coli. The cecum is lifted toward the left upper
quadrant to better expose the base of the appendix. The mesoappendix is grasped/elevated, and peritoneal and/or omental attachments
are lysed to expose the entirety of the appendix. For the retrocecal
appendix, the white line of Toldt must be divided to mobilize the
cecum and expose the appendix. A window is created through the
mesoappendix. A linear gastrointestinal endoscopic stapler with a
white load or an electrosurgical device (cautery or LigaSure) is introduced through the umbilical port, and the mesoappendix is divided,
leaving the base of the appendix exposed (Fig. 5A). A blue load on
the stapler is then used to divide the appendix (Fig. 5B; Fig. 6). Of
note, an Endoloop may also be used to control the appendiceal base.
The appendix is placed in a retrieval bag and withdrawn through
the umbilical port. The staple line is then inspected, and hemostasis
is achieved, as necessary. If murky, turbid fluid is observed in the
pelvis, consideration should be given to obtaining a sample for Gram
stain, culture, and sensitivities. Information gained may influence
the choice of postoperative antibiotics. Recent data discourage peritoneal irrigation as it shows no benefit and may lead to an increased
incidence of postoperative abscess formation. The working ports are
removed under direct visualization, followed by desufflation through
the umbilical port and closure of the trocar sites.
Open Appendectomy
Although the laparoscopic approach to appendectomy is most
commonly used, the ability to perform an open appendectomy is
essential. The patient is placed in the supine position and prepped
in the usual sterile fashion. An imaginary line is drawn between the
anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) and the umbilicus. McBurney’s
point is identified and marked (see Fig. 4D). A skin incision is
made within a natural crease. The dissection is carried down to the
external oblique aponeurosis. The muscle is incised in the direction
of its fibers and spread bluntly to expose the underlying internal
oblique muscle. It too is dissected similarly to expose the transversus
abdominis, which is split to expose the peritoneum. The peritoneum
is elevated and sharply incised with care taken to avoid injury to the
underlying bowel.
Once inside the abdomen, the cecum is identified and elevated into
the wound. The appendiceal base is located at the confluence of the
tenia. The appendix is dissected free from surrounding structures. A
stapling device can be used to ligate/divide the mesoappendix and the
appendiceal base. The “classic” technique divides the mesoappendix
between Kelly clamps and ligating the ends using 3-0 silk. The base
of the appendix is crushed with a Kelly clamp. The clamp is then
relocated on the appendix 1 cm distal to the crushed zone (CZ). The
appendix is ligated at the CZ with an 0 Chromic suture. The appendix
is divided just proximal to the clamp. The stump may be cauterized or
invaginated with a purse-string suture or a Z-stitch.
The incision is closed in layers. First, the peritoneum and transversus abdominis are closed with a running absorbable suture. Next,
the internal and external oblique muscles are anatomically approximated with interrupted absorbable sutures. Finally, the skin is closed
with a running absorbable subcuticular suture. In the case of perforation, the skin may be left open or loosely approximated.
Management of Perforated (Complicated)
Appendicitis
Perforated appendicitis occurs in up to 40% of cases of appendicitis.
Such patients will usually have had a longer duration of symptoms
before presentation. The findings on abdominal examination may
range from a tender RLQ abdominal mass to a rigid distended
abdomen with diffuse peritonitis. Imaging findings may range
from pneumoperitoneum and free fluid to an RLQ phlegmon or
abscess. Patients diagnosed with complicated appendicitis should
be resuscitated with intravenous fluids and immediately started
on intravenous antibiotics such as piperacillin-tazobactam alone
or a ceftriaxone with metronidazole. The decision to proceed with
surgical intervention will depend on their clinical picture. Patients
who are diffusely peritonitic and hemodynamically unstable should
be aggressively resuscitated and taken to the operating room when
adequately resuscitated. Patients who are found to have phlegmon or
abscess formation can be considered for nonoperative management,
which consists of intravenous antibiotics, percutaneous drainage
(for patients with a drainable collection), and nutritional support for
those who are unable to aliment orally. Appendectomy in the setting
of an abscess or phlegmon is technically challenging and has been
associated with a higher incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications. Antibiotic therapy should be dictated by culture
results, if available. Once patients are tolerating a regular diet, they
can be transitioned to oral amoxicillin/clavulanate (Augmentin) for
a total 5-day course, which has been shown to be as efficacious as 7
days of antibiotics, with no increase in the risk of abscess formation.
CURRENT CONTROVERIES
Nonoperative Management of Nonperforated
Appendicitis
Although appendectomy remains the treatment of choice in patients
with uncomplicated acute appendicitis, nonoperative management
with antibiotics has become a viable alternative. O’Leary et al. performed a randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of antibiotic only versus appendectomy in uncomplicated acute appendicitis.
They found that 25% of their antibiotic-only group experienced
recurrence within 1 year. Of note, the antibiotic-only group also
reported a decreased quality of life when compared with the surgical
cohort. They concluded that surgery remains the mainstay of treatment. In their randomized clinical trial, the CODA Collaborative

LARGE BOWEL
BB
s
https://t.me/med1917
285
A
C
A
C
A B
A
C
B
C
A
B
CD
McBurney’
point
FIG. 4 Laparoscopic and open incisions for appendectomy. (A) Umbilical port (A), RUQ port (B), and LLQ port (C). (B) Umbilical port (A), RUQ port (B),
and suprapubic port (C). (C) Umbilical port (A), suprapubic port (B), and LLQ port (C). (D) McBurney’s point one third the distance from the ASIS and
umbilicus, with a surgical incision made over McBurney’s point in a natural skin crease. LLQ, Left lower quadrant; RUQ, right upper quadrant.
compared a 10-day antibiotic course verses appendectomy at 25
centers in the United States. They found that although antibiotics
were not inferior to appendectomy for the 30-day health status, the
antibiotic-only group had higher failure rates, with 29% undergoing
appendectomy by 90 days (41% of those with appendicolith and 25%
of without appendicolith). Of note, most recent studies have shown a
5-year recurrence rate approaching 50% in both children and adults
who were treated with antibiotics alone. Careful patient selection
must be utilized in selecting which patient is an appropriate candidate for nonoperative management. Appropriate candidates should
have a small appendix that does not contain an appendicolith on
diagnostic imaging, CRP < 60 g/L, WBC < 12, and age < 60 years to

286 APPENDICITIS: DIAGNOSIS AND MANAGEMENT
https://t.me/med1917
AB
FIG. 5 (A) A window is created in the mesoappendix between the base of the appendix and the cecum, and the mesoappendix is divided with a white,
vascular load. (B) The base of the appendix is stapled and divided with a blue gastrointestinal staple load.
and required appendectomy within 1 year, with a morbidity rate
of 6%. Of note, the performance of interval appendectomy is often
driven by parental concerns.
FIG. 6 The base of the appendix is stapled and divided.
have a chance of successful recovery based on studies by Hansson et
al. and Loftus et al. Antibiotic duration for these patients ranges from
7 to 10 total days, with transition from intravenous to oral antibiotics
following clinical improvement.
Interval Appendectomy
Interval appendectomy in patients who underwent initial nonoperative management of complicated appendicitis remains a controversial subject. It is typically considered safe to perform 6 weeks after
successful treatment, as the acute inflammatory process has resolved
by that time. Some argue that such patients have a very low rate of
recurrence after their initial presentation and that surgery, with its
11% complication rate, is unnecessary. Proponents of interval appendectomy argue that there is a significant rate of recurrence and stress
the importance of excluding an underlying appendiceal malignancy.
At present, there is still no strong evidence to recommend for or
against it in adults. However, it is recommended that adults 40 years
of age and older undergo interval CT and colonoscopy to rule out
malignancy. In children, several studies have shown that interval
appendectomy is indicated. A 2017 multicenter randomized study
found that 23% of children initially treated nonoperatively recurred
SUMMARY
Acute appendicitis continues to be a common, but complex, diagnostic and management challenge to surgeons. The variability in clinical
presentation across ages and the broad differentials can cloud the
diagnosis. No one clinical finding, laboratory study, or imaging finding can reliably make the diagnosis 100% of the time. Surgeons must
combine these findings and resources to discern the diagnosis. Even
then, the management can be complex and is ever evolving. Preoperative antibiotics and appendectomy remain the gold standard in
the management of uncomplicated cases. In complicated cases, those
patients with uncontrolled intraabdominal sepsis should be resuscitated, given broad-spectrum antibiotics, and taken to the operating
room as soon as possible. Controversy exists on how to best treat
those patients with complicated appendicitis who are clinically stable. Some clinicians advocate the use of antibiotics with or without
percutaneous drainage in those with abscess formation, while others
advocate for early surgical intervention. Further studies are needed
to delineate which approach is truly superior. For now, all agree that
appendicitis still remains a surgical disease.
S u g g e S t e d R e a d i n g S
Bhangu A, Søreide K, Di Saverio S, Assarsson JH, Drake FT. Acute appendici-
tis: modern understanding of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management.
Surgery. 2015;386(10000):1278–1287.
CODA Collaborative, Flum DR, Davidson GH, Monsell SE, etal. A random-
ized trial comparing antibiotics with appendectomy for appendicitis. N
Engl J Med. 2020;383(20):1907–1919.
Di Saverio S, Podda M, De Simone B, etal. Diagnosis and treatment of acute
appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines. World J
Emerg Surg. 2020;15(1):27.
Fugazzola P, Coccolini F, Tomasoni M, et al. Early appendectomy vs. con-
servative management in complicated acute appendicitis in children: a
meta-analysis. J Pediatr Surg. 2019;54:2234–2241.
Levin DE, Pegoli Jr W. Abscess after appendectomy: predisposing factors. Adv
Surg. 2015;49:263–280.
Wagner M, Tubre DJ, Asensio JA. Evolution and current trends in the man-
agement of acute appendicitis. Surg Clin N Am. 2018;98(5):1005–1023.
Соседние файлы в папке @xirurgi_2025
