Prospective evaluation of nonsurgical versus surgical management of appendiceal mass

Purpose: Prospective evaluation was undertaken of surgical findings, complications, morbidity, and hospital stay between initial nonsurgical management versus early surgical intervention of an appendicular mass. Methods: A prospective, nonrandomized study was conducted of 82 consecutive patients (mean age, 6.9 +/- 3.3 years) presenting with an appendicular mass over a 5-year period. They were categorized as group 1, 58.5% (48 of 82) nonsurgically managed and an interval appendectomy performed at a mean period of 8.6 +/- 4.6 weeks and group 2, 41.6% (34 of 82) appendectomy at presentation. Results: An appendix was identified in all 82 patients in both groups at operation. In-group 1, recurrent episodes of abdominal pain necessitated interval appendectomy in 39.6% (19 of 48) patients at a mean 4.3 +/- 0.8 versus 11.5 +/- 3.7 weeks in 60.4% (29 of 48) who underwent scheduled interval appendectomy. Periappendiceal abscesses present at interval appendectomy in group 1 was (38 of 48) 79.2% versus 100% (34 of 34) at appendectomy in group 2. Adhesions at interval appendectomy in group 1 was 81.3% (39 of 48) versus 100% (34 of 34) at appendectomy in group 2. In-group 1, superficial wound infection was observed in 0 versus 4 wound infections in group 2. Overall morbidity rate between group 1 and group 2 was statistically significant (P <.05). Total mean hospital stay in group 1 was 13.2 +/- 1.5 versus 4.8 +/- 0.4 days in group 2. Of the 48-interval appendectomy specimens, 37 of 48 (77%) appendices had a patent lumen, and 11 of 48 (23%) showed fibrosis and obliteration of appendicular lumen. There was no correlation (r = 0.22) between the histopathologic findings and the interval between abscess treatment and interval appendectomy. Conclusions: Early surgical intervention was beneficial over nonoperative management in this cohort of patients. Interval appendectomy is recommended after nonsurgical management of an appendicular mass.