Surgery · 2026
Timing matters: Adverse outcomes following interval appendectomy in perforated appendicitis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Arda Yasmin, Brackin Riley B, Jachimiak John F, Nzenwa Ikemsinachi C, Paranjape Charudutt N, Bartek Matthew A, Ng-Kamstra Joshua S, Hwabejire John O, Kaafarani Haytham M A, Velmahos George C, DeWane Michael P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of appendectomy in adult patients with perforated appendicitis remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the rate of ileocecal resection and patient outcomes associated with early versus interval appendectomy in the management of perforated appendicitis.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database to identify patients aged ≥18 years with perforated appendicitis who underwent appendectomy. Patients were stratified into early (index admission), failed interval (emergency readmission within 90 days), and elective interval (elective readmission within 90 days) appendectomy. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the effect of timing of appendectomy on the risk of ileocecal resection and patient outcomes, including discharge disposition and postoperative complications.
RESULTS: A total of 4,433 patients were included: 3,958 (89%) early, 229 (5%) failed interval, and 246 (6%) elective interval appendectomy. On univariate analysis, the rate of ileocecal resection was highest in patients undergoing elective interval appendectomy (15% vs 8.3% vs 8.0%, P < .001). On multivariable analyses, elective interval appendectomy was independently associated with increased risk of ileocecal resection compared with early appendectomy (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92; confidence interval, 1.32-2.81). Both failed and elective interval appendectomies were associated with increased risk of infectious complications (adjusted odds ratio, 2.09; confidence interval, 1.07-4.09; adjusted odds ratio, 3.14; confidence interval, 1.58-4.26, respectively) and nonroutine discharge (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; confidence interval, 1.14-2.49; adjusted odds ratio, 1.49; confidence interval, 1.05-2.12, respectively) compared with early appendectomy.
CONCLUSION: In patients with perforated appendicitis, interval appendectomy is associated with worse clinical outcomes, including complex resection, infectious complications, and nonroutine discharge. These findings support the safety and potential benefits of early appendectomy in the management of perforated appendicitis.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database to identify patients aged ≥18 years with perforated appendicitis who underwent appendectomy. Patients were stratified into early (index admission), failed interval (emergency readmission within 90 days), and elective interval (elective readmission within 90 days) appendectomy. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the effect of timing of appendectomy on the risk of ileocecal resection and patient outcomes, including discharge disposition and postoperative complications.
RESULTS: A total of 4,433 patients were included: 3,958 (89%) early, 229 (5%) failed interval, and 246 (6%) elective interval appendectomy. On univariate analysis, the rate of ileocecal resection was highest in patients undergoing elective interval appendectomy (15% vs 8.3% vs 8.0%, P < .001). On multivariable analyses, elective interval appendectomy was independently associated with increased risk of ileocecal resection compared with early appendectomy (adjusted odds ratio, 1.92; confidence interval, 1.32-2.81). Both failed and elective interval appendectomies were associated with increased risk of infectious complications (adjusted odds ratio, 2.09; confidence interval, 1.07-4.09; adjusted odds ratio, 3.14; confidence interval, 1.58-4.26, respectively) and nonroutine discharge (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; confidence interval, 1.14-2.49; adjusted odds ratio, 1.49; confidence interval, 1.05-2.12, respectively) compared with early appendectomy.
CONCLUSION: In patients with perforated appendicitis, interval appendectomy is associated with worse clinical outcomes, including complex resection, infectious complications, and nonroutine discharge. These findings support the safety and potential benefits of early appendectomy in the management of perforated appendicitis.