Current surgery · 2006
Bifid vermiform appendix: a case report.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Griffiths Ewen A, Jagadeesan Jayaraman, Fasih Tarannum, Mercer-Jones Mark
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Appendiceal anomalies are extremely rare: they have a reported incidence of between 0.004% and 0.009% of appendectomy specimens. The authors report a case of a patient who was found to have 2 appendices at emergency laparotomy, review the classification system used, and discuss the potential clinical pitfalls of similar cases.
CASE REPORT: A 23-year-old man was admitted as an emergency with abdominal pain and vomiting. The operative finding was of a bifid appendix. One appendix was grossly gangrenous and lacked a mesoappendix, whereas the other had a mesoappendix and appeared macroscopically normal. The appendices shared a common base that arose from the cecum in the typical anatomical position. No other intra-abdominal malformations were present at inspection during laparotomy. Histology confirmed features of gangrenous appendicitis. His postoperative recovery was uneventful, and he was discharged after 4 days.
CONCLUSION: Although rare, it is important for several reasons that surgeons are aware of the potential anatomical anomalies and malpositions of the vermiform appendix: first, a missed second appendix may result in serious clinical and medico-legal consequences; second, a double appendix can be confused with other intra-abdominal conditions; and finally, they can be associated with other congenital abnormalities.
CASE REPORT: A 23-year-old man was admitted as an emergency with abdominal pain and vomiting. The operative finding was of a bifid appendix. One appendix was grossly gangrenous and lacked a mesoappendix, whereas the other had a mesoappendix and appeared macroscopically normal. The appendices shared a common base that arose from the cecum in the typical anatomical position. No other intra-abdominal malformations were present at inspection during laparotomy. Histology confirmed features of gangrenous appendicitis. His postoperative recovery was uneventful, and he was discharged after 4 days.
CONCLUSION: Although rare, it is important for several reasons that surgeons are aware of the potential anatomical anomalies and malpositions of the vermiform appendix: first, a missed second appendix may result in serious clinical and medico-legal consequences; second, a double appendix can be confused with other intra-abdominal conditions; and finally, they can be associated with other congenital abnormalities.