Mazziotti M V, Marley E F, Winthrop A L, Fitzgerald P G, Walton M, Langer J C
Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA.
J Pediatr Surg. 1997 Jun;32(6):806-9. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3468(97)90624-2.
The treatment of appendiceal abscess is controversial. For patients initially treated "conservatively" with antibiotics with or without drainage, the role of interval appendectomy is an area of considerable debate. Without interval appendectomy, the true risks of recurrent disease and missed pathological findings are uncertain, and large, long-term, prospective studies are unavailable. To evaluate the role of interval appendectomy, the authors reviewed the histopathologic specimens from patients with presumed appendiceal abscess treated by interval appendectomy. Over a 7-year period, 162 children presented with a clinical diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. Eighteen patients had localized abscesses treated conservatively, followed by interval appendectomy. Standard histopathologic sections of 17 of the 18 appendices were examined by one pathologist who was blinded to the clinical data and to the interpretation of the original pathologist. Of the 11 boys and seven girls (mean age, 7.4 +/- 3.4 years), eight underwent percutaneous drainage and one underwent operative drainage. All received intravenous antibiotics for a mean of 8.6 +/- 3.2 days with a hospital stay of 10.4 +/- 8.3 days. Interval appendectomy was performed at a mean of 92.7 +/- 20.7 days after initial admission, with discharge at a mean of 2 +/- 1.3 days after surgery. There were no complications or deaths. Histopathologic review showed normal appendix (n = 4), normal appendix with mild serositis (n = 6), normal appendix with unsuspected resolved Meckel's diverticulitis (n = 1), appendiceal duplication (n = 1), granulomatous appendicitis (n = 3), and acute appendicitis (n = 2). All appendices had patent lumens, and 15 were documented to be present to the tip. There was no correlation between the histopathologic findings and the interval between abscess and interval appendectomy. Interval appendectomy was performed with no morbidity and a short hospital stay. Two patients had histopathologic recurrent acute appendicitis, five had unsuspected pathological findings (appendiceal duplication, Meckel's diverticulitis, granulomatous inflammation), and none of the appendices had an obliterated lumen, suggesting that all patients were at long-term risk for recurrent disease. These data support the role of interval appendectomy in cases of perforated appendicitis treated conservatively.
阑尾脓肿的治疗存在争议。对于最初采用抗生素治疗(无论有无引流)的“保守”治疗患者,二期阑尾切除术的作用是一个备受争议的领域。若不进行二期阑尾切除术,疾病复发和漏诊病理结果的真正风险尚不确定,且缺乏大型、长期的前瞻性研究。为评估二期阑尾切除术的作用,作者回顾了接受二期阑尾切除术的疑似阑尾脓肿患者的组织病理学标本。在7年期间,162名儿童临床诊断为穿孔性阑尾炎。18例患者有局限性脓肿,先接受保守治疗,随后进行二期阑尾切除术。18例阑尾中的17例的标准组织病理学切片由一位对临床数据和原病理学家的诊断不知情的病理学家进行检查。11名男孩和7名女孩(平均年龄7.4±3.4岁)中,8例接受了经皮引流,1例接受了手术引流。所有人均接受静脉抗生素治疗,平均8.6±3.2天,住院时间为10.4±8.3天。二期阑尾切除术在初次入院后平均92.7±20.7天进行,术后平均2±1.3天出院。无并发症或死亡病例。组织病理学检查显示阑尾正常(n = 4)、阑尾正常伴轻度浆膜炎(n = 6)、阑尾正常伴意外的已愈梅克尔憩室炎(n = 1)、阑尾重复畸形(n = 1)、肉芽肿性阑尾炎(n = 3)和急性阑尾炎(n = 2)。所有阑尾管腔通畅,15例阑尾记录至阑尾尖端。组织病理学结果与脓肿和二期阑尾切除术之间的间隔时间无相关性。二期阑尾切除术无并发症,住院时间短。2例患者组织病理学诊断为复发性急性阑尾炎,5例有意外的病理结果(阑尾重复畸形、梅克尔憩室炎、肉芽肿性炎症),且所有阑尾均无管腔闭塞,提示所有患者均有疾病复发的长期风险。这些数据支持二期阑尾切除术在保守治疗的穿孔性阑尾炎病例中的作用。