scholarly journals Incidental Appendectomy

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Incidental Appendectomy

scholarly journals Is incidental appendectomy necessary in women with ovarian endometrioma?

2008 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
He Jong WIE ◽  
Jung Hun LEE ◽  
Min Sun KYUNG ◽  
Un Suk JUNG ◽  
Joong Sub CHOI
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Endometrioma ◽  
Incidental Appendectomy

Evaluating the benefit of incidental appendectomy

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 99
Author(s):  
Ikponmwosa Obahiagbon ◽  
Mojisola Udoh
Keyword(s):  
Incidental Appendectomy

Abnormal pathology seen on appendectomy in patients with predominant right-sided pelvic pain

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 142-150
Author(s):  
Catherine W Cai ◽  
Katelin E Sisler ◽  
Jeffrey A Gavard ◽  
Jose D Eugenio-Colon ◽  
Patrick P Yeung
Keyword(s):  
Pelvic Pain ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Saint Louis ◽  
Pain Location ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Incidental Appendectomy ◽  
Abnormal Pathology

Introduction: Previous studies have linked chronic pelvic pain (CPP) to appendix pathologies. However, few studies have investigated appendix pathology specifically in the context of CPP that is right-side predominant (R-CPP). We hypothesized that women with R-CPP have higher rates of appendix pathology compared with women with CPP that is not right-side predominant (N-CPP). Methods: We conducted a retrospective case–control study of 220 women who underwent diagnostic laparoscopy and planned or incidental appendectomy for CPP and suspected endometriosis between January 2015 and December 2018 at a tertiary care center in Saint Louis, MO. Results: No significant difference in abnormal appendix pathology was found between women with R-CPP and women with N-CPP (30.9% vs 34.5%, p = 0.74, odds ratio = 0.85, 95% CI: (0.44, 1.62)). Gross abnormalities of the appendix were documented in 40 of 220 patients (18.2%), with the most common abnormal gross findings being adhesions (8.2%), followed by abnormal lesions (7.3%). Conclusion: In this study, the presence of abnormal pathology within the appendix did not correlate with R-CPP, indicating triage based on predominant pain location cannot help identify patients with underlying appendix pathology. However, consistent with previous studies, we identified a high rate of abnormal appendix pathology overall, supporting the practice of many surgeons to perform routine appendectomy in women with CPP.

The Safety of Incidental Appendectomy at the Time of Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. S166
Author(s):  
K.A. O'Hanlan ◽  
M.S. Sten ◽  
L. Mo ◽  
D.M. Halliday ◽  
D.M. Struck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Hysterectomy ◽  
Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy ◽  
Incidental Appendectomy

scholarly journals Considering the role of incidental appendectomy during colonic interposition gastroesophageal reconstruction

2019 ◽  
Vol 157 (2) ◽  
pp. e59-e61
Author(s):  
Michelle Dugan ◽  
Michael Sosin ◽  
Raul Caso ◽  
Chaitanya Vadlamudi ◽  
Mohammed Bayasi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colonic Interposition ◽  
Incidental Appendectomy

Stump appendicitis after childhood incidental appendectomy

2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (11) ◽  
pp. e15-e17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yifan Yang ◽  
Tyler R. Clark ◽  
Ho H. Phan
Keyword(s):  
Stump Appendicitis ◽  
Incidental Appendectomy

Incidental appendectomy

JAMA ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 239 (4) ◽  
pp. 295c-295
Author(s):  
M. M. Ziegler
Keyword(s):  
Incidental Appendectomy

Does Incidental Appendectomy Increase the Risk of Complications after Abdominal Procedures?

2016 ◽  
Vol 82 (10) ◽  
pp. 885-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed Al-Temimi ◽  
Charles Trujillo ◽  
John Agapian ◽  
Hanna Park ◽  
Ahmad Dehal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Wound Complications ◽  
Continuous Variables ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Chi Squared ◽  
Incidental Appendectomy

Incidental appendectomy (IA) could potentially increase the risk of morbidity after abdominal procedures; however, such effect is not clearly established. The aim of our study is to test the association of IA with morbidity after abdominal procedures. We identified 743 (0.37%) IA among 199,233 abdominal procedures in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2005–2009). Cases with and without IA were matched on the index current procedural terminology code. Patient characteristics were compared using chi-squared test for categorical variables and Student t test for continuous variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. Emergency and open surgeries were associated with performing IA. Multivariate analysis showed no association of IA with mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.26–1.02], overall morbidity (OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.92–1.47), or major morbidity (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 0.99–1.48). However, IA increased overall morbidity among patients undergoing elective surgery (OR = 1.31,95% CI = 1.03–1.68) or those ≥30 years old (OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.00–1.51). IA was also associated with higher wound complications (OR = 1.46,95% CI = 1.05–2.03). In conclusion, IA is an uncommonly performed procedure that is associated with increased risk of postoperative wound complications and increased risk of overall morbidity in a selected patient population.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document