I Ahmed1, D Deakin, S L Parsons. 1. Department of General Surgery, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK. irfan.ahmed@ntlworld.com
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The traditional management of appendiceal mass has been an initial conservative approach followed by interval appendicectomy. More recently, the necessity of interval appendicectomy has been questioned by a growing amount of evidence in the surgical literature. The aim of this study was to review the available scientific evidence and to determine how appendiceal masses are currently being managed in the Mid-Trent region by general surgeons. PATIENTS & METHODS: A literature search using Medline, Embase, Cinahl, HMIC and Biosis was carried out. A personal or telephonic survey of all consultants and specialist registrars working in general surgery in the Mid-Trent region (n = 67) was conducted recording their management protocol of 3 different clinical scenarios--a 14-year-old boy, a 29-year-old female and a 68-year-old male. Responses of the questionnaire were entered to a database in Microsoft Access 2000 and analysed. RESULTS: The results showed that there was difference of opinion on the management of appendix mass in either scenario. Appendectomy (interval or emergency) is still practised by 75% of general surgeons in the Mid-Trent region and less that 25% manage asymptomatic appendix mass without interval appendectomy. Additionally, specialist registrars appear more likely not to offer patients interval appendicectomy after successful conservative management (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no agreed consensus on the management of appendiceal mass. There is a need to develop a protocol for the management of this common problem.
INTRODUCTION: The traditional management of appendiceal mass has been an initial conservative approach followed by interval appendicectomy. More recently, the necessity of interval appendicectomy has been questioned by a growing amount of evidence in the surgical literature. The aim of this study was to review the available scientific evidence and to determine how appendiceal masses are currently being managed in the Mid-Trent region by general surgeons. PATIENTS & METHODS: A literature search using Medline, Embase, Cinahl, HMIC and Biosis was carried out. A personal or telephonic survey of all consultants and specialist registrars working in general surgery in the Mid-Trent region (n = 67) was conducted recording their management protocol of 3 different clinical scenarios--a 14-year-old boy, a 29-year-old female and a 68-year-old male. Responses of the questionnaire were entered to a database in Microsoft Access 2000 and analysed. RESULTS: The results showed that there was difference of opinion on the management of appendix mass in either scenario. Appendectomy (interval or emergency) is still practised by 75% of general surgeons in the Mid-Trent region and less that 25% manage asymptomatic appendix mass without interval appendectomy. Additionally, specialist registrars appear more likely not to offer patients interval appendicectomy after successful conservative management (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no agreed consensus on the management of appendiceal mass. There is a need to develop a protocol for the management of this common problem.