BACKGROUND: Considerable variability exists in the surgical approach to acute appendicitis in children, affecting both quality and costs of care. A national survey provides insight into daily surgical practice and enables comparison of practice with the available evidence. METHODS: A national survey was conducted in all 121 Dutch hospitals asking detailed information concerning diagnosis and treatment of children suspected of acute appendicitis. An evidence-based practice (EBP) score was developed on the basis of a critical appraisal of the literature, allowing for classification of reported practices with regard to the level of evidence and identification of hospitals working in accordance with the best available evidence. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 93%. For the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, respondents relied predominantly on patient history (29%) and clinical examination (31%), followed by laboratory results (22%). Only 20% of the departments routinely measured total white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP) and leukocyte differential count (proportion of polymorphonuclear cells), being part of the triad that provides diagnostic evidence. Although strong evidence exists in favour of routine prophylaxis for suspected appendicitis, only two thirds of surgical departments reported this as part of their routine practice. For a number of issues, reasonably consistent evidence is available (e.g. primarily versus delayed closure, drainage versus lavage, routine peritoneal culturing). Thirty-eight percent of the departments routinely cultured abdominal fluid despite various reports that it provides no therapeutic advantage. Not more than 22% of the departments closed the skin in perforated appendicitis in spite of clear supportive evidence. Considerable variation exists in cleaning the abdomen in perforated appendicitis, despite evidence favouring lavage. Comparing departments in terms of compliance with available evidence revealed that most paediatric surgery departments worked according to evidence-based medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence on diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis in children is only partly applied in a small proportion of hospitals in the Netherlands. It is recommended that national guidelines be published, which could decrease health care costs and increase more uniform policy, improve quality of care for this group of patients and improve training of residents in general surgery in the Netherlands.
BACKGROUND: Considerable variability exists in the surgical approach to acute appendicitis in children, affecting both quality and costs of care. A national survey provides insight into daily surgical practice and enables comparison of practice with the available evidence. METHODS: A national survey was conducted in all 121 Dutch hospitals asking detailed information concerning diagnosis and treatment of children suspected of acute appendicitis. An evidence-based practice (EBP) score was developed on the basis of a critical appraisal of the literature, allowing for classification of reported practices with regard to the level of evidence and identification of hospitals working in accordance with the best available evidence. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 93%. For the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, respondents relied predominantly on patient history (29%) and clinical examination (31%), followed by laboratory results (22%). Only 20% of the departments routinely measured total white blood cell count (WBC), C-reactive protein (CRP) and leukocyte differential count (proportion of polymorphonuclear cells), being part of the triad that provides diagnostic evidence. Although strong evidence exists in favour of routine prophylaxis for suspected appendicitis, only two thirds of surgical departments reported this as part of their routine practice. For a number of issues, reasonably consistent evidence is available (e.g. primarily versus delayed closure, drainage versus lavage, routine peritoneal culturing). Thirty-eight percent of the departments routinely cultured abdominal fluid despite various reports that it provides no therapeutic advantage. Not more than 22% of the departments closed the skin in perforated appendicitis in spite of clear supportive evidence. Considerable variation exists in cleaning the abdomen in perforated appendicitis, despite evidence favouring lavage. Comparing departments in terms of compliance with available evidence revealed that most paediatric surgery departments worked according to evidence-based medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence on diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis in children is only partly applied in a small proportion of hospitals in the Netherlands. It is recommended that national guidelines be published, which could decrease health care costs and increase more uniform policy, improve quality of care for this group of patients and improve training of residents in general surgery in the Netherlands.