BACKGROUND: In 2009, we instituted a protocol to standardize care for patients undergoing interval appendectomy based on results from a prospective trial that demonstrated a reduction in the mean number of computed tomography (CT) scans performed. The goal of this study was to determine if our current practice now resulted in fewer CT scans as a result of this trial. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis from March 2009 to March 2011 was performed. Demographics and outcomes were compared to previously collected data from a retrospective study prior to institution of the protocol and to the prospective trial. RESULTS: During the study period, 45 patients underwent interval appendectomy. There were no differences in demographics among the three studies. Similar numbers of patients underwent aspiration or percutaneous drainage. There continues to be a significant reduction in the number of CT scans (3.5 ± 2.0 vs. 2.1 ± 1.3, P = 0.0001) and health care visits (7.6 ± 2.8 vs. 4.5 ± 1.4, P = 0.0001) when comparing management prior to the prospective trial to management since its completion. CONCLUSION: A protocol for management of patients undergoing interval appendectomy care results in fewer health care visits and CT scans.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In 2009, we instituted a protocol to standardize care for patients undergoing interval appendectomy based on results from a prospective trial that demonstrated a reduction in the mean number of computed tomography (CT) scans performed. The goal of this study was to determine if our current practice now resulted in fewer CT scans as a result of this trial. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing interval appendectomy for perforated appendicitis from March 2009 to March 2011 was performed. Demographics and outcomes were compared to previously collected data from a retrospective study prior to institution of the protocol and to the prospective trial. RESULTS: During the study period, 45 patients underwent interval appendectomy. There were no differences in demographics among the three studies. Similar numbers of patients underwent aspiration or percutaneous drainage. There continues to be a significant reduction in the number of CT scans (3.5 ± 2.0 vs. 2.1 ± 1.3, P = 0.0001) and health care visits (7.6 ± 2.8 vs. 4.5 ± 1.4, P = 0.0001) when comparing management prior to the prospective trial to management since its completion. CONCLUSION: A protocol for management of patients undergoing interval appendectomy care results in fewer health care visits and CT scans.
Authors: Adrianne L Myers; Regan F Williams; Kim Giles; Teresa M Waters; James W Eubanks; S Douglas Hixson; Eunice Y Huang; Max R Langham; Martin L Blakely Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-02-17 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Jennifer V Schurman; Christopher C Cushing; Carissa L Garey; Carrie A Laituri; Shawn D St Peter Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: L van den Hout; T Schaible; T E Cohen-Overbeek; W Hop; J Siemer; K van de Ven; L Wessel; D Tibboel; I Reiss Journal: Fetal Diagn Ther Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 2.587
Authors: Shawn D St Peter; Kuojen Tsao; Troy L Spilde; George W Holcomb; Susan W Sharp; J Patrick Murphy; Charles L Snyder; Ronald J Sharp; Walter S Andrews; Daniel J Ostlie Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Maria Michailidou; Maria G Sacco Casamassima; Omar Karim; Colin Gause; Jose H Salazar; Seth D Goldstein; Fizan Abdullah Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 1.827