Caecal diverticulitis can be misdiagnosed as acute appendicitis: a systematic review of the literature.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aim
Caecal diverticulitis (CD) is an uncommon condition which can be misdiagnosed as acute appendicitis due to similar clinical presentations. Further, its management varies among medical centres. The aim of this study was to review cases of patients with CD, to identify the factors differentiating CD from acute appendicitis and to provide a summary of existing diagnostic methods and therapeutic alternatives regarding its management.Methods
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and the AMSTAR2 checklist. We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception until 1 October 2018 for original publications reporting cases of CD.Results
Out of the 560 identified studies, 146 publications (988 patients) were included in the qualitative synthesis. Most frequent symptoms of CD were right iliac fossa pain (93.2%), nausea and/or vomiting (35.4%) and fever (26.9%). A total of 443 patients (44.8%) underwent radiological imaging, which reported CD in 225 patients (22.8%). For the other patients, the diagnosis was obtained by surgical exploration (73.9%). Among patients diagnosed with CD by imaging, 67 (29.8%) underwent surgery and 158 (70.2%) were treated conservatively. Among patients who underwent surgical exploration, treatment consisted most frequently of right hemi-colectomy (33%), appendectomy (18.8%) and diverticulectomy with appendectomy (16.3%).Conclusion
CD can be misdiagnosed as acute appendicitis, therefore resulting in unnecessary surgical exploration. The review of the literature starting from 1930 highlights the critical role of medical imaging in supporting the clinician to diagnose this condition and administer adequate treatment.
SUBMITTER: Uhe I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9292704 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundGlobally, schistosomiasis affects at least 240 million people each year with a high proportion of cases in sub-Saharan Africa. The infection presents a wide range of symptoms mainly at the gastrointestinal and urogenital level. Cases of schistosomiasis-related appendicitis are seldom reported. The aim of the present study is to identify the prevalence of schistosomiasis-related appendicitis in Beira, Mozambique and compare to global prevalence.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all cases of appendicitis recorded from January 2017 to March 2020 at a single pathology department located in Beira in order to assess the prevalence of schistosomiasis. Moreover, we performed a systematic review on the prevalence of schistosomiasis-related appendicitis in all countries.FindingsA total of 145 appendicitis cases in Beira showed a 13.1% prevalence of schistosomal-related appendicitis. The mean age of patients was 29.1 years, and 14 (73.7%) were male. The systematic review identified 20 studies with 34,790 inpatients with schistosomiasis-related appendicitis with a global prevalence of 1.31% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72 to 2.06); a high heterogeneity (I2 = 96.0%) was observed. Studies carried out in Africa reported a significantly higher prevalence of schistosomiasis-related appendicitis (2.75%; 95% CI: 1.28 to 4.68) than those in Middle East (0.49%; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.95) (p for interaction < 0.0001).ConclusionsSchistosomiasis infection should be considered as possible cause of appendicitis not only in endemic areas but also in developed countries. Considering that prevention is the best way to control the infection, more efforts should be put in place in order to increase the prevention coverage and avoid the cascading implications for health. This is even more so important in this Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) era where the majority of attention and funds are used to fight the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8224979 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In practice, nutrition recommendations vary widely for inpatient and discharge management of acute, uncomplicated diverticulitis. This systematic review aims to review the evidence and develop recommendations for dietary fibre modifications, either alone or alongside probiotics or antibiotics, versus any comparator in adults in any setting with or recently recovered from acute, uncomplicated diverticulitis. Intervention and observational studies in any language were located using four databases until March 2017. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE were used to evaluate the overall quality of the evidence and to develop recommendations. Eight studies were included. There was "very low" quality evidence for comparing a liberalised and restricted fibre diet for inpatient management to improve hospital length of stay, recovery, gastrointestinal symptoms and reoccurrence. There was "very low" quality of evidence for using a high dietary fibre diet as opposed to a standard or low dietary fibre diet following resolution of an acute episode, to improve reoccurrence and gastrointestinal symptoms. The results of this systematic review and GRADE assessment conditionally recommend the use of liberalised diets as opposed to dietary restrictions for adults with acute, uncomplicated diverticulitis. It also strongly recommends a high dietary fibre diet aligning with dietary guidelines, with or without dietary fibre supplementation, after the acute episode has resolved.
| S-EPMC5852713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTreatment delays are associated with increased morbidity and cost of disease, although the extent to which cost sharing influences timely presentation and management of acute surgical disease remains unknown. Given recent policy changes using cost sharing to modify health care behavior, this study examines the association of cost sharing with the health of the patient at presentation and with receipt of optimal or minimally invasive surgery.ObjectiveTo assess whether cost sharing is associated with the likelihood of early, uncomplicated patient presentation or with surgical management of 2 representative emergency general surgery diagnoses: acute appendicitis and acute diverticulitis.Design setting and participantsThis cohort study used Health Care Cost Institute claims from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2017, to analyze data of commercially insured individuals hospitalized for acute appendicitis or diverticulitis. In total, 151 852 patients in the data set aged 18 to 64 years and presenting with acute appendicitis or diverticulitis were included as identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision. Data were analyzed from January 2020 through February 2021.ExposuresThe primary exposure was patient total cost sharing incurred for the index hospitalization, defined as their summed deductible, copayments, and coinsurance.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was early, uncomplicated disease presentation. Secondary outcomes were receipt of optimal surgical care and minimally invasive surgery if undergoing an operation. Analyses were conducted with multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for patient characteristics and community-level socioeconomic and geographic factors. High cost sharing was defined as quartile 4 (>$3082), and low cost sharing as quartile 1 ($0-$502).ResultsAmong 151 852 patients, 52.4% were men, and the total cost-sharing median was $1725 (interquartile range, $503-$3082). Higher cost sharing was associated with lower odds of early, uncomplicated disease presentation (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.65). Patients with higher cost sharing were less likely to receive optimal surgical care (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.99) or minimally invasive surgery (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.95).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that, as policymakers debate the degree of cost sharing in public and private insurance plans, attention should be given to the clinical and financial implications associated with care delays.
| S-EPMC8796960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Alvarado score can be used to stratify patients with symptoms of suspected appendicitis; the validity of the score in certain patient groups and at different cut points is still unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the discrimination (diagnostic accuracy) and calibration performance of the Alvarado score.MethodsA systematic search of validation studies in Medline, Embase, DARE and The Cochrane library was performed up to April 2011. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the score at the two cut-off points: score of 5 (1 to 4 vs. 5 to 10) and score of 7 (1 to 6 vs. 7 to 10). Calibration was analysed across low (1 to 4), intermediate (5 to 6) and high (7 to 10) risk strata. The analysis focused on three sub-groups: men, women and children.ResultsForty-two studies were included in the review. In terms of diagnostic accuracy, the cut-point of 5 was good at 'ruling out' admission for appendicitis (sensitivity 99% overall, 96% men, 99% woman, 99% children). At the cut-point of 7, recommended for 'ruling in' appendicitis and progression to surgery, the score performed poorly in each subgroup (specificity overall 81%, men 57%, woman 73%, children 76%). The Alvarado score is well calibrated in men across all risk strata (low RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.28; intermediate 1.09, 0.86 to 1.37 and high 1.02, 0.97 to 1.08). The score over-predicts the probability of appendicitis in children in the intermediate and high risk groups and in women across all risk strata.ConclusionsThe Alvarado score is a useful diagnostic 'rule out' score at a cut point of 5 for all patient groups. The score is well calibrated in men, inconsistent in children and over-predicts the probability of appendicitis in women across all strata of risk.
| S-EPMC3299622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The shift from routine antibiotics towards omitting antibiotics for uncomplicated acute diverticulitis opens up the possibility for outpatient instead of inpatient treatment, potentially reducing the burden of one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases in the Western world.Assessing the safety and cost savings of outpatient treatment in acute colonic diverticulitis.PubMed and EMBASE were searched for studies on outpatient treatment of colonic diverticulitis, confirmed with computed tomography or ultrasound. Outcomes were readmission rate, need for emergency surgery or percutaneous abscess drainage, and healthcare costs.A total of 19 studies with 2303 outpatient treated patients were included. These studies predominantly excluded patients with comorbidity or immunosuppression, inability to tolerate oral intake, or lack of an adequate social network. The pooled incidence rate of readmission for outpatient treatment was 7% (95%CI 6-9%, I2 48%). Only 0.2% (2/1288) of patients underwent emergency surgery, and 0.2% (2/1082) of patients underwent percutaneous abscess drainage. Only two studies compared readmission rates outpatients that had similar characteristics as a control group of inpatients; 4.5% (3/66) and 6.3% (2/32) readmissions in outpatient groups versus 6.1% (4/66) and 0.0% (0/44) readmissions in inpatient groups (p?=?0.619 and p?=?0.174, respectively). Average healthcare cost savings for outpatient compared with inpatient treatment ranged between 42 and 82%.Outpatient treatment of uncomplicated diverticulitis resulted in low readmission rates and very low rates of complications. Furthermore, healthcare cost savings were substantial. Therefore, outpatient treatment of uncomplicated diverticulitis seems to be a safe option for most patients.
| S-EPMC5899114 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction and importanceTubo-ovarian abscesses (TOA) is presented with multiple clinical manifestations including gastrointestinal findings.Case presentationHerein, we present a case of complicated diverticulitis that was misdiagnosed as TOA, owing to overlapping genital involvement.Clinical discussionImaging could be misleading in these patients as a result of severe inflammation of intestines and surrounding organs.ConclusionPatients who do not respond to antibiotic treatment should be suspected of other gastrointestinal pathologies such as diverticulitis and should be evaluated accordingly.
| S-EPMC8593559 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Meta-analyses and a recent guideline acknowledge that conservative management of uncomplicated appendicitis with antibiotics can be successful for patients who wish to avoid surgery. However, guidance as to specific management does not exist. METHODS:PUBMED and EMBASE search of trials describing methods of conservative treatment was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS:Thirty-four studies involving 2,944 antibiotic-treated participants were identified. The greatest experience with conservative treatment is in persons 5 to 50 years of age. In most trials, imaging was used to confirm localized appendicitis without evidence of abscess, phlegmon, or tumor. Antibiotics regimens were generally consistent with intra-abdominal infection treatment guidelines and used for a total of 7 to 10 days. Approaches ranged from 3-day hospitalization on parenteral agents to same-day hospital or ED discharge of stable patients with outpatient oral antibiotics. Minimum time allowed before response was evaluated varied from 8 to 72 hours. Although pain was a common criterion for nonresponse and appendectomy, analgesic regimens were poorly described. Trials differed in use of other response indicators, that is, white blood cell count, C-reactive protein, and reimaging. Diet ranged from restriction for 48 hours to as tolerated. Initial response rates were generally greater than 90% and most participants improved by 24 to 48 hours, with no related severe sepsis or deaths. In most studies, appendectomy was recommended for recurrence; however, in several, patients had antibiotic retreatment with success. CONCLUSION:While further investigation of conservative treatment is ongoing, patients considering this approach should be advised and managed according to study methods and related guidelines to promote informed shared decision-making and optimize their chance of similar outcomes as described in published trials. Future studies that address biases associated with enrollment and response evaluation, employ best-practice pain control and antibiotic selection, better define cancer risk, and explore longer time thresholds for response, minimized diet restriction and hospital stays, and antibiotic re-treatment will further our understanding of the potential effectiveness of conservative management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Systematic review, level II.
| S-EPMC6437084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute appendicitis is the most common surgical emergency and can represent a challenging diagnosis, with a negative appendectomy rate as high as 20 %. This review aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of individual biomarkers in the diagnosis of appendicitis and appraise the quality of these studies.MethodsA systematic review of the literature between January 2000 and September 2015 using of PubMed, OvidMedline, EMBASE and Google Scholar was conducted. Studies in which the diagnostic accuracy, statistical heterogeneity and predictive ability for severity of several biomarkers could be elicited were included. Information regarding costs and process times was retrieved from the regional laboratory. European surgeons blinded to these reviews were independently asked to rank which characteristics of biomarkers were most important in acute appendicitis to inform a cost-benefit trade-off. Sensitivity testing and the QUADAS-2 tool were used to assess the robustness of the analysis and study quality, respectively.ResultsSixty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and were assessed. Traditional biomarkers (such as white cell count) were found to have a moderate diagnostic accuracy (0.75) but lower costs in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Conversely, novel markers (pro-calcitonin, IL 6 and urinary 5-HIAA) were found to have high process-related costs including analytical times, but improved diagnostic accuracy. QUADAS-2 analysis revealed significant potential biases in the literature.ConclusionWhen assessing biomarkers, an appreciation of the trade-offs between the costs and benefits of individual biomarkers is needed. Further studies should seek to investigate new biomarkers and address concerns over bias, in order to improve the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.
| S-EPMC5315733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute colonic diverticulitis (ACD) complications arise in approximately 8% to 35% patients and the most common ones are represented by phlegmon or abscess, followed by perforation, peritonitis, obstruction, and fistula. In accordance with current guidelines, patients affected by generalized peritonitis should undergo emergency surgery. However, decisions on whether and when to operate ACD patients remain a substantially debated topic while algorithm for the best treatment has not yet been determined. Damage control surgery (DCS) represents a well-established method in treating critically ill patients with traumatic abdomen injuries. At present, such surgical approach is also finding application in non-traumatic emergencies such as perforated ACD. Thanks to a thorough systematic review of the literature, we aimed at achieving deeper knowledge of both indications and short- and long-term outcomes related to DCS in perforated ACD.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines. Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were used to search all related literature.ResultsThe 8 included articles covered an approximately 13 years study period (2006-2018), with a total 359 patient population. At presentation, most patients showed III and IV American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (81.6%) while having Hinchey III perforated ACD (69.9%). Most patients received a limited resection plus vacuum-assisted closure at first-look while about half entire population underwent primary resection anastomosis (PRA) at a second-look. Overall morbidity rate, 30-day mortality rate and overall mortality rate at follow-up were between 23% and 74%, 0% and 20%, 7% and 33%, respectively. Patients had a 100% definitive abdominal wall closure rate and a definitive stoma rate at follow-up ranging between 0% and 33%.ConclusionDCS application to ACD patients seems to offer good outcomes with a lower percentage of patients with definitive ostomy, if compared to Hartmann's procedure. However, correct definition of DCS eligible patients is paramount in avoiding overtreatment. In accordance to 2016 WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) Guidelines, DCS remains an effective surgical strategy in critically ill patients affected by sepsis/septic shock and hemodynamical unstability.
| S-EPMC7710165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo assess the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI) models in diagnosing and prognosticating acute appendicitis (AA) in adult patients compared to traditional methods. AA is a common cause of emergency department visits and abdominal surgeries. It is typically diagnosed through clinical assessments, laboratory tests, and imaging studies. However, traditional diagnostic methods can be time-consuming and inaccurate. Machine learning models have shown promise in improving diagnostic accuracy and predicting outcomes.Main bodyA systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted, searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Studies were evaluated for risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Data points extracted included model type, input features, validation strategies, and key performance metrics.ResultsIn total, 29 studies were analyzed, out of which 21 focused on diagnosis, seven on prognosis, and one on both. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) were the most commonly employed algorithm for diagnosis. Both ANN and logistic regression were also widely used for categorizing types of AA. ANNs showed high performance in most cases, with accuracy rates often exceeding 80% and AUC values peaking at 0.985. The models also demonstrated promising results in predicting postoperative outcomes such as sepsis risk and ICU admission. Risk of bias was identified in a majority of studies, with selection bias and lack of internal validation being the most common issues.ConclusionAI algorithms demonstrate significant promise in diagnosing and prognosticating AA, often surpassing traditional methods and clinical scores such as the Alvarado scoring system in terms of speed and accuracy.
| S-EPMC10729387 | biostudies-literature