Volume 83, Issue 10 pp. 744-747
APPENDICITIS

Does an Acute Surgical Model increase the rate of negative appendicectomy or perforated appendicitis?

Stephen F. Brockman

Corresponding Author

Stephen F. Brockman

Department of Surgery, Geelong Hospital and Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Correspondence

Dr Stephen F. Brockman, Department of Surgery, Geelong Hospital, Ryrie Street, Geelong, Vic. 3220, Australia. Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Steel Scott

Steel Scott

Department of Surgery, Geelong Hospital and Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Glenn D. Guest

Glenn D. Guest

Department of Surgery, Geelong Hospital and Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Douglas A. Stupart

Douglas A. Stupart

Department of Surgery, Geelong Hospital and Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Shannon Ryan

Shannon Ryan

Department of Surgery, Geelong Hospital and Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
David A. K. Watters

David A. K. Watters

Department of Surgery, Geelong Hospital and Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 21 May 2013
Citations: 35
S. F. Brockman MBBS; S. Scott MBBS; G. D. Guest MSc, FRACS; D. A. Stupart MBChB, FRACS; S. Ryan BN; D. A. K. Watters ChM, FRACS.

Abstract

Introduction

The clinical outcomes from suspected appendicitis depend on balancing the rate of negative appendicectomy (NA) with perforated appendicitis (PA). An Acute Surgical Model (ASM) was introduced at Geelong Hospital (GH) in 2011 involving a dedicated emergency general surgery theatre list every business day giving greater access to theatre for general surgeons. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the ASM at GH on the management of appendicitis, in particular the NA and PA rates.

Methods

Data for 357 patients undergoing emergency appendicectomy was collected prospectively over 1 year (2011) and compared with a historical control group of 351 patients (2010). The data was analysed for patient demographics, preoperative diagnostic radiology and outcomes including NA and PA rates and complications. The negative appendicectomy rates were compared with contemporary studies.

Results

There was no difference between the two groups in rates of negative appendicectomy 21% (ASM; 73/357) versus 21% (Control; 73/351) P = 0.98, or perforated appendicitis 17% (ASM; 61/357) versus 13% (Control; 47/351) P = 0.18. The introduction of the ASM corresponded to a significantly lower proportion of emergency appendicectomies overnight (4% [16/357] versus 12% [44/351] P = 0.005). There was no significant difference in the use of preoperative diagnostic radiology or complications. Matched contemporary studies had a NA rate of 26%.

Conclusion

The introduction of the ASM at GH has not significantly altered the rate of NA or PA. The NA rate at GH is comparable to other published UK and Australian series.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.