Operation with appendectomy for appendiceal mass carries a high risk of complications compared with conservative treatment or drainage .
Drainage may lower the risk of treatment failure but entails a risk of complications .
INTRODUCTION The treatment strategy for appendiceal mass is controversial , ranging from operation or image-guided drainage to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics .
The aim of this study was to assess the various treatment modalities with respect to complications and treatment failure .
Prospective evaluation of nonsurgical versus surgical management of appendiceal mass.
PURPOSE Prospect i ve evaluation was undertaken of surgical findings , complications , morbidity , and hospital stay between initial nonsurgical management versus early surgical intervention of an appendicular mass . METHODS A prospect i ve , nonr and omized study was conducted of 82 consecutive patients ( mean age , 6.9 + /- 3.3 years ) presenting with an appendicular mass over a 5-year period . They were categorized as group 1 , 58.5 % ( 48 of 82 ) nonsurgically managed and an interval appendectomy performed at a mean period of 8.6 + /- 4.6 weeks and group 2 , 41.5 % ( 34 of 82 ) appendectomy at presentation . RESULTS An appendix was identified in all 82 patients in both groups at operation . In-group 1 , recurrent episodes of abdominal pain necessitated interval appendectomy in 39.6 % ( 19 of 48 ) patients at a mean 4.3 + /- 0.8 versus 11.5 + /- 3.7 weeks in 60.4 % ( 29 of 48 ) who underwent scheduled interval appendectomy .  Periappendiceal abscesses present at interval appendectomy in group 1 was ( 38 of 48 ) 79.2 % versus 100 % ( 34 of 34 ) at appendectomy in group 2 . Adhesions at interval appendectomy  in group 1 was 81.3 % ( 39 of 48 ) versus 100 % ( 34 of 34 ) at appendectomy in group 2 . In-group 1 , superficial wound infection was observed in 0 versus 4 wound infections in group 2 . Overall morbidity rate between group 1 and group 2 was statistically significant ( P < .05 ) . Total mean hospital stay in group 1 was 13.2 + /- 1.5 versus 4.8 + /- 0.4 days in group 2 . Of the 48-interval appendectomy specimens , 37 of 48 ( 77 % ) appendices had a patent lumen , and 11 of 48 ( 23 % ) showed fibrosis and obliteration of appendicular lumen . There was no correlation ( r = 0.22 ) between the histopathologic findings and the interval between abscess treatment and interval appendectomy . CONCLUSIONS Early surgical intervention was beneficial over nonoperative management in this cohort of patients . Interval appendectomy is recommended after nonsurgical management of an appendicular mass
Operation with appendectomy for appendiceal mass carries a high risk of complications compared with conservative treatment or drainage .
Drainage may lower the risk of treatment failure but entails a risk of complications .
INTRODUCTION The treatment strategy for appendiceal mass is controversial , ranging from operation or image-guided drainage to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics .
The aim of this study was to assess the various treatment modalities with respect to complications and treatment failure .