The Role of Doctors and Patients in Appendicitis Perforation

In this study, we aimed to determine factors that cause appendix perforations and to identify the role of physicians and patients in contributing to the cause of these perforations. This study was conducted between April 2010 and May 2015 and included 64 patients with perforated appendicitis. Patients’ medical records were examined for factors that might have contributed to perforation, and the roles of patients and physicians in perforation appendicitis were evaluated. The perforation rate of patients with appendicitis was 16.0 per cent. The average duration from symptom onset to hospital admission was 4.4 days (29 patients were admitted to hospital within two days, 35 were admitted later). In total, 38 patients had visited a different hospital before admission. Furthermore, six out of 26 patients who had not visited any other hospital had consumed analgesics. Factors contributing to appendix perforation included misdiagnosis at the patient's initial visit (56.0%), delayed admission to hospital (11.0%), and use of analgesics (9.0%). The cause of perforation was mostly physician-related in children and adults, and patient-related in older adults.

Retrocecal Appendix Location and Perforation at Presentation

Retrocecal appendicitis has been theorized to follow a more insidious course than other anatomic variants. To determine the influence of retrocecal anatomy on clinical course of appendicitis, 200 adult patients treated at a major university medical center with the diagnosis of appendicitis from 2001 to 2004 were retrospectively studied. Computed tomography (CT) scans of adult patients with an ultimate diagnosis of appendicitis were analyzed to determine an association between retrocecal appendix and perforation of the appendix at presentation. A higher perforation rate in the retrocecal group would imply patient delay in presentation from more tolerable symptoms. CT scans were examined for retrocecal location and perforation. No significant association was found between retrocecal anatomy and perforation rates at presentation (chi-square = 2.1, P = 0.15, odds ratio = 1.6, 95% confidence interval [0.8–3.0]). However, the risk of perforation was 60 per cent higher in the retrocecal group. By regression analysis, age and the presence of a fecalith on CT scan were predictors of appendix perforation. Appendix location was not. In this study, we found no significant association between retrocecal appendix anatomy and perforation at presentation.