CASE REPORT: We report a 37-year-old woman with recurrent right iliac fossa pain. Computed tomography scan revealed a caecal mass suggesting complete inversion or intussusception of the appendix, which was confirmed by pathologic microscopic examination. This case report discusses appendiceal intussusception with emphasis on diagnosis and treatment options.
DISCUSSION: Appendiceal intussusception is a rare entity and the complete type typically presents as a polypoid lesion located at the appendiceal orifice in the caecum. It is imperative to include this entity in the differential diagnosis of caecal mass, especially during colonoscopy, as the removal of this polypoid lesion can result in a devastating caecal perforation or haemorrhage.
METHODOLOGY: This is a retrospective study. A total of 204 cases of patients underwent an appendectomy admitted to the surgical ward from January 2017 until January 2018 at Hospital Sultanah Nora Ismail (HSNI) were audited retrospectively.
RESULTS: This findings showed different figures of ascendancy in gender among patients who underwent an appendectomy with females 58.8% and males 41.2%. The perforation rate was 40.7% and delay in diagnosis was found to be 19.1%. The perforated appendix had a significantly higher incidence in males with a correlation of p-value 0.04. Retrocaecal appendix (RA) remained the commonest position for patients who underwent an appendectomy with 26.9%. RA is associated with an increased incidence of perforation (p-value 0.01).
CONCLUSION: The position of appendix in our patients who underwent an appendectomy is parallel to the reports available globally in that it is retrocaecal followed by retroileal as the commonest position among residence of Batu Pahat.
Methods: Histopathological examination of appendicectomies conducted between 2016 and 2017 in Melaka Hospital, Malaysia were traced and categorised into three groups: i) G1 (normal appendix), ii) G2 (acute appendicitis) and iii) G3 (perforated appendicitis). The reports were randomised and a total of 338 samples were collected. NLR values were compared between the three different groups and analysed.
Results: The median values of NLR for G1, G2 and G3 were 2.37, 5.25 and 9.27, respectively. We found a statistically significant difference in NLR between G1 and G2 (P < 0.001), and G2 and G3 (P < 0.001). The diagnostic values of NLR for acute appendicitis and perforated appendicitis were 3.11 (sensitivity: 75.23%, specificity: 68.70%) and 6.17 (sensitivity: 76.32%, specificity: 58.72%), respectively. There was a substantial correlation between NLR and disease severity, and a moderate correlation between NLR and duration of admission.
Conclusion: NLR, with a sensitivity of 75.23% and specificity of 68.70%, is a useful and reliable adjunct in diagnosing acute appendicitis. Hence, it will help in reducing the rate of negative appendicectomies.