Acute Appendicitis: Evidence-Based Clinical Summary

On this page

Quick Reference

RxDrug of choicePiperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g IV q6h (or ceftriaxone 2 g IV daily + metronidazole 500 mg IV q8h)

AltAlternativesErtapenem 1 g IV daily; oral moxifloxacin 400 mg daily for uncomplicated nonoperative management

⊘AvoidNonoperative management in patients with appendicolith, appendiceal diameter ≥15 mm, fever >38°C, or CRP ≥100 mg/L; avoid NSAIDs if renal impairment or bleeding risk

DxTest of choiceCT abdomen with IV contrast (low-dose if BMI <30) in adults; ultrasound in children and pregnancy; MRI in pregnancy if ultrasound inconclusive

ScKey scoreAppendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score

→When to referComplicated appendicitis (gangrenous, perforated, abscess), failure of nonoperative management, elderly with comorbidities, pregnancy, immunocompromised patients

Acute appendicitis is diagnosed by clinical scoring (AIR) and imaging; laparoscopic appendectomy is definitive for complicated disease, while antibiotics are an option for uncomplicated cases without risk factors for failure (appendicolith, diameter ≥15 mm, fever >38°C).

Acute appendicitis is the most common abdominal surgical emergency, with a lifetime risk of approximately 7%. The key clinical distinction is between uncomplicated (simple, non-perforated) and complicated (gangrenous, perforated, or abscess) disease, which drives management decisions. Diagnosis relies on clinical scoring, the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score outperforms the Alvarado score, and targeted imaging (ultrasound in children/pregnancy, CT in adults). For uncomplicated appendicitis, nonoperative management with antibiotics is a safe alternative to appendectomy, though failure is predicted by appendicolith, appendiceal diameter ≥15 mm, and fever >38°C. Complicated appendicitis mandates urgent laparoscopic appendectomy with a short course of postoperative antibiotics. The paradigm has shifted from 'time is perforation' to recognizing that perforation is often a prehospital phenomenon, allowing safe in-hospital delays of up to 24 hours for uncomplicated cases.

Overview and Recommendations

Background

•Acute appendicitis is inflammation of the vermiform appendix, with a lifetime risk of 7-8% and an age- and sex-standardized incidence of 106 per 100,000 person-years in the United States. It is one of the most common abdominal emergencies worldwide, with a low mortality (<1%) but significant morbidity in complicated disease.
•The disease follows a two-disease model: uncomplicated (simple, non-perforated) appendicitis may be self-limiting and can resolve with antibiotics alone, while complicated (gangrenous, perforated, or abscess) appendicitis often perforates before the patient presents to care. Perforation rates do not increase with in-hospital delays up to 24 hours, challenging the traditional 'time is perforation' dogma.
•Pathophysiology begins with luminal obstruction, most commonly by a faecolith (35% of cases) or lymphoid hyperplasia, leading to increased intraluminal pressure, venous congestion, mucosal ischemia, and bacterial translocation (predominantly E. coli and B. fragilis). The histologic sequence progresses from suppurative to gangrenous to perforated appendicitis.
•Classification systems stratify severity: the AAST Anatomic Severity grade (I-V) predicts complication risk and resource utilization, while the WSES Comprehensive Grading (0-5) standardizes patient stratification. The presence of an appendicolith on CT is a key predictor of complicated disease and failure of nonoperative management (OR 1.99).
•Risk factors include low dietary fiber intake, age (peak incidence 10-19 years), male sex, and genetic heritability of 30%. Special populations, pregnancy (incidence reduced by 35%), elderly (higher perforation and mortality), and immunocompromised patients, require tailored approaches.
•Occult appendiceal neoplasms are found in 0.7-1.7% of appendectomy specimens, rising to 14.3% in patients with periappendicular abscess. This oncologic risk is a critical consideration when selecting nonoperative management, especially in patients >40 years.

Evaluation

•Suspect acute appendicitis in any patient with periumbilical pain that migrates to the right lower quadrant over 12-24 hours, accompanied by anorexia, nausea, and vomiting. The classic sequence is present in only half of patients; its absence does not exclude the diagnosis.
•Examine for localized tenderness at McBurney's point (one-third of the distance from the anterior superior iliac spine to the umbilicus), guarding, rebound tenderness, and the psoas sign (pain with hip extension) or obturator sign (pain with internal rotation of the flexed hip). Rovsing's sign (left lower quadrant palpation elicits right lower quadrant pain) suggests peritoneal irritation.
•Use the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score for risk stratification: it outperforms the Alvarado score (AUC 0.86 vs 0.79). At a cutoff >4 points, sensitivity is 91% for all appendicitis and 95% for advanced disease; at >8 points, specificity reaches 98%.
•Order laboratory studies: white blood cell count (sensitivity 62%, specificity 75%) and C-reactive protein (sensitivity 57%, specificity 87%). A CRP <100 mg/L within 24 hours of admission has a 99% negative predictive value for antibiotic treatment failure.
•In children and pregnant patients, obtain a right lower quadrant ultrasound as first-line imaging. Ultrasound has a pooled sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 81%; false-negative results are associated with Alvarado score ≥5, symptom duration >48 hours, and CRP ≥10 mg/L.
•In non-pregnant adults, obtain a CT abdomen with intravenous contrast (low-dose if BMI <30 kg/m²). CT has an accuracy of 98-99% for diagnosing appendicitis and can distinguish uncomplicated from complicated disease (accuracy 90.3% with low-dose CT).
•In pregnancy with inconclusive ultrasound, perform MRI (sensitivity 91.8%, specificity 97.9%). MRI is the preferred second-line imaging modality in this population.
•Follow a stepwise diagnostic algorithm: low-risk patients (AIR 0-4) may be observed or discharged with safety netting; intermediate-risk (AIR 5-8) require imaging; high-risk (AIR ≥9) can proceed to surgery without further imaging if the clinical picture is convincing.
•Also consider atypical presentations: retrocecal appendix (dull pain, positive psoas sign), pelvic appendix (suprapubic pain, tenesmus, positive obturator sign), and elderly patients (blunted pain, higher perforation rate). In immunocompromised patients, have a low threshold for cross-sectional imaging.
•Red flags for complicated disease include fever >38°C, tachycardia, hypotension, diffuse peritonitis, and the presence of an appendicolith on imaging. These features should prompt urgent surgical consultation.

Management

•Initiate intravenous fluid resuscitation with isotonic crystalloid (e.g., lactated Ringer's) at 20 mL/kg over 30-60 minutes if signs of hypoperfusion are present; otherwise, maintenance fluids at 1-2 mL/kg/h suffice.
•Provide analgesia: intravenous acetaminophen 1 g every 6 hours or ketorolac 30 mg IV once then 15 mg every 6 hours (avoid NSAIDs if renal impairment or bleeding risk). Add opioids (morphine 2-5 mg IV or fentanyl 25-50 μg IV) for breakthrough pain; adequate analgesia does not mask peritonitis.
•Start empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics covering gram-negative bacilli and anaerobes as soon as the diagnosis is confirmed. First-line regimens: piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g IV every 6 hours, or ceftriaxone 2 g IV daily plus metronidazole 500 mg IV every 8 hours.
•For uncomplicated appendicitis, a single preoperative dose of antibiotics is sufficient; postoperative continuation is not needed. For complicated appendicitis (gangrenous, perforated, abscess), continue antibiotics for 3-5 days postoperatively; longer courses do not reduce infectious complications.
•Consider nonoperative management with antibiotics alone for uncomplicated appendicitis in selected patients. Use ertapenem 1 g IV daily for 3 days followed by oral levofloxacin 500 mg daily plus metronidazole 500 mg three times daily for 7 days, or oral moxifloxacin 400 mg daily for 7 days (APPAC II regimen).
•Identify poor candidates for nonoperative management: appendicolith (OR 1.99 for failure), appendiceal diameter ≥15 mm (RR 4.00), body temperature >38°C (RR 2.76), and CRP ≥100 mg/L at 24 hours (RR 8.29). These patients should undergo appendectomy.
•Perform laparoscopic appendectomy as the standard operative approach for complicated appendicitis and for patients who prefer surgery. Laparoscopic appendectomy reduces wound infections, hospital stay, and recovery time compared to open surgery.
•For uncomplicated appendicitis, appendectomy can be safely delayed up to 24 hours from presentation; in-hospital delay does not increase perforation risk. For complicated appendicitis, proceed expeditiously.
•Secure the appendiceal stump with suture ligation or a stapler; both are superior to endoloops or clips for preventing organ/space infection. Use a specimen retrieval bag to minimize wound contamination.
•Manage peritoneal contamination with suction alone; peritoneal irrigation does not reduce intra-abdominal abscess and prolongs operative time. Avoid routine abdominal drainage.
•For patients managed nonoperatively, monitor vital signs and pain every 4 hours. Repeat CRP at 24 hours; a level <100 mg/L predicts success. Clinical deterioration (worsening pain, fever, peritonitis) requires urgent surgical consultation.
•Discharge criteria: tolerating oral intake, afebrile, pain controlled on oral analgesics. Same-day discharge is safe for uncomplicated appendicitis after laparoscopic appendectomy (PENDI-CSI trial: 85.9% discharged without admission, no increase in complications).
•Avoid routine preoperative blood cultures in hemodynamically stable patients (yield <4%). Avoid intraoperative antibiotic wound irrigation. Avoid postoperative antibiotics beyond 24 hours for uncomplicated appendicitis after appendectomy.
•Refer patients with complicated appendicitis and abscess for percutaneous drainage if feasible. Refer elderly or high-risk patients to ICU if septic shock develops. Discuss interval appendectomy with all patients after nonoperative management of complicated disease due to the 14.3% risk of occult neoplasia.
•In pregnancy, laparoscopic appendectomy is safe until the 20th week; beyond that, base the approach on surgeon expertise. Nonoperative management is acceptable for uncomplicated cases, with a fetal loss rate of 4% (vs 5% with surgery).

Board Review — High Yield

•McBurney's point, one-third of the distance from the anterior superior iliac spine to the umbilicus; site of maximal tenderness in acute appendicitis.
•AIR score, outperforms Alvarado; AUC 0.86 for all appendicitis, 0.93 for advanced; >8 points has 98% specificity.
•Two-disease model, perforation is often a prehospital phenomenon; in-hospital delay up to 24 hours does not increase perforation risk.
•Appendicolith, present in 35% of cases; doubles risk of antibiotic failure (OR 1.99); associated with complicated disease.
•Nonoperative management, 1-year success ~65%; 10-year recurrence ~38%; risk factors: appendicolith, diameter ≥15 mm, fever >38°C, CRP ≥100 mg/L.
•Laparoscopic appendectomy, standard of care; reduces wound infections, hospital stay, and recovery time vs open.
•Pregnancy, MRI is imaging of choice (sensitivity 92%, specificity 98%); laparoscopic appendectomy safe until 20 weeks; fetal loss rate 4-5%.
•Elderly, higher perforation rate (40%); nonoperative management increases mortality by 1.8% compared to surgery.
•Occult neoplasm, 1.6% of appendectomy specimens; 14.3% in periappendicular abscess; consider interval colonoscopy in patients >40 years.
•Stump appendicitis, rare (0.15%) but can occur years later; treat with completion appendectomy.

Deep Dive — Evidence Details

Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature

▸Acute appendicitis is stratified into uncomplicated (simple) and complicated (gangrenous, perforated, phlegmonous, abscess) forms, which drives the operative-versus-nonoperative decision.
▸Multiple validated grading systems (AAST, WSES, EAES, REsiDENT-1) provide structured severity assessment, with the AAST grade independently predicting complication risk, length of stay, and cost.
▸Incidental appendiceal neoplasms occur in 0.7% to 1.7% of specimens; older age, larger appendiceal diameter, and complicated presentation raise suspicion for aggressive tumors.

HY High Yield: The AAST grade is independently associated with complication risk and cost; use it to communicate severity and anticipate resource needs [21][35].

Appendicitis is inflammation of the appendix. Symptoms commonly include right lower abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, fever and decreased appetite. However, approximately 40% of people do not have these typical symptoms. — Appendicitis — Appendicitis is inflammation of the appendix. Symptoms commonly include right lower abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, fever and decreased appetite. Ho...Wikipedia ↗

Acute appendicitis is the acute inflammation of the vermiform appendix, representing one of the most common abdominal emergencies worldwide ^[9]^D5. Also referred to simply as appendicitis (abbreviated AA) and historically as epityphlitis, the condition carries a lifetime risk of approximately 7% to 8%, with an incidence that has declined over recent decades ^[18]^B2c. Although mortality is low (<1%), postoperative complications are frequent in complex disease, making accurate classification essential for guiding ^[9]^D5.

Classification Axes

Appendicitis is broadly stratified into uncomplicated (simple, non-perforated) and complicated (gangrenous, perforated, phlegmonous, or associated with abscess) forms ^[9]^D5. This binary distinction drives the operative-versus-nonoperative decision. Several structured grading systems refine this stratification:

System	Grades	Key Features	Clinical Utility
AAST Anatomic Severity (Grades I-V)	I: Normal/inflamed; II: Gangrenous; III: Perforated with localized contamination; IV: Perforated with diffuse peritonitis; V: Perforated with abscess	Based on operative findings; validated against outcomes and costs ^[21]^B2b^[35]^B3b	Predicts complication risk, length of stay, and hospitalization cost ^[35]^B3b
WSES Comprehensive Grading	Grades 0-5	Integrates clinical, imaging, and laparoscopic findings ^[3]^D5	Standardizes patient stratification for research and management
EAES 2015 Classification	Uncomplicated vs. complicated (includes phlegmonous)	Phlegmonous appendicitis carries a 2.3-fold increased risk of postoperative complications and 21% longer stay ^[30]^B3b	Supports classification of phlegmonous as complicated
REsiDENT-1 Classification	Grades based on histology and peritoneal contamination	Prospectively linked to postoperative intra-abdominal abscess risk ^[8]^B2b^[32]^B2b	Guides intraoperative decision-making (irrigation vs. suction)

Appendicoliths and Tumor Risk

Appendicoliths (fecaliths) are identified on CT in approximately 25% of patients and are associated with complicated disease and failure of nonoperative treatment ^[10]^D5^[23]^B2b. Their physical and chemical properties can be classified into three hardness classes, though hardness does not independently predict severity ^[23]^B2b.

Incidental appendiceal neoplasms are found in 0.7% to 1.7% of appendicectomy specimens ^[1]^D5. In a recent cohort of 2293 appendectomies, 1.6% harbored malignant or premalignant lesions, most commonly neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) <2 cm ^[13]^B2b. Older age, larger appendiceal diameter (>18 mm), and radiologic suspicion of complicated appendicitis increase the likelihood of an aggressive tumor ^[13]^B2b. This oncologic risk is a critical consideration when selecting antibiotic-only management.

Pearl: The distinction between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis is the most clinically relevant classification, as it directly guides the decision for nonoperative management versus urgent surgery; the AAST grade further refines risk prediction for complications and resource utilization.

Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion

▸Luminal obstruction (faecolith in 35%) triggers ischemia, bacterial translocation, and progression to perforation, but perforation is often a prehospital event unrelated to in-hospital delay.
▸Faecolith presence is strongly associated with complicated disease (53% vs 23%) and is a predictor of antibiotic failure (OR 1.99).
▸Genetic susceptibility (NEDD4L variant, heritability 30%) and low dietary fiber contribute to risk, and periappendicular abscess carries a 14.3% risk of underlying neoplasia.

HY High Yield: In-hospital delay up to 24 hours does not increase perforation risk; most perforations occur before the patient arrives. A faecolith on CT is the strongest predictor of a complicated course.

Building on the distinction between simple and complicated appendicitis, the underlying pathophysiology reveals two distinct mechanistic pathways that explain why some cases resolve spontaneously while others progress to perforation before the patient reaches the hospital.

The Obstructive Cascade

Acute appendicitis is initiated by luminal obstruction, most commonly by a faecolith (present in 35% of cases) or lymphoid hyperplasia ^[9]^D5^[55]^B2b. The appendix is a blind-ending tube with a narrow lumen; once obstructed, continued mucus secretion raises intraluminal pressure. This pressure exceeds venous capillary perfusion pressure, causing venous congestion and mucosal ischemia ^[9]^D5. The ischemic mucosa becomes vulnerable to bacterial translocation from the lumen, predominantly Escherichia coli and Bacteroides fragilis ^[102]^B2b. As the wall becomes edematous and neutrophil infiltration progresses, the classic histologic sequence of suppurative → gangrenous → perforated appendicitis unfolds ^[9]^D5.

The Two-Disease Model

Not all appendicitis follows this inexorable march. A growing body of evidence suggests that simple (non-perforated) appendicitis may be a self-limiting inflammatory condition that can resolve with alone, whereas complicated (gangrenous or perforated) appendicitis often perforates before the patient presents to care ^[9]^D5. Perforation rates do not rise with in-hospital delay: a meta-analysis of 152 314 patients found no increased risk of perforation when surgery was delayed up to 24 hours (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.98-1.17) ^[45]^B2a. Similarly, a 2014 SCOAP cohort of 9048 adults showed identical mean time from presentation to operation (8.6 hours) for perforated and nonperforated groups ^[79]^B2b. The risk of perforation rises sharply only after 24-48 hours of symptoms, not hours of hospital waiting ^[92]^B2b. This has shifted the paradigm from “time is perforation” to “perforation is a prehospital phenomenon” ^[79]^B2b.

Role of the Faecolith

Faecoliths are not merely innocent bystanders. In a 2-year retrospective cohort of 1035 appendectomies, faecoliths were found in 35% of acute appendicitis cases, far higher than previously reported, and were strongly associated with complicated disease (53% of complicated vs 23% of uncomplicated cases, p < 0.001) ^[55]^B2b. The presence of an appendicolith on CT is an independent predictor of 30-day appendectomy failure after antibiotic initiation (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.28-3.10) ^[47]^B2b. This mechanistically explains why a faecolith creates a fixed obstruction that cannot be relieved by antibiotics alone.

Genetic and Environmental Susceptibility

Twin studies estimate the heritability of acute appendicitis at 30% (95% CI 5-40%), with the remainder attributable to non-shared environmental factors ^[84]^B2b. A genome-wide association study identified a single-nucleotide variation in the NEDD4L gene (rs9953918) that is associated with appendicitis (OR 0.99, p = 4.48 × 10⁻⁸) ^[82]^B3b. Nedd4L ubiquitinates intestinal ion channels; decreased activity may alter ion transport and predispose to luminal obstruction. Dietary factors also contribute: a meta-analysis of four case-control studies found lower fiber intake in patients with appendicitis (mean difference -4.53 g, p = 0.11), and ecological studies consistently link low-fiber, high-meat, or sugar-dense Western dietary patterns with higher incidence ^[52]^B3a.

The Surgical Lesion: Gross and Microscopic Pathology

The surgical lesion evolves through recognizable stages:

Stage	Gross appearance	Histology
Simple (suppurative)	Swollen, erythematous, serosal exudate	Neutrophilic infiltration of mucosa and submucosa; intact wall
Gangrenous	Dark, friable wall with areas of necrosis	Transmural necrosis, microabscesses, thrombosed vessels
Perforated	Visible hole, periappendiceal pus or abscess	Full-thickness necrosis with bacterial spillage

Complicated appendicitis is defined as gangrenous, perforated, or periappendiceal abscess ^[12]^C4. The presence of a periappendiceal fluid collection (PAFC) on CT is a strong predictor of postoperative complications (OR 7.11) and is associated with a higher rate of hidden neoplasia (7.6% vs 1.5%, p < 0.001) ^[58]^B2b. In patients with periappendicular abscess, the appendiceal tumor rate is 14.3% (95% CI 10.8-17.9%), compared with 1.5% in uncomplicated appendicitis ^[78]^B2b. This oncologic risk is a critical consideration when selecting nonoperative .

Infection-Specific Pathophysiology

Rare causes include amebic appendicitis, where Entamoeba histolytica trophozoites invade the appendiceal wall. In a systematic review of 174 cases, only 7% had a history of dysenteric diarrhea, yet 30.7% presented with complicated appendicitis ^[53]^C4. The cecum often feels “cardboard-like” at surgery ^[90]^C4. In HIV-positive patients, the risk of mortality is significantly increased when CD4 < 200 cells/mm³ (OR 8.6) ^[62]^B2b.

Pearl: The presence of a faecolith on CT should raise suspicion for a complicated course and is a strong predictor of antibiotic failure, making early appendectomy or close monitoring prudent, especially when considering nonoperative management.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	Position A	Position B	Strength	Implication
Is perforation strictly time-dependent?	Yes (traditional model)	No, perforation is often prehospital (SCOAP, meta-analyses) ^[79]^B2b^[45]^B2a	Strong evidence against the traditional model	Emergency appendectomy dogma is challenged; delayed surgery up to 24 h is safe in uncomplicated cases
Does a faecolith always require surgery?	Yes, operative management preferred ^[55]^B2b	Some advocate nonoperative management even with faecolith ^[47]^B2b	Moderate, faecolith increases risk but not absolute contraindication	Shared decision-making: patients with faecolith have higher failure rate with antibiotics (OR 1.99) ^[47]^B2b

Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors

▸Acute appendicitis is a common surgical emergency and a leading pediatric surgical indication. [308][380][383]
▸Appendicolith is an important obstructive feature and an independent risk factor for failure of antibiotic-only management in uncomplicated appendicitis. [372]
▸Older age, longer symptom duration, communication barriers, and lower neighborhood-level child opportunity are associated with concern for complicated or ruptured appendicitis in specific cohorts. [359][375][381][382]
▸Incidental appendiceal neoplasms occurred in 1.26% of 5,001 appendectomy specimens in one retrospective series. [374]
▸Urine leukocyte count has limited accuracy for identifying complicated appendicitis in children; inflammatory, clinical, laboratory, radiologic, and temperature variables remain under investigation. [96][384][385]

HY High Yield: An appendicolith is a clinically important marker of obstructive disease and increases concern for failure of antibiotic-only treatment in uncomplicated acute appendicitis. [372]

! Warning: The available evidence is mainly retrospective and cohort-based; associations involving age, communication barriers, socioeconomic opportunity, biomarkers, and timing should not be interpreted as definitive causal risk factors. [359][375][381][382]

Epidemiology and clinical context

Acute appendicitis is a common surgical emergency and appendectomy remains one of the leading pediatric surgical procedures. ^[308]^A1b^[380]^[383] The supplied 2026 evidence is predominantly observational and pediatric or age-specific; it focuses more on progression to complicated disease, rupture, treatment failure, and postoperative outcomes than on population incidence. ^[359]^B2b^[375]^[380]^[381]

Age modifies presentation and severity. Elderly patients are repeatedly identified as an important high-risk subgroup: one cohort specifically evaluated patients aged ≥65 years because of their high rate of complicated disease, while another studied patients aged ≥65 years undergoing emergency laparoscopic appendectomy. ^[359]^B2b^[382] Pediatric appendicitis is also a major focus, with studies examining children younger than 18 years, including cohorts evaluating complicated appendicitis, temperature patterns, urinalysis, and prediction models. ^[96]^B2b^[375]^[381]^[384]^[385] Appendiceal neoplasms discovered during appendectomy for presumed acute appendicitis were primarily identified in adults, with a mean age of 52.8 ± 18.2 years in a 5,001-case retrospective series. ^[374]

Etiology and mechanisms

Luminal obstruction is an important proposed mechanism. An appendicolith is specifically described as an independent risk factor for failure of antibiotic-only treatment in uncomplicated acute appendicitis, supporting its clinical importance as a marker of obstructive or persistent disease. ^[372] In patients with uncomplicated appendicitis and an appendicolith, endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy plus antibiotics was investigated as a strategy to relieve appendicolith-associated obstruction; this evidence comes from a propensity-score-matched retrospective cohort rather than a randomized trial. ^[372]

Neoplasia is an uncommon but clinically relevant alternative or coexisting cause of appendiceal inflammation. In a 10-year retrospective analysis of 5,001 appendectomies for acute appendicitis, incidental appendiceal neoplasms were found in 63 patients (1.26%). ^[374] A separate cohort examined the oncologic risk of missed appendiceal tumors in adults managed with appendectomy and highlighted concern that antibiotic-only management may leave an occult neoplasm undiagnosed. ^[13]^B2b These findings do not establish that tumors cause most episodes of acute appendicitis, but they support histopathologic assessment and clinical vigilance, particularly when the presentation or imaging is atypical. ^[13]^B2b^[374]

Risk factors for complicated appendicitis and rupture

Longer symptom duration is associated with appendiceal rupture in pediatric patients. A retrospective pediatric study examining autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and major depressive disorder explicitly evaluated whether communication barriers were associated with delayed presentation and a higher incidence of rupture. ^[381] The study defined a communication barrier as documented verbal delay or communication impairment before presentation and excluded children younger than 5 years because of their expected language-development trajectory. ^[381] These data support communication difficulty as a possible indirect risk factor through delayed recognition, rather than as a proven biologic cause of appendicitis. ^[381]

Neighborhood socioeconomic conditions may influence severity at presentation. In a statewide pediatric analysis, lower Child Opportunity Index values were evaluated as a potential predictor of complicated appendicitis, defined as perforation, gangrene, or abscess, and of longer hospital stay. ^[375] Because this was a retrospective discharge-database study, neighborhood opportunity should be interpreted as an association and not as an individual-level causal exposure. ^[375]

Older age is associated with concern for complicated disease, although the supplied studies do not provide a single universal age threshold for risk. ^[359]^B2b^[382] In elderly patients, the derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio was investigated as a risk-stratification tool, while the C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio was evaluated for its association with complicated appendicitis and length of stay. ^[359]^B2b^[382] In children, routine urine leukocyte count demonstrated limited accuracy for identifying complicated appendicitis, whereas systemic inflammatory markers and routinely available clinical, laboratory, and radiologic variables were evaluated in prediction studies. ^[96]^B2b^[384]

Temperature may also contain severity-related information that is lost when fever is reduced to a binary score. A prospective multicenter pediatric diagnostic cohort evaluated both the maximum temperature reported at home and the admission temperature as continuous variables in suspected acute appendicitis. ^[385] The available abstract supports evaluation of temperature patterns but does not establish a definitive diagnostic or prognostic cutoff. ^[385]

Factors related to management and outcomes

The appendicolith is particularly relevant when nonoperative treatment is considered because it is associated with treatment failure with antibiotics alone in uncomplicated appendicitis. ^[372] Time from admission to surgery is another clinically studied variable: a Danish cohort of adults and adolescents aged ≥15 years evaluated whether surgery within 24 hours of admission was associated with postoperative length of stay or complications. ^[383] A separate study of elderly and younger patients analyzed symptom-to-admission and admission-to-incision intervals using categories of 0–6, 6–12, 12–18, and >18 hours. ^[359]^B2b These studies address progression and postoperative outcomes rather than the underlying etiology of appendicitis. ^[359]^B2b^[383]

Several supplied studies concern postoperative rather than pre-disease risk. Pediatric NSQIP research examined how missing-data strategies affect identification of infectious-complication risk factors in 142,129 appendectomy cases. ^[380] A separate cohort developed a model for adhesive intestinal obstruction after laparoscopic appendicitis surgery, identifying this as an uncommon postoperative complication. ^[373] Other studies evaluated blood cultures in patients aged ≥16 years, enhanced recovery after surgery in complicated pediatric appendicitis, and pneumoperitoneum pressure during pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy. ^[263]^B2b^[308]^A1b^[370] These studies should not be interpreted as evidence that blood cultures, ERAS protocols, or pneumoperitoneum pressure cause appendicitis. ^[263]^B2b^[308]^A1b^[370]

The remaining supplied studies address outcomes after appendectomy or unrelated conditions rather than appendicitis epidemiology, etiology, or risk factors: a national cohort assessed subsequent type 2 diabetes after appendectomy, while separate studies examined vitamin D deficiency after bariatric surgery and cardiovascular risk from off-label testosterone therapy. ^[133]^B2b^[97]^B2b^[371] They therefore provide no direct evidence for the causes or presenting risk factors of acute appendicitis. ^[97]^B2b^[133]^B2b^[371]

Evidence-supported risk domains

Risk domain	Evidence-supported interpretation
Appendicolith	Associated with failure of antibiotics alone in uncomplicated appendicitis; obstruction-relieving treatment has been studied. ^[372]
Age ≥65 years	High-risk subgroup evaluated for complicated appendicitis and biomarker-based stratification. ^[359]^B2b^[382]
Communication impairment	May contribute to delayed presentation and rupture in pediatric patients; causal biologic association is unproven. ^[381]
Lower Child Opportunity Index	Associated with evaluation of complicated pediatric appendicitis and hospital stay in a statewide retrospective study. ^[375]
Inflammatory markers and temperature	Investigated for severity prediction; no universal cutoff is established by the supplied abstracts. ^[359]^B2b^[382]^[384]^[385]
Incidental neoplasm	Detected in 1.26% of 5,001 appendectomy specimens; relevant to missed-tumor risk during antibiotic-only management. ^[13]^B2b^[374]

Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination

▸Use serial history, vital signs, focused abdominal examination, and laboratory results rather than a single symptom or sign to assess suspected appendicitis.[386][385][394]
▸Lower pain intensity in octogenarians does not reliably indicate mild disease; older adults may have higher CRP levels despite broadly comparable clinical presentations.[392]
▸Urine leukocyte count has limited accuracy for identifying complicated appendicitis in children.[96]
▸Continuous temperature information may add detail beyond a binary fever threshold in children, but no specific cutoff is established by the cited evidence.[385]
▸In early equivocal adult cases, repeated AAS and CRP assessment can support observation and decisions about further imaging, although the cited abstract does not establish a universal action threshold.[386]
▸Prespecified study cutoffs were RIPASA ≥7.5 and Modified Alvarado ≥7, but these should not be treated as universally validated thresholds.[391]
▸Absence of right-lower-quadrant inflammatory features with a nonvisualized appendix on MRI was studied as an exclusion strategy in children and young adults, but the evidence is single-center and retrospective.[388]
▸Atypical enlargement or morphology should raise consideration of appendiceal diverticulitis or neoplasm.[387][390][393]

Dx Diagnostic Essentials: A normal or relatively mild pain report—particularly in an older adult—does not exclude clinically important appendicitis. Combine serial examination with inflammatory markers and age-specific risk assessment.[392]

CP Clinical Pearl: In early equivocal adult presentations, change in the Adult Appendicitis Score and CRP during observation may be more informative than a single initial score.[386]

! Warning: The cited clinical-score, MRI, laboratory, and imaging studies are heterogeneous and frequently retrospective or single-center; their thresholds should not be applied without considering local validation and the complete clinical context.[386][388][389][391]

Initial clinical assessment

Acute appendicitis should be assessed using the time course of symptoms, localization and migration of pain, gastrointestinal symptoms, urinary or gynecologic symptoms when relevant, vital signs, abdominal findings, and inflammatory laboratory results. The available 2026 evidence supports a structured, serial approach rather than reliance on a single symptom, sign, temperature threshold, or biomarker.^[386]^[385]^[394] Clinical presentation may be less typical in older adults: in a multicenter surgical cohort, octogenarians had broadly comparable presentations to younger patients but reported lower pain intensity and had higher C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations.^[392] Therefore, reduced pain should not be interpreted as reassuring in an older patient.^[392]

Focused abdominal examination

Examine the abdomen before and after analgesia when feasible, documenting maximal tenderness, guarding, rebound or percussion tenderness, rigidity, abdominal distension, and the presence or absence of generalized peritonitis. Assess for localized right-lower-quadrant tenderness and for progression from localized to diffuse peritoneal irritation, while recognizing that the cited studies do not establish any single physical sign as sufficiently accurate to confirm or exclude appendicitis.^[386]^[391] In children, examination should be adapted to age and communication ability; serial reassessment is particularly useful when initial findings are equivocal.^[386]^[385]

Evaluate for alternative or associated findings, including dysuria, urinary frequency, flank pain, testicular symptoms, pelvic symptoms, and pregnancy-related considerations, because appendiceal inflammation may produce non-classical pain distributions or urinary findings. Urinalysis should be interpreted cautiously: in a pediatric retrospective cohort, urine leukocyte count had limited diagnostic accuracy for identifying complicated appendicitis and was less informative than systemic inflammatory assessment for severity stratification.^[96]^B2b

Temperature and systemic findings

Record measured temperature and the patient’s highest reported prehospital temperature rather than reducing temperature to a binary fever item alone. In a prospective multicenter pediatric diagnostic cohort, continuous home and emergency-department temperature variables were specifically evaluated because conventional fever thresholds may obscure diagnostic or severity-related information.^[385] The cited abstract does not provide sufficient results to recommend a specific temperature cutoff; temperature should therefore complement, rather than replace, abdominal examination and serial assessment.^[385]

Assess for tachycardia, hypotension, altered mental status, dehydration, or other evidence of systemic illness and consider complicated disease when these findings accompany marked abdominal tenderness or peritonitis. In children, IL-6, procalcitonin, CRP, white-cell count, and neutrophil percentage were higher in severe disease defined by gangrenous or perforated appendicitis than in non-appendicitis controls, whereas these indicators did not differ significantly between mild appendicitis and controls in the reported study.^[394] These findings support using laboratory results as severity modifiers, not as isolated rule-in or rule-out tests.^[394]

Serial reassessment and clinical scoring

For adults with early equivocal signs, calculate a validated clinical score at presentation and repeat it during observation when immediate imaging is not required. The DIAMOND secondary analysis evaluated baseline Adult Appendicitis Score (AAS), final AAS, change in AAS, and change in CRP as diagnostic reference measures in 88 observed patients with early equivocal appendicitis.^[386] Repeated scoring is intended to identify patients whose evolving clinical pattern warrants imaging or intervention while limiting premature computed tomography; the cited abstract does not provide a universal threshold for action.^[386]

The RIPASA and Modified Alvarado scores were prospectively compared with histopathology in 62 patients undergoing appendectomy in India, using RIPASA ≥7.5 and Modified Alvarado ≥7 as prespecified cutoffs.^[391] These thresholds should be regarded as locally validated study criteria rather than universally applicable diagnostic rules, particularly because the sample was small and limited to patients who underwent surgery.^[391]

Imaging as an adjunct to examination

When clinical assessment remains indeterminate, imaging should be selected according to age, pregnancy status, availability, and the need to identify complications or alternative diagnoses. In children and young adults with a nonvisualized appendix on MRI, absence of inflammatory features in the right lower quadrant was investigated as a means of excluding acute appendicitis; this was a single-center retrospective study and should not replace clinical follow-up when symptoms persist.^[388] Low-dose CT with deep-learning denoising was evaluated in 100 adults with suspected appendicitis at a median effective dose of 1.34 mSv, but the study was retrospective and single-center.^[389]

Imaging should also prompt consideration of less common diagnoses. CT assessment for a saccular structure protruding from the appendix was evaluated for differentiating appendiceal diverticulitis from acute appendicitis in 531 appendectomy patients.^[387] A markedly enlarged appendix without fecalith obstruction was studied as a non-contrast CT criterion for appendiceal neoplasm.^[390] Appendiceal neoplasms were found incidentally in 1.26% of 5,001 appendectomy specimens in one 10-year retrospective series, while another cohort notes a reported frequency of approximately 0.7–2.5% in acute appendicitis.^[374]^[393] These findings reinforce careful review of atypical clinical courses, disproportionate appendiceal enlargement, or unusual imaging features.^[390]^[393]

Focused assessment and interpretation

Assessment domain	Practical interpretation	Evidence
Pain and tenderness	Document location, maximal tenderness, guarding, rebound/percussion tenderness, rigidity, and generalized peritonitis; repeat examination when findings are equivocal.	^[386]^[391]
Older age	Lower pain intensity may occur in octogenarians; interpret symptoms with examination and CRP rather than pain severity alone.	^[392]
Temperature	Record measured and reported maximum temperature; avoid reliance on a binary fever item alone in children.	^[385]
Laboratory testing	Use CRP, white-cell count, neutrophil percentage, IL-6, and procalcitonin as contextual severity markers; urine leukocytes are limited for complicated disease.	^[96]^B2b^[394]
Clinical scores	Adult AAS may be repeated during observation; study cutoffs were RIPASA ≥7.5 and Modified Alvarado ≥7.	^[386]^[391]
Imaging clues	Nonvisualized appendix without right-lower-quadrant inflammatory features on MRI, a protruding saccular structure, or marked enlargement without fecalith may guide further interpretation.	^[388]^[387]^[390]

Diagnosis and Workup

▸The AIR score outperforms the Alvarado score in diagnostic accuracy and should be used as the primary clinical risk stratification tool [143].
▸Contrast-enhanced CT, including low-dose protocols, is the reference standard for diagnosing appendicitis in adults, with accuracy exceeding 98% [152].
▸Ultrasound is first-line in children and pregnant patients but has limited sensitivity; false-negative results are associated with elevated inflammatory markers and higher clinical scores [155, 174].

Dx Diagnostic Essentials: Contrast-enhanced CT (low-dose for BMI <30 kg/m²) is the gold-standard noninvasive test for diagnosing acute appendicitis in adults [169, 152].

HY High Yield: A CRP <100 mg/L after 24 hours of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated appendicitis has a 99% negative predictive value for treatment failure, selecting patients likely to succeed with nonoperative management [150].

From the clinical presentation, the next step is to systematically assess the likelihood of appendicitis using validated scoring systems and targeted imaging. The diagnostic approach is stratified by age, pregnancy status, and resource availability, with the goal of minimizing both negative appendectomy and missed perforation ^[169]^A1c^[147]^A1c.

Clinical Scoring Systems

Multiple scoring systems have been developed to standardize the clinical assessment. The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score has the best overall diagnostic performance, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.86 (95% CI 0.83-0.88) for all appendicitis and 0.93 (0.91-0.96) for advanced appendicitis, significantly outperforming the Alvarado score (AUC 0.79 and 0.88, respectively) ^[143]^B2a. At a cut-off of >4 points, the AIR score has a sensitivity of 91% (88-94) for all appendicitis and 95% (94-97) for advanced disease; at >8 points, specificity reaches 98% (97-99) ^[143]^B2a. The Alvarado score remains the most studied but shows variable performance ^[153]^B2a. The Pediatric Appendicitis Score ( ) is used in children, with an AUC of 0.82 (vs 0.90 for AIR) ^[101]^B2b. The APPEND score and its modified version (mAPPEND, excluding CRP) show utility in resource-limited settings, with AUC 0.85 ^[175]^B3b.

Scoring System	AUC (all appendicitis)	AUC (advanced)	Sensitivity at low cut-off	Specificity at high cut-off
AIR score ^[143]^B2a	0.86	0.93	95% (>3 points)	98% (>8 points)
Alvarado score ^[143]^B2a	0.79	0.88	Variable	Variable
PAS ^[101]^B2b	0.82	not reported	93% (≥4)	79% (≥8)

Laboratory Studies

No single laboratory test is diagnostic, but combinations improve accuracy.

White blood cell count (WBC): pooled sensitivity 62% (47-74), specificity 75% (55-89) ^[148]^B2a.
C-reactive protein (CRP): sensitivity 57% (39-73), specificity 87% (58-97); higher accuracy for complicated appendicitis (AUC 0.75) ^[148]^B2a. CRP ≥100 mg/L within 24 hours of admission has a negative predictive value of 99% for antibiotic treatment failure ^[150]^B2b.
Procalcitonin (PCT): limited value for diagnosing appendicitis (sensitivity 33%, specificity 89%) but better for identifying complicated disease (sensitivity 62%, specificity 94%) ^[148]^B2a.
Interleukin-6 (IL-6): significantly higher in complicated vs uncomplicated appendicitis, but not independently predictive ^[172]^B2a.
Pentraxin-3: combined sensitivity 90% (79-96), specificity 91% (22-99); AUC 0.94, suggesting role as a confirmatory test ^[61]^A1a.

Imaging

Ultrasound (US): First-line in children and pregnant patients. Pooled sensitivity 69% (59-78), specificity 81% (73-88); post-test probability for positive result is 92% at a median pretest probability of 76% ^[154]^B2a. In children with intermediate PAS scores, US has a sensitivity of 94% and negative predictive value of 93% ^[174]^B2b. False-negative US is associated with Alvarado score ≥5, symptom duration >48 hours, and CRP ≥10 mg/L ^[155]^B2b. False-positive US occurs in 14% of children and is more likely with diarrhea, low Alvarado score, and low inflammatory markers ^[137]^B2b.

Computed Tomography (CT): The reference standard for diagnosis in adults. Contrast-enhanced CT has an accuracy of 98-99% for identifying appendicitis ^[152]^B2b. Low-dose CT (median 3 mSv vs 7 mSv for standard) is noninferior, with accuracy **98.0% vs ** and preserved ability to distinguish uncomplicated from complicated appendicitis (accuracy 90.3% vs) ^[152]^B2b^[186]^B2b. Low-dose CT also reduces the negative appendectomy rate to 3.5% compared with 3.2% for standard-dose CT ^[158]^A1b. The presence of periappendiceal fluid collection, appendicolith, extraluminal air, and fat stranding helps differentiate complicated disease ^[188]^B2b^[85]^B2b.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI): Used in pregnancy when US is inconclusive. Sensitivity 91.8% (87.7-94.9), specificity 97.9% (97.2-100) ^[39]^B2a. MRI is comparable to US with conditional CT for detecting perforation, but both strategies miss up to half of perforated cases ^[193]^B2b.

Diagnostic Algorithm

A stepwise approach is recommended ^[169]^A1c^[147]^A1c:

Clinical assessment using a validated score (e.g., AIR).
Low-risk patients (AIR 0-4): observe or consider discharge with safety netting; imaging not routinely needed.
Intermediate-risk (AIR 5-8): obtain imaging, US in children/pregnancy, CT in adults (low-dose if BMI <30 kg/m²).
High-risk (AIR ≥9): proceed to surgery without further imaging if clinical picture is convincing; consider CT if atypical.
Equivocal cases: observation with repeated scoring after 6-8 hours (DIAMOND trial showed this reduces treatment by 15% without increasing complications) ^[151]^A1b.

Pearl: The AIR score is the most accurate clinical tool for risk stratification; a score >8 has 98% specificity for appendicitis, allowing confident surgical planning without mandatory imaging in high-risk patients ^[143]^B2a. However, CT remains the gold standard for excluding alternative diagnoses and for selecting patients for nonoperative .

Diagnostic Performance of Laboratory Markers for Acute Appendicitis

Marker	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	AUC	Notes
WBC ^[148]^B2a	62 (47-74)	75 (55-89)	0.72	Limited accuracy alone
CRP ^[148]^B2a	57 (39-73)	87 (58-97)	0.75	Higher for complicated disease
Procalcitonin ^[148]^B2a	33 (21-47)	89 (78-95)	0.65	Useful for identifying complicated appendicitis
Pentraxin-3 ^[61]^A1a	90 (79-96)	91 (22-99)	0.94	Confirmatory test; not for exclusion
IL-6 ^[172]^B2a	Not pooled	Not pooled	-	Higher in complicated disease; not independently predictive

Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification

▸The AIR score outperforms the Alvarado score, with AUC 0.86 for all appendicitis and 0.93 for advanced disease; a cutoff >3 yields 95% sensitivity, >8 yields 98% specificity [143].
▸The SAS 2.0 (C-statistic 0.86) and Atema score (NPV 94.7% at ≤6 points) accurately distinguish uncomplicated from complicated appendicitis, guiding non-operative candidate selection [80][85].
▸Appendicolith on CT is a strong predictor of complicated disease: perforation rate 28.1% vs 8.8%, and a CT-based appendicolith scoring system stratifies postoperative complication risk [226][228].

HY High Yield: AIR score >8 points: 98% specificity for appendicitis - consider this a "rule-in" threshold that may justify immediate surgical consultation without further imaging [143].

Once the diagnosis of acute appendicitis is suspected, validated scoring systems convert the clinical picture into a numeric probability of disease and severity, guiding operative decisions and risk stratification. These tools are essential for selecting patients suitable for non-operative , reducing negative appendectomy, and predicting perioperative outcomes.

Clinical Scoring Systems for Diagnosis

More than a dozen clinical prediction rules exist, but the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score consistently outperforms the Alvarado score ^[153]^B2a. In a meta-analysis of 26 reports (15,699 patients), the AIR score had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.86 for all appendicitis and 0.93 for advanced appendicitis, compared with 0.79 and 0.88 for the Alvarado score ^[143]^B2a. At a cutoff of >3 points, the AIR score achieved a sensitivity of 0.95 for all appendicitis and 0.99 for advanced disease; at >8 points, specificity was 0.98 ^[143]^B2a. The Adult Appendicitis Score (AAS) showed even higher discriminatory ability in one prospective study (AUC 0.988), followed by AIR (0.920) ^[227]^B2b. The Alvarado score remains widely used but has variable performance; a randomized trial found clinical judgment more reliable than the Alvarado score alone ^[208]^B2b. The Pediatric Appendicitis Score ( ) had lower AUC (0.82) than the AIR score (0.90) in children ^[101]^B2b.

Score	AUC (all)	AUC (complicated)	Best cutoff	Sensitivity	Specificity
AIR ^[143]^B2a	0.86	0.93	>3 for sensitivity; >8 for specificity	0.95 (>3)	0.98 (>8)
Alvarado ^[143]^B2a	0.79	0.88	,	,	,
AAS ^[227]^B2b	0.988	,	,	,	100% (at optimal cutoff)

Predicting Complicated Appendicitis

Preoperative distinction between uncomplicated and complicated disease is critical for non-operative candidate selection. The Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity (SAS) 2.0, developed and externally validated in 1360 patients, demonstrated a C-statistic of 0.86 (95% CI 0.82-0.89) and calculates a patient-specific probability of complicated appendicitis ^[80]^B2b. The Atema score combines clinical features (age, temperature, symptom duration, WBC, CRP) with CT findings (extraluminal free air, periappendiceal fluid, appendicolith); a score ≤6 points had a negative predictive value of 94.7% for complicated disease ^[85]^B2b. Simple clinical predictors also perform well: body temperature ≥37.4°C, CRP ≥4.7 mg/dL, and fluid collection on CT predicted complicated appendicitis in 100% of patients with all three factors ^[70]^B2b.

Appendicolith presence on CT is strongly associated with complicated disease. A CT-based appendicolith scoring system (location + morphology, range 2-6) stratified patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups; high-risk patients had significantly longer hospital stay (median 7 vs 6 days) and increased postoperative complications (14.7% vs 4.2-4.9%) ^[226]^C4. Patients with appendiceal fecolith on CT had a perforation rate of 28.1% vs 8.8% without fecolith ^[228]^B2b.

Inflammatory biomarkers augment prediction. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) had a pooled AUC of 0.76 for identifying complicated appendicitis, outperforming the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (AUC 0.67) ^[214]^A1a. A CRP threshold of 52.5 mg/L predicted at least phlegmonous appendicitis with 95% specificity ^[30]^B3b. Appendiceal wall enhancement defect on CT carried an odds ratio of 3.39 for complicated disease in patients without appendicolith ^[217]^B2b. In children, plasma sodium ≤133 mmol/L was associated with a threefold increased odds of perforation (OR 3.27) ^[219]^B2b.

Operative Risk Stratification

The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) anatomic severity grade for appendicitis is a validated predictor of outcomes. Increasing AAST grade correlates with longer hospital stay, higher complication rates, and greater costs ^[35]^B3b^[21]^B2b. In a large South African pediatric cohort, AAST grade was independently associated with complications (all p<0.001) ^[21]^B2b. The score (all versions) predicts 30-day morbidity and mortality after appendectomy; a MELD 3.0 score ≥11 identified patients at higher risk of postoperative complications ^[229]^B2b. In elderly patients (≥60 years), active infection during surgery was strongly associated with early post-appendectomy complications (OR 25.9), as were ASA score ≥II, open approach, and high-grade appendicitis ≥IV ^[216]^B2b.

Emerging Tools: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Artificial neural networks and random forest models have shown diagnostic accuracy often exceeding 80% and AUC values up to 0.985, surpassing traditional scores ^[142]^B2a^[198]^B2b. In one study, an artificial neural network achieved 100% sensitivity and 97.2% specificity, potentially reducing unnecessary appendectomies ^[206]^B2b. However, risk of bias from selection bias and lack of internal validation remain common ^[142]^B2a.

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	Position A	Position B	Strength	Implication
Should phlegmonous appendicitis be classified as complicated?	EAES 2015: Yes, requires surgery ^[30]^B3b	Some authors: phlegmonous has milder profile	EAES guideline; evidence supports classification	CRP elevation and 2.3-fold increased complication risk justify inclusion ^[30]^B3b
Which score is best for pregnancy?	RIPASA score (PPV 94.4%) ^[213]^B2b	MRI has higher NPV (96%) ^[222]^B3b	Limited evidence; MRI preferred if available	Clinical scores alone insufficient; MRI recommended ^[222]^B3b

Pearl: The AIR score, with a cutoff of >3 points capturing 95% sensitivity and >8 points delivering 98% specificity, is the most pragmatic single tool for risk-stratifying suspected appendicitis; combine it with CT findings (appendicolith, wall enhancement defect, periappendiceal fluid) to identify patients suitable for non-operative management.

Acute Management and Resuscitation

▸Start antibiotics immediately after diagnosis: piperacillin-tazobactam or ceftriaxone + metronidazole for complicated; a single preoperative dose for uncomplicated.
▸Fluid resuscitation with isotonic crystalloid (20 mL/kg bolus if hypovolemic) and adequate analgesia (acetaminophen, NSAIDs, opioids as needed) are essential before definitive intervention.
▸Outpatient management is safe for selected uncomplicated appendicitis: 85.9% discharged without admission in the PENDI-CSI trial, with cost savings of €1,035 per patient.

Rx Drug of Choice: First-line for uncomplicated appendicitis: ceftriaxone 2 g IV + metronidazole 500 mg IV as a single preoperative dose. For complicated appendicitis: piperacillin-tazobactam 4.5 g IV every 6 hours for 3-5 days.

! Warning: Do NOT routinely obtain preoperative blood cultures in stable patients; yield is <4% and does not change management [263]. Do NOT use intraoperative antibiotic wound irrigation; it does not reduce SSI [251].

Once severity is classified using clinical scoring and imaging, the next priority is to initiate a structured resuscitation-to-source-control pathway. The WSES 2020 guidelines recommend that all patients with acute appendicitis receive early intravenous fluids, , and broad-spectrum as soon as the diagnosis is confirmed or strongly suspected ^[169]^A1c (1c). The goal is to stabilize the patient, reduce the inflammatory response, and minimize the risk of progression to perforation or sepsis before definitive intervention.

Step 1: Initial Assessment and Severity Classification

Classify the patient into one of three tiers using the criteria from the preceding section:

Uncomplicated appendicitis: No systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), localized tenderness, no appendicolith or abscess on CT, Alvarado score <7 or AIR score <5.
Complicated appendicitis (gangrenous or perforated): SIRS criteria (temperature >38°C or <36°C, heart rate >90/min, respiratory rate >20/min or PaCO2 <32 mmHg, WBC >12,000 or <4,000/μL or >10% bands), diffuse peritonitis, appendicolith, abscess, or phlegmon on imaging.
Septic shock: Hypotension requiring vasopressors, lactate >2 mmol/L, organ dysfunction.

Disposition is determined by severity: uncomplicated cases can be managed on a surgical ward or even as outpatients under a protocol; complicated cases require ICU-level monitoring if septic shock is present or if the patient has significant comorbidities (e.g., score ≥11 ^[229]^B2b (2b)).

Step 2: Fluid Resuscitation and Analgesia

Administer isotonic crystalloid (e.g., lactated Ringer's or 0.9% saline) at an initial bolus of 20 mL/kg over 30-60 minutes for patients with tachycardia, hypotension, or signs of hypoperfusion ^[169]^A1c. Balanced crystalloids are preferred to avoid hyperchloremic acidosis, though no specific trial in appendicitis has compared them. For uncomplicated cases without volume deficit, maintenance fluids at 1-2 mL/kg/h are sufficient.

Provide analgesia with intravenous acetaminophen (1 g every 6 hours) or NSAIDs (e.g., ketorolac 30 mg IV once, then 15 mg every 6 hours) unless contraindicated (renal impairment, bleeding risk). Opioids ( 2-5 mg IV or 25-50 μg IV) can be added for breakthrough pain but should not delay surgical evaluation. The WSES guidelines emphasize that adequate analgesia does not mask signs of peritonitis and is safe ^[169]^A1c.

Step 3: Antibiotic Therapy, First-Line Regimen

Start empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics covering gram-negative bacilli and anaerobes as soon as the diagnosis is made ^[169]^A1c (1c). The choice depends on local resistance patterns, patient allergies, and severity. The WSES 2020 guidelines recommend the following regimens:

Regimen	Dose	Duration	Evidence Level
	4.5 g IV every 6 hours	24 hours (uncomplicated) or 3-5 days (complicated)	1b ^[100]^B2b^[259]^B2a
+	Ceftriaxone 2 g IV daily + metronidazole 500 mg IV every 8 hours	Same	1b ^[259]^B2a
	1 g IV daily	3 days IV then oral step-down ( + metronidazole)	1b ^[236]^A1b^[237]^A1b
(oral monotherapy)	400 mg PO daily	7 days	1b ^[236]^A1b

For uncomplicated appendicitis, a single preoperative dose of antibiotics is sufficient; postoperative continuation is not needed ^[94]^A1b (1b). The PERFECT-Antibiotics trial (N=1797) showed that starting antibiotics preoperatively did not reduce perforation rates compared to no preoperative antibiotics (8.3% vs 8.9%; absolute difference 0.6 percentage points, 95% CI -2.0 to 3.2) ^[235]^A1b (1b). However, a single prophylactic dose at induction of anesthesia is standard.

For complicated appendicitis (gangrenous, perforated, or abscess), continue antibiotics postoperatively for 3-5 days; longer courses (5 days vs 3 days) do not reduce infectious complications ^[131]^B2b^[132]^B2b (2b). The APPAC II trial demonstrated that oral moxifloxacin monotherapy for 7 days is noninferior to a 7-day regimen of IV ertapenem followed by oral levofloxacin + metronidazole for uncomplicated appendicitis ^[236]^A1b (1b).

Avoid routine use of piperacillin-tazobactam for uncomplicated appendicitis; narrow-spectrum regimens (ceftriaxone + metronidazole) are equally effective and reduce antibiotic resistance ^[100]^B2b (2b).

Step 4: Monitoring and Titration

Vital signs every 4 hours (heart rate, blood pressure, temperature, respiratory rate).
Pain assessment using a numeric rating scale (NRS) every 4 hours; target NRS <4.
Laboratory monitoring: repeat CBC and CRP at 12-24 hours if initially elevated. A CRP <100 mg/L at 24 hours of antibiotic therapy predicts successful nonoperative with 99% negative predictive value ^[150]^B2b (2b).
Clinical reassessment every 6-8 hours: abdominal tenderness, guarding, bowel sounds. Deterioration (worsening pain, fever, peritonitis) mandates urgent surgical consultation.

For patients managed nonoperatively (antibiotics alone), the APPAC III trial found that 87% of placebo-treated patients resolved without surgery, suggesting that some cases of uncomplicated appendicitis resolve spontaneously ^[149]^A1b (1b). However, antibiotics remain the standard of care because they reduce the risk of progression.

Step 5: Resolution, Transition, and Disposition

Uncomplicated appendicitis: If symptoms resolve within 24-48 hours, the patient can be discharged on oral antibiotics (e.g., 875/125 mg PO BID for 7 days) or observed for 24 hours without antibiotics if a single preoperative dose was given ^[94]^A1b. Outpatient management is safe and cost-effective: the PENDI-CSI trial showed that 85.9% of patients in the outpatient surgery group were discharged without admission, with no difference in complications or readmissions, and a cost savings of €1,035 per patient ^[232]^A1b (1b).
Complicated appendicitis: After source control (appendectomy or percutaneous drainage), continue IV antibiotics for 3-5 days. Transition to oral antibiotics (e.g., 500 mg PO BID + metronidazole 500 mg PO TID) once the patient tolerates oral intake and has no signs of ongoing sepsis. The MUSTANG study reported a median hospital stay of 1 day for uncomplicated and 3-4 days for complicated appendicitis in US practice ^[128]^B2b (2b).
Septic shock: ICU admission, vasopressors (norepinephrine 0.05-0.5 μg/kg/min titrated to MAP ≥65 mmHg), and source control within 6 hours.

What NOT to Do

Do NOT routinely obtain preoperative blood cultures in hemodynamically stable patients; the yield is <4% and does not alter management ^[263]^B2b (2b).
Do NOT use intraoperative antibiotic wound irrigation; it does not reduce surgical site infections compared to saline ^[251]^A1b (1b).
Do NOT continue postoperative antibiotics beyond 24 hours for uncomplicated appendicitis after appendectomy ^[94]^A1b (1b).
Do NOT delay appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis beyond 24 hours; in-hospital delay does not increase perforation risk ^[128]^B2b (2b).

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Question	Position A	Position B	Strength	Implication for practice
Preoperative antibiotics for uncomplicated appendicitis	WSES 2020, recommend a single preoperative dose ^[169]^A1c	PERFECT-Antibiotics trial, no benefit over no preoperative antibiotics ^[235]^A1b	Moderate (RCT data vs guideline)	A single prophylactic dose at induction remains standard; omitting it is reasonable in low-risk patients.
Oral vs IV antibiotics for uncomplicated appendicitis	APPAC II, oral moxifloxacin monotherapy is noninferior ^[236]^A1b	CODA trial, used IV antibiotics initially ^[47]^B2b	Mild (different regimens, similar outcomes)	Oral monotherapy is an option for patients without vomiting or ileus.
Duration of postoperative antibiotics for complicated appendicitis	WSES 2020, 3-5 days ^[169]^A1c	Dutch cohort, 3 days is noninferior to 5 days ^[131]^B2b^[132]^B2b	Mild (consistent evidence)	3 days is sufficient for most; extend only if ongoing sepsis or high-risk features.

Pearl: Initiate fluid resuscitation and broad-spectrum antibiotics immediately upon diagnosis; for uncomplicated appendicitis, a single preoperative dose suffices, while complicated cases require 3-5 days of postoperative therapy, longer courses do not improve outcomes (APPAC II, MUSTANG) ^[236]^A1b^[128]^B2b.

Empiric Antibiotic Regimens for Acute Appendicitis

Regimen	Dose	Duration (uncomplicated)	Duration (complicated)	Key Evidence
Piperacillin-tazobactam	4.5 g IV every 6 h	Single preoperative dose	3-5 days	^[100]^B2b^[259]^B2a
Ceftriaxone + metronidazole	Ceftriaxone 2 g IV daily + metronidazole 500 mg IV every 8 h	Single preoperative dose	3-5 days	^[259]^B2a
Ertapenem (IV) then levofloxacin + metronidazole (PO)	Ertapenem 1 g IV daily × 3 days, then levofloxacin 500 mg PO daily + metronidazole 500 mg PO TID × 5 days	7 days total	Not studied	^[236]^A1b^[237]^A1b
Moxifloxacin (oral monotherapy)	400 mg PO daily	7 days	Not studied	^[236]^A1b

Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice

▸Nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis is safe but less effective than appendectomy (64.6% success at 1 year), with a 20% recurrence rate.
▸Appendicolith, female sex, appendiceal diameter ≥15 mm, and fever >38°C predict failure of antibiotic therapy and should prompt surgery.
▸A delay of up to 24 hours before appendectomy does not increase perforation risk; beyond 24 hours, complications rise.

HY High Yield: A CRP <100 mg/L at 24 h of antibiotic therapy has a 99% negative predictive value for nonoperative success, use this to reassure or to rescue.

Once acute appendicitis is diagnosed and resuscitation initiated, the surgeon must weigh operative versus nonoperative and decide surgical urgency. For uncomplicated appendicitis, the 2025 WSES guidelines endorse laparoscopic appendectomy as the standard but recognise nonoperative management (NOM) with as safe and effective in selected patients ^[147]^A1c. The decision hinges on accurate patient selection and timing.

Indications for Surgery Versus Nonoperative Management

Complicated appendicitis - perforation, gangrene, or abscess - mandates appendectomy because NOM carries a higher risk of failure and underlying pathology. In uncomplicated appendicitis, NOM is a reasonable alternative. A 2024 meta-analysis of 8 RCTs (3213 patients) found no significant difference in complication rates between antibiotics and appendectomy (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.61-1.04), but antibiotics had lower 1‑year efficacy (64.6% vs surgery; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.61-0.77) ^[231]^A1a. Trial sequential analysis indicated future RCTs are unlikely to alter these conclusions. In children, NOM has similar safety but higher failure rates - 22.3% at 1 year ^[273]^C4 - and success is comparable to surgery only when no appendicolith is present ^[230]^A1a.

Predictors of Nonoperative Failure

Certain factors substantially increase the risk of NOM failure. In the CODA trial, appendicolith (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.28-3.10), female sex (OR 1.53), and wider appendiceal diameter (OR 1.09 per mm) were associated with appendectomy within 30 days ^[47]^B2b. A secondary analysis of APPAC I/II identified appendiceal diameter ≥15 mm (adjusted RR 4.00, 95% CI 2.00-7.92) and body temperature >38°C (adjusted RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.27-6.03) as predictors of primary non‑responsiveness; a CRP <100 mg/L at 24 h had a negative predictive value of 99% for successful antibiotic therapy ^[150]^B2b. These factors help tailor the decision: patients with an appendicolith or marked inflammation should be counselled toward surgery.

Timing of Appendectomy

For patients undergoing surgery, a short in‑hospital delay is safe. The PERFECT trial demonstrated non‑inferiority of appendectomy scheduled within 24 h versus within 8 h for perforation rates (8% vs 9%; absolute difference 0.6 percentage points, 95% CI -2.0 to 3.2) ^[270]^A1b. A meta‑analysis of 45 studies (152 314 patients) found no increased risk of complicated appendicitis with delays up to 24 h (OR 1.09) ^[45]^B2a. However, delay beyond 24 h increases surgical site infection (OR 2.24, P=0.039) ^[118]^B2a. In children, prolonged in‑hospital time to appendectomy >16 h is associated with modestly higher rates of complicated disease (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.08-1.27) ^[66]^B2b. Nighttime versus daytime surgery does not affect complications ^[109]^B2b.

Nonoperative Management in Special Populations

In patients aged ≥65 years, NOM is associated with a 3.72% reduction in complications but a 1.82% increase in mortality and longer hospital stay ^[130]^B2b. High‑risk surgical patients (predicted morbidity ≥2 SD above mean) also have higher mortality with NOM (2% increase) ^[99]^B2b. These findings caution against NOM in older or frail patients. In pregnancy, NOM is acceptable for uncomplicated appendicitis, with a low fetal loss rate (4% vs 5% with surgery) ^[134]^B2b; MRI is the preferred imaging modality (sensitivity 0.95, specificity 0.97) ^[283]^B2a. For children, NOM is safe but failure rates exceed 20% at 1 year; shared decision‑making with families is essential ^[83]^B2b.

Risk of Underlying Neoplasia

Complicated appendicitis, particularly with abscess, carries a high rate of occult appendiceal neoplasia (14.3% in one prospective cohort vs 1.5% in uncomplicated disease) ^[78]^B2b. Age >35 years is the strongest predictor (OR 1.06 per year; sensitivity 98.1% below 35 years) ^[78]^B2b. The 2025 WSES guidelines recommend follow‑up strategies after NOM of complicated appendicitis with abscess to detect neoplasms ^[147]^A1c. Interval appendectomy should be discussed with all patients after nonoperative management of complicated disease.

Emerging Alternatives: Endoscopic Retrograde Appendicitis Therapy (ERAT)

ERAT is a minimally invasive, organ‑preserving option. Compared with laparoscopic appendectomy, ERAT has a lower treatment success rate (OR 0.15) and higher recurrence (OR 7.68) ^[126]^B2a. Versus antibiotics, ERAT shows a trend toward higher success (OR 2.10, 95% CI 0.95-4.64) and fewer adverse events ^[126]^B2a. It is not yet a standard alternative but may be considered in selected patients with refractory faecoliths.

Table: Predictors of Nonoperative Management Failure

Factor	Adjusted RR/OR (95% CI)	Source
Appendicolith	OR 1.99 (1.28-3.10)	CODA trial ^[47]^B2b
Appendiceal diameter ≥15 mm	RR 4.00 (2.00-7.92)	APPAC I/II ^[150]^B2b
Female sex	OR 1.53 (1.01-2.31)	CODA trial ^[47]^B2b
Body temperature >38°C	RR 2.76 (1.27-6.03)	APPAC I/II ^[150]^B2b
CRP ≥100 mg/L at 24 h	RR 8.29 (3.69-18.63)	APPAC I/II ^[150]^B2b

Pearl: When considering nonoperative management, check for appendicolith, appendiceal diameter ≥15 mm, fever >38°C, and a rising CRP - if any are present, the patient is a poor candidate for antibiotics alone, and you should proceed to appendectomy.

Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization

▸Laparoscopic appendectomy is the gold standard for both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, with lower morbidity and mortality than open surgery.
▸Suture ligation of the appendiceal stump is associated with the lowest rates of organ/space and superficial surgical site infection.
▸Outpatient appendectomy with ERAS protocols is safe for selected patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, reducing costs without increasing complications.

HY High Yield: In complicated appendicitis, laparoscopic approach does not increase intra-abdominal abscess risk compared with open surgery; disease severity, not approach, drives organ-space infection [127][209].

Once the decision to operate is made, the surgeon must select the operative approach, access technique, and perioperative bundle that minimize morbidity and maximize recovery. Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is the gold standard: in contemporary practice, >95% of appendectomies are performed laparoscopically ^[212]^B2b^[277]^A1c, and LA is associated with fewer adverse reactions, shorter operative time, less blood loss, faster recovery, and shorter hospital stay than open appendectomy (OA) ^[123]^B2a. For complicated appendicitis (gangrenous or perforated), LA yields the same rate of intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) as OA (6.1% vs 4.6%; OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.71-1.47) but significantly lower overall morbidity (15.5% vs 22.7%), wound infection (4.7% vs 12.8%), and mortality (0% vs 0.4%) ^[127]^B2a. In children with complicated appendicitis, LA similarly reduces surgical site infection and length of stay without increasing IAA ^[129]^B2a. Disease severity, not operative approach, drives organ-space infection risk ^[209]^B2b.

Access and Port Placement

Conventional multiport LA (typically three ports) remains the standard. Single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy (SILA) is safe but offers no clear advantage: operative time is longer by 5-15 minutes, 7-11% of cases require an extra port, and postoperative pain and cosmesis are comparable ^[46]^A1a^[272]^A1a^[290]^A1b. In complicated appendicitis, SILA carries a higher conversion rate to open surgery (15.6% vs 1.6%) ^[305]^B2b. Transvaginal appendectomy reduces postoperative pain and speeds return to activity but is limited to selected female patients ^[287]^B2b. Transgastric and hybrid NOTES approaches are feasible but offer no recovery benefit over LA ^[292]^B2b. Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) is an emerging alternative for uncomplicated appendicitis, especially in children: it shortens operative time, reduces complications (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18-0.39), and preserves the appendix, though recurrence rates are similar to LA (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51-1.19) ^[268]^B2a^[126]^B2a.

Stump

Secure closure of the appendiceal stump is critical. In a network meta-analysis of >5000 patients, suture ligation ranked best for preventing both organ/space infection and superficial surgical site infection (SSI); clip closure was inferior to endoloop for organ/space infection (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.96), and suture was superior to clip for superficial SSI (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.08-0.55) ^[274]^A1a. Stapler closure is widely used (86% of cases in Germany) and is associated with lower IAA than endoloops (0.7% vs 1.7%) ^[295]^B2b^[212]^B2b. Polymer clips offer faster closure but may increase SSI ^[274]^A1a; absorbable clips reduce foreign-body reaction and late complications compared with permanent clips ^[302]^B2b.

Peritoneal Lavage and Specimen Retrieval

Suction alone is non-inferior to peritoneal irrigation for preventing postoperative IAA and wound infection, and it shortens operative time (mean difference 7.1 minutes) ^[267]^B2a. Use of a specimen retrieval bag does not reduce SSI (adjusted OR 1.15) ^[104]^B2b. For skin closure, a single absorbable intradermic suture reduces seroma and abscess compared with non-absorbable interrupted sutures ^[59]^A1b.

Perioperative Antibiotic Optimization

Preoperative while awaiting surgery do not reduce perforation (8.3% vs 8.9%; absolute difference 0.6 percentage points) but modestly lower SSI (1.6% vs 3.2%) ^[235]^A1b. After appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, 3 days of postoperative antibiotics is as effective as 5 days for preventing infectious complications (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.38-2.32) ^[131]^B2b^[132]^B2b.

Enhanced Recovery and Outpatient Protocols

Outpatient appendectomy is safe and cost-effective for uncomplicated appendicitis. In the PENDI-CSI trial, 85.9% of patients assigned to outpatient surgery were discharged without admission, with no increase in complications or readmissions and a cost saving of €1035 per patient ^[232]^A1b. Predictors of successful same-day discharge include male sex, ASA I-II, absence of generalized guarding, CRP <100 mg/L, and WBC <20 ×10⁹/L ^[299]^B2b. An enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in children with complicated appendicitis reduced length of stay from 5.20 to 3.15 days without increasing morbidity ^[308]^A1b. Preoperative 8 mg reduces postoperative pain, fatigue, and opioid consumption but does not significantly reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting ^[49]^A1b.

Timing and Special Considerations

Delaying appendectomy until the next morning is non-inferior to immediate surgery for 30-day complications (10.2% vs 22.4%; risk difference -12.2%, 95% CI -24.4% to +0.4%) ^[40]^A1b. In-hospital delay up to 24 hours does not increase perforation risk in adults or children ^[54]^B2b^[75]^A1a^[128]^B2b, though delays >6 hours may increase SSI in nonperforated appendicitis ^[68]^B2b. Out-of-hours surgery is not associated with worse outcomes ^[297]^B2a^[109]^B2b. In pregnancy, LA is preferred, with shorter operative time and hospital stay and comparable obstetrical outcomes to OA ^[112]^B2b; however, a meta-analysis found higher fetal loss with laparoscopy (OR 2.02) ^[289]^B2a. In patients with HIV alone, appendectomy outcomes are similar to the general population; AIDS increases postoperative infection risk (OR 2.12) ^[103]^B2b.

Pearl: For uncomplicated appendicitis, outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy with suture ligation of the stump, suction-only peritoneal management, and a 3-day antibiotic course (if complicated) is safe and cost-effective; delaying surgery overnight does not increase perforation.

Stump Closure Methods and Infectious Outcomes

Method	Organ/Space Infection (OR vs endoloop)	Superficial SSI (OR vs endoloop)	Operative Time	Key Reference
Suture ligation	0.56 (95% CI 0.32-0.96)	0.20 (95% CI 0.08-0.55)	Longer	^[274]^A1a
Stapler	0.7% vs 1.7% (endoloop)	Similar	Fast	^[295]^B2b
Endoloop	Reference	Reference	Intermediate	^[274]^A1a
Absorbable clip	Similar to Hem-o-lok	Fewer late complications	Longer than clip	^[302]^B2b

Complications and Their Management

▸Laparoscopic appendectomy reduces incisional SSI but does not increase IAA compared with open surgery.
▸Antibiotic therapy for complicated appendicitis can be safely limited to 3 days; oral antibiotics are noninferior to IV after laparoscopic appendectomy.
▸Routine abdominal drainage after appendectomy for complicated appendicitis does not prevent IAA and delays recovery.

HY High Yield: Intra-abdominal abscess after appendectomy is the most consequential complication; risk is similar between laparoscopic and open approaches, and routine drainage does not reduce it.

The choice of operative approach directly influences the pattern and frequency of postoperative complications. Most are low-grade (Clavien-Dindo I-II) and managed conservatively, but intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) and surgical site infection (SSI) require prompt recognition.

Surgical Site Infections and Intra-abdominal Abscess

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) reduces incisional SSI compared with open appendectomy (OA) (1.9% vs 4.2%) but organ/space infection rates are similar (~3%) ^[312]^B2b (2b). For complicated appendicitis, IAA rates are comparable between LA and OA (6.1% vs 4.6%; OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.71-1.47) ^[127]^B2a (2a). Perforation is the strongest independent risk factor for infectious complications (OR 4.90) ^[131]^B2b (2b). Surgical delay >6 hours increases SSI risk (OR 1.54) ^[68]^B2b (2b). Obesity in children raises SSI to 6.6% vs 2.7% ^[320]^B2b (2b). : Superficial SSI responds to wound care; IAA often requires percutaneous drainage. Routine abdominal drainage does not prevent IAA and prolongs recovery ^[56]^B2b (2b). Peritoneal lavage offers no advantage over suction alone ^[267]^B2a (2a).

Stump Appendicitis and

Stump appendicitis occurs in 0.15% of cases, presenting 4-11 years after appendectomy ^[315]^C4 (4). Diagnosis requires CT; treatment is completion appendectomy. Small bowel obstruction is less common after LA than OA (0.4% vs 1.0%) ^[43]^B3b (3b); most resolve with conservative management.

Negative Appendectomy

Negative appendectomy rates vary; in one series 36% ^[195]^B2b (2b). Morbidity of negative LA equals that of uncomplicated appendicitis (6.3% vs 6.9%) ^[195]^B2b (2b). Preoperative imaging reduces negative exploration.

Complications in Special Populations

Elderly: Perforation rate 41%, mortality 3% ^[314]^B3b (3b). LA reduces complications ^[199]^B2b (2b). Nonoperative management increases mortality by 1.82% ^[130]^B2b (2b).
HIV/AIDS: Mortality 4.2% vs 0% in HIV-negative; CD4 <200 increases risk ^[317]^B2b (2b).
Pregnancy: Fetal loss 4-5%; conservative management acceptable for uncomplicated cases ^[134]^B2b (2b). Laparoscopy is safe ^[112]^B2b (2b).

Management Principles

Antibiotic duration: 3 days is equivalent to 5 days for complicated appendicitis ^[131]^B2b^[132]^B2b (2b). Oral are noninferior to IV after LA ^[41]^B2b (2b). For uncomplicated appendicitis, perioperative antibiotics may be omitted ^[94]^A1b (1b). Preoperative 8 mg reduces pain and fatigue but not PONV significantly ^[49]^A1b (1b). Same-day discharge is safe in pediatric uncomplicated appendicitis ^[316]^B2b (2b) and feasible in adults ^[319]^B2b (2b).

Complication	Incidence (LA vs OA)	Risk Factors	Management
Incisional SSI	1.9% vs 4.2% ^[312]^B2b	Delay >6h, obesity, open approach	Wound care, antibiotics if
Organ/space SSI (IAA)	~3% both ^[312]^B2b; complicated: 6.1% vs 4.6% ^[127]^B2a	Perforation, laparoscopic approach?	Percutaneous drainage; reoperation if failed
Stump appendicitis	0.15% ^[315]^C4	Incomplete resection	Completion appendectomy
SBO	0.4% vs 1.0% ^[43]^B3b	Open approach, adhesions	Conservative; reoperation if strangulation
Negative appendectomy	Up to 36% ^[195]^B2b	Female sex, atypical presentation	No specific treatment; morbidity same as uncomplicated

Pearl: Most complications after appendectomy are low-grade (Clavien-Dindo I-II) and managed conservatively; intra-abdominal abscess is the most significant preventable complication, and routine drainage or prolonged antibiotics do not reduce its incidence ^[56]^B2b^[131]^B2b.

History and Evolution of Treatment

▸Laparoscopic appendectomy replaced open surgery as the standard due to faster recovery and fewer wound infections, with a lower long-term risk of adhesive small bowel obstruction.
▸Antibiotic therapy is a safe alternative for uncomplicated appendicitis, with a 10-year true recurrence rate of 37.8% and no increase in complications compared to appendectomy.
▸Timing of surgery can be safely delayed up to 24 hours without increased perforation risk, and outpatient appendectomy protocols are safe and cost-effective in selected patients.

HY High Yield: The APPAC trial at 10 years showed that 62% of patients treated with antibiotics avoided appendectomy, with no increase in complications [89].

Complications have driven the evolution of appendicitis treatment from its earliest surgical interventions to the current era of stratified care. The first successful appendectomy for acute appendicitis was performed by Morton in 1887, and McBurney's eponymous incision became the standard open approach for nearly a century ^[282]^D5. Open appendectomy remained the unchallenged treatment until the late 20th century, when laparoscopic surgery emerged.

The Laparoscopic Revolution

Semm performed the first laparoscopic appendectomy in 1980 ^[282]^D5. Early randomized trials in the 1990s compared laparoscopic (LA) with open appendectomy (OA). LA consistently showed longer operative times (mean 70-107 min vs 40-91 min) but offered faster recovery, shorter hospital stays, fewer wound infections (0-2% vs 9-11%), and earlier return to normal activity ^[324]^A1b^[325]^A1b^[327]^A1b^[333]^A1b^[338]^A1b. The LA group also had a lower rate of adhesive on long-term follow-up (0.4% vs 1.0%) ^[43]^B3b. By the early 2000s, laparoscopic appendectomy became the standard surgical approach for acute appendicitis, recommended by the 2025 WSES Jerusalem Guidelines ^[147]^A1c.

The Shift to Nonoperative

The concept of treating appendicitis with alone was first tested in a randomized trial by Eriksson and Granström in 1995 ^[328]^A1b. In 40 patients, antibiotics resolved symptoms in 95%, but 35% recurred within 1 year. Styrud et al. (2006) confirmed these findings in a multicenter trial of 252 men, with 86% avoiding surgery and a 14% recurrence rate ^[241]^A1b. The French RCT by Vons et al. (2011) raised concerns: was not noninferior to appendectomy, with 30-day peritonitis rates of 8% vs 2% ^[160]^A1b. However, the landmark APPAC trial (Salminen et al., 2015) used CT-confirmed uncomplicated appendicitis and showed noninferiority of antibiotics ( 1 g/day IV for 3 days, then 500 mg/day and 500 mg TID for 7 days) at 1 year ^[237]^A1b. At 7 years, 39% of antibiotic-treated patients had undergone appendectomy, but quality of life was similar ^[237]^A1b. The 10-year follow-up reported a true appendicitis recurrence rate of 37.8% (95% CI, 31.6%-) and a cumulative appendectomy rate of 44.3% ^[89]^A1b. The CODA trial (2020) confirmed noninferiority of antibiotics at 30 days, though 21% of patients required appendectomy within 30 days, with appendicolith (OR 1.99) and female sex (OR 1.53) predicting failure ^[47]^B2b. APPAC III (2022) compared antibiotics to placebo and found no statistical difference in 10-day treatment success (97% vs 87%), suggesting that some cases resolve spontaneously ^[149]^A1b. Current guidelines recommend antibiotics as a safe option for uncomplicated appendicitis in selected patients ^[147]^A1c.

Refinements in Perioperative Care

The PERFECT trial (2023) demonstrated that delaying appendectomy up to 24 hours is noninferior to surgery within 8 hours for uncomplicated appendicitis, with perforation rates of 9% vs 8% ^[270]^A1b. The DELAY trial (2023) showed that delaying surgery until the following morning (mean 11.0 vs 4.4 hours) was noninferior for 30-day complications ^[40]^A1b. Outpatient appendectomy protocols, tested in the PENDI-CSI trial (2023) and by Elvira López et al. (2022), proved safe and cost-effective, reducing length of stay to 8-9 hours without increased readmissions ^[232]^A1b^[266]^A1b. Postoperative antibiotic duration has been shortened: the Lipping trial (2023) showed that 24-hour oral antibiotics were noninferior to IV therapy after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated appendicitis ^[41]^B2b. He et al. (2025) found that omitting perioperative antibiotics entirely did not worsen outcomes in uncomplicated cases ^[94]^A1b. Stump closure techniques have evolved from endoloops to polymeric clips, which reduce closure time (49 vs 85 seconds) without increasing complications ^[326]^A1b. Sutureless laparoscopic appendectomy using bipolar electrosurgery is also safe ^[332]^A1b.

These advances have shifted the paradigm from a single surgical approach to a patient-centered strategy, with prognosis now dependent on appropriate patient selection and timely intervention.

Pearl: The evolution from mandatory appendectomy to antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated appendicitis represents the most significant paradigm shift in a century, but patient selection remains critical, appendicolith, appendiceal diameter ≥15 mm, and fever >38°C predict antibiotic failure ^[150]^B2b.

Landmark Trials in the Evolution of Appendicitis Treatment

Trial (Year)	Comparison	Key Finding
Eriksson & Granström (1995) ^[328]^A1b	Antibiotics vs surgery	Antibiotics effective but 35% recurrence at 1 year
Styrud et al. (2006) ^[241]^A1b	Antibiotics vs surgery (men)	86% avoided surgery; 14% recurrence
Vons et al. (2011) ^[160]^A1b	Amoxicillin-clavulanate vs surgery	Antibiotics not noninferior; higher peritonitis
APPAC (2015) ^[237]^A1b	Ertapenem/levofloxacin/metronidazole vs surgery	Noninferior at 1 year; 10-year recurrence 37.8% ^[89]^A1b
CODA (2020) ^[47]^B2b	Antibiotics vs surgery	Noninferior at 30 days; 21% required appendectomy
APPAC III (2022) ^[149]^A1b	Antibiotics vs placebo	No statistical difference; spontaneous resolution possible
PERFECT (2023) ^[270]^A1b	Surgery <8h vs <24h	Noninferior; perforation 8% vs 9%
DELAY (2023) ^[40]^A1b	Immediate vs delayed surgery (night)	Noninferior for 30-day complications
PENDI-CSI (2023) ^[232]^A1b	Outpatient vs inpatient appendectomy	Safe, cost-effective; 85.9% discharged without admission

Prognosis and Natural History

▸Mortality from appendectomy is <0.5% overall, but rises to 0.5% in elderly and 8.3% in patients ≥85 years.
▸Non-operative management has a 37.8% true recurrence rate at 10 years, but a significantly lower complication rate (8.5% vs 27.4%) compared to appendectomy [89].
▸The presence of an appendicolith is the strongest predictor of antibiotic failure (46% at 1 year) and should be discussed with patients considering non-operative management [258].
▸Complicated appendicitis managed nonoperatively carries a 16% risk of underlying appendiceal neoplasia, warranting interval appendectomy [74].

HY High Yield: In-hospital delay of up to 24 hours does not increase the risk of perforation; the critical time window is the prehospital period [118].

! Warning: Non-operative management in elderly and multimorbid patients reduces morbidity but increases mortality, length of stay, and costs compared to surgery [130][99].

Two distinct clinical trajectories define the natural history of appendicitis: a self-limited, spontaneously resolving variant and a progressive form culminating in perforation. The time from symptom onset to intervention is the strongest determinant of outcome. In a landmark retrospective study of 1081 patients, the risk of advanced pathology (gangrene, perforation, or abscess) increased from 6% when the total interval from symptom onset to operation was <12 hours to 46% when the interval exceeded 71 hours (odds ratio 13, 95% CI 4.7-37.1) ^[293]^B2b. However, in-hospital delays of up to 24 hours after admission do not increase the risk of complex appendicitis or postoperative complications (OR 0.98, P=0.869) ^[118]^B2a. The time-critical window is the prehospital period, not the hospital interval.

Prognosis After Appendectomy

Mortality from appendectomy is exceedingly low: 0.33% in a large UK cohort of 22,137 patients, and it has declined over time (P=0.004) ^[157]^B3b. In complicated appendicitis, laparoscopic appendectomy yields a mortality rate of 0% vs 0.4% for open surgery (HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.61) ^[127]^B2a. Postoperative complications occur in 15.5% of laparoscopic cases vs 22.7% for open surgery (OR 0.43) ^[127]^B2a. The rate of intra-abdominal abscess after laparoscopic appendectomy for complicated disease is 6.1%, not significantly different from open surgery (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.71-1.47) ^[127]^B2a. Hospitalization for adhesive after appendectomy is low (1.0% for open, 0.4% for laparoscopic) ^[43]^B3b. Recovery after laparoscopic appendectomy is faster: mean hospital stay 2.97 days vs 4.44 days for open surgery ^[157]^B3b, and return to work occurs a mean of 3.09 days earlier ^[171]^A1a.

Prognosis After Non-operative

Antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated appendicitis is safe but less durable than surgery. At 1 year, treatment success is 64.6% (RR 0.69 vs appendectomy, 95% CI 0.61-0.77) ^[231]^A1a. At 10 years, the true appendicitis recurrence rate is 37.8% (95% CI 31.6%-), and the cumulative appendectomy rate is 44.3% (95% CI 38.2%-) ^[89]^A1b. However, complications are significantly lower: 8.5% in the group vs 27.4% in the appendectomy group at 10 years (P<0.001) ^[89]^A1b. The presence of an appendicolith approximately doubles the risk of antibiotic failure: 46% failure rate at 1 year compared to 20% without an appendicolith ^[258]^A1a. Female sex (OR 1.53) and wider appendiceal diameter (OR 1.09 per mm, 95% CI 1.00-1.18) also increase the risk of early appendectomy ^[47]^B2b. Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) shows a higher initial success rate than antibiotics alone (OR 2.10) but a lower success rate than appendectomy (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.57) ^[126]^B2a. Recurrence after ERAT is 5.6% at a mean follow-up of 158 days ^[111]^C4.

Natural History of Untreated or Spontaneously Resolving Appendicitis

Spontaneous resolution of uncomplicated appendicitis occurs in a subset of patients. In children with low-grade appendicitis defined by ultrasonography, supportive care alone resulted in an event-free rate of 62.5% at 5 years ^[25]^B2b. In a randomized trial comparing antibiotics to placebo for CT-confirmed uncomplicated appendicitis, the 10-day treatment success rate was 87% for placebo vs 97% for antibiotics (P=0.142), suggesting that a substantial proportion of cases resolve without antibiotics ^[149]^A1b.

Risk of Appendiceal Neoplasia

Patients with complicated appendicitis managed nonoperatively have a 16% rate of underlying appendiceal neoplasia, most commonly mucinous neoplasm (54%), neuroendocrine tumor (19%), and adenocarcinoma (13%) ^[74]^B2b^[106]^B2b. The presence of a mucocele on imaging carries a 58% risk of neoplasm ^[106]^B2b. This risk should inform decision-making about interval appendectomy, especially in patients older than 40 years ^[74]^B2b.

Prognosis in Special Populations

Elderly patients (≥65 years) have a higher rate of complicated appendicitis (29.4% vs 9.2%) and a mortality rate of 0.5% after appendectomy, compared to <0.1% in younger patients ^[322]^B2b. Nonoperative management in older adults reduces complications by 3.7% but increases mortality by 1.8% compared to surgery ^[130]^B2b. In high-risk multimorbid patients, nonoperative management is associated with a 2% increase in mortality (95% CI 2%-3%) and a 9% decrease in complications ^[99]^B2b. HIV-positive patients with CD4 <200 cells/mm³ have a substantially increased risk of death (OR 8.6) ^[62]^B2b.

Pearl: The single most important prognostic factor for antibiotic failure in uncomplicated appendicitis is the presence of an appendicolith, which doubles the risk of recurrence and should prompt strong consideration for early appendectomy ^[258]^A1a^[47]^B2b.

Special Populations

▸Pediatric appendicitis: ultrasound is first-line imaging; NOM safe without appendicolith; laparoscopic appendectomy standard for complicated disease.
▸Pregnancy: MRI sensitivity 91.8%, specificity 97.9%; laparoscopic appendectomy safe until 20 weeks; conservative management acceptable for uncomplicated cases.
▸Elderly: cross-sectional imaging recommended; NOM reduces complications but increases mortality; laparoscopic appendectomy preferred.
▸Immunocompromised: low threshold for CT; operative management favored due to higher complication risk.

HY High Yield: In children with negative ultrasound but Alvarado score ≥ 5, symptom duration > 48 h, or CRP ≥ 10 mg/L, consider repeat imaging or CT as false-negative rate is 8.9% [155].

! Warning: Nonoperative management in elderly patients ≥ 65 years reduces complications by 3.72% but increases mortality by 1.82% (NNT for harm not calculable from reported data); appendectomy is the safer choice for those fit for surgery [130].

Prognosis after acute appendicitis varies markedly across patient populations, requiring tailored diagnostic and therapeutic approaches that deviate from the standard adult pathway.

Pediatrics

Presentation in children is often atypical, especially under age 5, where vomiting, diffuse pain, and fever dominate. The Pediatric Appendicitis Score ( ) or Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score aids risk stratification; an AIR score ≥ 9 has a specificity of 90% for appendicitis ^[101]^B2b. Ultrasound is the first-line imaging study; false-negative rates of 8.9% are predicted by an Alvarado score ≥ 5, symptom duration > 48 h, and CRP ≥ 10 mg/L ^[155]^B2b. In children with intermediate PAS (4-6), a positive ultrasound is the strongest independent predictor of appendicitis (OR 55.1) ^[174]^B2b.

Nonoperative (NOM) is safe and feasible for uncomplicated appendicitis, especially in children without appendicolith, where one-year success rates are similar to operative management ^[230]^A1a^[42]^B2b. However, at five years, 46% of children initially treated with had undergone appendectomy, though none presented with complicated appendicitis ^[233]^A1b. Laparoscopic appendectomy remains the standard for complicated disease, with lower wound infection rates and shorter hospital stays than open surgery ^[129]^B2a. Same-day discharge after uncomplicated appendectomy is not associated with increased 30-day readmission ^[316]^B2b. In-hospital surgical delay up to 24 h does not increase perforation risk ^[54]^B2b.

Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) is an emerging option; a meta-analysis of 1,372 children showed shorter operative time, fewer complications (RR 0.27), and faster recovery, though recurrence rates were similar ^[268]^B2a. Children with impaired development have higher rates of complicated appendicitis (33.6% vs 27.5%) and increased hospital charges ^[363]^B2b.

Pregnancy

Acute appendicitis is the most common nonobstetric surgical emergency in pregnancy. The incidence is 35% lower than outside pregnancy, with the lowest rate in the third trimester (IRR 0.47) ^[120]^B2b. MRI is the imaging modality of choice when ultrasound is inconclusive, with a sensitivity of 91.8% and specificity of 97.9% ^[39]^B2a.

The 2025 WSES guidelines recommend operative treatment for complicated appendicitis or appendicolith (strong recommendation) and suggest operative treatment for uncomplicated disease without appendicolith (weak recommendation) ^[147]^A1c. Laparoscopic appendectomy is preferred until the 20th week of gestation; beyond that, the approach should be based on surgeon expertise, as obstetrical outcomes are similar ^[112]^B2b^[336]^A1c. Conservative management is an acceptable option for uncomplicated cases, with a fetal loss rate of 4% compared to 5% after appendectomy ^[134]^B2b.

Elderly (≥ 65 years)

Elderly patients present with higher perforation rates (40% vs 14% in younger patients), lower diagnostic accuracy, and higher mortality ^[37]^A1c^[138]^C4. Cross-sectional imaging should replace clinical scoring systems for diagnosis (weak recommendation) ^[164]^A1c. Nonoperative management reduces complications by 3.72% but increases mortality by 1.82% compared with appendectomy, along with longer hospital stay and higher costs ^[130]^B2b. Laparoscopic appendectomy is preferred over open surgery (weak recommendation) ^[164]^A1c. Interval appendectomy should be considered due to a higher risk of underlying neoplasia; in patients with periappendicular abscess, the appendiceal tumor rate is 14.3% ^[78]^B2b.

Immunocompromised

Immunocompromised patients (e.g., HIV, transplant recipients, on chronic steroids) are at increased risk of atypical presentation, delayed diagnosis, and complicated disease. The 2025 WSES guidelines emphasize a low threshold for cross-sectional imaging and a strong consideration of operative management given the higher risk of perforation and sepsis ^[147]^A1c. Nonoperative management may be considered for uncomplicated disease in selected patients, but shared decision-making should account for the elevated risk of treatment failure and underlying malignancy.

Pearl: In children with uncomplicated appendicitis and no appendicolith, nonoperative management achieves a one-year success rate similar to surgery; in pregnancy, MRI is the preferred second-line imaging with sensitivity > 90%; in the elderly, nonoperative management reduces morbidity but increases mortality, making appendectomy the safer choice for fit patients.

Diagnostic and Management Considerations Across Special Populations

Population	First-line Imaging	Key Diagnostic Consideration	Preferred Management	Special Consideration
Children (≤ 17 yr)	Ultrasound	AIR score ≥ 9 or PAS 4-6 with positive US	Laparoscopic appendectomy; NOM if uncomplicated, no appendicolith	Same-day discharge safe; delayed surgery up to 24 h does not increase perforation ^[54]^B2b
Pregnancy	Ultrasound → MRI if inconclusive	MRI sensitivity 91.8%, specificity 97.9% ^[39]^B2a	Operative for complicated or appendicolith; NOM acceptable for uncomplicated	Laparoscopy preferred < 20 weeks; surgeon preference ≥ 20 weeks ^[336]^A1c
Elderly (≥ 65 yr)	CT (preferred over clinical scores)	Perforation rate 40% vs 14% in younger ^[138]^C4	Appendectomy (laparoscopic) for fit patients; NOM associated with higher mortality	Interval appendectomy recommended due to 14.3% tumor rate with abscess ^[78]^B2b
Immunocompromised	CT (low threshold)	Atypical presentations; higher perforation risk	Operative management favored	Shared decision-making for NOM; consider underlying malignancy risk

Prevention, Screening & Surveillance

▸After successful nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis, the 10-year recurrence rate is 37.8%, with most recurrences within the first year; risk factors include appendiceal diameter ≥15 mm, fever >38°C, and elevated CRP [89][150].
▸Screening for occult appendiceal neoplasms is warranted in patients with risk factors such as age >40 years, appendiceal diameter >15 mm, or radiologic suspicion of complicated appendicitis, as missed tumors occur in up to 1.6% of cases [13].
▸Surveillance after ERAT should focus on the first year, with recurrence rates of 13-16%; risk factors include age >60, Alvarado score >6, and presence of fecalith [215][367].

HY High Yield: Appendiceal diameter ≥15 mm on CT is the strongest predictor of antibiotic failure (RR 4.00); these patients should be offered appendectomy rather than nonoperative management [150].

Having addressed the unique considerations in pregnant patients, the focus now shifts to prevention of recurrence and surveillance for complications and missed pathology after initial of acute appendicitis.

Primary Prevention

No established primary prevention strategies exist for acute appendicitis. Unlike conditions with modifiable dietary or lifestyle risk factors, the etiology of appendiceal obstruction, the inciting event in most cases, remains poorly understood, and no guideline recommends population-level preventive measures.

Secondary Prevention: Preventing Recurrence After Nonoperative Management

For patients who choose nonoperative management (NOM) with or endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT), the key preventive intervention is identifying those at high risk for recurrence and offering elective appendectomy. The 10-year follow-up of the APPAC trial reported a true appendicitis recurrence rate of 37.8% (95% CI, 31.6%-) and a cumulative appendectomy rate of 44.3% (95% CI, 38.2%-) among patients initially treated with antibiotics ^[89]^A1b. Most recurrences occur within the first year ^[89]^A1b^[215]^B2b.

Risk factors for recurrence after antibiotic therapy include:

Appendiceal diameter ≥15 mm on CT (adjusted RR 4.00; 95% CI, 2.00-7.92) ^[150]^B2b
Body temperature >38 °C at presentation (adjusted RR 2.76; 95% CI, 1.27-6.03) ^[150]^B2b
CRP ≥100 mg/L during the first 24 hours (negative predictive value 99% for successful therapy) ^[150]^B2b
Leukocyte count ≥9 × 10⁹/L (adjusted RR 4.44; 95% CI, 1.79-11.05) ^[150]^B2b
Faecolithiasis (HR 2.3; 95% CI, 1.51-3.49) ^[262]^B2b
High Adult Appendicitis Score (AAS >16) (HR 2.44; 95% CI, 1.52-3.92) ^[262]^B2b
Male gender (HR 3.45; 95% CI, 1.15-10.39) ^[367]^B2b

After ERAT, independent predictors of 1-year recurrence include age >60 years, Alvarado score >6, fecalith (OR 2.68), appendix lumen distortion, and stent placement (OR 5.97) ^[215]^B2b. The overall recurrence rate after ERAT is 16.1%, with 13% occurring within the first year ^[215]^B2b.

Screening for Occult Appendiceal Neoplasms

A major concern with NOM is the risk of missed appendiceal tumors. In a cohort of 2293 appendectomies for acute appendicitis, 1.6% harbored malignant or premalignant lesions, predominantly neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) ^[13]^B2b. Aggressive tumors (excluding low-risk NETs) were associated with age >40 years, longer symptom duration, appendiceal diameter ≥15 mm, and radiologic suspicion of complicated appendicitis ^[13]^B2b. The 2025 WSES guidelines acknowledge that CT underestimates microperforations and fails to exclude occult neoplasms in up to 3.2% of cases ^[250]^D5.

Patients with risk factors for malignancy, age >40 years, appendiceal diameter >15 mm, cystic mass on imaging, or complicated appendicitis, should undergo targeted follow-up, including interval or surveillance imaging ^[13]^B2b^[139]^B2b. Those with a cystic mass have a 77% incidence of neoplasm and warrant diagnostic appendectomy ^[139]^B2b.

Surveillance After Appendectomy

After surgical treatment, surveillance focuses on wound complications. after McBurney incision occurs in 0.7% of cases; risk factors include female gender, diabetes, peritonitis, wound infection, and use of catgut or interrupted sutures ^[365]^B3b. Tension-free prosthetic repair is recommended for those who develop hernia ^[365]^B3b.

Patient Education

Shared decision-making should include a discussion of recurrence risk (approximately 40% at 10 years after antibiotics), the small but real risk of missed appendiceal neoplasm, and the importance of seeking care for recurrent right lower quadrant pain. Patients with risk factors for recurrence or malignancy should be counseled toward appendectomy as definitive treatment.

Pearl: The single most important predictor of antibiotic treatment failure is an appendiceal diameter ≥15 mm on CT; patients with this finding have a 4-fold higher risk of primary non-responsiveness and should be counseled toward appendectomy ^[150]^B2b.

References

[1]
Murphy EM, Farquharson SM, Moran BJ. “Management of an unexpected appendiceal neoplasm.” The British journal of surgery (2006). PMID: 16775823 ↗
L5SR_OBSCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prognosis and Natural History
[2]
Allievi N, Harbi A, Ceresoli M et al.. “Acute Appendicitis: Still a Surgical Disease? Results from a Propensity Score-Based Outcome Analysis of Conservative Versus Surgical Management from a Prospective Database.” World journal of surgery (2017). PMID: 28623597 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Acute Management and Resuscitation, History and Evolution of Treatment
[3]
Gomes CA, Sartelli M, Di Saverio S et al.. “Acute appendicitis: proposal of a new comprehensive grading system based on clinical, imaging and laparoscopic findings.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2015). PMID: 26640515 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[4]
Tzovaras G, Baloyiannis I, Kouritas V et al.. “Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in men: a prospective randomized trial.” Surgical endoscopy (2010). PMID: 20552369 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[5]
Çimen Ş, Tekin KB, Kamburoğlu A et al.. “Polymeric clips versus staplers for appendiceal stump closure in laparoscopic appendectomy: a retrospective observational study.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2026). PMID: 42002754 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[6]
Paquette IM, Zuckerman R, Finlayson SR. “Perforated appendicitis among rural and urban patients: implications of access to care.” Annals of surgery (2011). PMID: 21209586 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Diagnosis and Workup, Complications and Their Management
[7]
Sahm M, Pross M, Otto R et al.. “Clinical Health Service Research on the Surgical Therapy of Acute Appendicitis: Comparison of Outcomes Based on 3 German Multicenter Quality Assurance Studies Over 21 Years.” Annals of surgery (2015). PMID: 25563882 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[8]
Cioffi SPB, Altomare M, Spota A et al.. “REsiDENT 1 (Re-assessment of Appendicitis Evaluation during laparoscopic appendectomy: Do we End a Non-standardized Treatment approach and habit?): peritoneal irrigation during laparoscopic appendectomy-does the grade of contamination matter? A prospective multicenter resident-based evaluation of a new classification system.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2019). PMID: 31164914 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Complications and Their Management
[9]
Bhangu A, Søreide K, Di Saverio S et al.. “Acute appendicitis: modern understanding of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management.” Lancet (London, England) (2015). PMID: 26460662 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History
[10]
Victoria P, Easter J, Long B. “Are antibiotics an effective initial treatment for acute appendicitis compared to appendectomy?” The American journal of emergency medicine (2026). PMID: 41579523 ↗
L5SR_OBSCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Prognosis and Natural History
[11]
Swank HA, van Rossem CC, van Geloven AA et al.. “Endostapler or endoloops for securing the appendiceal stump in laparoscopic appendectomy: a retrospective cohort study.” Surgical endoscopy (2013). PMID: 24048816 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[12]
Duraiswamy S, Sanchez SE, Flum DR et al.. “Caveat emptor: The accuracy of claims data in appendicitis research.” Surgery (2022). PMID: 35985898 ↗
L4REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[13]
Germes M, Collard MK, Laroche S et al.. “Oncologic Risk of Missed Appendiceal Tumors in Acute Appendicitis.” JAMA surgery (2026). PMID: 41879758 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[14]
Golz RA, Flum DR, Sanchez SE et al.. “Geographic Association Between Incidence of Acute Appendicitis and Socioeconomic Status.” JAMA surgery (2020). PMID: 32129808 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[15]
Baxter KJ, Nguyen HTMH, Wulkan ML et al.. “Association of Health Care Utilization With Rates of Perforated Appendicitis in Children 18 Years or Younger.” JAMA surgery (2018). PMID: 29387882 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[16]
McDonald JR, O'Dwyer ST, Rout S et al.. “Classification of and cytoreductive surgery for low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms.” The British journal of surgery (2012). PMID: 22517234 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Complications and Their Management, Special Populations & Pregnancy, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[17]
Leppäniemi A, Jousela I. “A traffic-light coding system to organize emergency surgery across surgical disciplines.” The British journal of surgery (2013). PMID: 24272758 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[18]
Ilves I, Paajanen HE, Herzig KH et al.. “Changing incidence of acute appendicitis and nonspecific abdominal pain between 1987 and 2007 in Finland.” World journal of surgery (2011). PMID: 21327601 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[19]
Tan EC, Severijnen RS, Rosman C et al.. “Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis in children: a survey among Dutch surgeons and comparison with evidence-based practice.” World journal of surgery (2006). PMID: 16528461 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[20]
Tind S, Qvist N. “Acute Appendicitis: A Weak Concordance Between Perioperative Diagnosis, Pathology and Peritoneal Fluid Cultivation.” World journal of surgery (2017). PMID: 27541029 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[21]
Hernandez MC, Kong VY, Bruce JL et al.. “Pediatric Appendicitis Severity in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.” World journal of surgery (2018). PMID: 29777269 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[22]
Scheijmans JCG, Haijanen J, Flum DR et al.. “Antibiotic treatment versus appendicectomy for acute appendicitis in adults: an individual patient data meta-analysis.” The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology (2025). PMID: 39827891 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[23]
Vanhatalo S, Mäkilä E, Hakanen AJ et al.. “Appendicolith classification: physical and chemical properties of appendicoliths in patients with CT diagnosed acute appendicitis - a prospective cohort study.” BMJ open gastroenterology (2024). PMID: 39160081 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[24]
Georgeades C, Farazi MR, Gainer H et al.. “Distribution of acute appendicitis care in children: A statewide assessment of the surgeons and facilities providing surgical care.” Surgery (2022). PMID: 36244816 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[25]
Wang Q, Morikawa Y, Ueno R et al.. “Prognosis of ultrasonographic low-grade pediatric appendicitis treated with supportive care.” Surgery (2021). PMID: 33836899 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Acute Management and Resuscitation, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[26]
Zogg CK, Scott JW, Jiang W et al.. “Differential access to care: The role of age, insurance, and income on race/ethnicity-related disparities in adult perforated appendix admission rates.” Surgery (2016). PMID: 27486003 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Diagnosis and Workup
[27]
Chawrylak K, Leśniewska M, Mielniczek K et al.. “Current Status of Treatment among Patients with Appendiceal Tumors-Old Challenges and New Solutions?” Cancers (2024). PMID: 38473228 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[28]
Saqib T. “A Retrospective Study of Acute Appendicitis-Related Mortality Among Older Adults in the United States: Regional and Demographic Patterns From 1999 to 2020.” Australasian journal on ageing (2026). PMID: 41857783 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup
[29]
Nayanar SK, Markose AJ, Avaronnan M et al.. “Origin and survival outcomes of Pseudomyxoma peritonei-A retrospective study.” Journal of cancer research and therapeutics (2024). PMID: 38261429 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[30]
Dölling M, Klös M, Pachmann J et al.. “Complicated appendicitis: value of inflammatory markers based on EAES 2015 guidelines.” Surgical endoscopy (2025). PMID: 40825891 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[31]
Bouziane E, Perez M, Brunaud L et al.. “Perioperative severity of acute appendicitis during the confinement related to SARS COVID-19: a retrospective comparative cohort.” Surgical endoscopy (2024). PMID: 39586880 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[32]
Cioffi SPB, Altomare M, Podda M et al.. “The burden of the knowledge-to-action gap in acute appendicitis.” Surgical endoscopy (2023). PMID: 37884735 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice
[33]
Cioffi SPB, Granieri S, Scaravilli L et al.. “Surgeons' attitudes during laparoscopic appendectomy: do subjective intraoperative assessments affect the choice of peritoneal irrigation? A spin-off analysis from the REsiDENT-1 multicentre prospective observational trial.” Surgical endoscopy (2022). PMID: 36307601 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[34]
Jacobsen GR, Barajas-Gamboa JS, Coker AM et al.. “Transvaginal organ extraction: potential for broad clinical application.” Surgical endoscopy (2013). PMID: 24149847 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[35]
Finnesgard EJ, Hernandez MC, Aho JM et al.. “The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Emergency General Surgery Anatomic Severity Scoring System as a predictor of cost in appendicitis.” Surgical endoscopy (2018). PMID: 29777350 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[36]
Zhang Z, Liu H, Su Y et al.. “Pulmonary-Intestinal Axis: Shared Genetic Basis and Mediating Factors Identified Through Multi-Omics Analysis.” International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (2026). PMID: 41978582 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature
[37]
Fugazzola P, Ceresoli M, Agnoletti V et al.. “The SIFIPAC/WSES/SICG/SIMEU guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis in the elderly (2019 edition).” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2020). PMID: 32156296 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[38]
Teixeira FJR, Couto Netto SDD, Akaishi EH et al.. “Acute appendicitis, inflammatory appendiceal mass and the risk of a hidden malignant tumor: a systematic review of the literature.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2017). PMID: 28286544 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Complications and Their Management
[39]
Kave M, Parooie F, Salarzaei M. “Pregnancy and appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical use of MRI in diagnosis of appendicitis in pregnant women.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2019). PMID: 31367227 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[40]
Patel SV, Zhang L, Mir ZM et al.. “Delayed Versus Early Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Adult Patients With Acute Appendicitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Annals of surgery (2023). PMID: 37436871 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment
[41]
Lipping E, Saar S, Reinsoo A et al.. “Short Postoperative Intravenous Versus Oral Antibacterial Therapy in Complicated Acute Appendicitis: A Pilot Noninferiority Randomized Trial.” Annals of surgery (2023). PMID: 37747168 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History
[42]
Svensson JF, Patkova B, Almström M et al.. “Nonoperative treatment with antibiotics versus surgery for acute nonperforated appendicitis in children: a pilot randomized controlled trial.” Annals of surgery (2015). PMID: 25072441 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Acute Management and Resuscitation, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[43]
Isaksson K, Montgomery A, Moberg AC et al.. “Long-term follow-up for adhesive small bowel obstruction after open versus laparoscopic surgery for suspected appendicitis.” Annals of surgery (2014). PMID: 24374517 ↗
L3RCTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History
[44]
de Almeida Leite RM, Seo DJ, Gomez-Eslava B et al.. “Nonoperative vs Operative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” JAMA surgery (2022). PMID: 35895073 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[45]
van Dijk ST, van Dijk AH, Dijkgraaf MG et al.. “Meta-analysis of in-hospital delay before surgery as a risk factor for complications in patients with acute appendicitis.” The British journal of surgery (2018). PMID: 29902346 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Complications and Their Management
[46]
Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Di Franco F et al.. “Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-incision versus conventional multiport appendicectomy.” The British journal of surgery (2013). PMID: 24227355 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[47]
Monsell SE, Voldal EC, Davidson GH et al.. “Patient Factors Associated With Appendectomy Within 30 Days of Initiating Antibiotic Treatment for Appendicitis.” JAMA surgery (2022). PMID: 35019975 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History
[48]
Hansson J, Körner U, Khorram-Manesh A et al.. “Randomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as primary treatment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients.” The British journal of surgery (2009). PMID: 19358184 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[49]
Kleif J, Kirkegaard A, Vilandt J et al.. “Randomized clinical trial of preoperative dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis.” The British journal of surgery (2017). PMID: 28072446 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment
[50]
Zhang X, Zheng X, Jin H et al.. “Efficacy and safety of different antibiotic treatment versus surgical treatment for acute appendicitis: A network meta-analysis.” World journal of surgery (2024). PMID: 39500855 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Prognosis and Natural History
[51]
Manatakis DK, Tasis N, Antonopoulou MI et al.. “Revisiting Amyand's Hernia: A 20-Year Systematic Review.” World journal of surgery (2021). PMID: 33598722 ↗
L4SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[52]
Pitesa R, Spiekermann M, Paterson C et al.. “Revisiting Diet and Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” World journal of surgery (2025). PMID: 41265933 ↗
L3SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[53]
Otan E, Akbulut S, Kayaalp C. “Amebic acute appendicitis: systematic review of 174 cases.” World journal of surgery (2013). PMID: 23665815 ↗
L4SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[54]
Almström M, Svensson JF, Patkova B et al.. “In-hospital Surgical Delay Does Not Increase the Risk for Perforated Appendicitis in Children: A Single-center Retrospective Cohort Study.” Annals of surgery (2017). PMID: 28169930 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[55]
Lee MS, Purcell R, McCombie A et al.. “Retrospective cohort study of the impact of faecoliths on the natural history of acute appendicitis.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2023). PMID: 36918986 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, History and Evolution of Treatment
[56]
Liao YT, Huang J, Wu CT et al.. “The necessity of abdominal drainage for patients with complicated appendicitis undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy: a retrospective cohort study.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2022). PMID: 35300711 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Complications and Their Management
[57]
Abu Foul S, Egozi E, Assalia A et al.. “Is early appendectomy in adults diagnosed with acute appendicitis mandatory? A prospective study.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2019). PMID: 30651750 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[58]
Kanaka S, Mizutani S, Yokoyama Y et al.. “Periappendiceal fluid collection on preoperative computed tomography can be an indication for interval appendectomy: a retrospective study.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2022). PMID: 35637469 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Diagnosis and Workup, Complications and Their Management
[59]
Andrade LA, Muñoz FY, Báez MV et al.. “Appendectomy Skin Closure Technique, Randomized Controlled Trial: Changing Paradigms (ASC).” World journal of surgery (2016). PMID: 27283187 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, History and Evolution of Treatment
[60]
Liu K, Fogg L. “Use of antibiotics alone for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Surgery (2011). PMID: 22000179 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[61]
Octavius GS, Muljono MP, Budiputri CL. “Serum pentraxin-3 in diagnosing acute appendicitis in patients with acute abdominal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.” Surgery (2023). PMID: 36828742 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[62]
Laäs R, Clarke DL, Dufourq N et al.. “The Influence of HIV Status on Acute Appendicitis: A Retrospective Study from South Africa.” World journal of surgery (2023). PMID: 37580602 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Prognosis and Natural History, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[63]
Cirocchi R, Cianci MC, Amato L et al.. “Laparoscopic appendectomy with single port vs conventional access: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.” Surgical endoscopy (2024). PMID: 38332174 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[64]
van Heurn LW, Pakarinen MP, Wester T. “Contemporary management of abdominal surgical emergencies in infants and children.” The British journal of surgery (2013). PMID: 24338775 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[65]
Rook JM, Kelley-Quon LI, Jen HC et al.. “Association of High-Deductible Health Plans and Complicated Appendicitis Among Children.” Annals of surgery (2025). PMID: 39989359 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[66]
Kovler ML, Pedroso FE, Etchill EW et al.. “Prolonged In-hospital Time to Appendectomy is Associated With Increased Complicated Appendicitis in Children.” Annals of surgery (2020). PMID: 32740232 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management
[67]
Modlin IM, Kidd M, Latich I et al.. “Genetic differentiation of appendiceal tumor malignancy: a guide for the perplexed.” Annals of surgery (2006). PMID: 16794389 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup
[68]
Teixeira PG, Sivrikoz E, Inaba K et al.. “Appendectomy timing: waiting until the next morning increases the risk of surgical site infections.” Annals of surgery (2012). PMID: 22842128 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management
[69]
Afzal B, Cirocchi R, Dawani A et al.. “Is it possible to predict the severity of acute appendicitis? Reliability of predictive models based on easily available blood variables.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2023). PMID: 36707812 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice
[70]
Imaoka Y, Itamoto T, Takakura Y et al.. “Validity of predictive factors of acute complicated appendicitis.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2016). PMID: 27708690 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Acute Management and Resuscitation
[71]
Gignoux B, Blanchet MC, Lanz T et al.. “Should ambulatory appendectomy become the standard treatment for acute appendicitis?” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2018). PMID: 29988464 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[72]
Kitano M, Maker AV, Lanier BJ et al.. “Appendicitis secondary to metastatic melanoma: review of the National Institutes of Health experience.” JAMA surgery (2014). PMID: 24871401 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup
[73]
Vidal O, Ginestà C, Valentini M et al.. “Suprapubic single-incision laparoscopic appendectomy: a nonvisible-scar surgical option.” Surgical endoscopy (2010). PMID: 20737172 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[74]
Lie JJ, Nabata K, Zhang JW et al.. “Rate of Neoplasia in Patients with Complicated Acute Appendicitis Managed Nonoperatively: A Prospective Study.” Annals of surgical oncology (2025). PMID: 39971859 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[75]
Ahmed H, Trinh F, Jatana S et al.. “Early versus delayed appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in adult and pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” The journal of trauma and acute care surgery (2026). PMID: 41636758 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[76]
Arredondo Montero J, Rico-Jiménez M. “Post-discharge oral home antibiotic use in complicated pediatric appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” World journal of pediatrics : WJP (2026). PMID: 41591702 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Complications and Their Management, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[77]
Nash GM, Smith JD, Tang L et al.. “Lymph Node Metastasis Predicts Disease Recurrence in a Single-Center Experience of 70 Stages 1-3 Appendix Cancers: A Retrospective Review.” Annals of surgical oncology (2015). PMID: 25663593 ↗
L4REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[78]
Salminen R, Alajääski J, Rautio T et al.. “Appendiceal Tumor Prevalence in Patients With Periappendicular Abscess.” JAMA surgery (2025). PMID: 40172884 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[79]
Drake FT, Mottey NE, Farrokhi ET et al.. “Time to appendectomy and risk of perforation in acute appendicitis.” JAMA surgery (2014). PMID: 24990687 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice
[80]
Scheijmans JCG, Bom WJ, Ghori UH et al.. “Development and Validation of the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity 2.0.” JAMA surgery (2024). PMID: 38536188 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice
[81]
Lee KH, Lee S, Park JH et al.. “Risk of Hematologic Malignant Neoplasms From Abdominopelvic Computed Tomographic Radiation in Patients Who Underwent Appendectomy.” JAMA surgery (2021). PMID: 33471110 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Diagnosis and Workup
[82]
Gaitanidis A, Kaafarani HMA, Christensen MA et al.. “Association Between NEDD4L Variation and the Genetic Risk of Acute Appendicitis: A Multi-institutional Genome-Wide Association Study.” JAMA surgery (2021). PMID: 34319380 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, History and Evolution of Treatment, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[83]
Minneci PC, Mahida JB, Lodwick DL et al.. “Effectiveness of Patient Choice in Nonoperative vs Surgical Management of Pediatric Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis.” JAMA surgery (2016). PMID: 26676711 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[84]
Sadr Azodi O, Andrén-Sandberg A, Larsson H. “Genetic and environmental influences on the risk of acute appendicitis in twins.” The British journal of surgery (2009). PMID: 19847874 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[85]
Atema JJ, van Rossem CC, Leeuwenburgh MM et al.. “Scoring system to distinguish uncomplicated from complicated acute appendicitis.” The British journal of surgery (2015). PMID: 25963411 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[86]
Paterson HM, Qadan M, de Luca SM et al.. “Changing trends in surgery for acute appendicitis.” The British journal of surgery (2008). PMID: 17939131 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Complications and Their Management, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[87]
van Rossem CC, Bolmers MD, Schreinemacher MH et al.. “Prospective nationwide outcome audit of surgery for suspected acute appendicitis.” The British journal of surgery (2015). PMID: 26509648 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[88]
Andersson RE. “Short-term complications and long-term morbidity of laparoscopic and open appendicectomy in a national cohort.” The British journal of surgery (2014). PMID: 24979720 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management
[89]
Salminen P, Salminen R, Kallio J et al.. “Antibiotic Therapy for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: Ten-Year Follow-Up of the APPAC Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA (2026). PMID: 41563747 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[90]
Guzmán-Valdivia G. “Acute amebic appendicitis.” World journal of surgery (2006). PMID: 16736334 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Complications and Their Management, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[91]
Kong VY, Bulajic B, Allorto NL et al.. “Acute appendicitis in a developing country.” World journal of surgery (2012). PMID: 22562453 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Diagnosis and Workup, Complications and Their Management
[92]
Andresson G, Kristínardóttir ÁS. “The Time Course of Perforation and Abscess Formation in Appendicitis.” World journal of surgery (2026). PMID: 41831204 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice
[93]
Segev L, Segev Y, Rayman S et al.. “Acute Appendicitis During Pregnancy: Different from the Nonpregnant State?” World journal of surgery (2017). PMID: 27730353 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[94]
He BL, Li M, Cheng SB et al.. “Effects of different antibiotic strategies on postoperative inflammatory response and recovery in patients with acute appendicitis: a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study.” BMC surgery (2025). PMID: 41361807 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment
[95]
Elsmani A, Toffaha A, Abdul-Hafez HA et al.. “Primary dermoid cysts of the cecum: A systematic review and case report.” Medicine (2026). PMID: 42116351 ↗
L4SR_OBSCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[96]
Cansaran S, Gür K, Pıçaklar K et al.. “Urine leukocyte count demonstrates limited diagnostic accuracy for complicated appendicitis in children: a retrospective cohort study.” European journal of pediatrics (2026). PMID: 42347864 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[97]
Hung KC, Chang LC, Ho CN et al.. “Vitamin D Deficiency and 3-Year Risk of New-Onset Depression After Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.” Obesity surgery (2026). PMID: 42268539 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, History and Evolution of Treatment
[98]
Iantorno SE, Skarda DE, Bucher BT. “Concurrent SARS-COV-19 and acute appendicitis: Management and outcomes across United States children's hospitals.” Surgery (2023). PMID: 36621446 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[99]
Lunardi N, Thornton M, Zarzaur BL et al.. “Potential risks of nonoperative management of appendicitis in high-risk patients.” Surgery (2024). PMID: 39327128 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[100]
Beckermann J, Linnaus ME, Swartz H et al.. “Optimizing antibiotic management for patients with acute appendicitis: A quality improvement study.” Surgery (2024). PMID: 38413304 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Complications and Their Management
[101]
Macco S, Vrouenraets BC, de Castro SM. “Evaluation of scoring systems in predicting acute appendicitis in children.” Surgery (2016). PMID: 27528209 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[102]
Chayed Z, Bro Sørensen D, Justesen US et al.. “BioFire blood culture identification 2 panel as detector of bacteria in peritoneal fluid from patients with acute appendicitis.” Surgery (2024). PMID: 38862277 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Diagnosis and Workup
[103]
Smith MC, Chung PJ, Constable YC et al.. “Appendectomy in patients with human immunodeficiency virus: Not as bad as we once thought.” Surgery (2016). PMID: 27884613 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management
[104]
Turner SA, Jung HS, Scarborough JE. “Utilization of a specimen retrieval bag during laparoscopic appendectomy for both uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis is not associated with a decrease in postoperative surgical site infection rates.” Surgery (2019). PMID: 31043235 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management
[105]
Leiritz E, Fawaz J, Sourrouille I et al.. “Appendiceal Adenocarcinoma Discovered During Acute Perforated Appendicitis: A Potential Contribution of Prophylactic CRS and HIPEC-A French BIGRENAPE Group Study.” Annals of surgical oncology (2025). PMID: 41291359 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[106]
Foroutani L, Wang JJ, Kiran S et al.. “True Incidence of Appendiceal Neoplasms in Patients Presenting with Complicated Appendicitis: A Call for a Revised Management Algorithm.” Annals of surgical oncology (2026). PMID: 41524877 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[107]
Zhang S, Wu W, Wang Q et al.. “An Integrated Analysis of Emerging Predictive Models for Preoperative Prediction of Complicated Acute Appendicitis.” World journal of surgery (2026). PMID: 41521030 ↗
L2REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion
[108]
Hou R, Wang K, Guo J et al.. “Laparoscopic endostapler partial cecal resection in complicated appendicitis with appendiceal base involvement: a single-center retrospective study.” BMC surgery (2026). PMID: 42092846 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management
[109]
Bozkurt H, Taşkın M, Özcan C et al.. “The Impact of Operative Timing on Postoperative Complications in Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.” Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A (2026). PMID: 41817201 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[110]
Ding W, Du Z, Zhou X. “Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy for management of acute appendicitis.” Surgical endoscopy (2021). PMID: 33983458 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[111]
Lin D, Su M, Guo Z et al.. “Direct visualization endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy for treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis.” Surgical endoscopy (2024). PMID: 39179688 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[112]
Lipping E, Saar S, Rull K et al.. “Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis in pregnancy: a population-based study.” Surgical endoscopy (2023). PMID: 37099158 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[113]
Shadhu K, Ramlagun D, Wang Y et al.. “Re-evaluation of purse string suture in laparoscopic appendectomy.” Surgical endoscopy (2019). PMID: 31087172 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Complications and Their Management
[114]
Hayes D, Tan M, Wang M et al.. “A multi-institutional approach for decreasing narcotic prescriptions after laparoscopic appendectomy.” Surgical endoscopy (2022). PMID: 35169880 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Complications and Their Management
[115]
Rottenstreich M, Tankel J, Vilk Ayalon N et al.. “Laparoscopic negative appendectomy during pregnancy is associated with adverse neonatal outcome.” Surgical endoscopy (2021). PMID: 33527207 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Diagnosis and Workup
[116]
Sahm M, Kube R, Schmidt S et al.. “Current analysis of endoloops in appendiceal stump closure.” Surgical endoscopy (2010). PMID: 20552371 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion
[117]
Sadot E, Telem DA, Arora M et al.. “Laparoscopy: a safe approach to appendicitis during pregnancy.” Surgical endoscopy (2009). PMID: 19551438 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion, Diagnosis and Workup
[118]
Bhangu A. “Safety of short, in-hospital delays before surgery for acute appendicitis: multicentre cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis.” Annals of surgery (2014). PMID: 24509193 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[119]
Harnoss JC, Zelienka I, Probst P et al.. “Antibiotics Versus Surgical Therapy for Uncomplicated Appendicitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Controlled Trials (PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016882).” Annals of surgery (2017). PMID: 27759621 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prognosis and Natural History
[120]
Zingone F, Sultan AA, Humes DJ et al.. “Risk of acute appendicitis in and around pregnancy: a population-based cohort study from England.” Annals of surgery (2015). PMID: 24950289 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[121]
Biondi A, Di Stefano C, Ferrara F et al.. “Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a retrospective cohort study assessing outcomes and cost-effectiveness.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2016). PMID: 27582784 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[122]
Tan WJ, Acharyya S, Chew MH et al.. “Randomized control trial comparing an Alvarado Score-based management algorithm and current best practice in the evaluation of suspected appendicitis.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2020). PMID: 32357897 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, History and Evolution of Treatment, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[123]
Zhang G, Wu B. “Meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy in the treatment of acute appendicitis.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2022). PMID: 35619101 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prognosis and Natural History
[124]
Neufeld MY, Bauerle W, Eriksson E et al.. “Where did the patients go? Changes in acute appendicitis presentation and severity of illness during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A retrospective cohort study.” Surgery (2020). PMID: 33288212 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, History and Evolution of Treatment
[125]
Arkadopoulos N, Dellaportas D, Yiallourou A et al.. “Ovarian vein thrombosis mimicking acute abdomen: a case report and literature review.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2011). PMID: 22196690 ↗
L5CASE_REPORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Acute Management and Resuscitation
[126]
Li Z, Chen Y, Zhang X et al.. “Feasibility and effectiveness of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Surgical endoscopy (2025). PMID: 40369281 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prognosis and Natural History, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[127]
Quah GS, Eslick GD, Cox MR. “Laparoscopic appendicectomy is superior to open surgery for complicated appendicitis.” Surgical endoscopy (2019). PMID: 30868324 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[128]
Yeh DD, Eid AI, Young KA et al.. “Multicenter Study of the Treatment of Appendicitis in America: Acute, Perforated, and Gangrenous (MUSTANG), an EAST Multicenter Study.” Annals of surgery (2021). PMID: 31663966 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[129]
Low ZX, Bonney GK, So JBY et al.. “Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in pediatric patients with complicated appendicitis: a meta-analysis.” Surgical endoscopy (2019). PMID: 30805783 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[130]
Meier J, Stevens A, Bhat A et al.. “Outcomes of Nonoperative vs Operative Management of Acute Appendicitis in Older Adults in the US.” JAMA surgery (2023). PMID: 37017955 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[131]
van Rossem CC, Schreinemacher MH, van Geloven AA et al.. “Antibiotic Duration After Laparoscopic Appendectomy for Acute Complicated Appendicitis.” JAMA surgery (2016). PMID: 26580850 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[132]
van Rossem CC, Schreinemacher MH, Treskes K et al.. “Duration of antibiotic treatment after appendicectomy for acute complicated appendicitis.” The British journal of surgery (2014). PMID: 24668341 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[133]
Antonsen J, Jørgensen LN, Jess T et al.. “Appendectomy and Subsequent Type 2 Diabetes - A National Cohort study.” The Journal of surgical research (2026). PMID: 42398258 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[134]
Nakashima M, Takeuchi M, Kawakami K. “Clinical Outcomes of Acute Appendicitis During Pregnancy: Conservative Management and Appendectomy.” World journal of surgery (2021). PMID: 33635341 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Complications and Their Management, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[135]
Tankel J, Keinan A, Blich O et al.. “The Decreasing Incidence of Acute Appendicitis During COVID-19: A Retrospective Multi-centre Study.” World journal of surgery (2020). PMID: 32458019 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[136]
Abbas A, Laverde R, Yap A et al.. “Routine Pediatric Surgical Emergencies: Incidence, Morbidity, and Mortality During the 1st 8000 Days of Life-A Narrative Review.” World journal of surgery (2023). PMID: 37341797 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Complications and Their Management, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[137]
Zouari M, Belhajmansour M, Hbaieb M et al.. “Risk Factors for False-Positive Ultrasound in Pediatric Acute Appendicitis: A Prospective Cohort Study.” Indian journal of pediatrics (2026). PMID: 41801650 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[138]
Renteria O, Shahid Z, Huerta S. “Outcomes of appendectomy in elderly veteran patients.” Surgery (2018). PMID: 29914654 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[139]
Gowda T, Aguirre N, Mohamed M et al.. “Incidence and Predictors of Neoplastic Diagnosis in Patients with a Clinically Abnormal Appendix.” Annals of surgical oncology (2026). PMID: 41721166 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[140]
Ehtesham U, Khan Y, Siddiqui MTUH et al.. “Emergency surgery score as a predictor of postoperative surgical site infection in patients undergoing emergency surgery for gastrointestinal diseases: A prospective cohort study.” Pakistan journal of medical sciences (2026). PMID: 42369939 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[141]
Rudnicki Y, Soback H, Mekiten O et al.. “The impact of COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on the incidence and outcome of complicated appendicitis.” Surgical endoscopy (2021). PMID: 34312724 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup
[142]
Issaiy M, Zarei D, Saghazadeh A. “Artificial Intelligence and Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic and Prognostic Models.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2023). PMID: 38114983 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Prognosis and Natural History
[143]
Andersson RE, Stark J. “Diagnostic value of the appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score. A systematic review and meta-analysis.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2025). PMID: 39923099 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[144]
Di Saverio S, Sibilio A, Giorgini E et al.. “The NOTA Study (Non Operative Treatment for Acute Appendicitis): prospective study on the efficacy and safety of antibiotics (amoxicillin and clavulanic acid) for treating patients with right lower quadrant abdominal pain and long-term follow-up of conservatively treated suspected appendicitis.” Annals of surgery (2014). PMID: 24646528 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Acute Management and Resuscitation, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[145]
Lee WS, Choi ST, Lee JN et al.. “Single-port laparoscopic appendectomy versus conventional laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study.” Annals of surgery (2013). PMID: 23241869 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management
[146]
Frutos MD, Abrisqueta J, Lujan J et al.. “Randomized prospective study to compare laparoscopic appendectomy versus umbilical single-incision appendectomy.” Annals of surgery (2013). PMID: 23386239 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[147]
Podda M, Ceresoli M, De Simone B et al.. “Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Appendicitis: 2025 Edition of the World Society of Emergency Surgery Jerusalem Guidelines.” JAMA surgery (2026). PMID: 41604201 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, History and Evolution of Treatment, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[148]
Yu CW, Juan LI, Wu MH et al.. “Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white blood cell count for suspected acute appendicitis.” The British journal of surgery (2012). PMID: 23203918 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[149]
Salminen P, Sippola S, Haijanen J et al.. “Antibiotics versus placebo in adults with CT-confirmed uncomplicated acute appendicitis (APPAC III): randomized double-blind superiority trial.” The British journal of surgery (2022). PMID: 35576384 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History
[150]
Selänne L, Hurme S, Sippola S et al.. “Prognostic factors associated with primary non-responsiveness to antibiotics and appendicitis recurrence for CT-diagnosed uncomplicated acute appendicitis: secondary analysis of two randomized clinical trials.” The British journal of surgery (2025). PMID: 40741675 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[151]
Lastunen KS, Leppäniemi AK, Mentula PJ. “DIAgnostic iMaging or Observation in early equivocal appeNDicitis (DIAMOND): open-label, randomized clinical trial.” The British journal of surgery (2022). PMID: 35482016 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, History and Evolution of Treatment
[152]
Haijanen J, Sippola S, Tammilehto V et al.. “Diagnostic accuracy using low-dose versus standard radiation dose CT in suspected acute appendicitis: prospective cohort study.” The British journal of surgery (2021). PMID: 34761262 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[153]
Kularatna M, Lauti M, Haran C et al.. “Clinical Prediction Rules for Appendicitis in Adults: Which Is Best?” World journal of surgery (2017). PMID: 28258458 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[154]
Giljaca V, Nadarevic T, Poropat G et al.. “Diagnostic Accuracy of Abdominal Ultrasound for Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” World journal of surgery (2017). PMID: 27864617 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup
[155]
Zouari M, Belhajmansour M, Hbaieb M et al.. “Clinical and Inflammatory Predictors of False-Negative Ultrasound in Children With Suspected Appendicitis: A Prospective Cohort Study.” World journal of surgery (2026). PMID: 41731339 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[156]
Lloyd AJ, Boland MR, Cleere E et al.. “Assessing Clinical Acumen in Predicting Acute Appendicitis in Emergency Surgery: A Prospective Study.” World journal of surgery (2022). PMID: 36564560 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[157]
Bhaskar J, McLean RC, Bhaskar K et al.. “Temporal Trends in the Investigation, Management and Outcomes of Acute Appendicitis over 15 Years in the North of England: A Retrospective Cohort Study.” World journal of surgery (2022). PMID: 35585254 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[158]
Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY et al.. “Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis.” The New England journal of medicine (2012). PMID: 22533576 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, History and Evolution of Treatment
[159]
Gorter RR, Eker HH, Gorter-Stam MA et al.. “Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015.” Surgical endoscopy (2016). PMID: 27660247 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, History and Evolution of Treatment
[160]
Vons C, Barry C, Maitre S et al.. “Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid versus appendicectomy for treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.” Lancet (London, England) (2011). PMID: 21550483 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[161]
Pata F, Nardo B, Ielpo B et al.. “Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy versus appendectomy or antibiotics in the modern approach to uncomplicated acute appendicitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Surgery (2023). PMID: 37806859 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[162]
Lietzén E, Mällinen J, Grönroos JM et al.. “Is preoperative distinction between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis feasible without imaging?” Surgery (2016). PMID: 27267549 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, History and Evolution of Treatment
[163]
Raimbert P, Voron T, Laroche S et al.. “Ambulatory appendectomy for acute appendicitis: Can we treat all the patients? A prospective study of 451 consecutive ambulatory appendectomies out of nearly 2,000 procedures.” Surgery (2023). PMID: 36775758 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[164]
Antoniou SA, Mavridis D, Kontouli KM et al.. “EAES rapid guideline: appendicitis in the elderly.” Surgical endoscopy (2021). PMID: 33999255 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, History and Evolution of Treatment, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[165]
Acharya A, Markar SR, Ni M et al.. “Biomarkers of acute appendicitis: systematic review and cost-benefit trade-off analysis.” Surgical endoscopy (2016). PMID: 27495334 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice
[166]
Kang J, Zhang W, Zeng L et al.. “The modified endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy versus antibiotic therapy alone for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children.” Surgical endoscopy (2020). PMID: 33146811 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Acute Management and Resuscitation, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[167]
Liu BR, Ma X, Feng J et al.. “Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) : a multicenter retrospective study in China.” Surgical endoscopy (2014). PMID: 25106722 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Prognosis and Natural History, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[168]
Shah SR, Sinclair KA, Theut SB et al.. “Computed Tomography Utilization for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis in Children Decreases With a Diagnostic Algorithm.” Annals of surgery (2016). PMID: 27433918 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup
[169]
Di Saverio S, Podda M, De Simone B et al.. “Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2020). PMID: 32295644 ↗
L1REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[170]
Abu-Zidan FM, Cevik AA. “Diagnostic point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) for gastrointestinal pathology: state of the art from basics to advanced.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2018). PMID: 30356808 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[171]
Wei B, Qi CL, Chen TF et al.. “Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a metaanalysis.” Surgical endoscopy (2010). PMID: 20848140 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[172]
Tan L, Bo C. “The value of interleukin-6 in predicting acute appendicitis in children and distinguishing complicated appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Frontiers in immunology (2026). PMID: 42079617 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[173]
Sherratt FC, Allin BSR, Kirkham JJ et al.. “Core outcome set for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in children and young people.” The British journal of surgery (2020). PMID: 32181505 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[174]
Zouari M, Belhajmansour M, Hbaieb M et al.. “Diagnostic Decision-Making in Intermediate-Risk Pediatric Appendicitis: A Prospective Cohort Study.” World journal of surgery (2026). PMID: 41888057 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[175]
Pitesa R, Hill AG, MacCormick AD. “Modified APPEND Score for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis in a New Zealand Pasifika Population.” World journal of surgery (2025). PMID: 39969408 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup
[176]
Pata F, Di Martino M, Podda M et al.. “Evolving Trends in the Management of Acute Appendicitis During COVID-19 Waves: The ACIE Appy II Study.” World journal of surgery (2022). PMID: 35810215 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[177]
Dogan S. “Effectiveness of protocol-based medical treatment in selected uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a retrospective cohort study.” BMC surgery (2026). PMID: 42087188 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[178]
Qiu S, Zhou J, Liu G et al.. “Research on the construction of an artificial intelligence model for the early diagnosis of pediatric acute appendicitis: a single-center retrospective study based on complete blood count.” BMC pediatrics (2026). PMID: 42035021 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[179]
Martzivanou EC, Atmatzidis S, Voloudakis N et al.. “Idiopathic Encapsulating Peritoneal Sclerosis Mimicking Acute Appendicitis: A Case Report and Systematic Literature Review.” The American journal of case reports (2026). PMID: 41894320 ↗
L4SR_OBSCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup
[180]
Ghareeb WM, Draz E, Chen X et al.. “Multicenter validation of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based platform for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.” Surgery (2024). PMID: 38910047 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[181]
van Amstel P, M L The SM, Bakx R et al.. “Predictive scoring systems to differentiate between simple and complex appendicitis in children (PRE-APP study).” Surgery (2022). PMID: 35067338 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, History and Evolution of Treatment, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[182]
Sticca G, Abou-Khalil M, Soucisse M et al.. “The Impact of Preoperative Colonoscopy for Appendiceal Mucinous Neoplasms.” Annals of surgical oncology (2025). PMID: 41037221 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[183]
Le KL, Le NK, Pham TN et al.. “Clinical, laboratory, and computed tomography predictors of complicated acute appendicitis in adults selected for surgery: An internally validated cohort study.” Medicine (2026). PMID: 42332505 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup
[184]
Guo X, Yang H, Li J et al.. “Application value of high-frequency ultrasonography in endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy for pediatric acute appendicitis.” Surgical endoscopy (2023). PMID: 36690894 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Diagnosis and Workup, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[185]
Vidal O, Valentini M, Ginestà C et al.. “Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery appendectomy.” Surgical endoscopy (2009). PMID: 19690912 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management
[186]
Sippola S, Virtanen J, Tammilehto V et al.. “The Accuracy of Low-dose Computed Tomography Protocol in Patients With Suspected Acute Appendicitis: The OPTICAP Study.” Annals of surgery (2020). PMID: 30048324 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup
[187]
Fisher JC, Tomita SS, Ginsburg HB et al.. “Increase in Pediatric Perforated Appendicitis in the New York City Metropolitan Region at the Epicenter of the COVID-19 Outbreak.” Annals of surgery (2021). PMID: 32976285 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup
[188]
Lin HA, Tsai HW, Chao CC et al.. “Periappendiceal fat-stranding models for discriminating between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a diagnostic and validation study.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2021). PMID: 34645500 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[189]
Sartelli M, Baiocchi GL, Di Saverio S et al.. “Prospective Observational Study on acute Appendicitis Worldwide (POSAW).” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2018). PMID: 29686725 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[190]
Zakaria O, Sultan TA, Khalil TH et al.. “Role of clinical judgment and tissue harmonic imaging ultrasonography in diagnosis of paediatric acute appendicitis.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2011). PMID: 22087573 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[191]
Podda M, Pata F, Pellino G et al.. “Acute appendicitis during the COVID-19 lockdown: never waste a crisis!” The British journal of surgery (2021). PMID: 33640949 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup, Acute Management and Resuscitation
[192]
Tiboni S, Bhangu A, Hall NJ. “Outcome of appendicectomy in children performed in paediatric surgery units compared with general surgery units.” The British journal of surgery (2014). PMID: 24700440 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[193]
Leeuwenburgh MM, Wiezer MJ, Wiarda BM et al.. “Accuracy of MRI compared with ultrasound imaging and selective use of CT to discriminate simple from perforated appendicitis.” The British journal of surgery (2013). PMID: 24272981 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup
[194]
Skjold-Ødegaard B, Lindeman RJ, Søreide K et al.. “Approaches to Education and Training on How to Diagnose and Treat Acute Appendicitis in Norway: A Mixed-Method Study.” World journal of surgery (2026). PMID: 41862414 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[195]
Allaway MGR, Eslick GD, Cox MR. “The Unacceptable Morbidity of Negative Laparoscopic Appendicectomy.” World journal of surgery (2019). PMID: 30209573 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup, Complications and Their Management
[196]
Andersson M, Rubér M, Ekerfelt C et al.. “Can new inflammatory markers improve the diagnosis of acute appendicitis?” World journal of surgery (2014). PMID: 25099684 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup
[197]
Anderson KT, Putnam LR, Caldwell KM et al.. “Imaging gently? Higher rates of computed tomography imaging for pediatric appendicitis in non-children's hospitals.” Surgery (2016). PMID: 27919452 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup
[198]
Hsieh CH, Lu RH, Lee NH et al.. “Novel solutions for an old disease: diagnosis of acute appendicitis with random forest, support vector machines, and artificial neural networks.” Surgery (2010). PMID: 20466403 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup, Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[199]
Paranjape C, Dalia S, Pan J et al.. “Appendicitis in the elderly: a change in the laparoscopic era.” Surgical endoscopy (2007). PMID: 17285390 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup, Complications and Their Management
[200]
Tankel J, Yellinek S, Shechter Y et al.. “Delaying laparoscopic surgery in pregnant patients with an equivocal acute appendicitis: a step-wise approach does not affect maternal or fetal safety.” Surgical endoscopy (2018). PMID: 30515611 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup
[201]
Boonstra PA, van Veen RN, Stockmann HB. “Less negative appendectomies due to imaging in patients with suspected appendicitis.” Surgical endoscopy (2014). PMID: 25475515 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Diagnosis and Workup
[202]
Ismayilzada K. “Artificial intelligence for acute appendicitis diagnosis: A systematic review of current evidence, challenges, and future directions.” Medicine (2026). PMID: 41861187 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Diagnosis and Workup
[203]
Arslan S, Sert A, Özçelik M et al.. “Disseminated Tuberculosis and Early-Onset SLE in a Child with a Novel STAT1 Gain-of-Function Mutation: a Case Report.” Journal of clinical immunology (2026). PMID: 42319627 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Diagnosis and Workup
[204]
Qarnayn AMA, Aljadaan SA, Alaqeel SM et al.. “Evaluating the Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrasound and Clinical Predictors in Pediatric Acute Tip Appendicitis: A retrospective study from a tertiary center in Saudi Arabia.” Saudi medical journal (2026). PMID: 42238286 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Diagnosis and Workup
[205]
Andersson M, Andersson RE. “The appendicitis inflammatory response score: a tool for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis that outperforms the Alvarado score.” World journal of surgery (2008). PMID: 18553045 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, History and Evolution of Treatment
[206]
Prabhudesai SG, Gould S, Rekhraj S et al.. “Artificial neural networks: useful aid in diagnosing acute appendicitis.” World journal of surgery (2008). PMID: 18043966 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[207]
Wu HP, Yang WC, Wu KH et al.. “Diagnosing appendicitis at different time points in children with right lower quadrant pain: comparison between Pediatric Appendicitis Score and the Alvarado score.” World journal of surgery (2012). PMID: 22009520 ↗
L2TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[208]
Mán E, Simonka Z, Varga A et al.. “Impact of the Alvarado score on the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: comparing clinical judgment, Alvarado score, and a new modified score in suspected appendicitis: a prospective, randomized clinical trial.” Surgical endoscopy (2014). PMID: 24705731 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, History and Evolution of Treatment
[209]
Kelly KN, Fleming FJ, Aquina CT et al.. “Disease severity, not operative approach, drives organ space infection after pediatric appendectomy.” Annals of surgery (2014). PMID: 25115422 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[210]
Alvarado A. “How to improve the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis in resource limited settings.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2016). PMID: 27118990 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[211]
Di Saverio S, Birindelli A, Kelly MD et al.. “WSES Jerusalem guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2016). PMID: 27437029 ↗
L1REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[212]
Schildberg C, Weber U, König V et al.. “Laparoscopic appendectomy as the gold standard: What role remains for open surgery, conversion, and disease severity? : An analysis of 32,000 cases with appendicitis in Germany.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2025). PMID: 40533760 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[213]
Mantoglu B, Gonullu E, Akdeniz Y et al.. “Which appendicitis scoring system is most suitable for pregnant patients? A comparison of nine different systems.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2020). PMID: 32423408 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[214]
Li K, Xiang J, Li Y et al.. “Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Differentiating Appendicitis Severity: A Meta-analysis.” The Journal of surgical research (2025). PMID: 41406544 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[215]
Zhang J, Yuan H, Fan J et al.. “Risk factors for appendicitis recurrence after ERAT in patients with acute appendicitis: a multicenter cohort study with long-term follow-up.” Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology (2026). PMID: 41531805 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[216]
Habeeb TAAM, Hussain A, Bueno-Lledó J et al.. “COVID-19-specific risk factor for early post-appendectomy complications (EPAC) in older patients: a retrospective study.” Techniques in coloproctology (2025). PMID: 41191115 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Complications and Their Management
[217]
Sula S, Kujala M, Tammilehto V et al.. “Prognostic CT-imaging findings for complicated acute appendicitis: A prospective cohort study.” Scandinavian journal of surgery : SJS : official organ for the Finnish Surgical Society and the Scandinavian Surgical Society (2025). PMID: 41133711 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[218]
Feier CVI, Motoc A, Muntean C et al.. “Systemic inflammatory indices and age-dependent severity in acute appendicitis: a retrospective cohort study.” Frontiers in immunology (2025). PMID: 40735314 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[219]
le Roux H, Lindestam U, Lönnqvist PA et al.. “Low Plasma Sodium Concentration as a Predictor of Perforated Acute Appendicitis in Children: A Retrospective Study in a Low-Middle Income Country Setting.” Journal of pediatric surgery (2025). PMID: 40499716 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[220]
Gomes CA, Abu-Zidan FM, Sartelli M et al.. “Management of Appendicitis Globally Based on Income of Countries (MAGIC) Study.” World journal of surgery (2018). PMID: 30006833 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[221]
de Castro SM, Ünlü C, Steller EP et al.. “Evaluation of the appendicitis inflammatory response score for patients with acute appendicitis.” World journal of surgery (2012). PMID: 22447205 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[222]
Bekhor EY, Esepkina O, Livne T et al.. “A Comparative Analysis of Scoring Systems and MRI for Diagnosing Acute Appendicitis in Pregnant Patients.” World journal of surgery (2025). PMID: 40077861 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[223]
Coccolini F, Martinez-Perez A, Licitra G et al.. “Diagnostic pathways in acute appendicitis: Clinical score plus ultrasound outperform CT scan or upfront surgery, especially in doubtful cases.” World journal of surgery (2024). PMID: 38549035 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[224]
Kollár D, McCartan DP, Bourke M et al.. “Predicting acute appendicitis? A comparison of the Alvarado score, the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score and clinical assessment.” World journal of surgery (2015). PMID: 25245432 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[225]
Hall JD, Nel D, Stark AH et al.. “Medical Versus Surgical Management of Acute Appendicitis in a Regional Hospital in South Africa: A Six-Year Review.” World journal of surgery (2026). PMID: 42153580 ↗
L2REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[226]
Xiao J, He S, Zhang Z et al.. “A novel CT-based scoring system for appendicoliths and its prognostic value in acute appendicitis: a retrospective cohort study.” Emergency radiology (2026). PMID: 42156668 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[227]
Shemes A, Elgharib AA, Elghrieb A et al.. “Evaluation of the predictive value of scoring systems in diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a comparative prospective study.” Langenbeck's archives of surgery (2026). PMID: 41706199 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[228]
Son T, Brenu E, Tsakanov S et al.. “Impact of CT-Detected Appendiceal Fecoliths on Clinical and Histopathological Outcomes in Acute Appendicitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.” ANZ journal of surgery (2025). PMID: 41127999 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification
[229]
Daniel F, Baydoun M, Chaitou AR et al.. “MELD score is predictive of postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients with acute appendicitis undergoing appendectomy: ACS-NSQIP data analysis.” Surgical endoscopy (2025). PMID: 41171421 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification, Acute Management and Resuscitation
[230]
Brucchi F, Filisetti C, Luconi E et al.. “Non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis in children, why not? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2025). PMID: 40133910 ↗
L1SR_MA_RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[231]
Brucchi F, Bracchetti G, Fugazzola P et al.. “A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis comparing nonoperative versus operative management for uncomplicated appendicitis: a focus on randomized controlled trials.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2024). PMID: 38218862 ↗
L1SR_MA_RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Prognosis and Natural History
[232]
Durán Muñoz-Cruzado V, Navarro Morales L, Pareja Ciuró F et al.. “Safety, Efficacy, and Cost-effectiveness of Outpatient Surgery for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: The PENDI-CSI Randomized Clinical Trial.” Annals of surgery (2023). PMID: 37641981 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[233]
Patkova B, Svenningsson A, Almström M et al.. “Nonoperative Treatment Versus Appendectomy for Acute Nonperforated Appendicitis in Children: Five-year Follow Up of a Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.” Annals of surgery (2020). PMID: 31800496 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[234]
Podda M, Gerardi C, Cillara N et al.. “Antibiotic Treatment and Appendectomy for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis in Adults and Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” Annals of surgery (2019). PMID: 30720508 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Special Populations & Pregnancy, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[235]
Jalava K, Sallinen V, Lampela H et al.. “Role of Preoperative Antibiotic Treatment While Awaiting Appendectomy: The PERFECT-Antibiotics Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA surgery (2025). PMID: 40366704 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment
[236]
Selänne L, Haijanen J, Sippola S et al.. “Three-Year Outcomes of Oral Antibiotics vs Intravenous and Oral Antibiotics for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Secondary Analysis of the APPAC II Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA surgery (2024). PMID: 38630471 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[237]
Sippola S, Haijanen J, Viinikainen L et al.. “Quality of Life and Patient Satisfaction at 7-Year Follow-up of Antibiotic Therapy vs Appendectomy for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA surgery (2020). PMID: 32074268 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, History and Evolution of Treatment
[238]
Haijanen J, Sippola S, Löyttyniemi E et al.. “Factors Associated With Primary Nonresponsiveness to Antibiotics in Adults With Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA surgery (2021). PMID: 34613361 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History
[239]
Sippola S, Grönroos J, Tuominen R et al.. “Economic evaluation of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis from the APPAC randomized clinical trial.” The British journal of surgery (2017). PMID: 28677879 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History
[240]
Rollins KE, Varadhan KK, Neal KR et al.. “Antibiotics Versus Appendicectomy for the Treatment of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.” World journal of surgery (2016). PMID: 27199000 ↗
L1SR_MA_RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice
[241]
Styrud J, Eriksson S, Nilsson I et al.. “Appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment in acute appendicitis. a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial.” World journal of surgery (2006). PMID: 16736333 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[242]
Javanmard-Emamghissi H, Hollyman M, Boyd-Carson H et al.. “Antibiotics as first-line alternative to appendicectomy in adult appendicitis: 90-day follow-up from a prospective, multicentre cohort study.” The British journal of surgery (2021). PMID: 34476484 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Complications and Their Management
[243]
Emile SH, Sakr A, Shalaby M et al.. “Efficacy and Safety of Non-Operative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis Compared to Appendectomy: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.” World journal of surgery (2022). PMID: 35024922 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[244]
Iresjö BM, Blomström S, Engström C et al.. “Acute appendicitis: A block-randomized study on active observation with or without antibiotic treatment.” Surgery (2024). PMID: 38218686 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History
[245]
Sallinen V, Akl EA, You JJ et al.. “Meta-analysis of antibiotics versus appendicectomy for non-perforated acute appendicitis.” The British journal of surgery (2016). PMID: 26990957 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prognosis and Natural History
[246]
Zerem E, Salkic N, Imamovic G et al.. “Comparison of therapeutic effectiveness of percutaneous drainage with antibiotics versus antibiotics alone in the treatment of periappendiceal abscess: is appendectomy always necessary after perforation of appendix?” Surgical endoscopy (2006). PMID: 17103286 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[247]
Varadhan KK, Humes DJ, Neal KR et al.. “Antibiotic therapy versus appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a meta-analysis.” World journal of surgery (2010). PMID: 20041249 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Prognosis and Natural History
[248]
Gorter RR, van der Lee JH, Cense HA et al.. “Initial antibiotic treatment for acute simple appendicitis in children is safe: Short-term results from a multicenter, prospective cohort study.” Surgery (2015). PMID: 25791031 ↗
L2TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation
[249]
Chichom-Mefire A, Fon TA, Ngowe-Ngowe M. “Which cause of diffuse peritonitis is the deadliest in the tropics? A retrospective analysis of 305 cases from the South-West Region of Cameroon.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2016). PMID: 27069503 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Complications and Their Management
[250]
Grosso PH, Grosso JV, Dias Filho FA. “Methodological limitations of NOM in the WSES acute appendicitis guidelines.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2026). PMID: 42169135 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[251]
Jumaah MD, Shuhata MH, Al-Hamndawee DM et al.. “Role of intraoperative antibiotics wound irrigation in reducing surgical site infection following open appendectomy: a randomized controlled trial.” BMC surgery (2025). PMID: 40797247 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation
[252]
Shinwari H, Ewalds-Kvist BM, El Boghdady M. “Postoperative antibiotic strategies in acute complicated appendicitis: a systematic review.” Updates in surgery (2025). PMID: 40711727 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation
[253]
Akbarpoor F, Blanco K, Masiero BB et al.. “Conservative Management of Pediatric Patients With Appendicolith Appendicitis Versus Non-appendicolith Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” Journal of pediatric surgery (2025). PMID: 39862589 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation
[254]
Hanson AL, Crosby RD, Basson MD. “Patient Preferences for Surgery or Antibiotics for the Treatment of Acute Appendicitis.” JAMA surgery (2018). PMID: 29322168 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[255]
Serrano E, Voldal EC, Machado-Aranda D et al.. “Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA surgery (2023). PMID: 37379001 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice
[256]
Siam B, Al-Kurd A, Simanovsky N et al.. “Comparison of Appendectomy Outcomes Between Senior General Surgeons and General Surgery Residents.” JAMA surgery (2017). PMID: 28423177 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[257]
Ielpo B, Podda M, Pellino G et al.. “Global attitudes in the management of acute appendicitis during COVID-19 pandemic: ACIE Appy Study.” The British journal of surgery (2020). PMID: 34157090 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[258]
Salman MA, Elewa A, Tourky M et al.. “Antibiotics Versus Surgery for Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis in Adults: A Meta-analysis of Long-term Outcomes and Risk Factors for Failure.” Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques (2026). PMID: 41399029 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Prognosis and Natural History, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[259]
Armstrong J, Sriranjan J, Briatico D et al.. “Piperacillin/tazobactam versus ceftriaxone/metronidazole for children with perforated appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Pediatric surgery international (2025). PMID: 41186640 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation
[260]
Ceresoli M, Fumagalli C, Fugazzola P et al.. “Outpatient Non-operative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Non-inferiority Study.” World journal of surgery (2023). PMID: 37210423 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation
[261]
Lundholm K, Hansson-Assarsson J, Engström C et al.. “Long-Term Results Following Antibiotic Treatment of Acute Appendicitis in Adults.” World journal of surgery (2017). PMID: 28341916 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[262]
Javanmard-Emamghissi H, Doleman B, Lund JN et al.. “Predictors of appendicectomy one year after antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis: Insights from a prospective, multicentre, observational study.” World journal of surgery (2024). PMID: 39327237 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[263]
Bhatti UF, Barmparas G, Margulies DR et al.. “Drawing blood in vain? Reassessing routine preoperative blood cultures for acute appendicitis.” Surgery (2026). PMID: 42150367 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation
[264]
Tumati A, Yang J, Zhang X et al.. “Pregnant patients requiring appendectomy: comparison between open and laparoscopic approaches in NY State.” Surgical endoscopy (2020). PMID: 32926252 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation
[265]
Lee SY, Lee HM, Hsieh CS et al.. “Transumbilical laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a reliable one-port procedure.” Surgical endoscopy (2010). PMID: 20848141 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Acute Management and Resuscitation
[266]
Elvira López J, Sales Mallafré R, Padilla Zegarra E et al.. “Outpatient management of acute uncomplicated appendicitis after laparoscopic appendectomy: a randomized controlled trial.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2022). PMID: 36419071 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, History and Evolution of Treatment
[267]
Burini G, Cianci MC, Coccetta M et al.. “Aspiration versus peritoneal lavage in appendicitis: a meta-analysis.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2021). PMID: 34488825 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management
[268]
Li S, Geng T, Li Z. “Clinical efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis treatment for acute appendicitis in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2025). PMID: 41194121 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[269]
Poon SHT, Lee JWY, Ng KM et al.. “The current management of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: should there be a change in paradigm? A systematic review of the literatures and analysis of treatment performance.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2017). PMID: 29075315 ↗
L5SR_OBSCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prognosis and Natural History, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[270]
Jalava K, Sallinen V, Lampela H et al.. “Role of preoperative in-hospital delay on appendiceal perforation while awaiting appendicectomy (PERFECT): a Nordic, pragmatic, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.” Lancet (London, England) (2023). PMID: 37717589 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment
[271]
Mohr J, Probst P, Kalkum E et al.. “Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Intraumbilical Versus Periumbilical Incision in Laparoscopic Appendectomy.” World journal of surgery (2025). PMID: 40653680 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[272]
Xu AM, Huang L, Li TJ. “Single-incision versus three-port laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.” Surgical endoscopy (2014). PMID: 25106718 ↗
L1SR_MA_RCTCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prognosis and Natural History
[273]
Stetson A, Orlas C, Li R et al.. “Surgery or no surgery for pediatric uncomplicated appendicitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis to inform management.” Surgery (2025). PMID: 41092862 ↗
L4SR_OBSCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[274]
Antoniou SA, Mavridis D, Hajibandeh S et al.. “Optimal stump management in laparoscopic appendectomy: A network meta-analysis by the Minimally Invasive Surgery Synthesis of Interventions and Outcomes Network.” Surgery (2017). PMID: 28864100 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[275]
Zangbar B, Rhee P, Pandit V et al.. “Seasonal Variation in Emergency General Surgery.” Annals of surgery (2016). PMID: 25876008 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice
[276]
Lefrancois M, Lefevre JH, Chafai N et al.. “Management of Acute Appendicitis in Ambulatory Surgery: Is It Possible? How to Select Patients?” Annals of surgery (2015). PMID: 24950287 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice
[277]
Sermonesi G, Tian BWCA, Vallicelli C et al.. “Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2023). PMID: 38066631 ↗
L1OTHERCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[278]
Topuz S, İşler A, Cengiz E et al.. “Single-instrument intracorporeal ligation versus polymer clip closure of the appendiceal stump in laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized study.” BMC surgery (2026). PMID: 41731489 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, History and Evolution of Treatment
[279]
Kaehler G, Schoenberg MB, Kienle P et al.. “Transgastric appendicectomy.” The British journal of surgery (2013). PMID: 23575528 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[280]
Akkoyun I, Unuvar BS, Sezer HK et al.. “Effectiveness of Kinesio Taping after Open Appendectomy in Children.” Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons--Pakistan : JCPSP (2026). PMID: 41792069 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History
[281]
Farhad I, Khan MA, Kler A et al.. “The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservatively Managed Acute Appendicitis Versus Appendicectomy: A Systematic Review.” Surgical laparoscopy, endoscopy & percutaneous techniques (2026). PMID: 41880556 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice
[282]
Herrod PJJ, Kwok AT, Lobo DN. “Three Centuries of Appendicectomy.” World journal of surgery (2022). PMID: 36581691 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History
[283]
Habiro Alves L, Machado GF, Martin GCC et al.. “Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for acute appendicitis in pregnant women: an updated diagnostic systematic review and meta-analysis.” Abdominal radiology (New York) (2026). PMID: 41801387 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice
[284]
Roberts KE, Silasi DA, Bell RL et al.. “Pure transvaginal laparoscopic appendectomy.” Surgical endoscopy (2012). PMID: 22648096 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[285]
Fazzalari A, Pozzi N, Alfego D et al.. “Treatment of appendicitis: Do Medicaid and non-Medicaid-enrolled patients receive the same care?” Surgery (2019). PMID: 31405578 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice
[286]
Berto LG, da Silva CL, Durante MV et al.. “Transumbilical single-port appendectomy in children: a retrospective study.” Pediatric surgery international (2026). PMID: 42118316 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice, Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[287]
Roberts KE, Solomon D, Mirensky T et al.. “Pure transvaginal appendectomy versus traditional laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a prospective cohort study.” Annals of surgery (2012). PMID: 22167005 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[288]
Brombacher M, Moolla H, Nair V et al.. “The use of C-reactive protein to predict uncomplicated appendicitis and increase uptake of laparoscopy in low resource hospitals-A retrospective cohort study.” World journal of surgery (2024). PMID: 38730515 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[289]
Wan S, Lin W, Zhang X et al.. “Trimester-Specific Safety of Laparoscopic versus Open Abdominal Surgery During Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.” The British journal of surgery (2026). PMID: 42370842 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[290]
Kang BM, Choi SI, Kim BS et al.. “Single-port laparoscopic surgery in uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a randomized controlled trial.” Surgical endoscopy (2018). PMID: 29340826 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, History and Evolution of Treatment
[291]
Hamill JK, Rahiri JL, Gunaratna G et al.. “Interventions to optimize recovery after laparoscopic appendectomy: a scoping review.” Surgical endoscopy (2016). PMID: 27752812 ↗
L5SR_OBSCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[292]
Schoenberg MB, Magdeburg R, Kienle P et al.. “Hybrid transgastric appendectomy is feasible but does not offer advantages compared with laparoscopic appendectomy: Results from the transgastric appendectomy study.” Surgery (2017). PMID: 28442133 ↗
L2TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Prognosis and Natural History
[293]
Ditillo MF, Dziura JD, Rabinovici R. “Is it safe to delay appendectomy in adults with acute appendicitis?” Annals of surgery (2006). PMID: 17060754 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[294]
Warren O, Kinross J, Paraskeva P et al.. “Emergency laparoscopy--current best practice.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2006). PMID: 16945124 ↗
L5OTHERCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[295]
Beldi G, Vorburger SA, Bruegger LE et al.. “Analysis of stapling versus endoloops in appendiceal stump closure.” The British journal of surgery (2006). PMID: 16862615 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[296]
Sadr Azodi O, Lindström D, Adami J et al.. “Impact of body mass index and tobacco smoking on outcome after open appendicectomy.” The British journal of surgery (2008). PMID: 18418861 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[297]
Hu J, Zhang T, Chen C et al.. “Outcomes following out-of-hours acute appendectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Langenbeck's archives of surgery (2026). PMID: 41639283 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[298]
Lim EQ, Lim AJK, Lakha A et al.. “Single-port vs multi-port laparoscopic appendectomy in acute appendicitis: a systematic review.” Langenbeck's archives of surgery (2025). PMID: 41413347 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[299]
Vuagniaux A, Gié O, Butti F et al.. “Preoperative Clinical Factors Associated with Short-Stay Laparoscopic Appendectomy.” World journal of surgery (2019). PMID: 31407096 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[300]
Sweeney KJ, Dillon M, Johnston SM et al.. “Training in laparoscopic appendectomy.” World journal of surgery (2006). PMID: 16479344 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[301]
Naidoo M, Thirayan V, Kong V et al.. “Trends in Adoption of Laparoscopic Appendicectomy in a Developing Country: Closing the Gap.” World journal of surgery (2022). PMID: 35142874 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[302]
He YF, Yang Y, Qi SQ et al.. “Modified single-site two-port laparoscopic appendectomy with single-instrument knotting and absorbable clips in children: a retrospective study.” Frontiers in pediatrics (2026). PMID: 42220985 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[303]
Ingraham AM, Cohen ME, Bilimoria KY et al.. “Comparison of outcomes after laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for acute appendicitis at 222 ACS NSQIP hospitals.” Surgery (2010). PMID: 20797745 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization, Complications and Their Management
[304]
Wagner PL, Eachempati SR, Soe K et al.. “Defining the current negative appendectomy rate: for whom is preoperative computed tomography making an impact?” Surgery (2008). PMID: 18656636 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[305]
Kang BM, Hwang JW, Ryu BY. “Single-port laparoscopic surgery in acute appendicitis: retrospective comparative analysis for 618 patients.” Surgical endoscopy (2016). PMID: 26983434 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[306]
Marahanumaiah S, Rajkumar B, Mallesh M et al.. “Validation of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) Score in Diagnosing and Classifying Acute Appendicitis: A Prospective Study at a Tertiary Hospital in Bengaluru, India.” Cureus (2026). PMID: 42359201 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[307]
Mărgăritescu ND, Mogoantă SS, Țenea Cojan TS et al.. “Impact of Disease Severity and Age on Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendectomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.” Life (Basel, Switzerland) (2026). PMID: 42195262 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[308]
Calderón-Alvarado AB, Ambriz-González G, Fuentes-Orozco C et al.. “Modified enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for pediatric complicated appendicitis in a Mexican tertiary hospital: a randomized clinical trial.” Pediatric surgery international (2026). PMID: 41984227 ↗
L1OTHERCited in: Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization
[309]
Kouhia ST, Heiskanen JT, Huttunen R et al.. “Long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic appendicectomy.” The British journal of surgery (2010). PMID: 20632312 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Complications and Their Management
[310]
Shin CS, Roh YN, Kim JI. “Delayed appendectomy versus early appendectomy in the treatment of acute appendicitis: a retrospective study.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2014). PMID: 24444141 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Complications and Their Management
[311]
Wei HB, Huang JL, Zheng ZH et al.. “Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: a prospective randomized comparison.” Surgical endoscopy (2009). PMID: 19517167 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[312]
Xiao Y, Shi G, Zhang J et al.. “Surgical site infection after laparoscopic and open appendectomy: a multicenter large consecutive cohort study.” Surgical endoscopy (2014). PMID: 25303904 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Complications and Their Management
[313]
Rosen JE, Agrawal N, Flum DR et al.. “Verbal Descriptions of the Probability of Treatment Complications Lead to High Variability in Risk Perceptions: A Survey Study.” Annals of surgery (2021). PMID: 35129504 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Complications and Their Management
[314]
Omari AH, Khammash MR, Qasaimeh GR et al.. “Acute appendicitis in the elderly: risk factors for perforation.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2014). PMID: 24428909 ↗
L3OTHERCited in: Complications and Their Management
[315]
Dikicier E, Altintoprak F, Ozdemir K et al.. “Stump appendicitis: a retrospective review of 3130 consecutive appendectomy cases.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2018). PMID: 29849750 ↗
L4REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Complications and Their Management, History and Evolution of Treatment
[316]
Cairo SB, Raval MV, Browne M et al.. “Association of Same-Day Discharge With Hospital Readmission After Appendectomy in Pediatric Patients.” JAMA surgery (2017). PMID: 28678998 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[317]
Bedada AG, Hsiao M, Azzie G. “HIV Infection: Its Impact on Patients with Appendicitis in Botswana.” World journal of surgery (2019). PMID: 31187245 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Complications and Their Management
[318]
Hsiao YW, Hsiao CY, Huang J et al.. “Surgical Outcomes and Quality of Care Among Adult Appendicitis Patients: A Comparative Study of Tertiary Care Hospitals and Regional Hospitals.” World journal of surgery (2023). PMID: 37851067 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Complications and Their Management
[319]
Mönttinen T, Kalliomäki ML, Laukkarinen J et al.. “Rapid recovery vs standard care in laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective study on patient-reported outcomes.” BMC surgery (2026). PMID: 42321685 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Complications and Their Management
[320]
Li J, Lu J. “Obesity and perioperative outcomes in pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy: a retrospective, propensity score-matched cohort study.” Translational pediatrics (2026). PMID: 41982963 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Complications and Their Management
[321]
Lunardi N, Meier J, Pham TH et al.. “Is nonoperative management of appendicitis safe and effective in multi-morbid patients?” Surgery (2023). PMID: 38040596 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[322]
Fan SM, Grigorian A, Smith BR et al.. “Geriatric patients undergoing appendectomy have increased risk of intraoperative perforation and/or abscess.” Surgery (2020). PMID: 32461001 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Complications and Their Management, Prognosis and Natural History
[323]
Kim HJ, Lee JI, Lee YS et al.. “Single-port transumbilical laparoscopic appendectomy: 43 consecutive cases.” Surgical endoscopy (2010). PMID: 20396909 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: Complications and Their Management
[324]
Martin LC, Puente I, Sosa JL et al.. “Open versus laparoscopic appendectomy. A prospective randomized comparison.” Annals of surgery (1995). PMID: 7677456 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[325]
Frazee RC, Roberts JW, Symmonds RE et al.. “A prospective randomized trial comparing open versus laparoscopic appendectomy.” Annals of surgery (1994). PMID: 8203983 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[326]
Lee KY, Lee J, Park YY et al.. “Advantages of using a polymeric clip versus an endoloop during laparoscopic appendectomy in uncomplicated appendicitis: a randomized controlled study.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2023). PMID: 37386447 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[327]
Kum CK, Ngoi SS, Goh PM et al.. “Randomized controlled trial comparing laparoscopic and open appendicectomy.” The British journal of surgery (1993). PMID: 8298936 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[328]
Eriksson S, Granström L. “Randomized controlled trial of appendicectomy versus antibiotic therapy for acute appendicitis.” The British journal of surgery (1995). PMID: 7749676 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[329]
Moberg AC, Berndsen F, Palmquist I et al.. “Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for confirmed appendicitis.” The British journal of surgery (2005). PMID: 15609378 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[330]
Reiertsen O, Larsen S, Trondsen E et al.. “Randomized controlled trial with sequential design of laparoscopic versus conventional appendicectomy.” The British journal of surgery (1997). PMID: 9189105 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[331]
Pedersen AG, Petersen OB, Wara P et al.. “Randomized clinical trial of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy.” The British journal of surgery (2001). PMID: 11167866 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[332]
Gupta V, Mishra G, Singh SP et al.. “Sutureless Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Bipolar Maryland Versus Endoloop Technique. A Randomized Controlled Trial.” World journal of surgery (2025). PMID: 41265931 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History
[333]
Hansen JB, Smithers BM, Schache D et al.. “Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy: prospective randomized trial.” World journal of surgery (1996). PMID: 8588406 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[334]
Tzovaras G, Liakou P, Baloyiannis I et al.. “Laparoscopic appendectomy: differences between male and female patients with suspected acute appendicitis.” World journal of surgery (2007). PMID: 17219281 ↗
L2RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[335]
Lohsiriwat V, Lert-akyamanee N, Rushatamukayanunt W. “Efficacy of pre-incisional bupivacaine infiltration on postoperative pain relief after appendectomy: prospective double-blind randomized trial.” World journal of surgery (2004). PMID: 15573244 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[336]
Adamina M, Andreou A, Arezzo A et al.. “EAES rapid guideline: systematic review, meta-analysis, GRADE assessment, and evidence-informed European recommendations on appendicitis in pregnancy.” Surgical endoscopy (2022). PMID: 36307599 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: History and Evolution of Treatment, Special Populations & Pregnancy
[337]
Wong CS, Naqvi SA. “Appendicular perforation at the base of the caecum, a rare operative challenge in acute appendicitis, a literature review.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2011). PMID: 22053953 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[338]
Tate JJ, Dawson JW, Chung SC et al.. “Laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy: prospective randomised trial.” Lancet (London, England) (1993). PMID: 8103144 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[339]
Long KH, Bannon MP, Zietlow SP et al.. “A prospective randomized comparison of laparoscopic appendectomy with open appendectomy: Clinical and economic analyses.” Surgery (2001). PMID: 11283528 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[340]
Attwood SE, Hill AD, Murphy PG et al.. “A prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy.” Surgery (1992). PMID: 1387739 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[341]
Keiser TA, MacKenzie RL, Feld R et al.. “Prophylactic metronidazole in appendectomy: a double-blind controlled trial.” Surgery (1983). PMID: 6336864 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[342]
Olmi S, Magnone S, Bertolini A et al.. “Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in acute appendicitis: a randomized prospective study.” Surgical endoscopy (2005). PMID: 16132334 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[343]
Perez EA, Piper H, Burkhalter LS et al.. “Single-incision laparoscopic surgery in children: a randomized control trial of acute appendicitis.” Surgical endoscopy (2012). PMID: 23239295 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[344]
Milewczyk M, Michalik M, Ciesielski M. “A prospective, randomized, unicenter study comparing laparoscopic and open treatments of acute appendicitis.” Surgical endoscopy (2003). PMID: 12728377 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[345]
Beldi G, Muggli K, Helbling C et al.. “Laparoscopic appendectomy using endoloops: a prospective, randomized clinical trial.” Surgical endoscopy (2004). PMID: 15026904 ↗
L1RCTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[346]
Nitecki SS, Wolff BG, Schlinkert R et al.. “The natural history of surgically treated primary adenocarcinoma of the appendix.” Annals of surgery (1994). PMID: 8297177 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[347]
Anteby SO, Schenker JG, Polishuk WZ. “The value of laparoscopy in acute pelvic pain.” Annals of surgery (1975). PMID: 124158 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[348]
Xharra S, Gashi-Luci L, Xharra K et al.. “Correlation of serum C-reactive protein, white blood count and neutrophil percentage with histopathology findings in acute appendicitis.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2012). PMID: 22866907 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[349]
Battaglia L, Belli F, Vannelli A et al.. “Simultaneous idiopathic segmental infarction of the great omentum and acute appendicitis: a rare association.” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2008). PMID: 18959804 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[350]
Raftery AT. “The value of the leucocyte count in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.” The British journal of surgery (1976). PMID: 1252716 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[351]
Oh SK. “Diagnostic Accuracy of Non-Contrast CT for Acute Appendicitis in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) (2025). PMID: 41470165 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[352]
Ueberrueck T, Koch A, Meyer L et al.. “Ninety-four appendectomies for suspected acute appendicitis during pregnancy.” World journal of surgery (2004). PMID: 15085399 ↗
L4OTHERCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[353]
Shay S, Kupietzky A, Weiss DJ et al.. “Composite Criteria for Non-Operative Management of Acute Non-Complicated Appendicitis Result in Low Failure Rates.” World journal of surgery (2021). PMID: 34570268 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment, Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[354]
Jiang YF, Li XZ, Wang PA et al.. “Case Report: Appendiceal neurofibroma associated with neurofibromatosis type 1: a rare case and systematic review of the literature.” Frontiers in surgery (2026). PMID: 41971055 ↗
L4SR_OBSCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[355]
Akbulut S, Kucukakcali Z, Colak C. “Artificial intelligence in acute appendicitis: A comprehensive review of machine learning and deep learning applications.” World journal of gastroenterology (2025). PMID: 41358178 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[356]
Cheng WJ, Kao CL, Hung IY. “Association of vitamin D deficiency with incident depression in patients with hearing impairment: an observational retrospective cohort study.” Frontiers in nutrition (2026). PMID: 42358300 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment, Prognosis and Natural History
[357]
Zhang G, Sun M, Huang P et al.. “Appendiceal abscess mimicking a painless abdominal wall mass in an adolescent: a case report.” Frontiers in medicine (2026). PMID: 42428269 ↗
L4CASE_REPORTCited in: History and Evolution of Treatment
[358]
Rocha LL, Rossi FM, Pessoa CM et al.. “Antibiotics alone versus appendectomy to treat uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults: what do meta-analyses say?” World journal of emergency surgery : WJES (2015). PMID: 26526329 ↗
L5REVIEW_NARRATIVECited in: Prognosis and Natural History
[359]
Ben-Ishay O, Carmon N, Abramov R et al.. “The Safety of In-Hospital Delay and the Utility of dNLR in Elderly Patients With Acute Appendicitis.” World journal of surgery (2026). PMID: 42384368 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Prognosis and Natural History
[360]
Qiao H, Wang X, Liu S et al.. “Impact of intraoperative hemostatic material placement on intra-abdominal infection control in acute appendicitis: a retrospective cohort study.” BMC surgery (2026). PMID: 42218493 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Prognosis and Natural History
[361]
Toorenvliet BR, Wiersma F, Bakker RF et al.. “Routine ultrasound and limited computed tomography for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.” World journal of surgery (2010). PMID: 20582544 ↗
L2TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Special Populations & Pregnancy
[362]
Augustin G, Boric M, Barcot O et al.. “Discordant outcomes of laparoscopic versus open appendectomy for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy in published meta-analyses: an overview of systematic reviews.” Surgical endoscopy (2020). PMID: 32556754 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Special Populations & Pregnancy
[363]
Kakish H, Ngendahimana DK, Shein SL et al.. “Characteristics of and cost of care for children with impaired development and acute appendicitis: A study of two national databases.” Surgery (2024). PMID: 38851901 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Special Populations & Pregnancy
[364]
Allocati E, Gerardi C, Ceresoli M et al.. “Nonoperative Management of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Antibiotic Treatment and Appendectomy in Children and Adolescents.” World journal of surgery (2026). PMID: 42251641 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[365]
Beltrán MA, Cruces KS. “Incisional hernia after McBurney incision: retrospective case-control study of risk factors and surgical treatment.” World journal of surgery (2008). PMID: 18175172 ↗
L3CASE_CONTROLCited in: Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[366]
Tu Q, Ullah S, Li D et al.. “Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopic Retrograde Appendicitis Therapy for Pediatric Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Study in Chinese Children.” The American journal of gastroenterology (2025). PMID: 40146009 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[367]
Lien WC, Lee WC, Wang HP et al.. “Male gender is a risk factor for recurrent appendicitis following nonoperative treatment.” World journal of surgery (2011). PMID: 21573957 ↗
L2OTHERCited in: Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[368]
Zhang J, Fan J, Yuan H et al.. “Learning curve for endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy: a multicenter retrospective study with different levels of trainees.” Gastroenterology report (2026). PMID: 42221555 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[369]
Xue N, Wei XX, Xu JJ et al.. “Efficacy of endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy in children with suppurative vs. simple appendicitis: a retrospective cohort study.” Frontiers in pediatrics (2026). PMID: 41960025 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Prevention, Screening & Surveillance
[370]
Neeser HR, Gerwinn T, Forschbach VC et al.. “Postoperative pain after low-pressure versus standard-pressure laparoscopic surgery in children. A randomized clinical trial.” Journal of pediatric surgery (2026). PMID: 42248349 ↗
L1bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[371]
Kerniss H, Curman P, Olbrich H et al.. “Off-label testosterone therapy is associated with higher long-term cardiovascular risk in men.” EBioMedicine (2026). PMID: 42424704 ↗
L3bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[372]
Ma Y, Wang YZ, Wang Y et al.. “Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone for uncomplicated acute appendicitis with appendicolith: a propensity score-matched cohort.” Endoscopy (2026). PMID: 42155485 ↗
L3bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[373]
Ji J, Wang Y, Wang Y et al.. “Development of a risk prediction model for adhesive intestinal obstruction following laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis based on clinical characteristics and laboratory indicators.” Frontiers in medicine (2026). PMID: 42145715 ↗
L3bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[374]
Altunpak B, Çebi F, Dölek MA et al.. “Incidental appendiceal neoplasms in patients undergoing appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a 10-year retrospective analysis of 5001 cases.” Surgical endoscopy (2026). PMID: 42141187 ↗
L3bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[375]
Diaz L, Agala CB, Phillips MR et al.. “Child Opportunity and Severity of Pediatric Acute Appendicitis: A Statewide Analysis.” The Journal of surgical research (2026). PMID: 42127463 ↗
L3bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[376]
Özel HP, Ertenlice A, Er S et al.. “Epidemiology and histopathological spectrum of appendiceal pathologies in 40.286 adults: a multicenter study from Turkey (2017-2025).” European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society (2026). PMID: 41770340 ↗
L4Cited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[377]
Barth S, Hufnagel M, Forßmann L et al.. “Bacterial Pathogens and Antibiotic Resistance Patterns in Pediatric Appendicitis: Implications for Antibiotic Choice.” The Pediatric infectious disease journal (2026). PMID: 41731651 ↗
L3bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[378]
Lin J, Zhou Y, Xu Z et al.. “Clinical Efficacy of Standardized Care for Abdominal Drainage Tubes in the Treatment of Acute Appendicitis: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.” Emergency medicine international (2026). PMID: 42488013 ↗
L3bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[379]
Kulice EC, Bostancı SA, Bayram S et al.. “Meteorological factors and the risk of complicated appendicitis in pediatric patients: a nationwide multicenter study from Turkey.” Pediatric surgery international (2026). PMID: 42223685 ↗
L3bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[380]
Tsutsumi A, Si T, Salas J et al.. “Missing data handling in pediatric appendectomy research: current practices and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) analysis.” Surgical endoscopy (2026). PMID: 42509504 ↗
L2aCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[381]
Rosenberg M, Mixer M, Perez Coulter A et al.. “Ruptured appendicitis in pediatric patients with autism, ADHD, and depression: Communication is key.” Journal of pediatric surgery (2026). PMID: 42716277 ↗
L3bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[382]
Ke J, Pi K, Zhang J et al.. “Association Between C-Reactive Protein-to-Albumin Ratio and Length of Hospital Stay in Elderly Patients with Acute Appendicitis: A Mediation Analysis of Complicated Appendicitis.” Clinical interventions in aging (2026). PMID: 42634733 ↗
L3bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[383]
Jepsen AH, Ipsen EØ, Finne KF et al.. “Associations Between Time-To-Surgery and Postoperative Length of Stay and Complications in Patients With Acute Appendicitis.” World journal of surgery (2026). PMID: 42559974 ↗
L3bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[384]
Turki A, Raml E, Aboulola JE. “Explainable Machine Learning for Predicting Complicated Appendicitis and Expected Hospital Length of Stay in Children: An Exploratory Single-Center Study.” Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) (2026). PMID: 42654335 ↗
L2bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[385]
Arredondo Montero J, Herreras Martínez A, Rello L et al.. “Temperature patterns in suspected pediatric acute appendicitis.” Pediatric surgery international (2026). PMID: 42645549 ↗
L2bCited in: Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors
[386]
Lastunen KS, Leppäniemi AK, Mentula PJ. “Repeated scoring with the adult appendicitis score improves the sensitivity and the specificity of appendicitis diagnosis in patients with early equivocal signs of appendicitis: a secondary analysis.” European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society (2026). PMID: 42690425 ↗
L1bCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination
[387]
Aoki Y, Takamizawa J, Miyake H et al.. “Diagnostic performance of computed tomography in differentiating appendiceal diverticulitis from acute appendicitis.” Surgery (2026). PMID: 42566877 ↗
L3bCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination
[388]
Kim MGH, Trout AT, Ayyala RS. “Non-Visualization of the Appendix Without Inflammatory Features on MRI Excludes Acute Appendicitis in Children and Young Adults.” Academic radiology (2026). PMID: 42420145 ↗
L3bCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination
[389]
Shin C, Kim YR, Lee YH. “Effectiveness of deep learning-based denoising on image quality and diagnostic performance of low-dose abdominal CT for acute appendicitis.” European journal of radiology (2026). PMID: 42361706 ↗
L3bCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination
[390]
Liang D, Wang Y, Zhou H et al.. “Preoperative CT detection of appendiceal neoplasms in suspected acute appendicitis using a simple diameter-and-fecalith criterion: multicenter derivation and validation.” European journal of radiology (2026). PMID: 42263331 ↗
L3bCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination
[391]
Singh H, Yadav RK, Khan F et al.. “Diagnostic performance of RIPASA versus modified Alvarado score in acute appendicitis: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study from a tertiary centre in India.” BMC surgery (2026). PMID: 42399848 ↗
L2bCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination
[392]
Schmitt JMM, Kühler N, Schaaf S et al.. “Does age matter? Acute appendicitis in octogenarians vs. younger patients - results of a German multicenter analysis.” Langenbeck's archives of surgery (2026). PMID: 42720794 ↗
L3bCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination
[393]
Krebs M, Kogovšek U, Krebs B. “Association of Clinical and Laboratory Parameters with Appendiceal Neoplasms in Acute Appendicitis: A Single-Institution Retrospective Cohort Study.” Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) (2026). PMID: 42654339 ↗
L3bCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination
[394]
Zhang L, Yu C, Liu N et al.. “The diagnostic value of interleukin-6, procalcitonin, and C-reactive protein in the severity of acute appendicitis in children.” Pediatric surgery international (2026). PMID: 42616153 ↗
L3bCited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination
[395]
Beattie EB, McKittrick S, Ismaiel M et al.. “The trials of conservative treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in the paediatric population: A pilot study.” The surgeon : journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland (2026). PMID: 42608255 ↗
L4Cited in: Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination

Acute Appendicitis

Quick Reference

Overview and Recommendations

Background

Evaluation

Management

Board Review — High Yield

Deep Dive — Evidence Details

Definition, Classification and Surgical Nomenclature

Classification Axes

Appendicoliths and Tumor Risk

Pathophysiology and the Surgical Lesion

The Obstructive Cascade

The Two-Disease Model

Role of the Faecolith

Genetic and Environmental Susceptibility

The Surgical Lesion: Gross and Microscopic Pathology

Infection-Specific Pathophysiology

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Epidemiology, Etiology and Risk Factors

Epidemiology and clinical context

Etiology and mechanisms

Risk factors for complicated appendicitis and rupture

Factors related to management and outcomes

Clinical Presentation and Focused Examination

Initial clinical assessment

Focused abdominal examination

Temperature and systemic findings

Serial reassessment and clinical scoring

Imaging as an adjunct to examination

Diagnosis and Workup

Clinical Scoring Systems

Laboratory Studies

Imaging

Diagnostic Algorithm

Severity, Surgical Scoring and Risk Stratification

Clinical Scoring Systems for Diagnosis

Predicting Complicated Appendicitis

Operative Risk Stratification

Emerging Tools: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Acute Management and Resuscitation

Step 1: Initial Assessment and Severity Classification

Step 2: Fluid Resuscitation and Analgesia

Step 3: Antibiotic Therapy, First-Line Regimen

Step 4: Monitoring and Titration

Step 5: Resolution, Transition, and Disposition

What NOT to Do

Controversies and Guideline Disagreement

Operative Decision-Making: Indications, Timing and the Operative-vs-Nonoperative Choice

Indications for Surgery Versus Nonoperative Management

Predictors of Nonoperative Failure

Timing of Appendectomy

Nonoperative Management in Special Populations

Risk of Underlying Neoplasia

Emerging Alternatives: Endoscopic Retrograde Appendicitis Therapy (ERAT)

Table: Predictors of Nonoperative Management Failure

Operative Approach, Technique Selection and Perioperative Optimization

Access and Port Placement

Stump Management

Peritoneal Lavage and Specimen Retrieval

Perioperative Antibiotic Optimization

Enhanced Recovery and Outpatient Protocols

Timing and Special Considerations

Complications and Their Management

Surgical Site Infections and Intra-abdominal Abscess

Stump Appendicitis and Small Bowel Obstruction

Negative Appendectomy

Complications in Special Populations

Management Principles

History and Evolution of Treatment

The Laparoscopic Revolution

The Shift to Nonoperative Management

Refinements in Perioperative Care

Prognosis and Natural History

Prognosis After Appendectomy

Prognosis After Non-operative Management

Natural History of Untreated or Spontaneously Resolving Appendicitis

Risk of Appendiceal Neoplasia

Prognosis in Special Populations

Stump

Stump Appendicitis and

The Shift to Nonoperative

Prognosis After Non-operative

Elderly (≥ 65 years)